The anti-remake attitude

[DealsR4theDevil]

Why do they have to mess with a CLASSIC!

And again, Hollywood realizes they cannot think of an original idea to save their lives. There is nothing wrong with the original Nightmare. This doesn't need a reboot.

they've already messed up Halloween, Black Christmas, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, When A Stranger Calls and so many other classics.

Those are just a few quotes from members of this forum. Clearly there is a huge dislike of remakes on here..

Don't get me wrong, I also am genuinely upset over the excessive second rate excrement that gets produced or "remade" these days. Clearly there is little creativity behind these endeavors and the only goal seems to be money. I know movies are made to make money but if thats the ONLY reason they are being made...... *sighs*

However, I feel the need to defend the concept of remakes. There is a difference between the endless onslaught of shameless crap (the majority of remakes) and a genuine artistic attempt to tell a great story in a new way (the minority). People here (and elsewhere) seem to be so angry over the poor quality remakes being shoved down our throats that this distinction is lost on them.

The concept of remakes has been around for a very long time. People always talk about "the classic" movies that are getting remade, but lets talk about the real classics. I'm talking about Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, etc. How many times have these stories been retold (remade) in the theatre? I understand the fact that these classics could not have been recorded and preserved and there is a necessity to retell/remake the story in order for future audiences to enjoy it ..... but understand that most of these are genuine efforts with a cast, crew, and direction that respects the material (of course some of these plays are disasters).

Closer to home, look at Batman and Superman, these "stories" have been retold many many times. Compare Batman Begins/Dark Knight to the original Batman comic .... nuff said

And thats my point, remakes can be good. When you have a genuine effort and a creative/talented team, you can end up with something that honors or even trumps the original.

The Departed, Batman Begins/The Dark Knight, Ocean's Eleven (2001), The Incredible Hulk (2008), Halloween (2007) etc.

^^^^^ All excellent remakes IMO, wether or not you like these titles, you have to agree that they are well put together movies with genuine effort. (In the same way I can agree that Juno was an excellent movie despite the fact that it simply wasnt for me and I did not enjoy it)

I know that these "good" remakes are few and far between, but I would argue that "good" original movies are few and far between as well. Hollywood makes a lot of crappy remakes, but they make a lot of crappy movies to begin with.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Good post.

But this belongs in the Movies/TV forum.

[DealsR4theDevil]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

Good post.

But this belongs in the Movies/TV forum.

oops, my bad ... thought thats where I was posting it *bows head down in shame*

[Q?]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

Good post.

But this belongs in the Movies/TV forum.

Yes it's a good post!
Personally I want to see the Nightmare on Elmstreet reboot,
if the special effects don't rely on cgi-whoring!!!
But at the same time I fear this is going to be bollocks, lets see.

[DealsR4theDevil]

Originally Posted by Q!

Yes it's a good post!
Personally I want to see the Nightmare on Elmstreet reboot,
if the special effects don't rely on cgi-whoring!!!
But at the same time I fear this is going to be bollocks, lets see.

Ya, I am also interested in the Nightmare on Elm Street reboot .... something tells me they are gonna move away from the campy jokes (which are fun) and try to be more serious/scary (which could be cool if done well). I'm curious to see who they get to direct this thing.

[IntoTheVoid]

Originally Posted by Q!

Yes it's a good post!
Personally I want to see the Nightmare on Elmstreet reboot,
if the special effects don't rely on cgi-whoring!!!
But at the same time I fear this is going to be bollocks, lets see.

Actually, if any of these horror "reboots" would benefit from CGI it would be ANOES.
We saw a taste of it in FvJ. The dream worlds that could be created for Freddy to play in could be quite amazing.

As long as they make Freddy scary again, scary like the Freddy that nearly made me crap my pants back in '84, then I'm in.

[bingtau]

I agree that remakes are usually for the birds. No pun intended. It's not entirely the new film's fault however. Many of the remakes we see are of classics and IMO just don't need to be remade. How can you top something that's already perfect? If they're great films then don't bother with them. I can see why people try to remake foreign films but again, if it's a great film then film fans will read the subtitles. I believe that most remakes won't even recieve say a 7 out of 10 as far as being any good. The only remake I can think of worth mentioning is Scarface. The original for it's time was and still is a great film. The 1983 version is perfection.

[DealsR4theDevil]

Originally Posted by bingtau

I agree that remakes are usually for the birds. No pun intended. It's not entirely the new film's fault however. Many of the remakes we see are of classics and IMO just don't need to be remade. If they're great films then don't bother with them. I can see why people try to remake foreign films but again, if it's a great film then film fans will read the subtitles. I believe that most remakes won't even recieve say a 7 out of 10 as far as being any good. The only remake I can think of worth mentioning is Scarface. The original for it's time was and still is a great film. The 1983 version is perfection.

As far as foreign films go, I watch them and I like them (Lives of Others and Downfall come to mind), but most of the good dialogue is lost in translation and adapting/remaking the movies for different audiences is definitely worth doing if done right (The Departed comes to mind).

And if you wanna talk about necessity, no movie ever NEEDS to be made or remade. As far as "great films" or "classics" go, just look at the two Halloweens. The original was a very good movie IMO, and IMO the remake was just as good, just different. If you dont like the new one then you dont like it, its not like anyone is forcing u to watch it nor does the new one make the old one any less good, nor does it remove the old one from circulation...

Thats kind of my point, a well thought out remake properly executed doesnt need to justify its existence..

Also, I was not aware that the 1983 Scarface was a remake, one more for the list I guess lol

Originally Posted by bingtau

The Departed is all right but compared to the original IA it blows. Oh but it won the Oscar you say. So does that mean it's Scorsese's best film, not in a long shot. Chris Nolan's Batman movies are not remakes so they cannot be compared. Ocean films = garbage and so on. I'm not bashing this thread but I'm pretty against remakes especially if you're trying to out due a masterpiece. It's too bad I didn't know about remakes in college though as I could've remade some nice book reports. Lol..

I dont think anyone is suggesting that The Departed is Scorcese's best film, i do agree it was the best picture that year. IA is a better movie, and if I spoke Japanese i could appreciate it as such, but too much of the wit and authenticity of the dialogue is lost in translation and The Departed makes for a better viewing experience.

Chris Nolan's Batman movies are remakes, maybe not remakes of movies but remakes of a story and characters that have themselves been remade/retold many times over (although one could argue that The Dark Knight is a remake of the Burton Batman, but im not trying to make that case).

Ocean's Eleven remake, well that just opinion, if you didnt like it u didnt like it, I did though and I am glad it was remade. My question for you is why does it bother you that it exists? as I said in my last post, the original is still there for you to enjoy.

Finally your joke about book reports (You were doing "book reports" in college?), book reports could still be largely paraphrased as long as u site your information.

[Agent Cooper]

Some of the movies you mention, I personally wouldn't label as remakes. Batman Begins/The Dark Knight are not story arcs I've seen in any other Batman movie brought to the big screen. Shakespeare and other original works from before the art of cinema, like Dracula etc. - I wouldn't label new versions as remakes either. As an example, Branaghs Hamlet is not based on another Hamlet motion picture, but on the original source material.

But speaking of remakes - I think a lot of movie enthusiasts are somewhat bewildered at the massive trend of remakes in the US movie industry, especially in the horror genre. Add to that, most of the new US horrorfilms (meaning, not remakes) absolutly pales in comparison with what the Europeans and Asians are producing right now. How come the biggest movie industry in the world is producing such mediocre movies?

It seems like the US remakes based on the best of Asian horror has depleted lately, so after turning the attention to cannibalizing their own classic horror gems, it's now Europes turn. Let The Right One In, [REC] etc. I'm just waiting for Lionsgate or someone else to announce their intention to remake Dario Argento classics at this time...

I hope that some sort of anti-remake trend is forthcoming in the US. Remember that every time a studio is greenlighting and funding a remake, it means that some other original movie project is getting shelved.

[DealsR4theDevil]

Originally Posted by Agent Cooper

Some of the movies you mention, I personally wouldn't label as remakes. Batman Begins/The Dark Knight are not story arcs I've seen in any other Batman movie brought to the big screen. Shakespeare and other original works from before the art of cinema, like Dracula etc. - I wouldn't label new versions as remakes either. As an example, Branaghs Hamlet is not based on another Hamlet motion picture, but on the original source material.

I wasnt suggesting that the movies of these plays are remakes, I was referring to when the plays are performed again live (happens quite often).

Same with the Batmans, the movies arent remakes of movies, but they are "retellings" of stories that were in the comics. Which is what a good remake of a movie should be, a good "retelling" of it with its own unique take (Christopher Nolan took some liberties with the source material he was using)

Originally Posted by Agent Cooper

But speaking of remakes - I think a lot of movie enthusiasts are somewhat bewildered at the massive trend of remakes in the US movie industry, especially in the horror genre. Add to that, most of the new US horrorfilms (meaning, not remakes) absolutly pales in comparison with what the Europeans and Asians are producing right now. How come the biggest movie industry in the world is producing such mediocre movies?

agian, making bad movies has become a trend in Hollywood all around, not just with remakes. I am just drawing a line between bad remakes and good ones

Originally Posted by Agent Cooper

I hope that some sort of anti-remake trend is forthcoming in the US. Remember that every time a studio is greenlighting and funding a remake, it means that some other original movie project is getting shelved.

good point

[bingtau]

Originally Posted by DealsR4theDevil

And thats my point, remakes can be good. When you have a genuine effort and a creative/talented team, you can end up with something that honors or even trumps the original.

The Departed, Batman Begins/The Dark Knight, Ocean's Eleven (2001), The Incredible Hulk (2008), Halloween (2007) etc.

^^^^^ All excellent remakes IMO, wether or not you like these titles, you have to agree that they are well put together movies with genuine effort. (In the same way I can agree that Juno was an excellent movie despite the fact that it simply wasnt for me and I did not enjoy it)

I know that these "good" remakes are few and far between, but I would argue that "good" original movies are few and far between as well. Hollywood makes a lot of crappy remakes, but they make a lot of crappy movies to begin with.

The Departed is all right but compared to the original IA it blows. Oh but it won the Oscar you say. So does that mean it's Scorsese's best film, not in a long shot. Chris Nolan's Batman movies are not remakes so they cannot be compared. Ocean films = garbage and so on. I'm not bashing this thread but I'm pretty against remakes especially if you're trying to out due a masterpiece. It's too bad I didn't know about remakes in college though as I could've remade some nice book reports. Lol..

[thedarkangel1975]

Originally Posted by bingtau

The Departed is all right but compared to the original IA it blows. Oh but it won the Oscar you say. So does that mean it's Scorsese's best film, not in a long shot. Chris Nolan's Batman movies are not remakes so they cannot be compared. Ocean films = garbage and so on. I'm not bashing this thread but I'm pretty against remakes especially if you're trying to out due a masterpiece. It's too bad I didn't know about remakes in college though as I could've remade some nice book reports. Lol..

Sorry but Nolan's Batman's as much as I like them are a remake, a reboot whatever you want to call them. People don't use remake or reboot when they actually like the film.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by thedarkangel1975

Sorry but Nolan's Batman's as much as I like them are a remake, a reboot whatever you want to call them. People don't use remake or reboot when they actually like the film.

+1 the new Batman are rebooted/remake...if you make a movie showing the origin of a character, well you got a remake. They are totaly different from the Tim Burton/Joel Shumacker Batman.

[BluLobsta]

I am interested in what they do with the Poltergeist re-make, though....

Hope they put some effort into it and it's not just a CGI-fest just to make some cash.

[uziel5000]

The complain over remakes,from movie fans and especially from this group is pretty obvious IMO.

We take movies seriously and some of those movies we consider classics or close to our hearts or speak to a certain time in our lives. I don't think its a specific film remake in itself that bothers most of us but rather the potential to screw up something we thought was good in the first place.

We enjoyed The Karate Kid as it was. Why make it again?
Psycho is a Hitchcock masterpiece. Why mess with perfection?
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a classic of low budget horror. Does it really need a big budget remake?

Of course it doesn't help tha most of these remakes turn out to be dissapointments. Maybe if they turned out better we would have better attitudes towards them.

Just to point out that by remake a mean a film re-made like Psycho in which the basic script was re-shot. I don't consider the last two Batman films remakes. Films like that, for lack of a better term, I call re-boots. Where they take characters or concepts from a film and take them in a different direction/concept/world etc. I don;t think it is the same thing.

[Priest4hire]

I think that it's useful to make a distinction between a remake and a readaptation. For example, The Thing is a readaptation of Who Goes There? more than it's a remake of The Thing from Another World. The justification for readaptations seems clearer; especially if former adaptations differ significantly from the source. A good example here would be Oldboy. The Korean film differs greatly from the original manga which leaves an opening for doing a new adaptation.

A remake has the extra burden of justifying itself since the original is always available. While it is certainly legitimate to create a new expression of an old idea, too often it seems like the name is just tacked on in order to leech some of the recognition. Why chain yourself to an older movie when you could make a whole new film and retain greater artistic freedom? It is possible to take the ideas from an older film and incorporate them into a new movie without remaking the old.

I don't dislike remakes on principal and I'll judge each movie on its own merits. But some projects are just less likely to work out. A new Poltergeist can be good but can it be better than the original film at being Poltergeist? Likewise, you will never out-Jaws at being Jaws. Instead it seems better to remake movies that have good concepts but flawed execution. At least that provides a reason for doing a remake.

As an aside, would anyone really want a remake of the Divine Comedy instead of a translation? Should the imperfections in moving from one language to another be a reason to have a modern author rewrite Candide? I think not. I can understand the desire to rework a foreign film in a more culturally familiar product and I can see this will bring the movie to a wider audience. But that doesn't make it better.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by DealsR4theDevil

There is a difference between the endless onslaught of shameless crap (the majority of remakes) and a genuine artistic attempt to tell a great story in a new way (the minority). People here (and elsewhere) seem to be so angry over the poor quality remakes being shoved down our throats that this distinction is lost on them.

I don't think the distinction is lost, it's just hard not to get annoyed when you hear about a movie you enjoy being remade. Why should we not smirk and chuckle when we hear about remake news. As you said, good remakes are in the minority.

Originally Posted by DealsR4theDevil

The Departed, Batman Begins/The Dark Knight, Ocean's Eleven (2001), The Incredible Hulk (2008), Halloween (2007) etc.

Many people don't know Andy Lao's Infernal Affairs (The Departed); for European, North American audiences The Departed isn't a remake.

Hulk and Batman fans have so many stories available in TV, comic books, and movies, another installment of their aventures isn't really a remake. Same character, new story.

Halloween, not a good movie, not a good remake. I love the original Halloween. Really didn't enjoy the white trash mom and dad and all his comments.

Ocean's 11, you're probably right, I've never seen the one with the Rat Pack, no plans to.

Originally Posted by DealsR4theDevil

I know that these "good" remakes are few and far between, but I would argue that "good" original movies are few and far between as well. Hollywood makes a lot of crappy remakes, but they make a lot of crappy movies to begin with.

Agree. Don't know why you feel the need to defend remakes, or Hollywood, you seem to be stating remakes in general stink.

I, like most, haven't seen many remakes or sequels that are better than the original.

I think, we can generalize and say, remakes and sequels suck. It may be considered a stereotype, maybe I should say, most remakes and most sequels suck. But, eveyone gets the point of our arguement. Do we have to be P.C. about everything? Movies don't have feelings, do they? Sorry if The Godfather 2 and Scarface (two of my favorite movies) get upset.

I'm all for bringing movies that aren't known by American audiences into the remake arena. Lots of Asian movies could be done. Also revamping old movies that aren't known by the majority of people fine. Many movies that came out in the 30-50s would be ok. 60s and 70s are a bit too close, 80's and 90's should be out of the quesion. Remake of Top Gun with Tom Cruise as Jester.

On another note, how many people (theater goers /movie collectors) knew that The Italian Job, Get Carter, Payback and Thomas Crown Affair were not originals? Maybe some, maybe a few, but I'm sure the remakes did upset some fans of the originals.

Here in Taiwan, The Ring and The Departed were not accepted by my friends. They were big fans of the originals.

[P@t_Mtl]

The only true benefit of making an old movie once again is the advance in tech and FX. You can then take advantage of these new tools to make things more real.

Problem is, Hollywood just rely too much on the FX these days and forget all about the story. What made many of these movies classic in the eyes of many were not the FX but the movie itself, the story, the actors, the way the director use what was available.

Best example is Jaws. In that movie Spielberg could not use the mechanical shark as much as he wanted too, just was not working well. So he then switch to camera work and a brillant score by John Williams to built tension in the story. You never see the shark but you know it's there and it's keeping you on the edge of your seat. Now remaking this movie in 2009, the director would now be able to show the shark in CGI as much as he would want. Would this however make the movie better? Problem Hollywood as now a days with CGI is that too much is not always better. Jaws worked so well because you could not see the shark and it became such a beloved classic.

[Ernest Rister]

Likewise, you will never out-Jaws at being Jaws.

"You can't top pigs with pigs."
--Walt Disney, after receiving multiple requests for more cartoons based on Three Little Pigs

[cynatnite]

Remakes have been around for decades. Ben Hur was a remake of an old silent movie. A lot of folks would be surprised at the number of movies that have been remade since the silent movie era.

It's the nature of the business.

I don't like it. It signals to me a willingness to ignore wonderful books and original scripts that are collecting dust. They want to make a buck the fast and quickest way possible. Remakes will give them that and will do well if they throw enough money at it.

Sometimes a great movie comes out of it and I have to sit down, shutup and enjoy the hell out of it.