48 replies to this topic

[Quint]

Often frowned upon for a multitude of reasons, the biggest being the belief that remakes aptly demonstrate everything that is wrong and frustratingly unoriginal about Hollywood these days; it's easy to forget that some "reimaginings" of older movies have actually been pretty damn good. For every Gus Van Saint scene-for-scene carbon copy of Psycho (sans the wit and soul of the Hitchcock original), there's a startling terrific The Thing, or The Fly - arguably superior to their originals; although that's not to say there aren't plenty who enjoy new and old takes equally, but the point being that in the right hands and with fresh insight, a newer "updated" re-telling of an old story can be just as worthwhile as anything genuinley new, and best of all - somtimes even better.

Then there's the whole, "X movie is untouchable and should never be remade!" argument. Movies like Jaws and E.T. are so dearly beloved by their legions of fans that anyone who dares to even consider such an undertaking would have to grow a thick skin very quickly - such is the culture of fandom and indeed power of fansite communities on the internet. But are the "classics" really so beyond approach to a director or a writer with perhaps a genuinely fresh take on these stories? Today I was thinking about Close Encounters of the Third kind, an old favourite of mine and just a great movie through and through. But when I look at it now, I see a beautifully nostalgic yet awfully dated benevolent sci-fi movie simply unfit for modern audiences. It's an unmistakable classic of its era, but those domestic sets, the fashions, the special effects, the look of the photography, the dramatic schmaltz of the score - whilst remaining absolutely wonderful to most over the age of thirty (granted, an admittedly loose generalisation on my part) - just wouldn't wash with newer generations tastes and frankly: those old fashioned Spielberg sensibilities and trademarks simply do not hold up well in today's hyper-critical filmic climate - younger folks who go to the cinema to be wowed by Avatar and The Avengers wouldn't give a movie like C3TK the time of day and would even go out of their way to avoid it.

So why do I care about newer audiences and what they think? I do care, very much so - because some of these old movies have fantastic, relevant stories. I want to give my children the opportunity to watch and listen to these stories and be swept up by the magic, the mystery and optimism of a movie like Close Encounters; and I want them to be able to do that without laughing at the flared jeans and the "fake looking" aliens. Shallow reasons? Yes, but kids are shallow. If they aren't impressed by the shiny exterior then I question their willingness to allow such "secondary" elements as script and performance their chance to take hold and sink in. The movie becomes a schlocky amusement. Of course I'm not saying the Spielberg touch could or would ever be replicated, but my own belief on the remakes issue is that we shouldn't be objectionable just for objections sake. I'd personally be happy for a talented director to attempt such a project, given the right skill set and intentions are in place. Worst case scenario is the movie fails miserably and the original remains revered by its generation of fans. Do you disagree?

Closing, I thought mention should be made of what is perhaps for some the most tiresome aspect of remakes in general and that is the recent culture of the reboot - those movies which take an established franchise and just completely disregard what has already existed before their newer, usually more expensive and "more spectacular" version. The new Spiderman movie being the most recent and arguably most cynical remake ever made; and yet word of mouth seems far better than expected...

So I ask you, Remakes: Guilty, or Not Guilty?

[Marian Schedenig]

Very good points. I might add that people often forget that some of the great classics of Hollywood history are in fact remakes - The Adventures of Robin Hood for example, or Ben-Hur. I somewhat disagree with you about the datedness of CE3K. While it's certainly and clearly a movie of its time, I don't think it has aged poorly, except in the light of shallow Michael Bay speciall effects orgies that so often become blockbusters these days - but that doesn't make them better movies. Which isn't to say that a remake of CE3K couldn't be, in theory, interesting and even good, though it's unlikely - I suppose for every great remake of a good/great movie, there are at least a dozen utter failures nobody remembers. But take Ben-Hur again. The version from the 1920s, available on the DVD/Blu with Carl Davis's score, is totally engrossing even today. It's less a matter of remaking something because it's no longer "watchable", but rather one of presenting a fresh take on the same material with "modern" technology, or perhaps also (see The Fly) to present a new view on the same story.

Finally, I've long considered the equation "remake = Hollywood's utter lack of ideas" to be wrong. A large percentage of movies are based on novels (or novellas, comic books, stage plays, you name it). How is that in any way more original than a remake? And then of course there are those movies that are remakes of movies based on books - again Ben-Hur comes to mind. Or movies that are based on books that had been filmed before, but with the new version going back to the source and not the script of the first film version - like Lord of the Rings or apparently Planet of the Apes (I've never seen the new versions). The combinations are endless.

[Quint]

Indeed. The story of the Mutiny on the Bounty has given us, I think, three very watchable and worthwhile versions, two of which are absolutely brilliant. Sometimes a great story is just hard to go wrong with.

[MSM]

My fav movie is a remake (Count of Monte Cristo)...so i dont mind, generally. I do mind however if remakes are made solely for the purpuse of moneymaking without showing any artistic vision, they are too much like sequels.

[mrbellamy]

I somewhat disagree with you about the datedness of CE3K. While it's certainly and clearly a movie of its time, I don't think it has aged poorly, except in the light of shallow Michael Bay speciall effects orgies that so often become blockbusters these days - but that doesn't make them better movies.

Yeah, I'm with you here. I don't think it's dated in any way that matters, and from my perspective, it retains a painterly, almost impressionistic look -- particularly in the matte paintings -- that still looks pretty great to my eye. Certainly it looks different from the photo-realism of most modern movies, but I think in the case of CE3K, it lends the film a dreamy quality that serves the material quite well, and doesn't date it as much as other films where that artificiality works against them. It may not be the kind of thing that wows jaded teenagers anymore, but I think Quint also may be underestimating the ability of those young people to appreciate finer aesthetic qualities as they themselves get older. Worked for me, anyway.

Also no, there's nothing inherently wrong with remakes (or sequels, for that matter).

[Quint]

You may well be right there - I possibly do presume perhaps too much of the newer generation based purely on my own experiences of them, but I did include the small caveat at least where I admitted to broadly generalising in regards to those who may not, in my own perception, appreciate such a movie as Close Encounters. I guess I'm just bewildered and disillusioned somewhat by the appeal of Transformers movies and the massive success of Pirates of the Caribbean sequels, since it's most definitely the teenagers and twenty somethings who flock to see them. Whilst it may not be the case that all youths have no interest in older blockbuster cinema, I'm not convinced that the those who do have more discerning or less "trendy" tastes in movies are ever going to influence their peers in any meaningful way.

This isn't an attack on younger viewers by the way, just observations and theories I'm interested in. I'm also only 35 myself.

[bondo]

For: Sometimes you can get an improved story/cast & crew/director/visual effects/topical relevance than the original. Also if the original is available on DVD/Bluray, who cares if they remake your favorite movie?
Against: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Sometimes the appeal is the ACTORS, not the plot, ie Back to the Future -- I watch that movie for the chemistry between Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd, and that can never be replicated.

[Quint]

Excellent point there, bondo. It'd be seemingly impossible to rekindle the warmth and humour between Doc Brown and Marty in BTTF, I simply cannot envision anyone else achieving the same magic in those roles.

But on the other hand, isn't it fair to say that some roles can be recast rather successfully? I'm thinking Dumbledore, and more obviously, 007.

[Chaac]

I think your view of the way young people today would react at a film like Close Encounters is partially wrong.
-First, because there's nothing wrong with some of these elements you mention as not meshing with today's audience, and smart people would realize this.
-Second, because kids, truly kids, aren't critical of a film looking old: for them it's just another film. This usually works best when introduced to films extensively from a very young age.

I don't find Close Encounters to be dated at all. And of those I know who likes films, I've never met anyone who loved some of the modern films you mention.


Remakes I want:

Apocalypto
The Lost World
The Way Back
TheTime Machine (both versions).
ans some others.

[Score_Fan]

I like remakes - when done, or (even if bad), at least tried to take a new spin on the original. Hell, I enjoy some remakes over the original versions.

A great example of this is fright night. I do love the first one (the second is merely..okay. Even then, that's on a good day.), but the remake was much more enjoyable.

[Sandor]

I'll just keep it short: I like remakes.

Some people seem to think that a remake somehow replaces or devalues the original. I don't.

[Ren]

I am all for remakes, if anything they breathe new life into the originals it gives parents a way to debate the pros and cons with their children. I hate then new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory the original with Wilder is FAR superior. And now when I discuss it with my students, they've ALL seen both and I don't know a person who doesn't prefer thr original over the remake.

I think sequels are another beast all together. A La Friday the 13th part 6 or something. Sometimes Hollywood makes a sequel for franchise sake and not storytelling sake. That's what I despise.

[Alexcremers]

And now when I discuss it with my students, they've ALL seen both and I don't know a person who doesn't prefer thr original over the remake.

What's the main reason?

I loved Burton's Charlie, even though it made a concession by explaining too much why Wonka behaves as he does.


On the subject, I don't think they will ever remake E.T., CE3K, 2001, Alien, Blade Runner, Star Wars or Raiders. They are like the ultimate version of the material. They've said everything there is to be said. Or maybe they are just too iconic ....



Alex

[indy4]

If the remake is different than the original (and a good movie), then I'm fine. I love everything that has happened to the story of Willy Wonka, for instance--we got 2 great films with 2 great scores and tons of differences between the two.

[Ro Sajooc]

Some people seem to think that a remake somehow replaces or devalues the original. I don't.

I'm agree. I think the remakes don't replace the original version, indeed, they can't, however, some of them have different approaches. Even they offer a different story. I like that kind of remakes

[Ren]

Alex, the main reasons from what I gather is that they enjoy the songs from the first and were scarred seeing Depp act anything but Sparrow.

[JamieC]

I'd say that , on balance, remakes and sequels are healthy for the entertainment ecosystem. Here's a very thoughtful read about why sequels can be very good news: http://www.davidbord...good-thing-too/

[Alexcremers]

Alex, the main reasons from what I gather is that they enjoy the songs from the first and were scarred seeing Depp act anything but Sparrow.

Are you serious? They couldn't handle Depp playing someone other than Sparrow?!

[Joey]

I'll argue that John Carpenter's the Thing is not superior to the original Howard Hawks' The Thing from Another World. Both are great films, but I will always prefer the 50's version over the gore fest that is the '82 version. Both are terrific ensemble pieces, but the newer version is more nihilistic and it's more a showcase for Rob Bottin's effects which being practical stand the test of time quite well. It's hard to criticize the movie because it's very good at what it does. I guess for me the big difference is tone and structure. I simply prefer the idea's presented in the original. It's more of a straight on monster film than the 82 version which is more of a mystery tale with some gross and terrific monster effects. Sorry Koray, but I also prefer Dimitri Tiomkins score to Morricone's score.

[Wojo]

I don't think they will ever remake E.T., CE3K, 2001, Alien, Blade Runner, Star Wars or Raiders.

Technically, The Fly was first given life as a short story from 1957 which was then filmed in 1958. It's assumed that Cronenberg's 1986 film was a re-make of the original film, but that's because nobody remembers the short story, unless you have that issue of Playboy laying around (and it's still readable, haha).

Again, The Thing from Another World (1951) was remade in 1982, but it began life as the 1938 novella "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell.


I could see Blade Runner being remade because it is based on a Phillip K. Dick short story and so could be "re-interpreted" by a new film, if someone bought the rights. That's why Total Recall has been remade: it's based on another short story, regardless of its first movie.

The other movies that Alex mentions exist because their original screenplays were made to create them, making it much, much harder to "remake" them since the original writers rights-holders are still alive and raking in the money. It is, however, possible: see Robocop.

[Marian Schedenig]

Against: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

That's one standard argument I can't let stand. Going by that rule, we'd still be living in the stone age. People develop and improve not just because something breaks. Otherwise, just as an example, ESB would still be rooted in the far more classic, less dissonant Star Wars style. And there would never have been any reason to remake Ben-Hur because there never would have been a need to add sound to films.

[Wojo]

Or re-invent Battlestar Galactica as a mini-series and television series.

They could remake Jaws because it's based on a book that came before the movie, and I had forgotten that Planet of the Apes was based on a French book.

[Joey]

The Poseidon Adventure was based on a book. It was made into a film, it was later made into a tv film, then into another film. Only the first has watchability, and neither remake harms the original, but sometimes sequels devalue the originals. A new comer to a film series may be turned off to a series prematurely based on a bad sequel or prequel.

[Wojo]

A new comer to a film series may be turned off to a series prematurely based on a bad sequel or prequel.

One can hope.

[BloodBoal]

I personally can't wait for the remake of JWFan, with new and upgraded CG forum members, like Quint 2.0, Hyper Incanus and MechaCremers.

[Trent Bennett]

A lot of remakes can suck but then again there are a lot that seem to be better than the originals. I'll check out the remake for Spider-Man, all though it seems to be getting good ratings so far.

[KK.]

A lot of remakes can suck but then again there are a lot that seem to be better than the originals. I'll check out the remake for Spider-Man, all though it seems to be getting good ratings so far.

The remake of Spider-man isn't better than the original, but its decent.

I'm all for remakes if they have something new to offer (like a new interpretation, a fresh voice, etc). I'm not a fan of redundant remakes which can often be the case. And then there are certain films that shouldn't be touched by those looking to remake films (these have been largely listed in this thread).

As Ren pointed out, sequels/prequels is a different game altogether. I can't stand cheap sequels that feel like they're made for the sake of money grubbing (like the stupid Alien/Predator crossover films).

I personally can't wait for the remake of JWFan, with new and upgraded CG forum members, like Quint 2.0, Hyper Incanus and MechaCremers.

Oh and one can't forget RoboBoal.

[Wojo]

SerialBoal.

[Alexcremers]

The other movies that Alex mentions exist because their original screenplays were made to create them, making it much, much harder to "remake" them since the original writers rights-holders are still alive and raking in the money. It is, however, possible: see Robocop.

The Hitcher.

[Wojo]

Well I couldn't really list them all now, could I?

[Joey]

King Kong has had 2 remakes and neither is as good as the original, but the wonder thing is they are both very watchable for different reasons. And best of all we have 3 great GREAT scores.

[Ren]

I personally can't wait for the remake of JWFan, with new and upgraded CG forum members, like Quint 2.0, Hyper Incanus and MechaCremers.

No Ren

[Richard Penna]

King Kong has had 2 remakes and neither is as good as the original, but the wonder thing is they are both very watchable for different reasons. And best of all we have 3 great GREAT scores.

Wow, you like JNH's score? I've lost track by now of who makes atrocious noise according to you.


Top of my head, I believe I've seen two original/remake pairs - Flight of the Phoenix and The Italian Job. The remake of Flight was a bit crappy in a popcorn sense, but if you judge it purely on the story, the original has the exact same issues. I very much enjoyed both.

The original Italian Job seemed slower, and more time spent on the buildup, but the remake was just as entertaining in the end. I really can't say which one I liked more.

[KK.]

King Kong has had 2 remakes and neither is as good as the original, but the wonder thing is they are both very watchable for different reasons. And best of all we have 3 great GREAT scores.

While the latest King Kong (Jackson's film) may not have been as good as the original, it is certainly a very enjoyable film with great merit. I thought it was a highly well-done epic.

[Quint]

It's soooo frustratingly close to being essential.

[Red Rabbit]

Most if not all movies are adaptations of something else in one way or another. There isn't much difference between remaking a film and adapting a book into a film in that you are taking a piece of work and redoing, often with reinterpretation included. Yet usually when a book is adapted into a film there isn't a lot of bother given.

[Joey]

King Kong has had 2 remakes and neither is as good as the original, but the wonder thing is they are both very watchable for different reasons. And best of all we have 3 great GREAT scores.

Wow, you like JNH's score? I've lost track by now of who makes atrocious noise according to you.


Top of my head, I believe I've seen two original/remake pairs - Flight of the Phoenix and The Italian Job. The remake of Flight was a bit crappy in a popcorn sense, but if you judge it purely on the story, the original has the exact same issues. I very much enjoyed both.

The original Italian Job seemed slower, and more time spent on the buildup, but the remake was just as entertaining in the end. I really can't say which one I liked more.

I'm probably the biggest fan of JNH's King Kong score.

[E.T. & Elliott]

The 1976 King Kong is clearly the best one.

[Joey]

I like JNH's better than JB's. But the 76 score is certainly stylish.

[E.T. & Elliott]

I meant both the score and the movie.