Remakes: A Discussion

[Thundarr]

I'm not against remakes because they've existed long before I was old enough to understand the concept. In fact, I grew up on many remakes before I knew they had in fact been remade, as I always thought of them as the original and had no knowledge of the actual original.

Hollywood has been doing this for years and "yes" it is almost always for a quick money grab but in some cases it truly is for the love of film and not letting some things die with time. Peter Jackson's King Kong comes to mind there, and he wasn't the first to remake it! Re-introducing audiences and new generations to classics and cult hits by updating them is a great idea on the surface. But as many have said, it's about execution. So sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes Hollywood takes on a remake way too soon. With the technology we have today, a remake means that movies that suffered from the sfx of the time, can now get remade with grand intentions of actually improving what are now clearly outdated visuals. King Kong, in 1933, was groundbreaking for film...no one denies it helped pave the way for what could one day be done with movie making and effects.

Maybe it's shocking to think someone like Martin Scorcese would sink so low and do a remake...or wait, is it? No! He did it for the love of it. The desire to try something haunting and different. That movie was Cape Fear! And did anyone start a picket line outside of the studio over that?

So do we just make the remake debate about picking and choosing what can and cannot be remade? When do we draw the line over what's off limits or too soon? I feel like it only becomes a big deal when it becomes obvious it's just for money because Hollywood has no original ideas. I don't think there's a real answer to that. I have a friend who was all crazy upset that Conan the Barbarian was being remade, but he didn't understand that Conan had a rich history long before Arnold's movie. So no matter how the new film turned out, in his eyes it's a remake, but we (movie buffs on the hype) know that's false on many levels. And this is where the divide comes in the debate in the first place, and why some people will never be satisfied with the idea of remakes. It's because we are all too often ignorant or misinformed by Hollywood regarding source material and adaptations.

For example, no attempt was made by Universal to market The Thing prequel as a prequel. Same title, same concept, and as far as the uninformed are concerned, it's a remake! If you assume they are aware of either JC's Thing or the 50's version. And that's where a lot of backlash came from, much of it on here before we were even sure it was a prequel.

Then there's always the foreign film remakes. Let the Right One In, Girl With The Dragon Tatoo...they all seem too soon. In 2002 one of my favorite movies that year, and still to this day is Nolan's Insomnia. And it wasn't until I watched the DVD that I found out it was a remake of a Norwegian film only 5 years old. But would I have ever come across that film? Hollywood didn't think so...so they option it for the American-re-do. And the truth is that not just American audiences are apathetic to foreign language films, but many countries all over the world simply don't have access to them either, and will only see or probably ever know the Hollywood remakes. But it sets in motion for the original films, the books they're based on and all that applies, the opportunity for them to be discovered.

It's not your money, except the cost of a ticket, rental or purchase I suppose, and Hollywood is gonna do it anyway. Pick and choose 'em as you please to see them, support them or loathe them. It makes no difference really because it's beyond your control, so why waste time complaining about them? If you're against a remake..and I know I am (Red Dawn), then don't see it, if you think it'll strongly ruin your love and opinion of the original. I'll either just laugh at it, or simply watch it and critique it like any other movie that comes my way.

Sequels have done more damage than remakes imo. But it doesn't mean they should stop being made.

You've made some very good points. Personally, I'm less against remaking foreign films (especially foreign language films which require subtitles) because, as you said, sometimes people just don't have access to these films. And I personally hate subtitles. I find reading the dialogue takes away from my enjoyment of the movie, especially since I don't read all that quickly and often the dialogue shifts before I've finished reading it.

And I agree that making a new movie based on a specific novel isn't necessarily a remake of the original movie. Take Manhunter and Red Dragon for example. My friend George hated Red Dragon because, he said, it was a rip off of Manhunter. I argued that both movies were based on the book, Red Dragon, and that any similarities between the two films was due to the fact that they're both using the same source material. I challenged him (and anybody else for that matter) to show me just one scene from the movie Red Dragon that was also in Manhunter, but NOT in the book. No one has yet to point one out to me. By the way, while in many ways Manhunter was the superior film, I actually like Red Dragon better because it was closer to the original story.

Anyway, as there's very little that can be done regarding remakes by the movie goers there always will be remakes. However, they should be done to introduce great stories to a new generation of audiences who might otherwise be completely ignorant of the originals. They should NOT be made as a simple cash grab to try and profit off of someone else's success. And unfortunately, most of the remakes that have come out lately have been the latter and not the former.

 

[redhawk23]

Also its not as if English language films are never made in other languages. It's not that infrequent.

 

[Thundarr]

Also its not as if English language films are never made in other languages. It's not that infrequent.

I believe Russia did a remake of Schwarzenegger's Commando a number of years ago. I think there was a link to a You Tube video of scenes from both movies being played side by side. I think it was posted on the Commando Remake thread. I'll try and find it.

EDIT:

Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS-KAQwyDoc&feature=related

 

[Destructus86]

I'm all for remakes. My problem isn't with remakes themselves...but the fact that many people who decide to do a remake lack any true vision.

I know a lot of people didn't like King Kong, but I thought it was a great remake. It captured the essence of the era and the emotion needed. It was just an all around great film.

But then there are things like Akira...that Hollywood plans to remake as a live action film...by gutting anything close to asian in it. That's a fool's mistake. Akira isn't the greatest film ever made...but if you remake it and gut the main storyline and the themes of the story...you've already screwed up.

 

[Thundarr]

I'm all for remakes. My problem isn't with remakes themselves...but the fact that many people who decide to do a remake lack any true vision.

I know a lot of people didn't like King Kong, but I thought it was a great remake. It captured the essence of the era and the emotion needed. It was just an all around great film.

But then there are things like Akira...that Hollywood plans to remake as a live action film...by gutting anything close to asian in it. That's a fool's mistake. Akira isn't the greatest film ever made...but if you remake it and gut the main storyline and the themes of the story...you've already screwed up.

Which is why movies like John Carpenter's The Thing and the 1970's version of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers worked so well. They captured the essence of the originals, while still making films which were "their own".

On the other hand, Rob Zombie's Halloween, the 1990's movie Body Snatchers, The Invasion which came out a few years back, and the 2006 remake of Black Christmas, simply took the names and general concept of the originals and threw away everything that made the originals good. Until movie studios/film makers stop doing that, my general reaction to remakes is that they are destined to suck. I might watch them in hopes that I'm wrong, however I will avoid paying money to see them if at all possible.

 

[moviedoors]

I can't really make a blanket statement such as, "I love remakes!" or "I hate remakes!". Like anything else, I have to take them on a case by case basis. Though I will say this: I find people who automatically hate remakes to be far more annoying than the remakes themselves. Especially when they don't pay attention to who's been cast, who's directing, etc. The actual quality of the movie doesn't factor into their opinion act all, the fact the it's a remake means it's going to suck, period.

As for most remakes not being very good, as far as I'm concerned, that's true of damn near everything. 90% of everything ****ing sucks, but the remaining 10% is what makes it worthwhile.

This is exactly my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Thundarr]

This is exactly my thoughts on the matter.

But with remakes, especially if you're remaking a really well made and popular movie, your efforts should almost automatically put it into that top 10%. The problem is many writers and directors get lazy with their story telling, and do nothing to really improve on the original (like Rob Zombie's Halloween for example). Other times, studio executives who have never been to film school, yet for some reason think they know better than those who have, force changes to the original formula down the writers' and directors' throats causing them to turn what they intended to be a tribute to the original film into a steaming pile of s#!t (like with the 2006 remake of Black Christmas).

Again I point to the 1970's remake of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers and John Carpenter's remake of The Thing as prime examples of the way remakes should be made. All of Michael Bay's remakes from Platinum Dunes Productions (Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Nightmare On Elm Street, Friday The 13th, etc) are prime examples of what not to do.

 

[moviedoors]

But with remakes, especially if you're remaking a really well made and popular movie, your efforts should almost automatically put it into that top 10%.

I don't see why remakes are the exception here. All works of art should be aiming for that 10%, and the reality is, they can't all be winners. That's life and I chose not to get pissy about it.

Other times, studio executives who have never been to film school, yet for some reason think they know better than those who have, force changes to the original formula down the writers' and directors' throats causing them to turn what they intended to be a tribute to the original film into a steaming pile of s#!t (like with the 2006 remake of Black Christmas).

And again, that's a problem that plagues ALL forms of storytelling in Hollywood. Original works, adaptations, reimaginings, reboots, prequels. They are all as deserving of protection from studio meddling as remakes. Remakes are not a special case.

I take exception to the "never went to film school comment" too. Film school breeds more studio execs than it does genuine filmmakers. There's gobs of great filmmakers who never went to film school who know plenty well what to do with a movie. Film school is absolutely not a prerequisite for having an opinion on how movies should play.

 

[Thundarr]

I don't see why remakes are the exception here. All works of art should be aiming for that 10%, and the reality is, they can't all be winners. That's life and I chose not to get pissy about it.



And again, that's a problem that plagues ALL forms of storytelling in Hollywood. Original works, adaptations, reimaginings, reboots, prequels. They are all as deserving of protection from studio meddling as remakes. Remakes are not a special case.

I take exception to the "never went to film school comment" too. Film school breeds more studio execs than it does genuine filmmakers. There's gobs of great filmmakers who never went to film school who know plenty well what to do with a movie. Film school is absolutely not a prerequisite for having an opinion on how movies should play.

True, all works of art aim to be in that top 10%, and many of them fail for a multitude of reasons. My point was, if the original was already in the top 10%, then following the same basic formula should put the remake in that top 10% as well. The 1970's remake of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers stuck to the original formula, but with a few minor modifications and, IMHO, made a far scarier movie than the original which is in that top 10%. The later adaptations of Body Snatchers and The Invasion took greater strides away from the original formula, making them inferior to the first remake and even inferior to the original, cementing their positions in the 90% category of crap.

And it's also true that movie studios tend to interfere with all movies, not just the remakes. That's the reason the original Buffy The Vampire Slayer movie sucked so bad while the TV series rocked all kinds of awesome, studio interference. But this is a discussion about remakes not just movies in general, and that is a big reason why so many remakes totally suck.

However I find it hard to believe that studio executives who know anything about film making or story telling would tell the film makers, "I know what type of movie you want to make, but here's what I want to see". I mean, maybe if the film makers were doing something totally stupid and the studio said, "No, people won't go to see that. Do it this way instead." Take the Black Christmas remake for example.

Studio: We want you to add in a bunch of "jump scares" and gory, bloody death scenes.

Director: This isn't that kind of horror movie. We want to build up suspense, turn the creep factor really high, then really frighten them in the end.

Studio: I don't care. I want "jump scares", blood, and guts.

Director: But the original didn't have any blood and guts, and it's considered a horror classic.

Studio: Classic horror sucks. I want blood, guts, and "jump scares".

Director: But that's not the kind of horror movie I wrote.

Studio: Well that's the kind of horror movie you're gonna make, or you're not gonna make one at all.

Director: How often do you want the jump scares to happen?

Studio: Once every five to ten minutes.


Of course I wasn't actually there for the meeting between the director and the studio, but according to the interview he did for the special features on the DVD, that's pretty much how it happened. And it happens with a LOT of movies. What I don't understand is, when it comes to doing remakes of really successful and popular movies (like Black Christmas), why are they so damned insistent on f**king with the original? Just let the writers and directors make a decent remake of the original material (unless the writer/director in question is Rob Zombie, who should not be allowed anywhere near a movie camera unless he's making something truly original from his own twisted imagination).