Make it Again, Sam

OHMSS69

The motion picture field is full of remakes. I'm not talking about re boots, I'm talking about remakes. this has been going on since the 1920's. Back then, a lot of classic silents were remade as "talkies". Some good, some not so good. Are the remakes actually better or should they have left well enough alone. Some classics should never never ever be redone:
GONE WITH THE WIND
THE WIZARD OF OZ
KING KONG (though remade reveral times they all sucked)
PSYCHO (why, why did they do it?)
Some other remakes:
THE SPOILERS
BEN HUR
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
TARZAN OF THE APES
BEAU GESTE
FRIGHT NIGHT
TOTAL RECALL
THE THOMAS CROWNE AFFAIR
Just to name a few but tell me :
At what time was a remake actually better than it's original?
Should it have been made or shoud they have left well enough alone?

4EverBonded

I do like The Thomas Crown Affair with Pierce better than the original, although both are good.
But I think it is very, very rare that a remake is better than the original. True Grit, the remake, was quite good but I am still going with the original with that one, too (but some diasgree I think).
I can't think of any other remakes I liked better than the original offhand. Maybe - but I have not seen either film in ages - Nosferatu with Claus Kinksi vs. the original silent film. Kinksi's remake may be my preference; both are so creepy and well done.

It is too easy to come up with the bad remakes, that would be a looong list.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

Great topic, and a few more to add:
Casablanca
The Maltese Falcon
Some Like It Hot

A remake that I can say is better than its original with absolute confidence is 2010's True Grit. A brilliant and almost perfect word for word adaption of the wonderful Charles Portis novel that has the texts comedy and gritty action in great balance. The 60s True Grit with John Wayne is still great, but the ending is choppy and the film's last chunk throws the book out the door and goes its own way, which is why I prefer the new Coen brothers remake over it.

Creasy47

Citizen Kane should never, ever, ever be given a remake, reboot, sequel, prequel, or spinoff.

OHMSS69

As far as classics go
THE SPOILERS has been done in 1914, 1922, 1933, 1942, and 1956 before they finally gave up.
BEAU GESTE is another interesting one. done in 1922 (the old commissioner Gordon from TV's Batman played Digby Geste). then 1939(this version was the Best) and 1965 (this one was the worst).
They tried to redo it and frakked it up. should have stuck with the storylines of the earlier attempts.

I can understand the movie technology and CGI filmmakers wanting to redo King Kong, however I disagree strongly with that decision.
The animation looks crappy by today's standards but the story is good and though the dialogue is rather corny at times the characters were very endearing.
But what possessed these Hollywood jackasses to redo Psycho? That was a waste of time. I guess the actors were all happy to get a payday but come on. It was sacriledge!

thelivingroyale

Nightmare On Elm Street remake wasn't very good, nobody but Englund can play Freddy Kreuger. The Halloween remake was ok, but again, nowhere near as good as the original. And don't get me started on the Friday The 13th remake.

Then there's the American remake of the Italian Job, which was crap. They also remade Seven Samurai into a western (magnificent seven), which is now getting it's own remake. A remake of a remake. Total Recall is getting a remake, which I have low hopes for.

As for a remake that's better than the original, I like the new Clash Of The Titans better than the 80s film.

Y'know they're remaking Point Break (it kind of already has a remake with Fast And Furious, but still), it'll never be as good without Patrick Swayze (RIP), or Keanau Reeves. Apparently it'll be "set in the world of extreme sports", it'll be crap.

MajorDSmythe

The remake of School For Scoundrels is a wound that cuts deep. The same goes for remaking Ocean's Eleven. Why bother, just watch the original instead.

As for the F13 reboot, I thought that was far better than the original. But then, I saw the F13 films out of order, so F13 to me is Jason in the iconic hockey mask.

CommanderRoss

I was going to say The Italian Job, but @thelivingroyale beat me to it. But there's another''classic' car movie, Gone In Sixty Seconds. I never saw the original completely, but I think the remake is actually better.

Not so with The Italian Job, however.

thelivingroyale

Yeah I never saw the original Gone In 60 Seconds, but I like the remake. One of Cage's best films.

SirHenryLeeChaChing

I really hate remakes for the most part. Too often they are inferior to the original (see NSNA)

I really have to wonder if all these remakes are a result of how bad Hollywood has gotten as far as original scripts and lack of creativity. I need to write a screenplay if this is the case and get really rich.

OHMSS69

I appreciate you guys updating me on the more recent remakes.

Another word about King Kong
that 1976 piece of shytt tried to update by using the present energy crises and search for oil. Okay... then they talked about using a 40 foot mechanical gorilla. All this publicity and build up right? That thing was shown in only one scene. The rest of Kong's scenes was done by an actor in an ape suit. You got to be f**cking kidding me.
The animators in the original felt it was a matter of pride and refuse to shoot any scene with an actor in an ape suit. they painstakingly animated the plastic models themselves.

I did like how the producer and director Merrian C Cooper and Ernst Shoedsack, were the pilot and navigator in the plane that eventually killed Kong. I think Peter Jackson did the same thing paying homage to the original.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

SirHenryLeeChaChing said:
I really hate remakes for the most part. Too often they are inferior to the original (see NSNA)

I really have to wonder if all these remakes are a result of how bad Hollywood has gotten as far as original scripts and lack of creativity. I need to write a screenplay if this is the case and get really rich.

I think Hollywood know what people like, and then they just profit off that idea over and over and over, knowing they will get money no matter what. Sadly, today guaranteed money and lack of risk is favored over going out on a limb for an innovative screenplay or idea.

DarthDimi

A remake which is vastly superior over the original?

Okay, here goes:

* Kaufman's Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (1978) (versus Siegel's already impressive film from the 50s)
* Carpenter's The Thing (1982) (versus the 50s The Thing From Another World)
* HEAT (1995) (as it is technically a remake of the TV movie L.A. Takedown)
* Wyler's Ben-Hur (1959) (as opposed to no less than two previous films)
* The Time Machine (2002) (I will get knocked down for this but I actually prefer this film over the 1960's version)
* Appleseed (2004) (versus the 1988 OVA)

SirHenryLeeChaChing

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:

SirHenryLeeChaChing said:
I really hate remakes for the most part. Too often they are inferior to the original (see NSNA)

I really have to wonder if all these remakes are a result of how bad Hollywood has gotten as far as original scripts and lack of creativity. I need to write a screenplay if this is the case and get really rich.

I think Hollywood know what people like, and then they just profit off that idea over and over and over, knowing they will get money no matter what. Sadly, today guaranteed money and lack of risk is favored over going out on a limb for an innovative screenplay or idea.

You're probably right on this notion. But then, remakes seldom if ever win, let alone get nominated, for an Oscar like an original screenplay would and does. Myself, I simply wouldn't waste my money on a remake and always elect to see something new and hopefully fresh. I just wait for remakes to come on cable.

SirHenryLeeChaChing

DarthDimi said:
A remake which is vastly superior over the original?

Okay, here goes:

* Kaufman's Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (1978) (versus Siegel's already impressive film from the 50s)
* Carpenter's The Thing (1982) (versus the 50s The Thing From Another World)
* HEAT (1995) (as it is technically a remake of the TV movie L.A. Takedown)
* Wyler's Ben-Hur (1959) (as opposed to no less than two previous films)
* The Time Machine (2002) (I will get knocked down for this but I actually prefer this film over the 1960's version)
* Appleseed (2004) (versus the 1988 OVA)

Ben-Hur 1959 is a classic. I think it may still hold the record for Oscars. It should never be remade again IMHO.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

SirHenryLeeChaChing said:

DarthDimi said:
A remake which is vastly superior over the original?

Okay, here goes:

* Kaufman's Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (1978) (versus Siegel's already impressive film from the 50s)
* Carpenter's The Thing (1982) (versus the 50s The Thing From Another World)
* HEAT (1995) (as it is technically a remake of the TV movie L.A. Takedown)
* Wyler's Ben-Hur (1959) (as opposed to no less than two previous films)
* The Time Machine (2002) (I will get knocked down for this but I actually prefer this film over the 1960's version)
* Appleseed (2004) (versus the 1988 OVA)

Ben-Hur 1959 is a classic. I think it may still hold the record for Oscars. It should never be remade again IMHO.

Yes, 3 films have won 11 Oscars, those being Ben-Hur, Titanic, and The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King.

St_George

Given the good number of excellent remakes there's been, I see no reason why anything should be off the table, to be fair. Certainly in theory. Why should there be?

After all, how many times have great stories, novels and plays been filmed? And, in all fairness, the two examples of 'untouchable' movies in the OP (Gone With The Wind and The Wizard Of Oz) weren't 'original' themselves, they were adaptations of novels. Why shouldn't someone be allowed a crack at them again one day to try them in a different way? Just the reason 'because they're so good they should be off the table' isn't really strong enough when you consider how many great stories have been fully or partly adapted over the centuries in so many different art forms.

Meh, that's my two cents - art's an organic engine, if you will; you can't stop its giant wheel turning... ;)

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

It isn't really that remakes SHOULDN'T happen, but there has to be a cast and crew involved ready to reinvent and try something new for the film, and not just to cash in the name of the film.

myworldisenough

I'm not the greatest fan of remakes if they're simply used to cash in on the original & more often than not they are not as good as the original and can tarnish the good name of a classic. That said they have been some good remakes. My preference would be for film studios to be brave enough to move away from remakes and make original quality movies. That have the fun not knowing how a story will end when watching at the movie theatre.

St_George

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:
It isn't really that remakes SHOULDN'T happen, but there has to be a cast and crew involved ready to reinvent and try something new for the film, and not just to cash in the name of the film.

That I certainly can't disagree with... :)

OHMSS69

myworldisenough said:
I'm not the greatest fan of remakes if they're simply used to cash in on the original & more often than not they are not as good as the original and can tarnish the good name of a classic. That said they have been some good remakes. My preference would be for film studios to be brave enough to move away from remakes and make original quality movies. That have the fun not knowing how a story will end when watching at the movie theatre.

I agree. You are spot on. There are lots of talented (and struggling) writers out there. Hollywood should try and utilize this more rather than rehashing stuff that was tried before. Maybe remakes back in the "golden age" were like that but nowadays some studio exec fearing for his employment security (too many ex-wives and kids attending USC) just want to make sure they don't greenlight something that flops. Afraid to take a chance on new material.

I throw this out there:
Back in 1980 I met this older gentleman in the gym. He was in his like 76 yrs old and one day told me that he was there when the original (1923) Ten Commandments was released. And believe it or not, he felt that the parting of the Red Sea looked more impressive in 1923 than the 1959 remake. Go figure.

Creasy47

Convenient timing, this topic, because 'Steel Magnolias' is being remade into a Lifetime movie, starring an all-black cast:

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/first-look-check-trailer-lifetimes-steel-magnolias-remake-203700167.html?_esi=1

My apologies on the Yahoo link. I think I despise Yahoo as much as Hollywood despises original ideas.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

I'm waiting for an all white remake of The Color Purple... :-w

Creasy47

@0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, you and I both.

The Godfather trilogy should never me remade... I feel terrible only by writing it!

TopGearJB007

The original Gone in 60 Seconds is a classic, and the remake starring Cage is a steaming pile of CGI Car jumping crap.

Both Italian Jobs are classics.

Never EVER remake Bullitt or Dirty Harry.

Creasy47

TopGearJB007 said:
The original Gone in 60 Seconds is a classic, and the remake starring Cage is a steaming pile of CGI Car jumping crap.

Both Italian Jobs are classics.

Never EVER remake Bullitt or Dirty Harry.

I agree on both 'Bullitt' and 'Dirty Harry.' Even if they remade the former, I don't think they could top that chase sequence through San Francisco. Ever. It would be a CGI-filled mess.

thelivingroyale

TopGearJB007 said:
The original Gone in 60 Seconds is a classic, and the remake starring Cage is a steaming pile of CGI Car jumping crap.

Both Italian Jobs are classics.

Never EVER remake Bullitt or Dirty Harry.

I agree about Bullitt, definetly. I really hope you're not calling the Italian Job remake a classic.

DarthDimi

I will commit to SPECTRE - like terrorism if they ever decide to remake 2001: A Space Odyssey.

haserot

here's my personal list of movies that should remain as they are, and never EVER be remade...

Jaws
Star Wars
Raiders of the Lost Ark (or any of the Indy flicks for that matter)
Rocky
Back to the Future

I can only think of a few remakes that outdid their original counterparts IMO....

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
A Fistful Of Dollars ('Yojimbo' originally)
Scarface
The Magnificent Seven ('Seven Samuri' originally)
Cape Fear
The Fly
The Thing (1982)

... god, how many times has Dracula been done?.. you got the original silent version with Nosferatu, the iconic Bella Lugosi Dracula, the Hammer version of Dracula, and most recently the Copolla film from the 90s - and each of them were terrific.. but I think while they all dealt with the same subject matter, they each brought something different, that added more the story or character(s), and made each film their own..

Halloween (1978) is my favorite horror film of all time, yet I also really like Zombie's remake... while it did tread over the same ground, i felt like it brought something different to the character, and made him interesting again... if for nothing else, Rob made the movie his own, and wasn't going in for an easy and quick cash in (despite what people think)... i wish i could say the same for the other 2 slasher remakes.... those were horrid..

Lancaster007

St_George said:
Given the good number of excellent remakes there's been, I see no reason why anything should be off the table, to be fair. Certainly in theory. Why should there be?

After all, how many times have great stories, novels and plays been filmed? And, in all fairness, the two examples of 'untouchable' movies in the OP (Gone With The Wind and The Wizard Of Oz) weren't 'original' themselves, they were adaptations of novels. Why shouldn't someone be allowed a crack at them again one day to try them in a different way? Just the reason 'because they're so good they should be off the table' isn't really strong enough when you consider how many great stories have been fully or partly adapted over the centuries in so many different art forms.

Meh, that's my two cents - art's an organic engine, if you will; you can't stop its giant wheel turning... ;)

Er, The Wizard of Oz starring Judy Garland was actually a remake itself, having been made in 1922 with I think Oliver Hardy as the Cowardly Lion!
And of course was then re-made with an all black cast as the god-awful The Wiz.

Categories

In this Discussion

Announcements