The Question
Objectivism doesn't work.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2005
- Messages
- 40,541
- Reaction score
- 30
- Points
- 58
Remakes are a tricky thing in Hollywood. Sometimes they're good, sometimes they're awful, but wether or not they fall short of, match, or surpass the original, they're almost always controversial. Makes sense, people can get very protective of the stories they like, and even more causal fans still get sick of the retreading of good stories from the past. Which is why I've always wondered:
Instead of remaking good movies, why not remake bad movies?
Well, of course I know the answer to that. Remakes are almost never green lit for any artistic reason, they're made because the original was popular and the studio wants to bank on the name recognition. If a remake turns out to be any good, it's usually just a happy accident.
But when you look at it from an artistic standpoint, remaking bad movies not only makes more sense, it actually makes remakes into a genuinely great idea.
There are plenty of bad movies out there that had great elements that simply didn't come together. A great script with a weak direction and cast, a great main character in a lousy story, or just a really great premise that was never fully realized. In that context, remakes seem almost necessary. Here's some tragically wasted potential. Let's dust it off, take stock of it's problems, and try going for round two.
So this question I pose to you:
What bad movies from the past do you think have some good or potentially good quality that would make them worth remaking, and what would you change in the remake to fix the original film's flaws?
Instead of remaking good movies, why not remake bad movies?
Well, of course I know the answer to that. Remakes are almost never green lit for any artistic reason, they're made because the original was popular and the studio wants to bank on the name recognition. If a remake turns out to be any good, it's usually just a happy accident.
But when you look at it from an artistic standpoint, remaking bad movies not only makes more sense, it actually makes remakes into a genuinely great idea.
There are plenty of bad movies out there that had great elements that simply didn't come together. A great script with a weak direction and cast, a great main character in a lousy story, or just a really great premise that was never fully realized. In that context, remakes seem almost necessary. Here's some tragically wasted potential. Let's dust it off, take stock of it's problems, and try going for round two.
So this question I pose to you:
What bad movies from the past do you think have some good or potentially good quality that would make them worth remaking, and what would you change in the remake to fix the original film's flaws?
t: ), and the town of Leesburg is still reeling from the damage. On that note, all the supporting characters from Linda's book, too; Linda herself died during all the hysterics of the invasion, so the movie starts off on a grim note. Basically a mix-and-match of Supergirl incarnations of the past couple decades, which should make DC happy given all their efforts to bury Linda's memory as much as possible.
