Movie Remakes

[essentialsaltes]

I'm usually skeptical (well, heck I'm always skeptical).

A remake is usually tied to a lack of imagination. And, because studios only want successful films, they will largely choose successful films to remake. This makes it hard for the new one to be better than the old one, since the old one was probably pretty good.

Take the new female Ghostbusters. I liked it. It was a good film. But it was not spectacular. IMHO it alone in some parallel universe would not have spawned the cultural phenomenon that is 'the Ghostbusters'.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

And just imagine if someone pulled it off once and the movie succeeded. Production companies would start doing it all the time just to copy a "winning formula". So what's a crappy movie that doesn't require a huge budget? I'm having a hard time thinking of crap movies.

 

[jayem]

And just imagine if someone pulled it off once and the movie succeeded. Production companies would start doing it all the time just to copy a "winning formula". So what's a crappy movie that doesn't require a huge budget? I'm having a hard time thinking of crap movies.

Well, there's Showgirls (which I admit to seeing,) and Gigli (which I didn't.) The issue with crap movies is that the scripts are usually crappy. I think it'd be very tough for a remake to be great when you start with crap. It's the silk purse-out-of-a-sow's ear problem.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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?

I've enjoyed a couple remakes/reboots, but generally I'm quite cynical about them at this point. When I first heard they were doing a reboot of Duck Tales (one of my absolute favorite childhood cartoons) it seemed like another nostalgia based cash grab, however from what I can tell it was done well and done right.

In other cases things have been not so fantastic. the live action Michael Bay Transformers movies being an example of what I think is generally a terrible adaptation. The 1986 animated film is still the best Transformers film made, and even as an adult it's still one of my favorite movies of all time.

On the other hand, I thought the 21 Jump Street movies (or at least the first one) was honestly good, I never saw the original series but the movie was quite funny.

I'm okay with remakes/reboots as long as they can be done well, the problem is that frequently they aren't done well, and they are simply nostalgia based cash grabs. Consider: the live action Chipmunks movies, Jem and the Holograms, etc.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

Good or bad I will see any remake of "Last of the Mohicans", or any Tarzan, or James Bond movie.

The remake of "True Grit" was terrible.

 

[Goonie]

I'm usually skeptical (well, heck I'm always skeptical).

A remake is usually tied to a lack of imagination. And, because studios only want successful films, they will largely choose successful films to remake. This makes it hard for the new one to be better than the old one, since the old one was probably pretty good.

Take the new female Ghostbusters. I liked it. It was a good film. But it was not spectacular. IMHO it alone in some parallel universe would not have spawned the cultural phenomenon that is 'the Ghostbusters'.

I enjoyed the most recent ghostbusters. Though in rewatching the original I realised just how much it had aged, and In modern lights I Found Bill Murrays character decidedly off putting. A college lecturer/professor who letches on his students is not exactly a sympathetic character.

 

[Goonie]

Reminds me. Anybody else wondering why no ones done a Gremlins 3 yet?

 

[keith99]

Good or bad I will see any remake of "Last of the Mohicans", or any Tarzan, or James Bond movie.

The remake of "True Grit" was terrible.

The more a film relies on the character of some of the actors the more likely a remake will be terrible.

True Grit could be a defining example.

 

[Moral Orel]

Reminds me. Anybody else wondering why no ones done a Gremlins 3 yet?

If they did, you know it would be CG instead of puppets. Would that ruin it?

 

[Moral Orel]

The more a film relies on the character of some of the actors the more likely a remake will be terrible.

True Grit could be a defining example.

I didn't like True Grit either. I'm just now finding out it was a remake in this thread. What do you mean "the character of some of the actors" though. Do you mean "charisma"?

 

[Moral Orel]

I enjoyed the most recent ghostbusters. Though in rewatching the original I realised just how much it had aged, and In modern lights I Found Bill Murrays character decidedly off putting. A college lecturer/professor who letches on his students is not exactly a sympathetic character.

I dunno. Is every character supposed to be sympathized with? Or, a better question, does a character have to be a good guy to be sympathized with? Tony Soprano, Walter White, Dexter... Those guys are all a lot worse than a pervy professor.

 

[Moral Orel]

Good or bad I will see any remake of "Last of the Mohicans", or any Tarzan, or James Bond movie.

The remake of "True Grit" was terrible.

Any Tarzan? Animated or not? I liked the new live action one too. And the Daniel Craig Bond's are actually my favorites.

 

[Moral Orel]

I've enjoyed a couple remakes/reboots, but generally I'm quite cynical about them at this point. When I first heard they were doing a reboot of Duck Tales (one of my absolute favorite childhood cartoons) it seemed like another nostalgia based cash grab, however from what I can tell it was done well and done right.

In other cases things have been not so fantastic. the live action Michael Bay Transformers movies being an example of what I think is generally a terrible adaptation. The 1986 animated film is still the best Transformers film made, and even as an adult it's still one of my favorite movies of all time.

On the other hand, I thought the 21 Jump Street movies (or at least the first one) was honestly good, I never saw the original series but the movie was quite funny.

I'm okay with remakes/reboots as long as they can be done well, the problem is that frequently they aren't done well, and they are simply nostalgia based cash grabs. Consider: the live action Chipmunks movies, Jem and the Holograms, etc.

-CryptoLutheran

I think the new Star Wars movies have been nostalgia based cash grabs, and they're not even remakes. And I didn't mind the Michael Explosions Bay Transformers. You just have to go into them expecting nothing more than a CG fest and enjoy it for that sake. They're getting a little silly though. Optimus Prime riding a dinosaur like a knight???

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think the new Star Wars movies have been nostalgia based cash grabs, and they're not even remakes. And I didn't mind the Michael Explosions Bay Transformers. You just have to go into them expecting nothing more than a CG fest and enjoy it for that sake. They're getting a little silly though. Optimus Prime riding a dinosaur like a knight???

I guess it's the difference between nostalgia cash grab that has value, and which doesn't (which I realize is basically an entirely subjective thing). I've loved the last two Star Wars movies, I thought they were absolutely fantastic, I also realize that the bar was set fairly low with the prequel trilogy. I enjoyed the first Michael Bay Transformers, but the second and third were ridiculous, I saw the fourth only out of mild curiosity, and haven't bothered with this most recent one.

Again, it's very subjective of course.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Moral Orel]

Well, there's Showgirls (which I admit to seeing,) and Gigli (which I didn't.) The issue with crap movies is that the scripts are usually crappy. I think it'd be very tough for a remake to be great when you start with crap. It's the silk purse-out-of-a-sow's ear problem.

Those movies are probably easy to fix. Showgirls messed up the tried-and-true "hooker with a heart of gold" formula and made their star a temper tantrum throwing toddler. It was a true testament to the idea that guys will by nice to pretty girls no matter how they act. I didn't watch Gigli, but the core plot doesn't sound that bad from what I read on Wikipedia. A little convoluted, but I think the main problem was the actors. Ben Affleck isn't all that charismatic, and I saw J Lo in "Enough" and she's a terrible actress. Do it again with Ryan Gosling and Jennifer Lawrence (and change the name) and it will be a blockbuster.

 

[Moral Orel]

A remake is usually tied to a lack of imagination.

My biggest problem is when people think they have a great imagination and then do a remake. "Hey, you know that movie that worked perfectly before? I can do it better by changing it at it's core!".

 

[Goonie]

I dunno. Is every character supposed to be sympathized with? Or, a better question, does a character have to be a good guy to be sympathized with? Tony Soprano, Walter White, Dexter... Those guys are all a lot worse than a pervy professor.

Indeed, but I was talking about a film feeling dated. Can you imagine if ghostbusters was released this decade for the first time that the romantic lead would be a pervy professor?

 

[Goonie]

If they did, you know it would be CG instead of puppets. Would that ruin it?

Well the last couple of muppets movies used actual puppets, so there is hope. I'm just surprised that in the age of remakes/reimaginings there is not a new gremlins movies, it's hardly as if it relies on the original human actors.

Though will it be the comedy horror of the original, or the slapstick comedy of gremlins 2(that Dante intended to kill of the franchise)

 

[Moral Orel]

Well the last couple of muppets movies used actual puppets, so there is hope. I'm just surprised that in the age of remakes/reimaginings there is not a new gremlins movies, it's hardly as if it relies on the original human actors.

Though will it be the comedy horror of the original, or the slapstick comedy of gremlins 2(that Dante intended to kill of the franchise)

Well, the Muppets are puppets, it's not surprising that they would keep them that way. But Garfield, The Smurfs, and The Chipmunks are all CG now, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

I've noticed that remakes have a common trend in a lot of them too. I predict that if there is ever a Gremlins remake/sequel, they'll make up some back story of where gremlins come from, like some evil wizard that put a curse on Gizmo, and Gizmo and the Gremlins will have to make a reluctant alliance to fight him. Sounds terrible, I know, but when the movie gets made, we can look back at this prophetic post and tremble in awe of my amazing powers of prediction!

 

[Moral Orel]

I guess it's the difference between nostalgia cash grab that has value, and which doesn't (which I realize is basically an entirely subjective thing). I've loved the last two Star Wars movies, I thought they were absolutely fantastic, I also realize that the bar was set fairly low with the prequel trilogy. I enjoyed the first Michael Bay Transformers, but the second and third were ridiculous, I saw the fourth only out of mild curiosity, and haven't bothered with this most recent one.

Again, it's very subjective of course.

-CryptoLutheran

I think I've seen too many movies. Only really original ideas do I find very good, and that usually means making a movie that's really weird (Being John Malkovich) or that's really depressing (Requiem for a Dream) since most movies have a happy ending. So action movies barely entertain me any more. When I was watching The Force Awakens, at first I was like, "Hey, that's a cool nod to the originals" and by the end I was saying, "Okay... that's a lot of nods, how bout something new... A lightsaber finger guard? Is that it?". Then Rogue One was just the same old lasers and spaceships I've seen in a hundred different movies, so it was worse. But I agree a lot of it is subjective.

Transformers is a good example. I think if you've become attached to characters and themes being a certain way, you'll be less accepting of changes. I barely remember the old Transformers cartoons, but I did watch them back in the day. So I didn't mind them going in whatever direction they wanted just as long as they came up with new action sequences.

Like I mentioned Death Note in the OP. You could be forgiven for liking the live action adaptation if you never saw the anime or read the manga, but if you've done either, there's no forgiveness for liking the butchering of that source material.

What sucks, though, is that I hate Shia LeBouf, but I love Mark Wahlberg. And I liked the Transformers more early in the series of movies than the Transformers in the recent movies, so it's always been bittersweet for me.