Which would you rather watch when Hollywood brings back famous action franchises?

[SpandexFan]

It seems like now, more than ever, Hollywood is intent on bringing new life to older money making action franchises. They do this in three ways:

1) They can bring back the old star, no matter what the age. It's usually a stretch to imagine that same older actor in the role that made them famous but usually Hollywood banks on the audience's familiarity and love of the original role.

Some examples:

2) Or Hollywood can go the other direction, and completely remake the franchise with new actors. Most of the time, this is done out of necessity. The actors may be far too old or deceased, but no one said this franchise had to be remade.

Some examples:

3) And of course the third option is just leave it be. Don't do anything. Let us remember the franchise and/or the famous actors for what once was. Don't tarnish our memories.

Which do you prefer?

 

[odiin]

Number one.

Most of these movies have actually turned out to be decent to good.

Die Hard 4? My least favourite entry in the series, but still pretty decent.
Terminator 3? Not too hot, but if you forget about the cheesy moments forced into it, it's still fairly decent
Rocky 6? Easily one of the best entries in the series
Rambo 4? Brought back the ultra-violent action films of the 80s.
Indiana Jones 4? Hasn't come out yet, but looks to be pretty damn good itself

With Gerard Butler gone from the Escape From New York Remake, I hope they scrap the idea and replace it with a sequel. If Stallone can come back and do Rocky and Rambo. Kurt Russel can sure as hell come back and be Snake again.

 

[turtlefocker]

It seems like now, more than ever, Hollywood is intent on bringing new life to older money making action franchises. They do this in two ways:

1) They can bring back the old star, no matter what the age. It's usually a stretch to imagine that same older actor in the role that made them famous but usually Hollywood banks on the audience's familiarity and love of the original role.

Some examples:

2) Or Hollywood can go the other direction, and completely remake the franchise with new actors. Most of the time, this is done out of necessity. The actors may be far too old or deceased, but no one said this franchise had to be remade.

Some examples:

And of course the third option is just leave it be. Don't do anything. Let us remember the franchise and/or the famous actors for what once was. Don't tarnish our memories.

Which do you prefer?

impawards.com was remade a lot eh?

 

[SpandexFan]

impawards.com was remade a lot eh?

Not showing up on your browser? I'll use some other links.

 

[turtlefocker]

Not showing up on your browser?

just a black box that says "impawards.com? in green... I wonder if anyone else is having trouble.

Anywho I chose option 3.

 

[DACrowe]

None of the above? When Rambo is considered one of the highlights, that's a problem. Yay bring back '80s Reagan foreign policy.

 

[turtlefocker]

I loved Rambo and ma really looking forward to Indy 4, although I still think option three is the best choice.

 

[Symbiote666]

Depends on the franchise I say.

 

[odiin]

I should also point out that it can vary from series to series: As I said earlier, I'd like to see an Escape 3 with Kurt Russel, but on the other hand, something like Robocop I would like to see more of a re-imagining.

 

[Prison Mike]

Option 3. Whatever happened to originality? Yes those films were great during that time, but that doesn't mean you have to keep bringing it back.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

Choice 3. This goes to show that Hollywood is afraid of taking risks,and some of thos re-makes have not been that good.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Depends on the franchise. Some franchises like Bond, Superman and Star Trek have a history of reinvention for a new era, some, like Terminator became popular because of a certain star who carried the films.

I think, though, if a concept is strong enough on it's own you can continue it without the star. I've always felt Blade Runner could've been serialized, but it never happened. I saw that movie as a type of film whose concept exceeded the star power and acting ability of it's cast. Technically they did "remake" or "continue" it with Ghost in the Shell, which is said to be tributing the film in many regards. So I guess that's my vague answer to the question.

 

[KenK]

You know what, I honestly don't believe the ratio of original films to remakes isn't all that disproportionate. I'm quite frankly tired of people b****ing. Plenty of independent films are being made that are original enough, and a lot of them turn out pretty good. I think even major studios still put out plenty of non-sequel/non-source material films. People need to stop acting like it's a new fad, too.

If a movie's good, i don't give a rat's ass if it's a remake, a sequel, based on a book, etc.

 

[Spider-Vader]

I say original cast.
Die Hard 4- I liked it about as much as much as Vengeance. It was good.
Terminator 3- I'm a fan of this one. Though it's my least favorite because it felt rushed.
Indiana Jones 4- It looks great.

If you have an iconic actor with the film ala the films I mentioned the original cast is best, if not (BM, SM, ST) it's okay to re-cast.

 

[odiin]

You know what, I honestly don't believe the ratio of original films to remakes isn't all that disproportionate. I'm quite frankly tired of people b****ing. Plenty of independent films are being made that are original enough, and a lot of them turn out pretty good. I think even major studios still put out plenty of non-sequel/non-source material films. People need to stop acting like it's a new fad, too.

If a movie's good, i don't give a rat's ass if it's a remake, a sequel, based on a book, etc.

Thank you for having the courage to stand up and say what needed to be said.

*clap* *clap* *clap*

 

[Spider-Vader]

The only original big studio movies are either gay comedies or serious films.

 

[co2]

Depends on the franchise. If it is feasible to bring back the original cast, that's the preferred way to go...if not, recasting may be in order. I don't mind remakes, just not for franchise films.

 

[X-Maniac]

Personally, I hate remakes. Avengers, Charlie's Angels, Starsky and Hutch, etc, - they are almost always inferior. Except when the original was so long ago that it needs updating (King Kong). But if not done right, even remakes of these old classics can flop (Godzilla) or get mixed receptions (Superman Returns, which didn't reinvent itself enough).

Bond's Casino Royale is not really a remake, it's just a modern reinvention of the character in what is an ongoing franchise.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

There's all sorts of "it depends" at play here, as we're lumping together different situations.

In a situation where the actor and the character are so conjoined in the public consciousness (and most importantly, mine t: ), I don't see myself ever being in favor of a remake/recasting. This includes characters like Rambo, Rocky, Indiana Jones, Ash, John McClane, and yes, Snake Plissken (screw that remake, seriously).

In other situations, the character is larger than the actor himself and is able to exist in and of itself - Batman, Superman, James Bond, Robocop - none of these characters are tied inseparably to one actor. Same goes for horror icons like Jason, Michael, and Leatherface. However, Freddy Krueger is one that I put in the previous column, as I feel that Freddy is inseparable from Robert Englund and cannot possibly imagine anyone else in the role, because it almost isn't a role - it's like a part of Englund that is unique to him as an actor only, and that anyone else would just come off as a pale imitation.

So in short, it's hard for me to give a generality. It all depends on the situation. Some actors just are the character, and cannot be replaced. Just think of someone other than Hugh Laurie playing House. He could sound like him, act like him, hobble around like him, be named Gregory House, but he just wouldn't be House.