Remakes: Worse than They Once Were?

[J_UNTITLED]

From Pluck You, Too!...

While it is popular to slam on the current flood of Hollywood remakes, it is not a new thing. The versions of The Maltese Falcon, Ben-Hur and The Wizard of Oz we know as classics are all remakes. Sometimes a good story needs to be told more than once, and the first time isn't always the best. Lately remakes have concentrated on hits, or beloved cult classics- which is where the difference comes in. Some classic remakes work- like Scarface, Invasion of the Body Snatchers (not the Nicole Kidman one, doofus- the Sutherland one) and Ocean's Eleven- but even some of the best attempts only reach mediocrity, such as Peter Jackson's indulgent and overlong King Kong- which is still much better than soulless money-grubbing crap like Death Race.

Nowadays remakes are seen as a cash cow to get people into theaters by name recognition, and to get a script that is a "sure thing" for enough box office to cover expenses, or at least be profitable as a write-off. But not all new remakes are shit. I really enjoyed the remake of Dawn of the Dead, even though it dropped George Romero's social commentary about consumerism and societal malaise for a more straightforward horror flick. While "speed zombies" are kind of old now, it was refreshing and different at the time, even though it had already been done in 28 Days Later.

The real test will be Werner Herzog's remake of Abel Ferrara's masterpiece Bad Lieutenant, with Nicholas Cage in the Harvey Keitel role. Now, I know Cage can act- he just chooses not to. If you think he can't act, see Moonstruck, Peggy Sue Got Married, 8mm, Adaptation, Birdy, Red Rock West, Wild at Heart, Raising Arizona, Bringing out the Dead, Matchstick Men, Leaving Las Vegas or Lord of War. Yes, it's a lot easier to remember Ghost Rider, National Treasure, The Wicker Man, Gone in 60 Seconds, and Next, but with Herzog directing him, maybe he'll point a gun at him- as he as rumored to do to Klaus Kinski on the set of Aguirre, the Wrath of God- and make him ****ing act. Terry Gilliam got Bruce Willis to drop his action-hero persona for 12 Monkeys, so anything is possible. Sometimes directors remake their own movies- Michael Haneke remade his masterpiece Funny Games for American audiences, with Tim Roth and Naomi Watts; it's shot for shot, but still felt less powerful. The subtitles actually made the original more gripping for me. I had to pay complete attention, and since I didn't know the actors I never thought, "hmm, that's some good acting, Michael Pitt."

And apparently Herzog's remake it is being played as a reimagined prequel, "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans." The title sounds like a serial novel, like the 150+ books in The Destroyer series (best known as the books the Remo Williams movie came from). Now I could get down with that, if the Lieutenant moved from city to city, masturbating in front of underage drivers and snorting huge lines of cocaine poured on the highways. As much as I like Herzog, I wonder if this will be as useless as Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho. Speaking of which, IMDb shows that The Birds will be remade in 2011, I believe Michael Bay is producing. Which means:
1. It will be called Birds, since "the" is so lame.
2. It will have an environmental cause, instead of being a mystery.
3. At some point, kids will be watching Happy Feet and the token funny black guy will turn it off. Sorry, I just watched Transformers.
4. The only actor over 30 will be Jon Voight as the grizzled old guy who's seen this before.
5. When the birds attack the school playground, the hero will drive them off with a makeshift flamethrower, and make some sort of fried chicken joke.
6. Some young woman will solve the crisis and the birds will be friendly again, instead of the creepy, ambiguous ending the original has. And then maybe the squirrels will start attacking people, as a result of global warming affecting the acorn harvest.

The majority of remakes coming out now are horror movies, and the inherent problem is the love of CG. Let's face it, fake CG blood is just stupid. Why do they use it? So they can remove some to appease the ratings board? It never looks real to me, and ruined a lot of The Devil's Rejects for me. The remake of The Hills Have Eyes wasn't bad, but it seems every horror movie of the late '70s and '80s that anyone might remember is being remade. Prom Night, which was nothing but a bad ripoff of Carrie; Rob Zombie remade Halloween, which I've yet to waste time watching. My Bloody Valentine 3-D is about to hit theaters, and a remake of Friday the 13th is in the works. What they can never recapture is the gritty, cheap feel the old movies had. Eli Roth gets it- his hilarious homage to '70s horror Cabin Fever had the perfect feel, and so did Hostel- but most remakes look way too polished. Worse yet, they'll try to make it "look '70s" by giving people cars and haircuts.

At their worst, the remake is when Hollywood artifice lets it slip show- they just want a name to get enough 15 year olds into the seats for a few weekends to make enough money to pay the important people. Then with foreign and DVD sales, it might turn a profit later, and people looking for the original might buy it by mistake. I think sometimes we get lucky and a director who can wrest some control from producers gets the helm, or champions the project, and that's when we get something decent. But the fact is they're here to stay, and getting aggravated over it is nothing new. I think half of internet discussion on movies involves Nerd Remake Rage. Let's put it to rest and judge them individually, because not all remakes are bad.

Correction to the author: "28 Days Later" is not a zombie film -- it is viral horror with still living and breathing human beings succumbing to a virus (i.e. they are not the walking or running dead). Danny Boyle and Co. have stated this many times and yet it never seems to get through to most.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by J_UNTITLED

"28 Days Later" is not a zombie film -- it is viral horror with still living and breathing human beings succumbing to a virus (i.e. they are not the walking or running dead). Danny Boyle and Co. have stated this many times and yet it never seems to get through to most.

Zombies need not be literally undead. The concept of them merely being infected is a much more plausible take on the idea which requires less suspension of scientific disbelief.

That aside aside, I have to agree absolutely with the closing remarks, even if I don't agree absolutely with the way he got to the point. People complain about remakes too much. If you don't like the idea of the studio "raping" your favorite classic film, just don't see the remake. It's that easy. Just pretend it doesn't exist and avoid the topic of the discussion altogether. Don't bring up the topic so you can ***** about how much it sucks, ESPECIALLY if the movie isn't even out yet.

Note: the same ideal I have here also applies for movies based on other media (such as books or TV) and also unnecessary sequels.

[assydingo]

People tend to think all remakes are cash-ins. Some may be but others are genuine efforts.

People should make a distinction between remakes and movies that take the source and make their own story of it.

One example is Charlie and The Chocolate Factory. It's obvious that Johnny Depp isn't playing the same Wonka as Gene Wilder. Another example is Hairspray.

[P@t_Mtl]

Sometimes a remake can be as fun or better then the original. IMO I think Miracle On 34th Street version 1996 is more fun then the 1947 one. Way better then the 1973 one for sure.

[Crim122]

Only good remake I have seen is The Thing.

Rob Zombies Halloween, though it was a reimage was decent at best...not terrible though.

[J_UNTITLED]

Originally Posted by Crim122

Rob Zombies Halloween, though it was a reimage was decent at best...not terrible though.

Agree to disagree on that.

[Ator the Invincible]

Originally Posted by Crim122

Rob Zombies Halloween, though it was a reimage was decent at best...not terrible though.

The Halloween remake was one of those situations where a lot of people were going to hate it regardless of quality. The original is simply too classic and beloved. That said, I'm actually glad Zombie's back for the sequel. I want to see what he can do with a completely original Michael Myers story, no retreads.

As for remakes in general, well, people tend to lump them all together. It just doesn't work though. They're no different than any other movie. Some suck, some are great, but most tend to just be mediocre time wasters. You need to judge each film individually. They really need to stop remaking movies from the 80's though. Way, way, way too soon.

[TripAcez]

Ill probably get slammed for this but i DEFINITELY enjoyed The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake over the original..the part that killed the original to me was at the dinner table...i swear i was forced to listen to someone screaming for 5-10 min it just took away and was not scary..the remake was better imo

[gino]

I may be the only one here but I think Dawn of the Dead (remake) is better than the original.

[thedarkangel1975]

Originally Posted by TripAcez

Ill probably get slammed for this but i DEFINITELY enjoyed The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake over the original..the part that killed the original to me was at the dinner table...i swear i was forced to listen to someone screaming for 5-10 min it just took away and was not scary..the remake was better imo

+1 I agree totally. I was bored with the original.

[John Dorian]

Originally Posted by assydingo

One example is Charlie and The Chocolate Factory. It's obvious that Johnny Depp isn't playing the same Wonka as Gene Wilder. Another example is Hairspray.

I''ve always thought Johnny Depp did a FANTASTIC Willy Wonka. I like the remake better than the original.

[Blu Man]

Some remakes are great. Some arn't so hot. But I don't think that people should count a movie out just because it's a remake.

[hoogoosedmoose41]

ill probably get flamed here but is it so darned hard for hollywood to come up with something new than all the friggin remakes jeez. it seems like thats all there is ... probably 10 years from now they will be remaking the lord of the rings.

[wallendo]

Originally Posted by Blu Man

Some remakes are great. Some arn't so hot. But I don't think that people should count a movie out just because it's a remake.

I am already counting out Madonna's proposed remake of Casablanca.

There are some movies that should never be remade.

[Blu Titan]

Ocean's 13 was a great remake. A fav of mine.

[Moviemaniack1993]

I really enjoyed these remakes:

King Kong
The Amityville Horror ('79 version stayed true to the book but was lame)
House of Wax
The Hills Have Eyes (remake is one of the better horror films recently)
The Omen (I don't buy Gregory Peck and Lee Remmick have a child at their respective ages in the film, and I like Marco Beltrami's score better than Jerry Goldsmith's for the movie. Plus Mia Farrow as Mrs. Baylock and the scooter scene trump the original)
Poseidon (the original is way too campy for me, and Peterson's effects when the ship capsizes are incredible. The acting could have been better but the film is pretty nerve wracking)
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (I am probably one of the few who hated the original, but this remake was spot on and actually scary. Here's hoping Marcus Nispel can do it again with Friday the 13th)

[JUDGEMENT 4400]

Remakes used to be someone's creative re-imagining of the original

Nowadays, remakes are made for movies where the originals are so great, they don't need remakes, but are done anyway for $$$

i.e. The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Karate Kid, etc...

[FIDDYPOP]

I think that remakes arent always bad. Remakes of old flicks have a theme that is more appropiate in todays world. Also it is cool to see movies with updated special effects and sound.

[J_UNTITLED]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Zombies need not be literally undead. The concept of them merely being infected is a much more plausible take on the idea which requires less suspension of scientific disbelief.

Agree to disagree, then.

[GGX]

Originally Posted by J_UNTITLED

From Pluck You, Too!...





Correction to the author: "28 Days Later" is not a zombie film -- it is viral horror with still living and breathing human beings succumbing to a virus (i.e. they are not the walking or running dead). Danny Boyle and Co. have stated this many times and yet it never seems to get through to most.

Exactly