Remakes: A Discussion

[Homer J. Fong]

Films that honestly NEED to be remade:

Gone with the wind
Casablanca
The Wizard of Oz
Citizen Kane
It's A Wonderful Life
Blade Runner!

... wtf if you thought I was serious.

Thankfully, I didn't, but actually, Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz being beloved books first (and The Wizard of Oz being a beloved book - and part of a series - that had been adapted for film many times before the 1939 classic), I don't see any problem with making new versions of them. They wouldn't really be remakes of those classic films, although, of course, comparisons are inevitable. Even a new take on Blade Runner wouldn't necessarily be a remake of the Ridley Scott film, because it could just be a fresh interpretation of Phillip K. Dick's novel.

Those other titles? Agreed, let's not touch them (yes, Casablanca was based on a play, but even so...).

 

[Infinity9999x]

Personally I dont think this makes a difference. Unless you can make it better, it should not be remade.

I think there's a very clear difference. A remake is taking an existing film and remaking the film. trying to mimic that films dramatic structure. The other example is a new interpretation of a source material. And in doing that, you can get two films that are extremely different. The Charlie/Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory being a perfect example.

That's not a remake. Tim Burton didn't set out to remake the 70's film. He wanted to do his own adaptation of the novel.

Which is also why The Dark Knight is not a remake. That film is not a remake of Batman 89. It is a completely separate interpretation of existing characters.

 

[Laderlappen]

I think there's a very clear difference. A remake is taking an existing film and remaking the film. trying to mimic that films dramatic structure. The other example is a new interpretation of a source material. And in doing that, you can get two films that are extremely different. The Charlie/Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory being a perfect example.

That's not a remake. Tim Burton didn't set out to remake the 70's film. He wanted to do his own adaptation of the novel.

Which is also why The Dark Knight is not a remake. That film is not a remake of Batman 89. It is a completely separate interpretation of existing characters.

Obviously it is not the same thing. There is a difference between remaking a movie and making another version of the same book/story. But I still believe there shouldnt be another version unless you can make it better. In that way I dont think there is a difference if its a remake or new version of the same story.

 

[Doctor Jones]

But sometimes I don't see anything wrong with a remake resulting to be just as great in its own way. That's rare, but there's nothing wrong with it. Normally I would agree. If you can take something and make it better that's fine. But something like King Kong or The Fly is kind of different. Creature from the Black Lagoon is something I'd love to see remade. Now the original is great, but I see potential in a remake. It doesn't need to be better, but there is potential to have a new eye of vision for it.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Thankfully, I didn't, but actually, Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz being beloved books first (and The Wizard of Oz being a beloved book - and part of a series - that had been adapted for film many times before the 1939 classic), I don't see any problem with making new versions of them. They wouldn't really be remakes of those classic films, although, of course, comparisons are inevitable. Even a new take on Blade Runner wouldn't necessarily be a remake of the Ridley Scott film, because it could just be a fresh interpretation of Phillip K. Dick's novel.

Those other titles? Agreed, let's not touch them (yes, Casablanca was based on a play, but even so...).

Who did think they NEEDed to be remade?
I was thinking it might not be such a bad idea to remake them just to see what could happen. There is room to play with the story in Casablanca, instead of just showing Bogie and Bergman driving around in a 'soft focus' montage from their past, you could go into the past relationship a bit more, same with her resistance boyfriend, beef up the character, hell, make him and Rick become friends during the course of the movie, play with the dymanics d a bit differently, see if you can improve the drama.
I get a little tired of seeing these same 'sacred cow' movies listed, that folk always say should not be remade, you never know, someone could come along and make a better movie out of the foundations of those stories.

Same with 'It's a Wonderful Life.', you could go to some interesting places with that concept, make George not so clean cut, because you know what, the character is pretty damn stupid in that movie for wanting to commit suicide, it is quite hard to understand.
You could make a film where you might get to the point of understanding why the guy wanted to commit suicide, he's not so clean cut, and has done some bad things in his life, but has done a lot of good too. But he can't see that, so the angel shows him those things, and gives him a chance at redemption or whatever.
Plenty you could play with there. It could make a better movie.

They don't NEED to be remade, but there is definitely the potential of getting more interesting movies out of those tales, or at the very least, movies of equal quality, just in a slightly different vein.

Citizen Kane, same deal, it could be made into a better movie with a great writer and director. Well, a movie that some people would prefer anyway, just due to a personal pref for differences in the redone story.

 

[marvelman2006]

Remakes are a mixed bag for me. Certain remakes I liked and certain ones I didnt.

liked

Footloose: filled in alot of things the original didnt do a great job of doing and in turn the remake was also fun.

King Kong: Peter jackson did a great job of recapturing the old time new york and the CGI work on kong was great.

Texas Chainsaw: Another remake that took the best parts of the original and improved upon them and added to them.


Disliked

Halloween 1 and 2: All rob did for part 1 was add michael as a young boy in the institute and quicke frankly it was interesting as I thought it would be. The originals worked better with the mysteriousness of michael and being pure evil, no reason needed. Part 2 was just a giant mess from start to finish.

Amazing Spiderman: Im still holding out a small hope for this one but I really get peed when a movie gets remade so quickly after it started, SM 1:2002, SM 2: 2004, SM3: 2007, Remake 2012. Just to soon.

 

[Thundarr]

Remakes are a mixed bag for me. Certain remakes I liked and certain ones I didnt.

liked

Footloose: filled in alot of things the original didnt do a great job of doing and in turn the remake was also fun.

King Kong: Peter jackson did a great job of recapturing the old time new york and the CGI work on kong was great.

Texas Chainsaw: Another remake that took the best parts of the original and improved upon them and added to them.


Disliked

Halloween 1 and 2: All rob did for part 1 was add michael as a young boy in the institute and quicke frankly it was interesting as I thought it would be. The originals worked better with the mysteriousness of michael and being pure evil, no reason needed. Part 2 was just a giant mess from start to finish.

Amazing Spiderman: Im still holding out a small hope for this one but I really get peed when a movie gets remade so quickly after it started, SM 1:2002, SM 2: 2004, SM3: 2007, Remake 2012. Just to soon.

I haven't seen Peter Jackson's King Kong or the Footloose remake yet, so I'll have to take your word for that. I've heard good things about Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes and am actually rather interested in seeing that one. It certainly looks better than Tim Burton's remake of Planet Of The Apes anyway (although that movie was such a steaming pile of dung, making a better film shouldn't be too damn hard).

I don't totally agree with what you wrote about Texas Chainsaw Massacre though. While they did expand on and improve many of the best parts of the original, they also glossed over the most important part of the whole damn story. Leatherface and his whole inbred redneck family are cannibals! Like I said in my opening post, one additional scene of one of Jessica Biel's friends being chopped up and thrown into the stew pot with some potatoes and carrots, and them discussing what a good stew this kid's gonna make, is all that's needed to take this mediocre remake and make it great.

 

[hammerhedd11]

I don't get why that makes Chainsaw a bad remake. Why do they have to be cannibals in the movie? It's a different version of the story.

 

[Lord]

The Wizard of OZ should be remade one day, strange how nobody mentioned Star Wars yet as one of the films that shouldn't be remade

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I am not against remakes in theory, but the problem is that 99% have been so terrible that they might as well just put up a big neon sign saying the filmmakers are creatively bankrupt. We have been burned so many times that my immediate reaction to yet another remake being announced is to just absolutely slam the idea.

In general though, there are some rules to follow to properly do a remake.

1) Don't remake the true classics. You won't be able to improve upon something like Citizen Kane so don't even bother.

2) It has to be old enough that people don't really remember it much anymore. This can vary depending on how well known the work was originally, but I find in general that anything more recent than about 1980 is too soon.

3) It has to be different enough from the original to be worth watching. A straight shot-by-shot remake is pointless since if it is exactly the same as the original, people might as well just watch the original instead.

4) It has to be something that wasn't unique to the politics or life of the time it was made. Remaking stuff like Fail Safe, WarGames, or Red Dawn is ridiculous since the world is completely different now and none of that stuff is topical anymore.

5) This goes for any film really, but get actual talent to make and star in the movie. Nobody wants to see Roland Emmerich's Casablanca starring Channing Tatum and Megan Fox.

 

[Homer J. Fong]

I disagree with the "don't remake a classic because there's no way to improve upon it" thing, but only because improving upon it shouldn't be the point exactly; the point should be to bring a new vision, to rethink the material - not to the point that you depart so much as to lose sight of why you're telling that story, but enough that you're not merely rehashing a film that someone else already made. I don't know that Herzog improved on Murnau's Nosferatu, but he made it his and still stayed true to it. Same goes for Carpenter's The Thing. And while I can't imagine someone creating a brilliant new take on Citizen Kane, if I read tomorrow that, say, David Cronenberg is going ahead with one, well, I'd change my tune and be excited for that.

 

[tecnowraith]

Well let's look at the remakes that green-lit to be done:
Wizard of Oz is being done by two different studios, since it is open content
Scanners not sure if it's still in the works
Total Recall being filmed now
Highlander by Lionsgate I think
POLICE ACADEMY not sure if it's still in the works
Red Dawn, i have seen photos of the cast
Robocop that has bee talked about in it's own thread
Godzilla is another
The Lone Ranger Johnny Depp as Tonto and the supernatural element
Evil Dead
Judge Dredd
The Crow
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

these are the ones I know that are in the works or had some news in the past 2 years that is current.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

I haven't seen Peter Jackson's King Kong or the Footloose remake yet, so I'll have to take your word for that. I've heard good things about Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes and am actually rather interested in seeing that one. It certainly looks better than Tim Burton's remake of [I ]Planet Of The Apes[/i] anyway (although that movie was such a steaming pile of dung, making a better film shouldn't be too damn hard).

I don't think Burton's film was as bad as all that. It's just really average, but it does have an absolutely superb villan in the shape of Tim Roth's General Theed, I mean, I'd say he was one of the all time greatest scary villans, part of the reason is the performance, but the utterly convincing make-up helps in that regard too, as he has that perfect combination of a wild animal with higher functioning intelligence.
HBC is also pretty damn good as the sympathetic female character, although her make-up is not as convincing, I think that was a harder job though, as they wanted to have the evolved ape look distinctly female with softened, even attractive, features, rather than looking much like the males, so it does not look as effectively real.

I have it on dvd, but only cause I got it for free with some tokens I saved from other movies i bought(i robot and day after tomorrow), and I never put it on, but if it is on tv I will usually take a wee look at it for Roth's performance.

I'm looking forward to seeing the latest take on the material as well, but no matter how good that CG Ceasar is, he will never be as utterly convincing as Roth's make-up and performance.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Obviously it is not the same thing. There is a difference between remaking a movie and making another version of the same book/story. But I still believe there shouldnt be another version unless you can make it better. In that way I dont think there is a difference if its a remake or new version of the same story.

I agree more or less. Though, like Doc says, I think sometimes the good remakes aren't necessarily better, but just done in a different way. The two versions of The Fly for example. Both are good movies, and I don't know if I'd call one better per say, because they're very different.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I think that the original Fly is terrible so I'll have to disagree with you on that one.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

I think that the original Fly is terrible so I'll have to disagree with you on that one.

Aye, I have not seen it since I was a teenager, I recall I didn't think much of it, but the famous 'help me...' scene lived up to the hype(well, my older bro telling me about it), that is one of the scariest moments I have ever seen on film, it's pretty amazing.

 

[Evil Twin]

I don't have any hard and fast rules for remakes other than it helps when talented people want to remake a movie. The list of classics (or at least well regarded films) that have been "remade" with successful results would at the least include:

Nosferatu
Dracula
Frankenstein
The Front Page
Hamlet
Richard III
Romeo and Juliet
Hound of the Baskervilles
The Seven Samurai
Yojimbo
The Hidden Fortress
The Thing from Another World
True Grit
Infernal Affairs

Not to mention various iterations of Robin Hood, Batman, Superman, Sherlock Holmes in general, etc. The line between remake and reboot is often a very thin one. And there are certainly numerous ways to approach a set of historical circumstances, A Night to Remember and Titanic being obviously similar in many ways.

There's definitely been a number of cash grabs over the years. OTOH, when talented people take on material, there's no reason to assume that the talent won't produce something worthwhile.

 

[Firm18]

Before Halloween (the actual holiday) I decided to watch some classic horror movies because I never saw them. Loved them, very much. Now, I've just watched the Halloween remake by Rob Zombie.

I agree, it was basically everything from the original + the childhood of Michael. Did I like it? Some of it. I liked the idea of Michael constantly wearing the mask. I loved the mood, it was dark. I loved how the movie looked aswell, it was all grainy.

What sucked is when Michael actually gets his William Shatner mask the halloween theme plays, this would've been so much better if it was the first time we hear it. Instead we were served with it when Michael was running out of school (wth?).

Overall, the original >>>>>>

 

[Thundarr]

I don't think Burton's film was as bad as all that. It's just really average, but it does have an absolutely superb villan in the shape of Tim Roth's General Theed, I mean, I'd say he was one of the all time greatest scary villans, part of the reason is the performance, but the utterly convincing make-up helps in that regard too, as he has that perfect combination of a wild animal with higher functioning intelligence.
HBC is also pretty damn good as the sympathetic female character, although her make-up is not as convincing, I think that was a harder job though, as they wanted to have the evolved ape look distinctly female with softened, even attractive, features, rather than looking much like the males, so it does not look as effectively real.

I have it on dvd, but only cause I got it for free with some tokens I saved from other movies i bought(i robot and day after tomorrow), and I never put it on, but if it is on tv I will usually take a wee look at it for Roth's performance.

I'm looking forward to seeing the latest take on the material as well, but no matter how good that CG Ceasar is, he will never be as utterly convincing as Roth's make-up and performance.

Oh, I have no problems with the make up and effects of that movie. They were awesome, I agree. However I require more for me to actually like a movie. While the actors who played the apes all did an adequate (in some cases even a very good) job in their roles, I found Mark Wahlberg's performance and those of most of the other humans lacking. I also didn't like the writing. If it had a better script and better human stars, I would have enjoyed it much more.

 

[Thundarr]

I don't get why that makes Chainsaw a bad remake. Why do they have to be cannibals in the movie? It's a different version of the story.

Well for one thing, Leatherface was based on real life serial killer Ed Gein (who was, guess what, a cannibal). It is also a very important part of the story, much more important than Leatherface killing everyone with a chainsaw. In the original, Leatherface only killed the guy in the wheelchair with the chainsaw. The first person he killed was with a hammer, the second was with a meat hook. But the cannibalism is the whole motivation for the killings in the first place.

Eliminating the cannibalism aspect of the story is like deciding that Bruce Wayne's parents were never murdered, but that he decided to become Batman simply because he was bored. Or that Peter Parker never had the opportunity to stop Uncle Ben's killer earlier that night. Or that Jason Voorhees was just a normal kid and not a mentally challenged mongoloid. Or that Freddy Krueger was a creepy pedo and the parents decided to burn him alive instead of calling the cops and letting The System do its job.

My point is there are certain things that shouldn't be changed when doing a remake. If you change them, then your remake is gonna suck. But if you maintain the core elements, and simply change a few things here and there to "improve" or "update" in your version, then odds are you'll have one of the better (if not great) remakes on your hands.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I appreciate the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake for being its own thing and not copying the original. The movie isn't very good, but I can respect it for going out of its way for saying something different.

 

[Thundarr]

Before Halloween (the actual holiday) I decided to watch some classic horror movies because I never saw them. Loved them, very much. Now, I've just watched the Halloween remake by Rob Zombie.

I agree, it was basically everything from the original + the childhood of Michael. Did I like it? Some of it. I liked the idea of Michael constantly wearing the mask. I loved the mood, it was dark. I loved how the movie looked aswell, it was all grainy.

What sucked is when Michael actually gets his William Shatner mask the halloween theme plays, this would've been so much better if it was the first time we hear it. Instead we were served with it when Michael was running out of school (wth?).

Overall, the original >>>>>>

Actually, the only thing from the original that Rob Zombie got right was the deaths of Linda and her boyfriend Bob. All the other deaths were pretty much added in as "filler".

All the stuff with Michael's childhood was crap. His insisting on always wearing a mask while he was a child was useless fluff. Piling on the serial killer cliches, showing us "why" Michael is the way he is, is completely missing the point of the whole damn story. There is no "why", he just "is". That's what made him so damn scary in the original.

This movie is just a bunch of Rob Zombie's "Shock Horror" BS, starring his wife and his friends, and riding on the coat tails of a true Master Of Horror, John Carpenter.

 

[Thundarr]

I appreciate the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake for being its own thing and not copying the original. The movie isn't very good, but I can respect it for going out of its way for saying something different.

If someone were to do a fan edit of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, and splice in one of the cannibalism scenes from the prequel (maybe take the scene where they're cooking up the real Sheriff Hoyt) and splice it in where Jessica Biel wakes up after getting drugged, or in between her being drugged and her waking up, then the movie would be far more enjoyable.

Who wants to see a movie about Hannibal "The Vegan" Lectar? Answer: No One.

 

[henzINNIT]

I'm generally against remakes to be honest, but with everything there are exceptions.

The problem is that Hollywood does remakes for the $$$, so obviously they are more often going to pick films that were successful already. There is generally no creative reason to re-do a successful movie. Remakes should be a new attempt to make something great out of a previously botched concept, not a way to capitalize on something popular.

I wouldn't mind seeing the Star Wars prequels remade one day because Lucas did horribly. I think something modern and great could be made based on Tarkosvsky's "Stalker".

The most tragically pointless remake I've ever seen is Let Me In. A good film, achieving absolutely NOTHING that wasn't done as well or better in the first film. It followed quickly after the original as well. I guess Hollywood assumed people were too stupid and/or ignorant to watch a film with subtitles.

Jackson's King Kong was almost a good film, but man did he drag eeeeevvvvverrrrything out.

 

[Fanticon]

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.