Top Ten Movie Remakes That Never Should Have Happened

[MykeHavoc]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Anything by Rob Zombie. He is a terrible terrible TERRIBLE filmmaker and his remake of Halloween completely ruined the original

The point of Mike Myers was he was suppose to be a normal kid from a normal family that one day just snapped for no reason. By making him come from a horrible trash family (the only kind of character Zombie seems capable of writing) he completely missed the point of what made the character scary

It amazes me that hacks like him are able to keep making movies and it amazes me more the sheep of the general public still see such awful movies

There in lies the problem. Halloween is my favorite horror film of all time, so needless to say, I was dreading the remake, but I was there opening day and found an alternate appreciation for the film. Not nearly as good or ground-breaking as Carpenter's, but I certainly didn't hate it. The issues fans of the original series (myself included) seemed to have were in the changes...but isn't that the point of a "re-imagining"? To do something different with the material? To take another look from a different perspective at something that would be otherwise familiar? I had a similar and more venomous reaction to his sequel. I hated it in the theater. Felt nothing like a Halloween film. But when the director's cut hit DVD, I liked it a tad bit more...then I watched the two films back to back many moons later, and isolated from the earlier series, I was struck with a sudden sense of dramatic sadness. Removing my old-school fanboyism from the equation allowed me to enjoy Zombie's vision a lot more then I ever had. Neither are perfect films, but I have a much deeper appreciation for them is the time since I first viewed them.

Zombie is completely capable of making terrific films. Devil's Rejects was far and away my favorite film the year it came out (along side Sin City).

[Nousemercenary]

Originally Posted by HelmutNewton

Psycho
City Of Angels
The Wicker Man
The Pink Panther
The Day The Earth Stood Still
Swept Away

Pink Panther. Refuse to see the remake. Don't want to ruin the classic.

[MykeHavoc]

Originally Posted by Nousemercenary

Pink Panther. Refuse to see the remake. Don't want to ruin the classic.

I actually found the Pink Panther remake alright. The hamburger scene is one of the funniest things ever. I still reference it often.

[Red Hood]

Psycho is the only movie I ever walked out on, terrible remake.

[blue_beard]

Totally useless remake: Just Visiting
Jean Reno even played in it again. But why remake it? Just so you can have it set in the USA? The "why" just keeps resounding in my head.

Same goes for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. I admit I didn't watch it, so I'm not gonna hate on the plot or whatever. But the original was two 2 years old. That's just plain greediness on the part of Hollywood. No excuses.
+1 Halloween

[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.

[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.

[the new scum]

Personally, I don't think all remakes are evil. Often, I like seeing a good book turned into a good movie. A good play, even.

My problem is that nothing seems to be sacred. There are some movies that cannot be any better than they are, and people should accept that. Spike Lee trying to remake Oldboy to me feels as offensive as James Patterson deciding to rewrite The Hound of the Baskervilles or like Stephanie Meyer deciding to rewrite Jane Eyre.

A film that is, basically, the singular vision of an auteur should be respected as such and not butchered by some douchebag that thinks American audiences "have to see this great story, but can't find the original without our help!".

That said, a studio production is fair game, in my book. Psycho was Hitchcock's, Halloween was Carpenter's. Planet of the Apes was...20th Century Fox's, Clash of the Titans...MGM.

[animefan77]

Originally Posted by tigertron

I actually thought the 2001 remake of Planet of the Apes was pretty good. Wahlberg wasn't brilliant but he was pretty decent. Although the ending did suck and that ruined it for me.

The ending didn't bother me much because the movie was already ruined for me by the human-ape relationship. The original got it perfect because they showed total opposite of what is today - human being as an "animal" test subject that can't speak or think in high level. That's why it was such a great moment when Charlton Heston finally spoke. But what I hate and can't get over is that Tim Burton's version made the human as "slave" that can talk and think. The great idea and whole purpose of role reversal is lost in Burton's version. This movie gets my vote on remake being done horribly wrong, and should have never happened. The only reason that I would re-watch parts of the movie would be to see Estella Warren (she looked pretty hot in the movie )

Oh, and also vote for Psycho remake as worst. Didn't even see that movie and I never will. No need to even bother with that one.

[tigertron]

Originally Posted by animefan77

The ending didn't bother me much because the movie was already ruined for me by the human-ape relationship. The original got it perfect because they showed total opposite of what is today - human being as an "animal" test subject that can't speak or think in high level. That's why it was such a great moment when Charlton Heston finally spoke. But what I hate and can't get over is that Tim Burton's version made the human as "slave" that can talk and think. The great idea and whole purpose of role reversal is lost in Burton's version. This movie gets my vote on remake being done horribly wrong, and should have never happened. The only reason that I would re-watch parts of the movie would be to see Estella Warren (she looked pretty hot in the movie )

Oh, and also vote for Psycho remake as worst. Didn't even see that movie and I never will. No need to even bother with that one.

I guess its less of a remake and more of an individual film with its own timeline due to the differences between the two films i.e. the way the humans were treated and the endings.

[c0bbz]

I would have to say Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. I think that it got far too caught up in the special effects and battle sequences, and thus lost sight of what made the Disney classic, along with Carrol's book so compelling.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by animefan77

The ending didn't bother me much because the movie was already ruined for me by the human-ape relationship.

And the fact that Tim confessed he and the writers just made it up out of thin air because he thought it looked cool.

Which is ONE larger reason to hate Tim Burton remakes.

[Rambaldi47]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Anything by Rob Zombie. He is a terrible terrible TERRIBLE filmmaker and his remake of Halloween completely ruined the original

The point of Mike Myers was he was suppose to be a normal kid from a normal family that one day just snapped for no reason. By making him come from a horrible trash family (the only kind of character Zombie seems capable of writing) he completely missed the point of what made the character scary

It amazes me that hacks like him are able to keep making movies and it amazes me more the sheep of the general public still see such awful movies

I totally agree! He removed what made Michael Myers so scary! To paraphrase a line from Scream 4, there's something scary about a normal guy who just...snaps. The way Zombie wrote Myers' backstory, no one would be surprised he ended up murdering people. Not everything needs to be spelled out for the audience. A little mystery is a good thing.

[JamesKurtovich]

Remakes are one of those things you can't let bother you. Some are good, some are bad.

I didn't mind the Halloween remake. I liked the atmosphere and the actor they chose to portray Michael. I didn't like Zombie's attempts at Michael's past or the rape scene that was included for shock value.

[thedarkangel1975]

Pweople worry too much about remakes. There are remakes that i thought were better than the original. The Ring was better than Ringu. Ringu was an awful mess and the girl in the well looked liked she was 25. Let Me In and Let The Right One In. Both were great and each had elements I liked better than the other. Both are adaptations of a book with some changes. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was better and was NOT a remake. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is abetter and more faithful adaptation. I liked Friday the 13th. Has anyone ever seen the originals? Not that great. Cheesy fun, this was no different. As for Rear Window, Disturbia stands alone fine as Disturbia is only loosely similar

Ones I did not like: Halloween & Nightmare on Elm Street come to mind.
When A Stranger Calls, I did not like either. Same with Trucks and Maxium Overdrive. I liked Maxium Overdrive's soundtrack.

I did not mind Planet of The Apes or Prom Night

[MykeHavoc]

Originally Posted by c0bbz

I would have to say Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. I think that it got far too caught up in the special effects and battle sequences, and thus lost sight of what made the Disney classic, along with Carrol's book so compelling.

That's not really a remake. It's a sequel.

[filmnut5]

My 10 Worst Remakes are:

1. The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008). The original was in 1951.

2. The Planet of the Apes (2001). The original was in 1968.

3. Psycho (1998). The original was in 1960.

4. The Time Machine (2002). The original was in 1960.

5. The House of Wax (2005). The original was in 1953.

6. The Out of Towners (1999). The original was in 1970.

7. Poseidon (2006). The original "Poseidon Adventure" was in 1972.

8. The Bad News Bears (2005). The original was in 1976.

9. Arthur (2011). The original was in 1981.

10. The Pink Panther (2006). The original was in 1963.

[jpb07]

Since the Star Trek reboot and Planet of the Apes remake have been brought up, what about Rise of the Planet of the Apes? I realize that it's more of a prequel to the original series (sort of like Star Trek) and that it's leaps and bounds better than Burton's version but how does it stack up to the Heston version? Believe it or not, I have never seen any of the original movies.

[filmnut5]

Originally Posted by jpb07

Since the Star Trek reboot and Planet of the Apes remake have been brought up, what about Rise of the Planet of the Apes? I realize that it's more of a prequel to the original series (sort of like Star Trek) and that it's leaps and bounds better than Burton's version but how does it stack up to the Heston version? Believe it or not, I have never seen any of the original movies.

Really enjoyed "Rise of the Planet of the Apes", but hated Burton's "POTA". The '68 Heston version is one of my favourite Sci-Fi films of all-time plus it has:

[Show spoiler]Linda Harrison as Nova.
Linda_Harrison_2.jpg