Top Ten Movie Remakes That Never Should Have Happened

[DoubleDownAgain]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

There is no downside to remakes. If the remake is good (and there are many good ones), great!

If the remake sucks, the original doesn't go away or get erased. It is still there for all to enjoy.

In both cases, the remake renews interest in the original and makes new fans out of people who may otherwise never bothered to see it.

Agreed! I think remakes get a bad rap because so many of them are bad and aren't really needed. I really liked Fincher's remake but the downside is that is one less original film he will make. I think you have to judge each movie on it's own merits. If it weren't for remakes we would have never saw Humphrey Bogart in the Maltese Falcon.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by DoubleDownAgain

Agreed! I think remakes get a bad rap because so many of them are bad and aren't really needed. I really liked Fincher's remake but the downside is that is one less original film he will make. I think you have to judge each movie on it's own merits. If it weren't for remakes we would have never saw Humphrey Bogart in the Maltese Falcon.

The article is about unnecessary remakes. The 1941 version of The Maltese Falcon was a necessary remake, since WB didn't get it right the first two times. (Third time's a charm, as they say.)

Remakes like Psycho are unnecessary, however. The original was a classic, and the remake just copied it, scene for scene, except in color and with modern actors. What was the point?

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

Remakes like Psycho are unnecessary, however. The original was a classic, and the remake just copied it, scene for scene, except in color and with modern actors. What was the point?

Again, it's an example of a studio forgetting why they'd started making it in the first place, which is the #1 reason most remakes get made nowadays:

Case in point, back in the early 80's, after Hitchcock's death and the Rear Window revival, the studio discovered an alternate storyboard for the shower scene, and thought it would be a film-buff curiosity to reconstruct it--But since DVD Bonus Extras didn't exist back then, they came up with an idea to refilm it, or do it as a TV-movie, etc.
Flash-forward fifteen or twenty years, where Universal still has the memo and doesn't know what to do with it, but one set of execs is thinking "Universal Horror remakes label" (in the hopes of opening the door for that eternal Frankenstein vs. Wolfman remake), while the other is thinking "Artsy experiment for refilming with new directors" (which idea Van Sant's ego falls gullible sucker for).

So, if you don't know why they made it, take heart that by that time....Universal didn't really know why either.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Again, it's an example of a studio forgetting why they'd started making it in the first place, which is the #1 reason most remakes get made nowadays:

Case in point, back in the early 80's, after Hitchcock's death and the Rear Window revival, the studio discovered an alternate storyboard for the shower scene, and thought it would be a film-buff curiosity to reconstruct it--But since DVD Bonus Extras didn't exist back then, they came up with an idea to refilm it, or do it as a TV-movie, etc.
Flash-forward fifteen or twenty years, where Universal still has the memo and doesn't know what to do with it, but one set of execs is thinking "Universal Horror remakes label" (in the hopes of opening the door for that eternal Frankenstein vs. Wolfman remake), while the other is thinking "Artsy experiment for refilming with new directors" (which idea Van Sant's ego falls gullible sucker for).

So, if you don't know why they made it, take heart that by that time....Universal didn't really know why either.

Not really the story at all.. it was Van Sant's idea to remake Psycho, he had always said he wanted to do it, from his earliest days in film.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by retablo

Not really the story at all.. it was Van Sant's idea to remake Psycho, he had always said he wanted to do it, from his earliest days in film.

Nononono.....You underestimate Universal:
Ever since Forrest Gump shook hands with Nixon and JFK, and John Wayne appeared in beer commercials, there was an entire industry preoccupation in the late 90's to do an entire movie of CGI-resurrected dead celebrities.
A project to bring back George Burns went nowhere, but Universal's motives were a little more ulterior: Promote their Universal Horror brand label with a "modern remake" of Frankenstein vs. the Wolf Man, featuring a CGI-resurrected star cast of Boris Karloff, Lon Chaney and Bela Lugosi.

Nearly every vintage-title horror film to come out of Universal (which includes their one Universal-Hitchcock crossover) in the past fifteen years has been scrutinized carefully by the boardroom to see whether the coast is clear and they can do their big brand-label movie yet.
Remaking Psycho was a flop?--Well, guess we can't remake Frankenstein, then...But The Mummy was a hit! It's time for our old titles!...Oops, wait, Van Helsing was a flop, better hold back...Say, the tracking for "The Wolf Man"'s pretty high, looks like it might be time...Nope, sorry, flopped, better stand down...
FIFTEEN YEARS, and they're still obsessed with it. Even Warner hasn't held on to a Batman or Superman movie that long.

(As for Van Sant, he was simply saying no other director wanted to do it, which made him feel like a "maverick" for deciding to play along with the studio and throw one together for them, for the experimental thrill of seeing it actually done.)

[retablo]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Nononono.....You underestimate Universal:
Ever since Forrest Gump shook hands with Nixon and JFK, and John Wayne appeared in beer commercials, there was an entire industry preoccupation in the late 90's to do an entire movie of CGI-resurrected dead celebrities.
A project to bring back George Burns went nowhere, but Universal's motives were a little more ulterior: Promote their Universal Horror brand label with a "modern remake" of Frankenstein vs. the Wolf Man, featuring a CGI-resurrected star cast of Boris Karloff, Lon Chaney and Bela Lugosi.

Nearly every vintage-title horror film to come out of Universal (which includes their one Universal-Hitchcock crossover) in the past fifteen years has been scrutinized carefully by the boardroom to see whether the coast is clear and they can do their big brand-label movie yet.
Remaking Psycho was a flop?--Well, guess we can't remake Frankenstein, then...But The Mummy was a hit! It's time for our old titles!...Oops, wait, Van Helsing was a flop, better hold back...Say, the tracking for "The Wolf Man"'s pretty high, looks like it might be time...Nope, sorry, flopped, better stand down...
FIFTEEN YEARS, and they're still obsessed with it. Even Warner hasn't held on to a Batman or Superman movie that long.

(As for Van Sant, he was simply saying no other director wanted to do it, which made him feel like a "maverick" for deciding to play along with the studio and throw one together for them, for the experimental thrill of seeing it actually done.)

Except that Van Sant has said in interviews (related by Joseph Stefano in Philip Skerry's book) that it was his idea, and that whenever anyone asled him what he wanted to do, he said "a shot by shot remake of Psycho," and how he'd wanted to make it ever since he started directing.

So yeah, it wasn't Universal's idea. Good theory though, but wrong.

[Al_The_Strange]

I absolutely disagree with "The Ring," I believe Verbinski made the film much more engaging and visually impressive than "Ringu," which was rather dull.

Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" was good, I don't get the hate on it.

I also see little wrong with 1999's "House on Haunted Hill." A bit crazy and silly perhaps, but when I first saw it, it freaked me out.

Otherwise, I can agree with the others listed in the OP.

[DaleDark]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I also see little wrong with 1999's "House on Haunted Hill." A bit crazy and silly perhaps, but when I first saw it, it freaked me out.

I couldn't agree more. This film has arguably the creepiest P.S. I've ever seen.