Thoughts on remakes

Tools    





Standing in the Sunlight, Laughing
Originally Posted by shadymaggot
... I for one love the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake. A lot of people didn't, but I thought it was good. I also like Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I do wish Hollywood would come up with some more original films rather than remakes and sequels though.
I'm with you on both counts. I also liked the Dawn of the Dead remake. Those speed-zombies were way scarier than the old shuffling ones!
__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10



a few things i want to say. Obi one i just wanna say i couldn't disagree with you more about the psycho remake. even though i like when a remake is alot like the original this remake was nothing original. I just didn't like it at all.

As far as the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake it was another one i as pissed off about. While the original was very dark and grainy and you felt the characters were truley psychotic. the remake felt like a MTV style movie with just quick scares todays new rock music and teens favorite actors.

As the Dawn of the Dead remake was actually really good it doesn't compare to Romero's Dawn of the dead, even if alot of people say the "cool" new running zombies are scarier then Romeros "boring" slow zombies. the story and everything else was better in the original
__________________
"A good film is when the price of the dinner, the theater admission and the babysitter were worth it."
- Alfred Hitchcock



Originally Posted by Pyro Tramp
Are remakes an essential part of Hollywood's dominance? Are they becoming too much? Are they in fact plagiarism. Do you choose to see them? If you've never seen or heard of the original, are you likely/less likely to see the remake?

Just some thoughts to chat about.
some remakes are ok, but most of a dissapointment - like the dukes of hazard and war of the worlds.

We need new stuff instead of more bland remakes.



Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi
However, I believe Van Sant's Psycho Remake is one of the better remakes in movies. Mainly because he never compromised what made the original so great. His goal was to modernize Psycho for an audience, several things such as the Masturbation scene I believe enhanced the story.
So in what did the maturbation scene enhanced the story?
__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha



I don't really mind remakes, unless it's a remake of a classic film like psycho for instence it can't be improved on.



The Green Lantern
I think remakes are a sign that Hollywood is running out of ideas.
__________________
"In Brightest Day,
In Blackest Night.
No Evil Shall Escape My Sight,
Let Those Who Worship Evil's Might.
Beware My Power...Green Lantern's Light"

--Green Lantern Oath--

"The Green Lantern Corps has battled against the forces of evil and chaos for a millennium. To serve is the ultimate honor."



I have no problem with the concept of remakes. Its the lack of follow thru on making good remakes I hate.

For me...Willard was better than the original
Manchurian Candidate remake was better, etc..

I like remakes when they're done well and basically support the idea.

Stuff like House of Wax and Texas Chainsaw as well as Amityville remakes didnt do nothing for me.



They aren't plagiarism if the studio owns the rights to the story (see MGM vs. George Lutz RE: Amityville Horror remake).

Personally, I don't have a problem with remakes at all. if the market will bear fruit then I see no reason to try it, after all, you and I aren't out the dime if the project/film fails... the studio is.

As for the whole artistic integrity issue, get over it. If you like the original better then watch that one.



Standing in the Sunlight, Laughing
Originally Posted by Sir Toose
They aren't plagiarism if the studio owns the rights to the story (see MGM vs. George Lutz RE: Amityville Horror remake).

Personally, I don't have a problem with remakes at all. if the market will bear fruit then I see no reason to try it, after all, you and I aren't out the dime if the project/film fails... the studio is.

As for the whole artistic integrity issue, get over it. If you like the original better then watch that one.
YOU!!!
Get back here, we miss you!



Piledriver's Avatar
Registered User
I guess the answer to that question would depend on the film being remade. I found Ocean's 11 and The Longest Yard to be very entertaining, and I thought Tim Burton's re-telling of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to be superb! It stayed very true to the book, which the 1971 Willy Wonka strayed quite far from.
Some remakes however, are not really necessary or that good. Take for instance Tim Burton's remake of Planet of the Apes. I really didn't think it was that great, and Mark Wahlberg just AWFUL. I think they should've left that one alone.
They are hurting real bad for new, creative ideas, that the studios are going to keep pumping them out as long as we keep going to see them. But is it worse that they are remaking movies or that they are making television shows into big screen movies? I mean come on, The Dukes of Hazzard? and soon to be Miami Vice?
I am looking forward to seeing Peter Jackson's King Kong. I was never a big fan of the 1976 version and the trailers look awesome for this one!!
__________________
"Vader...You Must Confront Vader..."



A system of cells interlinked
Originally Posted by Piledriver
I guess the answer to that question would depend on the film being remade. I found Ocean's 11 and The Longest Yard to be very entertaining, and I thought Tim Burton's re-telling of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to be superb! It stayed very true to the book, which the 1971 Willy Wonka strayed quite far from.
Some remakes however, are not really necessary or that good. Take for instance Tim Burton's remake of Planet of the Apes. I really didn't think it was that great, and Mark Wahlberg just AWFUL. I think they should've left that one alone.
They are hurting real bad for new, creative ideas, that the studios are going to keep pumping them out as long as we keep going to see them. But is it worse that they are remaking movies or that they are making television shows into big screen movies? I mean come on, The Dukes of Hazzard? and soon to be Miami Vice?
I am looking forward to seeing Peter Jackson's King Kong. I was never a big fan of the 1976 version and the trailers look awesome for this one!!
Yeah, I never really liked the 70s King Kong remake, either. I do love the original, though. I appear to be the only person on the planet who somewhat enjoyed the Planet of the Apes remake (Wahlberg aside), and the only one that liked the ending. Since many seemed totally confused by it, it clearly was obtuse and probably not handled very well. Still, after I tought about it for a while, I really liked the ending, and it did make sense.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



Female assassin extraordinaire.
remakes/adaptations/plagiarism - stories were meant to be told and retold, and thus cliche's are born. how many variations have we seen on the romeo/juliet theme? on the serial killer investigated by a vulnerable, ballsy female? how many romances with miscommunications, accidental confessions, and public scenes of love declaration?

there's nothing wrong with retelling a story if you think you can do it differently or better. those are the key words, by the way. if you don't think you can do it differently or better, you shouldn't do it at all. the point is to care about the story and retell it with feeling, however your artistry demands you tell it. whatever format that may be in - stage play, film, comic book - whatever. as long as you're true to the artistry and the characters and the telling.

i think the problem that raised this thread is that, while I disagree that hollywood is technically running out of ideas, it is running out of originality. the irony being that there's no shortage of originality - people in power in the film industry, are just choosing to ignore it. they think that most of the movie-viewing public has the brain of a cow. that we'll be happy if we get the basic fodder and moo happily if they give us a new cast and crew, a new title, and retell something that got told twenty years ago.

the only way to force them to keep it original is if we boycott the crap, but of course, that won't happen. not for a long time anyway. there's also a huge bang to get out of getting tickets from people who want to see if you pulled off a retelling well - you might not have, but they don't know that til they've paid their $10.

but, the right and freedom to make the crap is theirs. but i am totally unhappy when they choose the easy way out instead of the interesting way.

if they at least really care, and really try, i'm for it. as an example, Pride and Prejudice. I can't stand this latest version. I utterly prefer the original version - 1940 (with Laurence Olivier) - and the British miniseries version (1995 with Colin Firth). But in the end, these are all retellings of a novel, are they not? And the directors and filmmakers can recreate it any way they d@mn well please.

But I don't have to like it.
__________________
life without movies is like cereal without milk. possible, but disgusting. but not nearly as bad as cereal with water. don't lie. I know you've done it.



I think there are too many remakes these days but, they sell tickets and people seem to like them so on it goes till it's worn out like a song on the radio.
__________________
The Matrix Has You



I think they gennerally suck.
Everyonce in a while there will be a good one.
However when it comes to remakes hollywood has gone overboard.
__________________
Princess j.t.



There are those who call me...Tim.
They generate money for studios which may potentially be spent on a brilliant future film, and they create awareness of the original films.

As far as I'm concerned they're a good thing, if not necessarily good films (with exceptions, of course). Plus, a bad remake won't damage the original film in the slightest. If anything it'll make the original seem better by comparison, so there's another plus point.
__________________
"When I was younger, I always wanted to be somebody. Now that I'm older, I realise I should've been more specific."



A system of cells interlinked
Originally Posted by Britbrat19
most remakes to me are just a waste of time. they can never be as good as the orginal.
Of course they can, and sometimes, are:

The Thing (1982) - Great stuff, awesome atmospshere, great dialogue, and genuine paranoia

The Fly (1986) - This remake blows the original out of the water, IMO.

Cape Fear (1991) - I'll get **** for this, but I like the remake a lot more than the original. It's Scorsese affter all... He nailed this genre piece, even if he goes over thhe top a bit.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) - Another film I will catch hell for listing, but, sorry, I like the '78 version the best.



The best remake for me was actually KING KONG because it was longer and had better graphics for the younger audience. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2003 Remake was good too, but all the other remakes suck.