Movie Remakes

[Moral Orel]

Should anyone do them ever? If so, how? Shot for shot remakes, or complete "reimaginings" or somewhere in-between?

All anyone wants to remake are movies that were already great. How about remaking movies that tanked because of bad acting, poor production values, or ill-conceived plot points?

I recently watched the Death Note live action adaptation of the anime and was disgusted. They took a smart, cat and mouse detective thriller, and turned it into just another teen horror movie. But I don't hate all remakes. The Planet of the Apes are great. I even liked Willy Wonka. Ocean's 11 and The Bourne Identity were remakes (though I didn't find that out till years after their release). Is it okay to remake something old enough that a whole generation has never heard of the original?

Thoughts?

 

[alsughasoughaiuyfygh]

.

 

[tulc]

Are you talking about the recent netflix Death Note remake or the live action movie from 2006? Because I really liked the 2006 one. I haven't seen the American version but no one I've read reviewing it liked it.
tulc(loved the anime one, big fan of Ryuk!)

 

[~Anastasia~]

Sometimes I've seen movies that seem they could be great (usually the story), but it falls terribly flat - usually because of poor acting and/or directing. I understand it could seem a risk, but some of them seem they'd be worth it, with competent people involved.

What have they got to lose? There's only a small percentage of new movies worth watching.

 

[jayem]

The studios will remake anything that they think will be profitable. Did we really need another movie about the Titanic? Like, we all know how it ends. Two were made in the 50's--one American (also titled "Titanic.) And one British ("A Night To Remember.") I've seen them both. I thought the British one was the best, and I think was the most historically accurate. But it was a smart move to do the story again with modern special effects and characters geared to younger movie-goers. Personally, I didn't like it as much as the older one. I thought Leo DiCaprio was too young for the role. And from what I've read about ship travel back then, there is virtually no way a 3rd Class passenger would have such contact with a passenger in 1st Class. It wasn't believable at all. But it was an enormous, blockbuster hit. So money can be made on remakes if you tailor it to a particular audience.

I suppose that's the last word on Titanic movies. Unless some filmmaker surprises everyone with a movie where the ship doesn't sink.

 

[Moral Orel]

If bad movies failed once already, how successful do you think a remake would be in spite of better special effects and everything?

Well, think about the remakes that completely overhauled the original source material. If they can turn gold into garbage with unlimited changes, why can't they turn garbage into gold?

Based on the fact that a frighteningly large percentage of upcoming movies are remakes/reboots/sequels/prequels/whatever of classics, I don't think Hollywood wants to take risks anymore and just want to stick to material they know has proven successful before in order to make an easy buck. I mean, they made the fricken Emoji Movie by taking a plot concept that proved very popular these past few years (Wreck-It Ralph, Inside Out, Lego Movie) and using iPhone graphics to represent their characters and shameless product placement for their environments. It got horrible reviews but it still made at least 320% of its budget back. In the end, it was worth it for the company that made it.

Too many Americans do enjoy their garbage. But I don't think the big companies give enough credit to people trying to be creative. From time to time something truly original comes out. When has something original and creative come out, but it tanked because of the concept, and not just something like bad acting.

And I agree, they completely butchered Death Note. It felt more like a fan fiction than an actual adaptation. It would have made a better live action TV show than a movie since there was so much material that made the story so captivating.

Inorite? I would have been okay with it if they hadn't tried to stick to the story at all. Steal the concept, and use all new characters, and I would have been a lot more forgiving than turning ice-cold light into a girly goodie-two-shoes. I loved Willem DaFoe's voice for Ryuk, but they ruined his character too.

 

[Moral Orel]

Are you talking about the recent netflix Death Note remake or the live action movie from 2006? Because I really liked the 2006 one. I haven't seen the American version but no one I've read reviewing it liked it.
tulc(loved the anime one, big fan of Ryuk!)

I never watched the Japanese live action adaptations. I doubt they strayed from the source material much though. Here in 'Murica, though, Light is a good guy, Ryuk is a bad guy, and Light's girlfriend Mia (not Miso) is the one with the God complex. Make L really emotional and give him a gun too, because, why not?

If you have Netflix, make sure to give it a thumbs down so they don't get the money for a sequel. But you don't need to watch it if you liked the anime. In fact, I recommend you don't.

 

[keith99]

Eventually films that had some substance to start with are worth a remake. Especially if the technical advances show some advantages.

The Last of the Mohicans is a good example. But in general I find remakes to fall well short of the earlier film.

 

[Moral Orel]

The studios will remake anything that they think will be profitable. Did we really need another movie about the Titanic? Like, we all know how it ends. Two were made in the 50's--one American (also titled "Titanic.) And one British ("A Night To Remember.") I've seen them both. I thought the British one was the best, and I think was the most historically accurate. But it was a smart move to do the story again with modern special effects and characters geared to younger movie-goers. Personally, I didn't like it as much as the older one. I thought Leo DiCaprio was too young for the role. And from what I've read about ship travel back then, there is virtually no way a 3rd Class passenger would have such contact with a passenger in 1st Class. It wasn't believable at all. But it was an enormous, blockbuster hit. So money can be made on remakes if you tailor it to a particular audience.

I suppose that's the last word on Titanic movies. Unless some filmmaker surprises everyone with a movie where the ship doesn't sink.

Was Titanic tailored to a particular audience, though? Doesn't everyone enjoy seeing young love, and stuffy rich people being taught how to enjoy life like poor folk do? Seemed pretty cliched to me. Cliched isn't always bad though. I enjoy the occasional move that has nothing more going for it than stuff blowing up. And if they found some actors with some charisma, they could do the John McLane character to death in a lot of different settings.

Plus, there was a big gap in time between those movies and the Leo version. That is usually enough to keep people from saying, "They ruined it!". They're doing a Flatliners remake (calling it a sequel though). Isn't it too soon? Aren't there going to be a ton of movie goers who saw the first one and are going to be disappointed with what will undoubtedly be a subpar cast compared to Kiefer Sutherland, Julia Roberts and Kevin Bacon? (Kiefer's in it by the way).

 

[Moral Orel]

Eventually films that had some substance to start with are worth a remake. Especially if the technical advances show some advantages.

The Last of the Mohicans is a good example. But in general I find remakes to fall well short of the earlier film.

Last of the Mohicans has been remade a lot. But it was also based on a famous book. I know a lot of movies are based on books, but not often are they based on books anyone's ever heard of.

I'd like to see A Clockwork Orange remade, but more akin to the original source material (the book): less silly, and you know, without the last chapter cut from the film.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

All movies should be judged on their own merits. They may be based on the same source material, an historical event or book say, but they aren't then 'remakes'. I don't think the Titanic is a remake of the ones in the fifties, anymore than Dunkirk is of the old British film. They may have influenced the later ones, but they just share a theme. If a new Last of the Mohicans or Clockwork Orange is made, they are adaptations of the same story, not remakes in my book.

A remake is when the same script is redone, like the Beauty and the Beast movie. This I think silly, for usually more is lost thereby than gained, and the only reason to do so would be to bank on its previous success.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Should anyone do them ever? If so, how? Shot for shot remakes, or complete "reimaginings" or somewhere in-between?

All anyone wants to remake are movies that were already great. How about remaking movies that tanked because of bad acting, poor production values, or ill-conceived plot points?

I recently watched the Death Note live action adaptation of the anime and was disgusted. They took a smart, cat and mouse detective thriller, and turned it into just another teen horror movie. But I don't hate all remakes. The Planet of the Apes are great. I even liked Willy Wonka. Ocean's 11 and The Bourne Identity were remakes (though I didn't find that out till years after their release). Is it okay to remake something old enough that a whole generation has never heard of the original?

Thoughts?

Shot for shot remakes, if they exist, should be banned.

If there's enough reverence for the source material, whatever that is, a remake can be really good. I liked the Coen brothers True Grit...and Brahm Stokers Dracula. Stories have been told, retold, reworked, added too, subtracted from...long before movies were made, so why not?

I do see problems when it becomes a "what if experiment" in cultural politics, like the recent Ghostbusters movie. What if they were all women?....does not equal a solid idea for a remake. Other than such farces, I see no problem with it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Who was in the original The Bourne Identity?

 

[jayem]

Was Titanic tailored to a particular audience, though?

Sure it was. It was a chick flick with special effects.

 

[Moral Orel]

All movies should be judged on their own merits. They may be based on the same source material, an historical event or book say, but they aren't then 'remakes'. I don't think the Titanic is a remake of the ones in the fifties, anymore than Dunkirk is of the old British film. They may have influenced the later ones, but they just share a theme. If a new Last of the Mohicans or Clockwork Orange is made, they are adaptations of the same story, not remakes in my book.

A remake is when the same script is redone, like the Beauty and the Beast movie. This I think silly, for usually more is lost thereby than gained, and the only reason to do so would be to bank on its previous success.

I agree every movie should be judged on it's own merits. I don't think they should be judged on how closely they stick to the original. But even if I see a movie that hasn't been done before, there are still times when I would say things like, "This could have been better if they had done that" and such. When a movie has already been done before, I already have other ideas of how a character can be handled, or how a plot can develop, and the choice the new movie makes is going to be judged based on what the other movie did.

 

[bhsmte]

Should anyone do them ever? If so, how? Shot for shot remakes, or complete "reimaginings" or somewhere in-between?

All anyone wants to remake are movies that were already great. How about remaking movies that tanked because of bad acting, poor production values, or ill-conceived plot points?

I recently watched the Death Note live action adaptation of the anime and was disgusted. They took a smart, cat and mouse detective thriller, and turned it into just another teen horror movie. But I don't hate all remakes. The Planet of the Apes are great. I even liked Willy Wonka. Ocean's 11 and The Bourne Identity were remakes (though I didn't find that out till years after their release). Is it okay to remake something old enough that a whole generation has never heard of the original?

Thoughts?

Movies are made for one main reason, to make money. Trying to capitalize on previous movies that were popular to certain sects of the population, likely increases the chances, at least a certain portion of the population will be curious about how the remake, compares to the original.

No one, is going to remake a past film that was not popular, because it increases the risk the remake, will not do well.

 

[Moral Orel]

Shot for shot remakes, if they exist, should be banned.

I've watched a few movies that are remakes from foreign sources. I mentioned Death Note in the OP, which was adapted from an anime. Oldboy was an adaptation of a Korean film. I don't see a problem with being basically a shot for shot remake if you're just creating a movie for another culture. Changing the setting and language is a big change, you don't need to alter endings and characters on top of that. You can, but it better be good. Spike Lee wussed out on the ending of Oldboy, by the way, even though he did a good job with the majority of the film.

If there's enough reverence for the source material, whatever that is, a remake can be really good. I liked the Coen brothers True Grit...and Brahm Stokers Dracula. Stories have been told, retold, reworked, added too, subtracted from...long before movies were made, so why not?

I usually love the Coen brothers. They've got a good example of a reimagining too. They redid Fargo as a TV series, and the first season was great. They kept the setting, and the themes, but all different characters. If you're going to stray from already beloved characters, I think you should stray a lot and make new ones.

Sometimes I think of movie remakes like song covers. You can get an all new band, and an all new style, but you probably shouldn't be cutting lyrics and writing new ones.

I do see problems when it becomes a "what if experiment" in cultural politics, like the recent Ghostbusters movie. What if they were all women?....does not equal a solid idea for a remake. Other than such farces, I see no problem with it.

I had so many more problems with the Ghostbusters movie than them using all women. No, I didn't watch it, but the problems I predicted just from watching the previews were confirmed by reviews, so I still feel justified in hating on it too.

Who was in the original The Bourne Identity?

Richard Chamberlain (1988).

 

[Moral Orel]

Sure it was. It was a chick flick with special effects.

Yeah, but those special effects essentially made it a disaster movie too which appeals to just about the broadest audience you can get.

 

[Moral Orel]

Movies are made for one main reason, to make money. Trying to capitalize on previous movies that were popular to certain sects of the population, likely increases the chances, at least a certain portion of the population will be curious about how the remake, compares to the original.

No one, is going to remake a past film that was not popular, because it increases the risk the remake, will not do well.

I get that, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. If they redid Battlefield Earth, and made it an amazing space epic, do you think it would tank like the original did because of negative name recognition even if enough critics got advanced copies and gave it rave reviews?

It honestly doesn't feel all that risky to me. And if these directors and producers that want to hack movies to bits think they can improve on something, that would be a better place to start than a classic.

Battlefield Earth is probably a bad example. That would need a huge special effects budget making it riskier, but that was the worst movie in recent years I could think of.

 

[bhsmte]

I get that, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. If they redid Battlefield Earth, and made it an amazing space epic, do you think it would tank like the original did because of negative name recognition even if enough critics got advanced copies and gave it rave reviews?

It honestly doesn't feel all that risky to me. And if these directors and producers that want to hack movies to bits think they can improve on something, that would be a better place to start than a classic.

Battlefield Earth is probably a bad example. That would need a huge special effects budget making it riskier, but that was the worst movie in recent years I could think of.

Anything can be done and any type of movie can be made.

The trick is selling the idea, to the folks that are going to take the risk and fund the project.