Remakes

Rodney Petrie

Rodney Petrie

What do you think constitutes a remake that is worthwhile and one that is uneccesary?

I believe that if you have something new and fresh to add that wasn't in the original version then a remake is worthwhile. Two that come to mind are John Carpenter's The Thing and David Cronenberg's The Fly - one was looking to the original story (John Carpenter's The Thing was based on Who Goes There instead of the original The Thing movie) and the other changed the way the concept of a man becoming a fly was shown.

A remake that is just copying the original scene by scene and not really adding anything new to the source material is a waste of time. The remake of A Nightmare on Elm St comes to mind. Granted, the original was made in 1984 and that was a different era but was there really a need to remake it?

As with any film it is all up to the individual viewer as to whether a remake is necessary or not. But still, its interesting to see what other people's opinions are.
 
I'd rather see a re-image than a remake.

When something works, leave it alone.

THE BRADY BUNCH, STARSKY & HUTCH, and BIONIC WOMAN should have been left alone.

Look at what happened when Peter Jackson added to KING KONG. He made it too long and drawn out.

On the other hand, the re-image of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA was a huge success. Granted, the filmmakers took a big gamble. Sometimes, that is what it takes.
 
Well I've been debating this idea with the release of 'Let Me In'...

'Let The Right One In' was one of my favourite films of the last couple of years and I could see why people considered a remake unnecessary. But I also think it's important to judge each film on it's own merits.

You get all sorts of things that derive from other source material. Some of the greatest films of all time (The Godfather, LOTR, Silence of the Lambs) come from books and people rarely complain (except I was part of the 'hohum' surrounding Never Let Me Go). You also get TV and Film going to each other- MASH to M*A*S*H is one of my favourite translations ever.

Sure, some aren't going to work, but I've seen so many original ideas that have fallen flat on their face as well. Saying that Pete Jackson's version of King Kong was shoddy is a judgment on the film, saying that it was bad because the original was so good is not.

So back to 'Let Me In'. I'm sure you all read my review (ha ha ha) and therefore know that I thought it was really good and that some aspects were as good, if not better, than the Swedish version. But what it really highlights is the importance of taking each movie on it's own and making an unbiased judgement, even if you think the film is unnecessary. Clearly someone, somewhere (probably in a marketing department) thought that there were people who would be interested to see this remake.
 
I never called the remake of King Kong shoddy when I said it was too long and drawn out. I read reviews by independent filmmakers and professional movie critics from major news media outlets all echoing that a good 30 minutes could have been trimmed off of the movie. And, frankly, the monster battles on the island were too long for me too.
 
Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC said:
I never called the remake of King Kong shoddy when I said it was too long and drawn out. I read reviews by independent filmmakers and professional movie critics from major news media outlets all echoing that a good 30 minutes could have been trimmed off of the movie. And, frankly, the monster battles on the island were too long for me too.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to sound as though I was criticising your choice of King Kong as a movie to...criticize...

Personally I thought it was a solid movie that was ruined by Peter Jackson's determination to overly CGify everything. Much the same problem happened in The Lovely Bones. In LOTR he had the source material to justify it, with King Kong it became a bit silly with the 45 minute dinosaur chase and in The Lovely Bones it was totally unjustifiable.

But that's besides the point :D
 
Grand Upper said:
seven samurai into magnificent seven prolly counts

classic made into another classic
Click to expand...

Contentious :P

I'd argue that's no more a remake than 'Oh Brother Where Art Thou?' is of The Odyssey, or what 'House MD' is to Sherlock Holmes or 'A Serious Man' to The Book of Job.
 
What films do you dread might be remade?

I believe there are some movies that should not be remade. Back to the Future is one of them. It was a film that feels like it was meant to be made in the year and decade it was released.

The casting of the characters was spot on. The production value and story were excellent. The screenplay set a lot of things up earlier that were paid off later.

RE: King Kong and The Lovely Bones - I enjoyed both of those films but can see why there are certain criticisms about them. Personally I found some parts of King Kong to be boring but there were some characters and set pieces I liked.

As for The Lovely Bones I enjoyed the imagery and the music. I haven't read the book as yet though so in terms of how well it was adapted I currently cannot say.
 
I thought the discussion was that of "Remakes", and not "Adaptations".

The latter can not be rendered similar, the visuals are constructed of your own accord via text. The circumstance is substantially different when it is your comparison is live action, to live action, as apposed to what you yourself imagined, without suggestive visuals other than that of the page.

As for "Let the right one in", i was slightly disheartened, although not surprised, at its immediate remake. This is not my judgement upon the material, i'm sure, infact i'm certain, that it will be a fine picture.

The Original is a far-cry from the novel, as many adaptations are, however, the film flourished in light of these factors.

It's clear that sourced within "Let the right one in", somebody has foreseen further success, a chance to- in the current "Vampire Climate"- take it to a broader audience.

I've said on many occasions, that an idea, has no end. Many occasions your train of thought is borrowed, the moment your pen touches the paper the idea is rebirthed, the very thought has new life, be it recognizable or not.

True, perhaps, although it brings this question into play.

What constitutes success? What audience is a measure of substancial gratitude? Does one have to applaud with feet and hands?

The-little-movie-that-could, recieving multiple awards on its travels, could go no further...

Or maybe you agree with me, the casing, in ethic, is not of importance in the circumstance, the idea has new life, and there isn't a damned thing wrong about that.
 
Last edited:
chilipie said:
I went to see it twice in the space of a week… but that giant gorilla ice skating scene… :weird:
Click to expand...

Oh my God, I loved that scene! Yeah, I'm a sucker for cheeseball scenes like that. I also really like the scene when they first connect on the island, glimpsing the sunset.
And finally, at the end, when they take in the sunset again, atop the Empire State Building -- killed me. I was a big-'ol ball of man-tears. And then his fall from the tower? Brutal.

Another thing I really like about Peter Jackson's "King Kong" is that it's everything right about Hollywood. Hollywood can be so crass sometimes, so driven by pure profit, with the art of filmmaking falling to the wayside. This movie, however, was a pure project of passion. Jackson made a loving tribute to the movie that made him fall in love with cinema, and I appreciate that very much.

As for the "Let Me In" conversation, well I can certainly see why this would perterb people. Though the remake is good, I can see why people would say it's absolutely unnecessary, and not as good as the original. Perhaps the silver lining in the cloud is that they didn't completely botch the remake (in my opinion), and they brought this terrific story to an audience that would've never seen it, had it never been made in English.

My favorite remakes:

3:10 to Yuma
Scarface
Ocean's 11
Dawn of the Dead
The Italian Job

Best Remake Ever: The Departed

I was disappointed to hear about the end of the talks for a remake of "Old Boy". In my opinion, this is the perfect reason for a remake -- bringing the film to an audience that would've never seen it, otherwise. I recommend this film to friends, constantly. And generally speaking, people around me listen to my recommendations; in fact, many people intentionally seek me out for this. But there are some movies that I have a difficult time getting people to watch, and this is one of them ("Born Into Brothells" is the champion of Great Movie That Nobody Will Watch).
 
Spielberg, i hadn't heard anything of his interest, but it appears so.

Will Smith is a fine actor, more so with age. However, I would not be convinced he could portray the protaginist in "Oldboy".
 
I am not too happy that they are rebooting the Spiderman fanchise. I liked Spiderman 1 and 2 and Tobey did a good job. Spiderman 3 was ok and could have been better. But rebooting was a mistake.
 
Spiderman 3 was pretty terrible... :P

But there were people who thought like you when they announced that they were rebooting franchises like Batman and Bond, and it turns out that The Dark Knight is the best Batman movie ever and Casino Royale is up there with the best bonds.

I think reboots can be really good and the casting of Andrew Garfield is inspired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top