Remakes, Yea or Nay?

NicklausLouis

NicklausLouis

So I've been watching the Production diaries over at KongisKing.net, and the other night I caught John Carpenter's The Thing on the picture box. It's got me to thinking about different remakes and the purpose of the remake in cinema.

First of all, does anyone think that a movie should never be remade? I used to think this, but not anymore. I think the remake serves a useful purpose in filmdom. I think The Thing is a better film that The Thing from Another World, and I think PJ's monkey will be better than the original and much better than the Jessica Lange version (which to be fair did sport brief nudity, so it's not total crap). Sometimes, remaking a film can revitalize the story and introduce a new audience, like with Cape Fear. It can also take an old story in a new direction, as was the case with Scarface and will hopefully be the case with Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

But then there are the films like Gus Van Sant's Psycho, which defies all logic; Vanilla Sky, which would have been better if I never saw the original; and The Teaxs Chainsaw Massacre, which managed to make a movie about a chainsaw wielding psycho boring and only served to reintroduce us to Jessica Beil's breasts. I'm talking about the stinkaroo remakes. The list could go on forever: Shaft, Planet of the Apes, The Nutty Professor, The Haunting, etc.

Then there is the American remake of a foreign film - recently this has been big in the horror genre: The Ring & The Grudge. Is this okay? It does introduce a new audience, but from what I've seen the movies can change in the translation.

Basically, I'd like to get everyone's thoughts on remakes and why they do or don't like them.

Poke
 
Last edited:
sometimes, i think, films should be remade...others, like "classic" or "epic" films should not be remade. Foreign remakes...eh. well, it depends what the filmmaker is going for...money or just to show off their creativeness through a reamake. To show people how much better theirs was from the original...if that made sense. (most likely the money), but if they really don't care about the money, and just want to be kknown i don't see why the couldn't remake a film. so i basically have mixed thoughts about this subject...^^if you could understand that confusing paragraph of answer please let me know. ;).
 
Mr. Poke--

Good subject. Difficult answer. I do believe there is a certain threshold a movie might cross, after which it seems wrong to attempt a remake. Citizen Kane, Gone With the Wind, The Wizard of Oz...I think remakes of these would be ill advised (and I don't consider The Wiz a straight remake). There are REASONS why these films have withstood the test of time. (I think I would also include Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory...so I am a little disturbed about Burton's project.)

Let's face it, with the advances in filmmaking technology (and a rapidly declining attention span), the youth culture of today expects a certain quality in the look and feel of a movie. Remakes of certain classics could likely be made better, but they would be a detriment to the education of the history of cinema. The movies I mentioned above were groundbreaking achievements in cinema. A remake would only serve to put the original on the discard shelf. As new generations get into watching movies, they will likely not hold the same esteem for the classics, especially if they have all been remade with better color, sound, and effects. (King Kong could be an example of this. If you want to see a story about a large terrorizing ape, would you opt for the original, or the 70's remake? When Peter Jackson's version comes out...will anyone really care about the previous ones anymore?) So, IF the remake is better than the original, then we have a better movie to watch (which is good), but we tend to lose sight of the original and the impact it had on the development of cinema (not so good). IF the remake is decent but not necessarily superior to the original (ie: Planet of the Apes), then the original could possibly survive.

As for remaking foreign films for American audiences...well, I'm not an expert in this area of film history, but I'll bet this has been going on since the birth of cinema. I would also bet that a great many highly regarded American movies were inspired by foreign films and we probably don't even realize it (some day I'll research this to see if I can support my assertion). I don't think there is anything wrong with this, but I would likely opt for the original over the remake. Most movie-going Americans do not care to sit through a movie reading subtitles or listening to bad dubbing. I actually enjoy foreign films, but I would not consider myself a 'unit of the prime Hollywood target demographic'. If the story is good, then it will bring the story to a whole new group of people. If you prefer to watch the original, it is your right to chose IT over the remake.

So, in summary: Foreign Film remakes--I don't object to them, but I usually prefer the original; Classic Film remakes--I would only encourage it if the original wasn't viable today. But I still worry about the effect it has on replacing the classics.
 
Last edited:
In regards to a remake overshadowing the original, I do see that as a problem. But, I think this can be remedied somewhat. PJ is adamant about mentioning the 1933 version of Kong in nearly every interview he gives, so it will likely lead to more people wanting to check out the original as well as the new version. The same was true of John Carpenter's The Thing. If I hadn't heard JC talking about the original, I would have never seen it.

I do think certain films seem untouchable, but I don't think any film is untouchable in the right hands. Many felt that books like "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" and "The Lord of the Rings" would ever make it to the big screen, but in the capable hands of Terry Gilliam and Peter Jackson not only did they make it but both were pretty damn good adaptations. Who's to say that in ten or fifteen years the rights to Citizen Kane won't be aquired by a filmmaker who will remake it ten times better than Orson ever envisioned it?

Now, about the remaking of foreign films. I agree it is a practice that is not new, but I feel it's taken on a whole new deminsion than in the past. And this calls back what I said about PJ hyping the original Kong. I can honestly say I would never have seen the original Ringu were it not for the remake (The Ring for you braniacs out there) and the constant mentioning of the original. I feel it's a good thing this has come about.

Poke
 
If they can be remade and enjoyable as the orriginals or even better, then Im for it. But it seems that hollywood today seems to lean more towards special FX to carry a movie as opposed to Good acting in the old days.

War of the Worlds is going to be remade by Tom Cruise. He wants to set the movie in the 1800s as it was orriginally written by HGWells.

i would love to see this. But Planet of the Apes with Mark Walburhg Blew chunks.

They murdered a classic. I like Tim Burton for his orriginal concepts but not for remaking films. He even said he didnt like the idea of making Charlie and the Chocolate factory but did it anyways. I dont think it will be a "Remake" of the Classic 1971 film with Gene Wilder. its going to be a movie based on the actual book itself. so it will be way different.

I also understand Ray Bradburrys movie "Farenhiet 451" will be remade. this sickens me. I Hope someone can remake it well. You just cant recreate the 1960s astmosphere and the mindset of the people of that day. seemed like everyone was doing drugs when they filmed movies in the 60s. there is a wonderful atmosphere of that period that just doesnt exists in films today. even the 70s had that feel to it. I was watching Night Gallery on the sci fi channel and it brought me back to my childhood years. I didnt change, just society. watching old reruns of Night Gallery had the same feeling today as when I was a kid. I would hate for a TV recreation of Night Gallery. Actually I think it has been done in the 90s. leave a good thing alone.

thats my 2 cents.
 
I don't mind remakes at all except for CLASSICS. Geez... For some reason, a remake of a classic really pisses me off. But that's just me. Take Psycho for instance. ????? But hey, if someone can remake a classic and make me forget about the original, I guess I can work with it...

I've been seeing previews for "Flight of the Phoenix" --The previews look decent but damn... I really like the original. But like Poke said... If a remake can somehow reintroduce the genre and find a new audience that the original didn't have then why not?

I can still watch the original all I want...

Just goes to show you that Hollywood simply needs new ideas. There are so many remakes of classics on the horizon it would make your head spin...

You ain't seen nothin' yet...

filmy
 
Poke said:
I can honestly say I would never have seen the original Ringu were it not for the remake (The Ring for you braniacs out there) and the constant mentioning of the original.

Poke
Click to expand...

Lots of good stuff out there in foreign film land to be seen, regardless of whether or not it is currently being remade for American audiences. A few good horror movies from Asia--Dark Water (although guess what...yep! Currently being remade for American audiences, with Jen Connelly), The Eye, or how about Suicide Club, Battle Royale, Versus, Tetsuo (if you are an Eraserhead/Lynch fan), Ebola Syndrome (okay..maybe not so good, but still fun), the list goes on.
 
Remakes are like adaptations and sequals, they give the vewier a point of comparison. The better the original, the better the remake has to be to live up to reputations and expectations. Otherwise a crap movie is just a crap movie, original or not.

I have a great deal of expectation for Willy Wonka. Tim burton, Johnny Depp, great book, and a kick ass original film, mann I would hate to be in Timmy boys shoes. If he screws this up like......
 
Mikey D said:
Remakes are like adaptations and sequals, they give the vewier a point of comparison. The better the original, the better the remake has to be to live up to reputations and expectations. Otherwise a crap movie is just a crap movie, original or not.

I have a great deal of expectation for Willy Wonka. Tim burton, Johnny Depp, great book, and a kick ass original film, mann I would hate to be in Timmy boys shoes. If he screws this up like......
Click to expand...

Thats what I was saying before. Its not a remake of Willy Wonka. Its sticking to the orriginal story book theme. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory which is the name of the title.

There will be some simularities of the Gene Wilder film. but Willy Wonka was more based on the book as this will be sticking to the main storyline.

so I hope its a hit.


To be honest, When was the last time a movie like Willy Wonka was made that burned on the minds of people for several generations. it has a feel to it that very few directors can recreate. it was chemistry between the actors chosen. I like Johnny Depp. he was funny in that pirate movie. but someone like Jim Carrey would have been a better choice. I say Jim because he is one of the few Character Actors of this Generation. I wish hollywood would find more people like him.

I also hope there are lots of colors put into this film. Like the old technicolor films of yesteryear.

thats what made it so appealing to children.
 
To be honest, When was the last time a movie like Willy Wonka was made that burned on the minds of people for several generations
Click to expand...
Its funny that you should mention that. I had a similiar thought about music. What was the last band that made immortal status. Sure there are plenty of great bands out there but where are the Elvis's, Beatles, Madonnas. The kind of bands that our grandchildren will know and recognize.

So yeah the same could be asked of film. Where are the great films like Gone with the Wind, the Wizard of Oz and the like? The classics.

I understand that classic status is not something that is easily recognized right away. Its just that when I think back to the nineties and I can think of some really great movies, but what movies are people still going to know generations from now. Pulp Fiction? Forest Gump? I just don't see these stories as having the staying power to effect future generations the way they effect me.

Jim Carrey would have been a better choice. I say Jim because he is one of the few Character Actors of this Generation. I wish hollywood would find more people like him.
Click to expand...
We are in complete agreement on quite a few things here. Jim Carrey is WAY underrated as an actor. Might have something to do with a string of crap movies he made some years back. I'll admit I laughed myself silly with Dumb and Dumber, but fluff filler that movie was. That is quite a reputation to outlive. Man on the Moon was freakin' genius and I don't have to restate my position on Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Who was the last actor that had that kind of range?
 
Even if they had offered Carrey the Wonka role, I don't think he would have taken it. He just got done playing Count Olaf in Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events. Two iconic child film characters within a year of each other could have been overkill.

And just to be clear, the new version will be closer to the book than the Wilder version.

Poke
 
I'm for good ones, against bad ones...I also don't like it when they change the story up or change the time frame (like in Planet of the Apes or previous King Kong remakes)...I like the way Peter Jackson wants to remake King Kong, because it will be set in the 40's...just like the original. In other words I like literal remakes, not loosely based ones...and that's only if the remake is better or equal to the original.
 
Does anyone have any thoughts on the Psycho remake? I have not seem it but from what I understand it is a shot-by-shot remake of the original. If this is true, whats the point? And who would fund such a seemingly pointless excercise. I can understand retelling a story, updating it, adding new effects. But shot-by-shot? I don't get it.
 
Poke said:
But then there are the films like Gus Van Sant's Psycho, which defies all logic ...
Click to expand...

It isn't shot for shot. There are some minute differences, but it's close enough to warrant a big WTF to mr. Van Sant ... or Mr. Sant ... or Gussie.

Poke
 
Yeah.. Psycho sucked.. Something about the TWO remakes of texas chainsaw massacre never sat right with me either.

I still have yet to watch the original "You've Got Mail" or whatever it was called before the remake with Hanks/Ryan.. (which I like btw, but then pretty much anything either of, but especially BOTH of, those two are in usually ranks high in my book)

As for the foreign remake thing.. I enjoyed The Ring more than Ringu (quite a bit more).. haven't seen the grudge, or it's Japanese counterpart though.
 
Last edited:
The only remakes i like aren't actually remakes at all. My friends i speak to you of the art of parody. the sincerest form of flattery is after all imitation, misguided or not.
 
If the first film was a pile of shait or not faithful to it's source material, I wouldn't mind seeing a remake. But if the first film was well made, critically acclaimed, and commercially accepted - I don't really see the point of doing a remake. Tim Burton has this bad now. The first Willy Wonka and Planet of the Apes movies were fine.
 
I always used to be against remakes, I've seen enough poor ones over the years, Stallone's "Get Carter" winning the prize for worst ever. However, I read an article a little while back by a director (sorry can't remember the name) whose argument was that plays like Richard the Third or musicals like Chicago get remade and reinterpreted over and over again on the stage. Some of the reworkings are great, some are poor and some really, really suck. He argued that creative option should be allowed of film and for every bad remake it should be remembered that without a remake of the Seven Samurai they've be no Magnificent Seven, without a remake of Yojimbo they'd be No Fistful of Dollars (remade almost shot for shot).

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I know that I've wanted to make a remake of the James Stewart's classic Harvey for as long as I can remember, but it a risky project for a director and the lead actor to take on.
I think the day I find the right lead actor is the time I'll do it. Kevin Spacy is the obvious choice, but I've never made and obvious casting in my life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top