Movies Immune to the Reboot Disease

[antsman41]

BACK TO THE ****in' FUTURE
Man With No Name (Trilogy)
Dirty Harry (series)
Apocalypse Now
Full Metal Jacket
Saving Private Ryan
Indy (Trilogy)
Slap Shot
"Any film that has John Hughes in it's credits"
St. Elmo's Fire
Weekend At Bernie's
"Any Nolan film, except Insomnia"
Forrest Gump
"Tarantino films"

 

[JeetKuneDo]

sorry, but no. It turns out it was almost two years ago, not just a few months...t:
(I seriously thought I read that news in october or so)
http://www.slashfilm.com/rain-to-star-in-enter-the-dragon-remake-awaken-the-dragon/

don't know what happend to that project...

My first guess would be them realizing it was Bruce Lee that made it special in the first place.

 

[Spider-X]

How in the living hell has this not been mentioned yet:

Harry Potter (all of 'em)

All so well made with the same actors/actresses (for the most part)...I couldn't imagine them ever being re-made.

 

[Darkness Falls]

The Room

 

[finalrelief]

I would welcome a reboot of star wars...not a remake.. But have it set in the old republic days and a completely new plot besides the rise/fall of Vader

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

prepare for a shock: almost all of them have reamkes or reboots

 

[scifiwolf]

I'm surprised at many of the titles being listed, which are in fact adaptations or remakes themselves (Wizard of Oz, The Departed).

Truth is, I have no problem with remakes, as long as it's not being done purely for the sake of mining a brand name. Look at Hamlet, as a very basic example. A lot of creative directors and writers have taken the exact same script, and done fascinating, original things with it. If a writer or a director has an idea, and pursues it, I'm willing to say, "Yeah, maybe they have something neat up their sleeve." If a producer comes up with an idea, it's usually "Hey, here's this property that's valuable that's not making any new money. Let's remake it." If somebody's adapting a franchise, all accountability is lost because they just say, "Well we can reboot it in two years if it sucks. No biggie."

 

[Rowsdower!]

Ghostbusters might have it's rights tied up right now, but Bill Murray will be dead soon and rights and copyrights only last so long. Titanic is a famous disaster turned into perhaps *the* most famous disaster with one of the most famous films in existence. With media being more saturated and widespread now more than ever, these films are not going away.

So it's just a matter of time until they get remade. Titanic in it's total virtual reality 3D or whatever where you *really feel* like you're drowning and banging whatever hot young starlet is famous in 50 years.

The Disney animated movies is actually a great call.. although I'd suspect we might see some of the more famous ones redone in 3D or some other such advance.

Geez, man! He's not that old!

 

[Spider-Who?]

I'm surprised at many of the titles being listed, which are in fact adaptations or remakes themselves (Wizard of Oz, The Departed).

Truth is, I have no problem with remakes, as long as it's not being done purely for the sake of mining a brand name. Look at Hamlet, as a very basic example. A lot of creative directors and writers have taken the exact same script, and done fascinating, original things with it. If a writer or a director has an idea, and pursues it, I'm willing to say, "Yeah, maybe they have something neat up their sleeve." If a producer comes up with an idea, it's usually "Hey, here's this property that's valuable that's not making any new money. Let's remake it." If somebody's adapting a franchise, all accountability is lost because they just say, "Well we can reboot it in two years if it sucks. No biggie."

I get what you're saying. But in terms of movies based on plays and books....I don't consider Ethan Hawke's Hamlet to be a remake/reboot of Mel Gibson's Hamlet, since the former film isn't adapting the latter. Both movies are separate interpretations of a property from an entirely different medium.

Look at the 2010 version of True Grit. People are calling it a remake, when in fact, it is not. Its a new interpretation of the book, not a remake of the John Wayne movie.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

Enter the Dragon
The Godfather
Goodfellas
Scarface
2001: A Space Odyssey

You're kidding right? You do know Scarface is already a remake.

How in the living hell has this not been mentioned yet:

Harry Potter (all of 'em)

All so well made with the same actors/actresses (for the most part)...I couldn't imagine them ever being re-made.

Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings will be remade in the future. Much like any popular book/story. It won't be soon, but they will be remade. I'd actually love if they remade Harry Potter 4-6 right now, since those 3 really missed the mark.

 

[Incrediblejeff]

No Movie is safe.

 

[scifiwolf]

I get what you're saying. But in terms of movies based on plays and books....I don't consider Ethan Hawke's Hamlet to be a remake/reboot of Mel Gibson's Hamlet, since the former film isn't adapting the latter. Both movies are separate interpretations of a property from an entirely different medium.

Look at the 2010 version of True Grit. People are calling it a remake, when in fact, it is not. Its a new interpretation of the book, not a remake of the John Wayne movie.

That's what I was trying to say. People ***** about a lot of "remakes" when the source material is getting adapted again, not the movie itself.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Man With No Name (Trilogy)

I agree with you, however, but the first film was actually a Western remake of Yojimbo. And it has already (sort of) been remade in the Bruce Willis "Gangster Western," Last Man Standing. It's basically the same story but it takes place in Prohibition Era Texas with mobsters. It's a pretty cool film, though it lacks the style and feel of A Fistful of Dollars.

Still, I think that the "Man with No Name" stories can be adapted effectively if moved to a different time period. It might be interesting to do a modern day version of the story that takes place in a really rough city with two gangs at war. Or maybe someone could do a futuristic version of the story.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

I get what you're saying. But in terms of movies based on plays and books....I don't consider Ethan Hawke's Hamlet to be a remake/reboot of Mel Gibson's Hamlet, since the former film isn't adapting the latter. Both movies are separate interpretations of a property from an entirely different medium.

Look at the 2010 version of True Grit. People are calling it a remake, when in fact, it is not. Its a new interpretation of the book, not a remake of the John Wayne movie.

Everyone tries to avoid the "remake" word. But no matter how many times someone does Hamlet, they are remaking the same story. Same with True Grit....they remade the same story. All those great lines that Jeff Bridges said?....John Wayne said them first. (I laugh both times too) True Grit '69 will always be the first version.

This is a new trend. It used to not be a problem. The Fly in 1986 was called a remake even though it's nothing like the first movie....no one thought anything of it. By comparison True Grit is almost shot-for-shot the same as the first movie. There's not a lot of "re adapting" going on there.

I'll be buying True Grit the minute it comes out on DVD (because I love it) and I'm thinking of comparing the two versions to see how alike they are. My impression is that they are actually more alike than Let Me In was to Let the Right One In...and that one is called a "remake" for sure. Rooster even has the eye-patch again.

 

[Wolfwood]

Mmmmm....Birth of a Nation?