Remakes

Droflet

Droflet

I don't teach chickens how to dance.
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
3,857
Location
Australia
I was just thinking (it's an annual event for me) that I could not think of one remake that was the equal or better of the original. Not sequels or prequels but remakes. This could be a very short-lived post unless some of my fellow Chrononauts can think of a movie remake that I've missed. The most recent example of an extremely bad remake would be The Day the Earth Stood Still. Truly :poop: So, thoughts?
 
Well... if you compare Daniel Craig's Casino Royale with the train crash of a film inflicted upon the splendid David Niven, the former is clearly better. That said, the older film was meant to be a comedy whereas Craig's was not.

Not a fan of remakes either. But those, prequels, sequels, reboots are all the rage in film now.
 
Hmm, interesting take, Thad. And, yes, sadly, you're right about the current trends. Shrugs and walks away mumbling.
 
Are films such as the more recent version of Casino Royale remakes as such? Surely a strict definition of a cinematic remake would be taking an original film and producing a newer version of it rather than making another film adaptation of an original work from another medium.


Obviously, things are not always clear cut. For example, Hitchcock's Psycho is based on Bloch's novel, but Gus Van Sant's Psycho is meant to be a remake (almost a refilming) of the first film, not a new adaptation of the novel. In the case of The Day the Earth Stood Still, I think we are dealing with a remake as, based on what Wikipedia states about the original short story, Farewell to the Master, both films have (different) immediate-danger-to-the-world plot elements, which are absent from the book.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, another interesting take. I expected little feedback on my post but the replies so far make me think. Damn you people, haven't I mentioned I don't like doing that. :sick:
 
I much preferred the Dawn of the Dead remake to the original and its heavy handed "consumerism, look, look consumerism" hectoring.
 
Ive grown to like the 2002 Guy Pierce remake of the Time Machine. It's a good film.(y)
 
Speaking of remakes, I hear that Will Smith is going to star in a 2016 remake of the Clint Eastwood movie Dirty Harry.

Thoughts?
 
I suppose it would depend on the question Ursa brought up. If we are taking 'remake' to mean a new take on an old film, then I cannot think of one either. If you simply mean a newer adaptation of an older story, then the first one that comes to mind is I Am Legend. I found it significantly more enjoyable than The Omega Man despite the fact that they departed strongly from the original story.
 
Hmm, Phyrebrat, may, I say may, have a winner there. I'll cogitate.

The other comments, though interesting, bring this thread an obvious conclusion. It's all subjective. Personally, I don't think any of the movies mentioned meet the criteria, except, possibly for the above. Maybe that's just me.

Now don't get me wrong, I like Will Smith. But Dirty Harry? I must reiterate :ROFLMAO:. However, if they're remaking it as a comedy?
 
Not a fan of remakes but I think as you get older, you start to see them forming a pattern for each new generation. Where I think they can have particular relevance is when they have evolved to reflect the dangers or topics of the world as it is now rather than it was then.

I think the problem of 'remakes' has been exacerbated by the number of reboots (I'm thinking Spiderman as a example...it's not that long ago that we had the Toby McGuire versions and now we have a reboot in less than a generation).

As a consumer, I tend not to go to cinematic releases of reboots or remakes and I tend not to buy them on DVD or Blu-Ray. They would have to be very special to get me to part with any cash and, in my opinion, once you take away the crash, bang, wallop, look-at-the-pretty effects aspects, there's not a lot going for many movies coming out of Hollywood right now. I look more and more to foreign shores for my viewing.

My personal favourite remake is Werner Herzog's take on Nosferatu. Well worth a watch.
 
I can't see the point of so many of the remakes these days. To me, the only reason to remake a film is to use better technology and special effects than what were available to the original filmmakers. There is no reason on earth to remake Footloose, for example. (And I'm coming from a point of having liked the original, so that doesn't mean "it was a dreadful movie so why do it again" as some people would mean by that.) There aren't any special effects in Footloose, so the only thing to change is to modernize the setting, which is just stupid. A remake should be something that adds a dimension that wasn't possible the first time. SF movies are far better suited to the remake trend, for that purpose.
 
Keanu Reeves or Michael Rennie. Special effects aren't worth going through that remake again. :confused:
 
John Carpenter's The Thing is, I think, a better version than Howard Hawks' The Thing from another World, enjoyable though the original is.
 
Sadly, oh adorably cuddly one, soo true. A big budget movie, with known actors and over the top special effects will NEVER make up for a well written script. For further explanation see Guardians of the Galaxy.
 
Ursa major said:
The whole point, the sole point, is the money; so as long as people are prepared, in large numbers, to pay to watch remakes, remakes will be made.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. As I tell my kids repeatedly, when the question is why, the answer is generally money. (And its corollary, when the question is why not, the answer is generally religion.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
B What Are Your Thoughts On Disney Doing Live Action Remakes of Its Animated Films ? General Film Discussion 111
B What Do You Think of Reboots and Remakes ? General Film Discussion 96
Vladd67 US/UK remakes General TV Discussion 10
13jay Disney remakes Anime and Animation 3

Similar threads


Back
Top