Which Films Would You Completely "Reimagine"?

[CAH]

Alright, we all know that there are films out there that we absolutely love and some that we absolutely hate. There are films that you want to forget ever happened, and there are films that you think about in greatness every day.

The point of this thread is to picture yourself as a big Hollywood director, and your studio has just given you freedom to reimagine any film or film series you wanted...ANYTHING. What would you reimagine and why? Also, if you want to, provide cast choices for the main characters of your reimagining, and explain how you would go about reimagining a film like the one you chose.

Now sure, there are some of you here who believe no films should ever be reimagined/remade because the original is perfect, but there are some who are dying for redos. I say "reimagining" because the point to a remake in most directors' eyes is to add scenes and things that THEY always wanted to see, do things the first director couldn't, etc. Reimagining the film gives the new director a chance to show audiences what could've been, and maybe what the audience wanted to see in the first place.

Be creative and have fun...

P.S. Let's Go Over Some Rules Folks.
1)Posters who DO NOT want a reimagining of a film PLEASE DO NOT POST anything then. It wastes space and no one likes to continuously read "I don't want any remakes" or any quotes of that kind.
2)Keep It Nice and Clean...you know what I mean.
3)You must include atleast one reason for why you want to see a particular film reimagined.
4)Try to include some details to your reimagining...like new plot points and time/place it would happen, etc.

Begin!

CAH

[Speedball]

Eragon tops my list.
Why? Cause the original was a total piece of crap and it could have been SOOOO Much better.

[Art_of_Crime]

none. I would come up with a new idea for once

[CAH]

Originally Posted by comicgeek65000

none. I would come up with a new idea for once

Then why are you wasting your time in this thread....

CAH

[MaskedManJRK]

Well, I recently watched Sunset Boulevard, and afterwards I wondered if it could be done again, in modern times.

[Majik1387]

^Please don't reimagine/modernize Sunset Boulevard. It will destroy the story.

Films I would reimagine:
Day of the Dead
Van Helsing
Waxworks

mostly horrors.

[Kevin Roegele]

Originally Posted by Majik1387

Van Helsing

Good call. Van Helsing is a great concept, just lousy execution. Keep Jackman, keep the costume, but ditch the over-the-top CGI mayhem and saturday morning cartoon atmosphere.

[Majik1387]

Originally Posted by Kevin Roegele

Good call. Van Helsing is a great concept, just lousy execution. Keep Jackman, keep the costume, but ditch the over-the-top CGI mayhem and saturday morning cartoon atmosphere.

I actually like the atmosphere but I would change a lot of people and their stories around, of course keeping Jackman though.

[Agentsands77]

Off the top of my head...

ANDREW LLOYD WEBBER'S THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA - Joel Schumacher and his poor cast butchered this version of the extremely successful stage musical. This musical deserved much better treatment.

THE MUMMY - Stephen Sommers film went for a comedic/Indiana Jones-esque ride. I would have wanted a dark, horror-tinged version that wasn't so overly campy.

V FOR VENDETTA - Alan Moore's work of dystopian fiction should have been adapted to be much more faithful to the source, not turned into a popcorn film with a different message.

VAN HELSING - A very cool concept, but very poor execution.

[Majik1387]

Originally Posted by Agentsands77

Off the top of my head...

ANDREW LLOYD WEBBER'S THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA - Joel Schumacher and his poor cast butchered this version of the extremely successful stage musical. This musical deserved much better treatment.

This is actually the best treatment of the musical and it was pretty successful and a great movie.

[Agentsands77]

Originally Posted by Majik1387

This is actually the best treatment of the musical

Not at all.

It cast a mostly charisma-less cast who couldn't sing the roles, sexed up the musical so that it might as well have been "GQ of the Opera," and abandoned the dark, ominous feel of the stage show. Nevermind that the visual style was horrifically overdone (reminiscent of a Roccoco BATMAN FOREVER), that the staging was dull, and the visuals were mediocre.

A big disappointment.

and it was pretty successful and a great movie.

Nah. It pales in comparison to recent movie musicals like MOULIN ROUGE, CHICAGO, and DREAMGIRLS.

[Muze]

"re-imagine?" i'm not that talented. i would suggest that they put some money into the effects for 'Boogeyman.' it could have been scary.

[MaskedManJRK]

Originally Posted by Agentsands77

Not at all.

It cast a mostly charisma-less cast who couldn't sing the roles, sexed up the musical so that it might as well have been "GQ of the Opera," and abandoned the dark, ominous feel of the stage show. Nevermind that the visual style was horrifically overdone (reminiscent of a Roccoco BATMAN FOREVER), that the staging was dull, and the visuals were mediocre.

A big disappointment.

Nah. In comparison to recent movie musicals like MOULIN ROUGE, CHICAGO, and DREAMGIRLS, it pales in comparison.

I have to agree--espically with the look of the Phantom, I think Schumacher tried too hard to pretty him and the whole look of the movie up. While there are the dark, creepy hideouts of the Phantom, it didn't really have that grit and dirt needed to truely complete the picture.

[MaskedManJRK]

Originally Posted by Majik1387

^Please don't reimagine/modernize Sunset Boulevard. It will destroy the story.

Films I would reimagine:
Day of the Dead
Van Helsing
Waxworks

mostly horrors.

I'm not saying it should, the thought just came to me after, that's all.

[Majik1387]

Originally Posted by Agentsands77

Not at all.

Seeing all of the Phantom of the Opera movies, yeah it is. This is excluding the original silent movie of course.

It cast a mostly charisma-less cast who couldn't sing the roles, sexed up the musical so that it might as well have been "GQ of the Opera," and abandoned the dark, ominous feel of the stage show. Nevermind that the visual style was horrifically overdone (reminiscent of a Roccoco BATMAN FOREVER), that the staging was dull, and the visuals were mediocre.

Emmy Rossum started off singing opera and she sang Christine flawlessly. I prefer Sarah Brightman but Emmy was still good. Everyone in the cast sang their roles the way they were supposed to be and they still sounded good. They wouldn't have gotten the roles if they couldn't sing. I don't know what the hell you're talking about them "sexing up the musical" or the "GQ of the Opera" but it sounds like a load of bull to me. As for the visual style being "horrificially" overdone, all Andrew Lloyd Webber shows are extravagant and do more than the norm so that they stand out; In fact it's one of his characteristics in his shows. As for the staging, that's pretty much what was onstage.

A big disappointment.

Not according to fans and critics.

Nah. In comparison to recent movie musicals like MOULIN ROUGE, CHICAGO, and DREAMGIRLS, it pales in comparison.

Moulin Rouge was not a Broadway show. Chicago was made entirely different than the stage show if you've seen it. I haven't seen Dreamgirls yet, so no comment.

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Good call on Van Helsing. Make it more about a human over evil story, instead of a cliched CGI-fest. I loved the idea back when Hopkins was supposed to do a spin off from Copolla's Dracula. The fact that he's an old man that can still kick ass would help, instead of a young and fit Jackman.

I'm a bit sick now, but I'll try to think of more. There's always something that had good potential but poor execution, I just can't think of anything now.

[Agentsands77]

Originally Posted by Majik1387

Seeing all of the Phantom of the Opera movies, yeah it is. This is excluding the original silent movie of course.

The other movies weren't adaptations of ALW's stage show. Sure, it's probably the best of the lot in that sense, but that's saying very little since the Phantom's film legacy has been terrible (aside from the excellent 1925 film).

Emmy Rossum started off singing opera and she sang Christine flawlessly.

No, she sounded like a mediocrely-trained 18-year-old girl trying to sing a part made for a more mature singer. We're supposed to believe that Emmy Rossum's voice would win a standing ovation? Pleeeeeease.

And Rossum didn't sing opera, really. She sang as a child in the Metropolitan Opera's children's chorus. She's never sung OPERA, and has never had the real training for the part. If you think she could sing opera, you clearly have no familiarity with opera or the training required.

Everyone in the cast sang their roles the way they were supposed to be and they still sounded good. They wouldn't have gotten the roles if they couldn't sing.

Gerard Butler has a terrible voice. Not at all appropriate for the part. This part demanded a true singer's singer, not a man who's never sung before in his life trying to croon one of the most demanding roles on Broadway.

I don't know what the hell you're talking about them "sexing up the musical" or the "GQ of the Opera" but it sounds like a load of bull to me.

Here's one example. The Phantom's deformity on stage is actually creepy and he's not particularly attractive (visually):




In the movie, it looks like a bad sunburn (not to mention the Phantom has his shirt undone with his chest exposed for much of the movie, like a character on a romance novel cover):

As for the visual style being "horrificially" overdone, all Andrew Lloyd Webber shows are extravagant and do more than the norm so that they stand out; In fact it's one of his characteristics in his shows.

The stage show of Phantom is extravagant, but it's not overdone. It's actually fairly minimalistic in its stage design. Schumacher's Phantom is gaudy, it overwhelms the actors.

As for the staging, that's pretty much what was onstage.

Actually, much of the staging isn't really close. The stage show has much more dynamic, interesting, and complex staging. But even if were the same, you don't transplant a stage-y musical to film as-is. You have to make it cinematic. This film's staging was so flat, it was remarkable. Most of it could be summed up as "walk from point A to point B while singing."

Not according to fans and critics.

Critics slaughtered the Phantom movie. The stage show fanbase was split right down the center, with many of the fans strongly disappointed with it.

Moulin Rouge was not a Broadway show.

It's still a movie-musical. Whether it was a Broadway show makes no difference.

Chicago was made entirely different than the stage show if you've seen it.

It reimagined the stage show, but did it very successfully and with oodles of class.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Kevin Roegele

Good call. Van Helsing is a great concept, just lousy execution. Keep Jackman, keep the costume, but ditch the over-the-top CGI mayhem and saturday morning cartoon atmosphere.

I completely agree.

[Shifty]

Reimagine the Spider-Man franchise set in the 1960s. Sony and Marvel will want to do another Spidey franchise years from now but if its going to be Spider-Man 2035 why bother.

I'd rather see the $ spent on recreating early 1960s NYC, the city that Jack Kirby, Steve Dikto and Stan Lee lived in and imagined in. It wouldn't be campy but it would look back at the 60s and have a younger looking cast. The sequels would be set years apart so we could see Parker, his friends, enemies and NYC age. Aunt May and Uncle Ben would be the same age as Ultimate May/Ben late 40s/early 50s.

Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man 1963 (The Burglar, The Lizard)
- 15 year old Peter Parker
- bitten by spider at Doc Conner's lab
- very little experience, so all he does is deal with The Burglar and preventing The Lizard from killing anyone and changing him back. Connors does return to normal
- Pete sells photos to Daily Bugle
- introduce Harry, Norman, Captain Stacy, Bugle staff, Gwen Stacy, Flash Thompson

Peter Parker: Spider-Man 1966 (Rhino, Scorpion, Doctor Octopus)
- 18 year old Peter Parker, 60s news piece explains what Spidey has been up to in the past three years
- J.J. has hired Octavius to create Rhino (fails early) and Scorpion to terminate Spidey. Scorpion goes mad, while trying to escape Octavius's lab causes the accident that creates Doc Ock. Ock is apprehended at the end.
- MJ is introduced
- Doc Ock kills Captain Stacy
- Pete and Gwen are dating, start college at the end of the film

Sensational Spider-Man 1972 (Black Cat, The Green Goblin)
- 24 year old Peter Parker
- 70s news piece covers important Spidey events that we've missed such as Green Goblin showing up and dealing with Sandman
- Death of Gwen Stacy and Green Goblin
- Black Cat is introduced

Web of Spider-Man 1978 (Kraven, Beetle, Green Goblin II)
- 30 year old Peter Parker
- Pete is dating MJ but is attracted to Black Cat
- Kraven shows up to hunt Black Cat, Spider-Man and Beetle
- Harry loses it, becomes GGII in the final act; dies

Spectacular Spider-Man 1984 (Hobgoblin, Doctor Octopus, Vulture, Kraven, Sandman, Scorpion)
- 36 year old Peter Parker
- Hobgoblin has been around for the past 6 months and decides to distract Spider-Man by attacking the prison holding Octavius, Vulture (49 year old), Sandman, Kraven and Scorpion. Doc Ock organizes the five of them while Hobby
- Eddie Brock is introduced, he covers The Sinister "Six"
- Pete and MJ celebrate their one year anniversary as a couple

The Amazing Spider-Man 1989 (Shocker, Rhino, Venom)
- 41 year old Peter Parker
- Adapting the Alien Costume story from TAS but using the early Space shuttle flights.
- Mary Jane gives birth to daughter
- Venom dies
- It could go dark and have Venom eat Baby May

[Warhammer]

X-Men 3.

I'd take it with a more Joss Whedon approach and keep Singers atmosphere. The cure was such a good plot and really could've been great. Instead, we got a tool that gave the film a motive. Poor execution.

[theShape]

Originally Posted by Majik1387

Seeing all of the Phantom of the Opera movies, yeah it is. This is excluding the original silent movie of course.

Emmy Rossum started off singing opera and she sang Christine flawlessly. I prefer Sarah Brightman but Emmy was still good. Everyone in the cast sang their roles the way they were supposed to be and they still sounded good. They wouldn't have gotten the roles if they couldn't sing. I don't know what the hell you're talking about them "sexing up the musical" or the "GQ of the Opera" but it sounds like a load of bull to me. As for the visual style being "horrificially" overdone, all Andrew Lloyd Webber shows are extravagant and do more than the norm so that they stand out; In fact it's one of his characteristics in his shows. As for the staging, that's pretty much what was onstage.

Well, Emmy was good, singing-wise. Her acting? Meh. She didn't impress me very much in that area. However, she was absolutely beautiful.

By "GQ of the Opera", he means how the Phantom was in the one. He was just too good looking, trying to more rough around the edges, whereas the Phantom is not like that at all. I mean, taking the boat down to his the lair during the theme song, the man was making a pouty face for the camera. Come on. And for God's sake, the man had a sunburn in this movie. That's it. In the play, he practically has a gaping hole in the side of his head, so I can understand his pain then, but not with a sunburn.

The staging was well done, but could have been better. Sets? Magnificent.

Not according to fans and critics.

Critics? Wrong. The film had a few good reviews, but was pretty much panned and did not do too well at the box office. And fans? Speak foryourself. I'm one of the biggest Phans there is, having seen the show on Broadway a total of 8 times. I have the whole show memorized, lyrics and everything. But the film disappointed me, which sucks because I had such high hopes for it. Most fans obsess over this movie because they don't wanna spend $100 bucks to see it on the stage, so they'll take what they can get.

The main problem was the Phantom could not sing. I know the whole backstory behind the film, how they wanted to find a guy with a more "rock and roll" voice for the role, but it doesn't make any sense. The Phantom is supposed to be a hideous maniac who is truly a genious with an entrancing voice that is what woos Christine in the first place. This guy wouldn't have been able to woo a deaf girl. No offense to Gerard Butler. It's not his fault that he was horribly miscast, but he did not have the range AT ALL to play this part. I don't know if you realize that the role of the Phantom in this musical is one of the most vocally-challenging roles that there is. If they wanted an unknown, take Hugh Panaro, Broadway's Phantom at the time of shooting, and let him play the part. He already has it down perfectly! Listen to the original London cast recording, then watch the movie. You'll notice how Butler either screams or whispers all of the challenging notes. -- Not good enough for me.

Some parts of the play were translated beautifully onto the screen, such as Masquerade. That scene was different from the play, yet it was still spectacular. But they really killed it with the role of the Phantom, which is the most integral part.[/quote]

[Peyton Westlake]

Now that he is an "A" Hollywood director because of Webhead, would luv to see Raimi remake Darkman with a bigger budget.

[CAH]

Originally Posted by Peyton Westlake

Now that he is an "A" Hollywood director because of Webhead, would luv to see Raimi remake Darkman with a bigger budget.

Now that would be pretty cool...I've always thought Darkman could use a little update, but not for a couple more years...it's only 16 years old now.

CAH

[L0ngsh0t]

I would love to do X-men personally (I know who the **** wouldn't right?)

But I would love to do a mass sentinal attack, like 500 parked right in from of Xaviers lawn, and have a comic book momment where storm flies really high into the air leading 40 of them, and lighting bolts them.

Also Gambit would be fun to do, and Wolverine would loose to no one let alone Mystique

[Karea07]

Elektra, Superman Returns