He does a killer Stewart impression, but I've always felt he had the same style of speech and body control that Stewart had.
Poke
Poke
Remakes, Yea or Nay?
- Thread starter NicklausLouis
- Start date
If remakes are done true to the originals, without making changes to the scripts or changing the plotlines in any way, they can be good. A good example was the remake of "I Married A Monster From Outer Space". With the exception of the actors, the original and the remake were, pretty much, identical.
If the remakes are identical to the original (i.e. Gus Van Sant's Psycho), what's the point of remaking it? I say if you have nothing new or useful to add to a story don't remake it.
Poke
Poke
Anyone have comments on the remake of the Battlestar Galactica series? I'm too young to have seen the original air but the new stuff is absolutely great. Drama in a sci-fi environment. The directing is great I think and the SFX not too over done. I'm not entirely sure I'm a huge fan of the whoel shaky cam thing yet but it was decent.
Last edited:
There are 2 things that bug me about remakes at the moment:
1. there are Waaaaay too many... i mean it is ok to make a remake, i mean if the story is something fantastic that the world is starting to lose a hold of then a remake can bring it back to life! But the fact is that the remake is becoming something of a way for directors to keep in the game without having to do any work, i mean not too long ago there was a massive strand of 60's tv remake movies, most of them have been forgotten all to quickly but with movies such as "Rocky and bullwinkle" and " My favorite martian" filling up the cinemas in the early stages of our new millenia, people begin to wonder..... where are our creative writers???
2. Remakes should follow the same concept of a song cover.... there are two types of a song cover... one where the song has been copied in every word, every beat, every note so that the only distinguishable difference between the two songs is that fact that one is in the new release section of the CD shop i.e
"i love rock and roll- brittany spears" and the other is the opne where an artist would take a song and put into it their own style, changin g things around to make it thier own, whilst still paying homage to the original song i.e " a little help from my freinds - Joe Cocker" this one of cource being the better type... and its the same with film.... If a director wants to make a remake they shouldnt even have a look at the original film to refresh their memory, they should get the script and work from there... give their interpretation, or do what tim burton is doing with "charlie and the choc facotry" or even what P.J Hogan did with his remake of " peter pan" byt taking the original story how is was meant to be.... this is what makes a good remake!
1. there are Waaaaay too many... i mean it is ok to make a remake, i mean if the story is something fantastic that the world is starting to lose a hold of then a remake can bring it back to life! But the fact is that the remake is becoming something of a way for directors to keep in the game without having to do any work, i mean not too long ago there was a massive strand of 60's tv remake movies, most of them have been forgotten all to quickly but with movies such as "Rocky and bullwinkle" and " My favorite martian" filling up the cinemas in the early stages of our new millenia, people begin to wonder..... where are our creative writers???
2. Remakes should follow the same concept of a song cover.... there are two types of a song cover... one where the song has been copied in every word, every beat, every note so that the only distinguishable difference between the two songs is that fact that one is in the new release section of the CD shop i.e
"i love rock and roll- brittany spears" and the other is the opne where an artist would take a song and put into it their own style, changin g things around to make it thier own, whilst still paying homage to the original song i.e " a little help from my freinds - Joe Cocker" this one of cource being the better type... and its the same with film.... If a director wants to make a remake they shouldnt even have a look at the original film to refresh their memory, they should get the script and work from there... give their interpretation, or do what tim burton is doing with "charlie and the choc facotry" or even what P.J Hogan did with his remake of " peter pan" byt taking the original story how is was meant to be.... this is what makes a good remake!
If ever there was a case for remakes Battle Star Galatica is it. It is a superb reworking of what was after all a very dodgey 1970's sci-fi for kids.
I think the point with remakes is to see some grain of greatness in an original piece of work and know that you can improve on it, rather than just cashing in on a classic by putting some new faces in it. I think with Battle Star Galactica you've got incredibly well written scripts and just superb casting decisions. I can't find fault with it and I am old enough to remember the original.
I think one of the reasons that I'm drawn to a remake of Harvey is, despite the fact that James Stewart's performance in it is flawless, the supporting cast are very much of their age and some of the acting is a little wooden.
How about Jeff Goldblum? He reminds me alot of Jimmy Stewart.
I'd also like to add: I saw 'Arsenic and Old Lace' a couple of weeks ago, does anyone else think John Cleese may have been a little influenced by Cary Grant's performance? And how many actors have drawn something from Bugs Bunny?????? (seriously)
bird said:
I principle I am all for remakes, and on empirical grounds my support is contingent on how the remaking is done.
There is a veritable wealth of literature arguing that all stories come down to basic narratives - the Romeo/Juliet love story, or the coming of age story etc etc.
I would say that it is small-minded to say that a film or anything should not be remade. I mean, is anything truly original? 2001: a space odyssey and Requiem for a Dream. These are totally different films, but thematically speaking, about the downfall of man due to his dreams (eg, Hall the computer). Star Wars, Godfather, Magnolia - thematically about family.
My point is that these films are interlinked, interconnected. They are not autonomous, and as such, does anyone have actual ownership of them? No. My point is that these re-makes are re-interpretations of eternal themes put into new situations or not, and that the 'originals' were never truly 'original'.
Walter Smidge earlier said that a song could work as a remake when taken and made different to the original. Poke said that it was only worth remaking films if you have something to add to the story. To add something or to make it different is to re-interpret it, to remodel it, to ultimately, remake it.
If it were not for taking things and remaking them everything you see (if an artist) would be red, green or blue. There would be no magenta, cyan etc etc. What kind of a world would that be?
The point of paper was to communicate, to record. This has been, eventually, into the laptops and desktops that we are typing on now. If no-one had dared to evolve the ideas behind the creation then we would all be drawing on each other's bodies - something I for one would not enjoy.
For me the worth of a film is in the ideas behind it, those themes of human life - and those are constantly being remade. 'Remakes' are new interpretations, new readings into life - and should be welcomed by all.
Their worth is in how they are done, but in principle, we should not deny their right to be.
I would evolve my argument further but I think I've gone on for too long,
Nothing is autonomous, and as such, everything is a remake/remodel/retelling of the age-old stories.
i'll stop now,
eternally zoolio.
There is a veritable wealth of literature arguing that all stories come down to basic narratives - the Romeo/Juliet love story, or the coming of age story etc etc.
I would say that it is small-minded to say that a film or anything should not be remade. I mean, is anything truly original? 2001: a space odyssey and Requiem for a Dream. These are totally different films, but thematically speaking, about the downfall of man due to his dreams (eg, Hall the computer). Star Wars, Godfather, Magnolia - thematically about family.
My point is that these films are interlinked, interconnected. They are not autonomous, and as such, does anyone have actual ownership of them? No. My point is that these re-makes are re-interpretations of eternal themes put into new situations or not, and that the 'originals' were never truly 'original'.
Walter Smidge earlier said that a song could work as a remake when taken and made different to the original. Poke said that it was only worth remaking films if you have something to add to the story. To add something or to make it different is to re-interpret it, to remodel it, to ultimately, remake it.
If it were not for taking things and remaking them everything you see (if an artist) would be red, green or blue. There would be no magenta, cyan etc etc. What kind of a world would that be?
The point of paper was to communicate, to record. This has been, eventually, into the laptops and desktops that we are typing on now. If no-one had dared to evolve the ideas behind the creation then we would all be drawing on each other's bodies - something I for one would not enjoy.
For me the worth of a film is in the ideas behind it, those themes of human life - and those are constantly being remade. 'Remakes' are new interpretations, new readings into life - and should be welcomed by all.
Their worth is in how they are done, but in principle, we should not deny their right to be.
I would evolve my argument further but I think I've gone on for too long,
Nothing is autonomous, and as such, everything is a remake/remodel/retelling of the age-old stories.
i'll stop now,
eternally zoolio.
Well, I'll throw my voice in on this as it's one of my all-time pet peeves. I see nothing original to add to the comments above, however, so I'll just throw my weight behind a couple of opinions in typically verbose fashion:
1. A remake is essentially of no creative value whatsoever. When a film is born and bred for the film medium specifically (as opposed to films made from books, stage plays and other media) its basically a stand-alone work. The only time there could be any benefit is if the original film were based on a great concept but poorly done; then the remake might be a sort-of creative repair job. Nobody wants to be brave and tackle a good concept made into a poor film, however. It's all about riding a brand name, and that alone is worth picketing any remake.
2. Battlestar galactica, what little I had time to watch of the new one, looked like the first decent space series in a few decades; very strong both dramatically and visually. The funny thing is, it's so entirely different from the first that they could just as easily changed a few more characters and ideas and presented it as a similar film but as a stand-alone different film (just as King Kong was based more or less on the Lost World concept - or became that once Cooper got to RKO - but still had enough differences that instead of The Lost World II, The Giant Ape, they called it King Kong, and that for me works. Plagerism doesn't, but inspiration does. where does one stop and the other begin? that depends I suppose on where every individual's red-line is on their Knock-off-o-meter.)
3. Bad remakes disparage the memory and reputations of original classics. Speaking of the aforementioned Kong, I just read in Entertainment Weekly where the new Peter Jackson King Kong will have, among many already reported unfortunate script decisions, a big Kong doody gag. Oh, ho ho - a giant ape leaves a giant crap. Now that's both stupid and unoriginal, having been done in both caveman and then Jurassic Park. But kids will see the new Kong and then, while catching the original - sure to be marketed like mad when the remake comes out - will likely be making big Kong doody references. In case nobody noticed, this kind of thing ruins the experience of watching the original.
4. The only time a remake is fair game, in my opinion, is when its done by the original filmaker. Unlike alot of people, I don't condemn Lucas, for example, for reworking his Star Wars films. If he wants to "get it right" in his head, God bless 'em. Hitchcock remade a couple of his early films, and that's fair. (and please, no endless flame threads about Lucas reworking his original Star Wars trilogy - this is only one guy's opinion)
All these remakes are really nothing more than wringing happy dollars out of baby-boomer memories while enjoying the buck that can be had by a reliable idea in the form of a recognizabkle name brand which is easily bought. Maybe I'm becoming an idealist, but even for the most commercial of film ideas, it seems to me that that this one stinks.
1. A remake is essentially of no creative value whatsoever. When a film is born and bred for the film medium specifically (as opposed to films made from books, stage plays and other media) its basically a stand-alone work. The only time there could be any benefit is if the original film were based on a great concept but poorly done; then the remake might be a sort-of creative repair job. Nobody wants to be brave and tackle a good concept made into a poor film, however. It's all about riding a brand name, and that alone is worth picketing any remake.
2. Battlestar galactica, what little I had time to watch of the new one, looked like the first decent space series in a few decades; very strong both dramatically and visually. The funny thing is, it's so entirely different from the first that they could just as easily changed a few more characters and ideas and presented it as a similar film but as a stand-alone different film (just as King Kong was based more or less on the Lost World concept - or became that once Cooper got to RKO - but still had enough differences that instead of The Lost World II, The Giant Ape, they called it King Kong, and that for me works. Plagerism doesn't, but inspiration does. where does one stop and the other begin? that depends I suppose on where every individual's red-line is on their Knock-off-o-meter.)
3. Bad remakes disparage the memory and reputations of original classics. Speaking of the aforementioned Kong, I just read in Entertainment Weekly where the new Peter Jackson King Kong will have, among many already reported unfortunate script decisions, a big Kong doody gag. Oh, ho ho - a giant ape leaves a giant crap. Now that's both stupid and unoriginal, having been done in both caveman and then Jurassic Park. But kids will see the new Kong and then, while catching the original - sure to be marketed like mad when the remake comes out - will likely be making big Kong doody references. In case nobody noticed, this kind of thing ruins the experience of watching the original.
4. The only time a remake is fair game, in my opinion, is when its done by the original filmaker. Unlike alot of people, I don't condemn Lucas, for example, for reworking his Star Wars films. If he wants to "get it right" in his head, God bless 'em. Hitchcock remade a couple of his early films, and that's fair. (and please, no endless flame threads about Lucas reworking his original Star Wars trilogy - this is only one guy's opinion)
All these remakes are really nothing more than wringing happy dollars out of baby-boomer memories while enjoying the buck that can be had by a reliable idea in the form of a recognizabkle name brand which is easily bought. Maybe I'm becoming an idealist, but even for the most commercial of film ideas, it seems to me that that this one stinks.
Speaking of Battlestar Glactica.. The Sci-Fi channel is running a B.G. Marathon today. "The entire 4 hour miniseries is on, followed by the 2 hour pilot." Or so the ads that ran during every break last night kept telling me.
For the record, the entire Star Wars story (original 3 for certain) are virtually a remake of 'Alexander Nevsky' by Sergei Eisenstein (Soviet Union, 1938). Lord of the Rings is also very similar, from a visually technical point of view. ie: same shots, same protrayal of good and evil, etc. If you watch Alexander Nevsky and want to compare it to Star Wars, just think: Russians = Rebels, Germans = Empire... or to compare with LOTR Russians = Humans/Elves (Battle at Helms Deep is a good example), Germans = Orcs.
For the record, the entire Star Wars story (original 3 for certain) are virtually a remake of 'Alexander Nevsky' by Sergei Eisenstein (Soviet Union, 1938). Lord of the Rings is also very similar, from a visually technical point of view. ie: same shots, same protrayal of good and evil, etc. If you watch Alexander Nevsky and want to compare it to Star Wars, just think: Russians = Rebels, Germans = Empire... or to compare with LOTR Russians = Humans/Elves (Battle at Helms Deep is a good example), Germans = Orcs.
Last edited:
You may be right, however here is a short list of remakes, these are the films you are condemning:
The Magnificent Seven, Fistful of Dollars (Sergio Leone), Cape Fear (Scorcesse), The Thing (Carpenter), High Society, Invasion of the Body Snatcher (Sutherland vs), The Postman Always Rings Twice (Nicholson vs), The Masque of The Red Death (V. Price vs) and of course Scarface (Pacino vs)
I think it's OK to say of a film like Stallone's "Get Carter" that's a bad, self indulgent remake, but say all remakes are just cynical cash cows doesn't stand up to the evidence. There are bad and good. Personally, I'd miss every single one of the above titles from my DVD collection and with the exception of Cape Fear, Seven Samurai and Yojimbo I don't own any of the other originals.
For myself, I'm having fridge magnet made that says "If it's good enough for Sergio Leone, it's good enough for me."
Last edited:
The blob has been remade a number of times..
You've got mail was a second or third generation remake of "The Shop Around The Corner".
Oceans 11 was a remake, which in my opinion was more entertaining the second time around (Sorry Rat Pack Fans)
The Italian Job: remake
The Ring is a remake of Ringu from Japan. Neither were that great, but after seeing the American version first, I hated the Japanese original.
How about films all based on the same original story.. that counts as a remake, no?
If so, There are at least 8 versions of Dracula, that have THAT NAME.. not to mention other interpretations of the original story done as films with different names (Nosferatu, etc)
You've got mail was a second or third generation remake of "The Shop Around The Corner".
Oceans 11 was a remake, which in my opinion was more entertaining the second time around (Sorry Rat Pack Fans)
The Italian Job: remake
The Ring is a remake of Ringu from Japan. Neither were that great, but after seeing the American version first, I hated the Japanese original.
How about films all based on the same original story.. that counts as a remake, no?
If so, There are at least 8 versions of Dracula, that have THAT NAME.. not to mention other interpretations of the original story done as films with different names (Nosferatu, etc)
Clive,
"You may be right, however here is a short list of remakes, these are the films you are condemning:
The Magnificent Seven, Fistful of Dollars (Sergio Leone), Cape Fear (Scorcesse), The Thing (Carpenter), High Society, Invasion of the Body Snatcher (Sutherland vs), The Postman Always Rings Twice (Nicholson vs), The Masque of The Red Death (V. Price vs) and of course Scarface (Pacino vs)"
Okay, I'll go through the short list, and make it clear I'm not trying to *impress* my opnion on anyone else; it's just an opinion offered for whatever its worth:
The Magnificent Seven is different enough to stand on its own, just as Forbidden Planet is different from shakespeare's The Tempest on which it is based. they also changed the name, which takes all the sting out of a bad remake influencing the reputation of an original. I think the same could be said of A Fistful Of Dollars. Keeping the title of the original film - or references to it -in the remake is critical to defining a remake to a film which is "heavily inspired".(we avoid the difficulty, of course, by doing neither and making orginal films in the first place)
Cape Fear (Scorcesse), The Thing (Carpenter), High Society, Invasion of the Body Snatcher :
In my opinion, every one of these films is vastly inferior to the original, in the case of Cape Fear and The Thing, embarssingly so, and do nothing to help the reputations of the originals except perhaps to make them look better by comparison. I know some people love the Thing remake, but I can't see how trading off grotesque animtronic effects is an advantage over terrific storytelling, and I think we'd all admit John Carpenter isn't even out of his diapers compared to Howard Hawks (who directed, regardless of Christian Nybie's name on the Big Chair, and he said as much in interviews as did the cast).
As for The Masque of The Red Death and Dracula, they're based on written works, which I said - in my opinion again - is fair game as interpreting one media form to another as many times as people want.
As far as the few others mentioned, whatever entertainment value they offer or artistic accomplishment they possess might have been better realized if all that time and money and energy had been put into a great script for an entirely original film. For every remake in which all that was spent, we may have been robbed of a NEW classic.
Nah, sorry, guys. I'm going to stick to my sergio leone sixshooters on this one. My vote appropos the question posed in the header of this thread: "Nay". And a BIG Nay at that.
"You may be right, however here is a short list of remakes, these are the films you are condemning:
The Magnificent Seven, Fistful of Dollars (Sergio Leone), Cape Fear (Scorcesse), The Thing (Carpenter), High Society, Invasion of the Body Snatcher (Sutherland vs), The Postman Always Rings Twice (Nicholson vs), The Masque of The Red Death (V. Price vs) and of course Scarface (Pacino vs)"
Okay, I'll go through the short list, and make it clear I'm not trying to *impress* my opnion on anyone else; it's just an opinion offered for whatever its worth:
The Magnificent Seven is different enough to stand on its own, just as Forbidden Planet is different from shakespeare's The Tempest on which it is based. they also changed the name, which takes all the sting out of a bad remake influencing the reputation of an original. I think the same could be said of A Fistful Of Dollars. Keeping the title of the original film - or references to it -in the remake is critical to defining a remake to a film which is "heavily inspired".(we avoid the difficulty, of course, by doing neither and making orginal films in the first place)
Cape Fear (Scorcesse), The Thing (Carpenter), High Society, Invasion of the Body Snatcher :
In my opinion, every one of these films is vastly inferior to the original, in the case of Cape Fear and The Thing, embarssingly so, and do nothing to help the reputations of the originals except perhaps to make them look better by comparison. I know some people love the Thing remake, but I can't see how trading off grotesque animtronic effects is an advantage over terrific storytelling, and I think we'd all admit John Carpenter isn't even out of his diapers compared to Howard Hawks (who directed, regardless of Christian Nybie's name on the Big Chair, and he said as much in interviews as did the cast).
As for The Masque of The Red Death and Dracula, they're based on written works, which I said - in my opinion again - is fair game as interpreting one media form to another as many times as people want.
As far as the few others mentioned, whatever entertainment value they offer or artistic accomplishment they possess might have been better realized if all that time and money and energy had been put into a great script for an entirely original film. For every remake in which all that was spent, we may have been robbed of a NEW classic.
Nah, sorry, guys. I'm going to stick to my sergio leone sixshooters on this one. My vote appropos the question posed in the header of this thread: "Nay". And a BIG Nay at that.
Last edited:
When you answer a black and white question with a black or white answer, you can always be proven wrong 
Some remakes are horrible attempts to cash in on the previous attempt. Some remakes are an attempt to convert a story to modern situations or convert a story from one culture to another. Examples are DeCaprio's Romeo and Juliet (never saw it by the way) set in modern times, and the Magnificent Seven, converting from Japanese culture to the Wild West culture.
I can generally live with those types of remakes. I'm generally unsatisified with remakes that don't bring anything to the table (for lack of better words). An example of that is Psycho. It didn't need to be modernized, and as far as I'm concerned Hitchcock made a movie that could withstand the effects of time.
So my answer is grey.
The conversions can and have been able to stand on their own. Some of the conversions are legitimate new stories or films. Some are less so. I'm generally unhappy with remakes of classics. Psycho is one example. Cape Fear is an example of one that I did like. Both the Bogart and the Denero films.
Yep, my answer is grey.
Chris
Please vote for my Subaru commercial. I'm losing badly. Now it's just to soothe my savage ego. The commercial is called "Space".
http://www.sevenseats.com/movie.aspx?VideoID=15
Some remakes are horrible attempts to cash in on the previous attempt. Some remakes are an attempt to convert a story to modern situations or convert a story from one culture to another. Examples are DeCaprio's Romeo and Juliet (never saw it by the way) set in modern times, and the Magnificent Seven, converting from Japanese culture to the Wild West culture. I can generally live with those types of remakes. I'm generally unsatisified with remakes that don't bring anything to the table (for lack of better words). An example of that is Psycho. It didn't need to be modernized, and as far as I'm concerned Hitchcock made a movie that could withstand the effects of time.
So my answer is grey.
The conversions can and have been able to stand on their own. Some of the conversions are legitimate new stories or films. Some are less so. I'm generally unhappy with remakes of classics. Psycho is one example. Cape Fear is an example of one that I did like. Both the Bogart and the Denero films.
Yep, my answer is grey.
Chris
Please vote for my Subaru commercial. I'm losing badly. Now it's just to soothe my savage ego. The commercial is called "Space".
http://www.sevenseats.com/movie.aspx?VideoID=15
the funny thing is that a lot of the times people have no idea that a movie is a remake of another older film, this is mainly due to clever marketing and a forced "lack of recognition" towards the older version and so nobody has any problems! So whats the harm, if you found the movie entertaining then who cares if it is a remake!
i think sometimes we forget that movies are entertainment, thats what they were designed to be, and thats what they will always be... and so if the movie entertains it audience, then it is a good film, even if the film is a remake it doesnt matter, what matters is the audience! So the real answer is Neither!
-Walt
i think sometimes we forget that movies are entertainment, thats what they were designed to be, and thats what they will always be... and so if the movie entertains it audience, then it is a good film, even if the film is a remake it doesnt matter, what matters is the audience! So the real answer is Neither!
-Walt
Walter_Smidge said:
Thats exactly what I was trying to say before Walt. That, if we look at it from a film to film point of view, and just look at the empirical evidence - we can't make a real answer.
I was trying to make the point that, in terms of principle, irrelevent of the end result, we have to welcome both forms of film (remake or not), and i think your point on entertainment and your conclusion illustrates that excellently.
Thing is you said it in a coupla lines, I took a bloody essay - and still didn't make that clear!
ah well.
(someone may say that if that is my argument then i am making any film, by principle, acceptable - like real sexual violence and so forth, but i think thats another thread - and shouldn't be here)
Last edited:
you know what... i think i am going to go make a remake now.... i have been inspired and i think a remake is in order, lol 
seriously though, a lot of people do get into the habit of forgetting the reason we have film in the first place and thus view it in the wrong light... (mind the pun). I know i get into that trap and roughly critisize films that i see even though i am forgetting that just because i didnt like the film doesnt mean everyone else hated it too...
But on the other side, people are sheep and they dont know what is good or not
lol
-Walt
seriously though, a lot of people do get into the habit of forgetting the reason we have film in the first place and thus view it in the wrong light... (mind the pun). I know i get into that trap and roughly critisize films that i see even though i am forgetting that just because i didnt like the film doesnt mean everyone else hated it too...
But on the other side, people are sheep and they dont know what is good or not
lol-Walt
"I also understand Ray Bradburrys movie "Farenhiet 451" will be remade. this sickens me. I Hope someone can remake it well."
I totally agree. Fahrenheit 451 is one of my favourite novels of all time, and as a SF-freak I was first enraged at the idea of remaking it, and I was worried that someone would screw it up. However, I'm not gonna sell it off quite yet because, from what I've heard, writer/director Frank Darabont is supposed to be attached as the director, and from what I've seen of his work (excellent moves such as 'The Shawshank Redemption' and 'The Green Mile') we can expect something special from him. I think that remakes can be good, but they need to have a relevance to people today. You need to find a way to keep alive everything that was so strong about the originals but include something that people can take away into their lives. I disagree with simply remaking a film because it was commercially successful, but some remakes have been very good. As for Fahrenheit 451, I'm keeping hope alive...
I totally agree. Fahrenheit 451 is one of my favourite novels of all time, and as a SF-freak I was first enraged at the idea of remaking it, and I was worried that someone would screw it up. However, I'm not gonna sell it off quite yet because, from what I've heard, writer/director Frank Darabont is supposed to be attached as the director, and from what I've seen of his work (excellent moves such as 'The Shawshank Redemption' and 'The Green Mile') we can expect something special from him. I think that remakes can be good, but they need to have a relevance to people today. You need to find a way to keep alive everything that was so strong about the originals but include something that people can take away into their lives. I disagree with simply remaking a film because it was commercially successful, but some remakes have been very good. As for Fahrenheit 451, I'm keeping hope alive...
Fistful of Dollars is an almost shot for shot remake in key scenes, it couldn't get closer to the original. Key scenes in Seven Samurai and Magnificant Seven are identical, as are the characters. What makes them great films is the skill and love with which the remake was made.
I understand your point, if a filmmaker is lazy and just remakes someones' masterpiece badly, then I hate it too and that was the reason I used to hate remakes.
The truth is we all agree, most remakes are bad ideas made by bad filmmakers, some of whom should be shot. However, I still believe that it is possible to create something wondeful out of someone elses work, providing you have something new to say with it. It's the difference between being a film samurai and being a peasant. it doesn't matter if it was better or worse than the original, just in the same way it doesn't matter if it was as better or worse than the book. A good film stands by it's own rights.
Last edited: