Remakes don't sell well... why do they keep making them?

[Mr.Twinks]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

The only time I have a problem with a remake is when the original is actually good or in some way regarded as a classic. A great example of a worthy/valueable remake is The Fly. The original is dated, cheesey, poorly made and quite silly. The Jeff Goldblum edition is a terrific film in destroys the old one in every way possible.

A bad example is Fright Night. The original cast and film are perfect and despite some effects cheese its a great film that hits all the right notes with the characters and such. So, they go and ruin that with Colin focking Farrell and the completely unnecessary remake of a classic 80s horror film.

There are plenty of other examples where rebooting or remaking is simply despicable. Ghostbusters? Superman? Effing kidding me?

BLEH.

That and the 1982 remake of The Thing was great as well. I have zero issue with remakes/reboots only if the story has some teeth or meet/exceeds the 'original'. Robocop remake had zero teeth and it was PG13. Far from Paul V's vision and it was simply a revenue generator.

The other issue is people will still see these movies because they make money at the box office, and that is on us consumers. IMO, most of these remakes are decided by a corporate committee rather than a bunch of enthusiastic artists. Add financial risk into that and you get what we have today in some of the films.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

There are plenty of other examples where rebooting or remaking is simply despicable. Ghostbusters? Superman? Effing kidding me?

BLEH.

So nobody should ever make another Superman movie ever again?

Seriously?

[Britbuffguy]

Originally Posted by Michael Bay Fan

To the OP. You keep saying people hate remakes. If that were the case why do they keep continuing to make money for? If they were so hated they wouldn't make any money and the studios would realize that.

Studios are lazy. Remakes are made on the cheap with unoriginal filmmakers. Then can turn a profit for that reason.

Name me one recent remake that has been a box office giant?

It's really starting to become laughable how awful you schill for the garbage in Hollywood.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Britbuffguy

Studios are lazy. Remakes are made on the cheap with unoriginal filmmakers. Then can turn a profit for that reason.

Name me one recent remake that has been a box office giant?

It's really starting to become laughable how awful you schill for the garbage in Hollywood.

Dawn of the Dead cleared $100M worldwide, and almost $60M domestic.

The Ring came in at $250M worldwide, and well over $100M domestic.

Godzilla pulled in almost $400M worldwide.

The Grudge made over $180M at the box.

The Mummy, King Kong, I Am Legend, War of the Worlds -- all of them were either just short of, or over HALF A BILLION.


Do I really need to continue?

[AaronJ]

Oh, and the idea that you think that someone like, say, Harvey Weinstein is "lazy" is so utterly ridiculous that it makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time.

You may not like decisions studios make. You may not like the fact that they are generally risk-averse. You may not like the product they put out. But those people may be many, many things; but "lazy" is definitely not one of them.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Britbuffguy

Studios are lazy. Remakes are made on the cheap with unoriginal filmmakers. Then can turn a profit for that reason.

Name me one recent remake that has been a box office giant?

It's really starting to become laughable how awful you schill for the garbage in Hollywood.

21 Jump Street is the third title listed in your collection. Followed very closely by The A-Team.

Also on page one? Five Batmans, three American Pies and Alien vs Predator.

And that's just on one page.

And just to be clear: I am not trying to discredit your opinions by suggesting you have shitty taste in movies.

A) That's a very weak move.

B) I own Batman Forever and Batman and Robin too so...

I'm simply suggesting that shilling for the garbage in Hollywood isn't nearly as laughable as railing against that lazy, unoriginal garbage while carving out exceptions for the lazy, unoriginal garbage we like.

[SymbioticFunction]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

There are plenty of other examples where rebooting or remaking is simply despicable. Ghostbusters? Superman? Effing kidding me?

Superman?? Couldn't help but notice that you own Nolan's Batman trilogy (as do I). A bit ironic.

Edit: You also own the 2006 remake of The Omen (but not the original) which makes this statement seem a bit odd:

Originally Posted by s2mikey

The only time I have a problem with a remake is when the original is actually good or in some way regarded as a classic.

[spiderfan1985]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

Both films are excellent. I think it's difficult to compare them, honestly, as they are quite different in tone.

I enjoyed that one too. It was proof that Brett Ratner isn't without talent as a director. Of course he was helped by a game cast, but he also brought some slick style to that movie and the necessary dark tone.

[ScarredLungs]

Nothing wrong with remakes or reboots. As long as they are well made. The ones with issues are the movies made to only get cash from a particular movie. With the right direction and vision, any movie can have potential.

[SymbioticFunction]

I thought that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was a pretty darn interesting remake - as it used the original cinematographer (Daniel Pearl), and gave him a fairly substantial budget that time around.

[Mystic]

Originally Posted by Mr.Twinks

That and the 1982 remake of The Thing was great as well. I have zero issue with remakes/reboots only if the story has some teeth or meet/exceeds the 'original'. Robocop remake had zero teeth and it was PG13. Far from Paul V's vision and it was simply a revenue generator.

The other issue is people will still see these movies because they make money at the box office, and that is on us consumers. IMO, most of these remakes are decided by a corporate committee rather than a bunch of enthusiastic artists. Add financial risk into that and you get what we have today in some of the films.

For what's it worth, the 1982 version of the Thing was not a remake, Carpenter's film was a re-adaption of the original short story.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by spiderfan1985

I enjoyed that one too. It was proof that Brett Ratner isn't without talent as a director. Of course he was helped by a game cast, but he also brought some slick style to that movie and the necessary dark tone.

Yeah, every time I see that I'm shocked again that Ratner directed it.

It's clear, as you say, that with some decent material and a good cast he can get the job done.

[SymbioticFunction]

I once encountered someone on imdb (who genuinely appeared to be serious) that was complaining about a new Dracula film coming from Dario Argento. Complaining that no-one should have the nerve to try to remake the 1992 Francis Ford Coppola movie. At the time, I found it pretty funny.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

The only time I have a problem with a remake is when the original is actually good or in some way regarded as a classic. A great example of a worthy/valueable remake is The Fly. The original is dated, cheesey, poorly made and quite silly. The Jeff Goldblum edition is a terrific film in destroys the old one in every way possible.

A bad example is Fright Night. The original cast and film are perfect and despite some effects cheese its a great film that hits all the right notes with the characters and such. So, they go and ruin that with Colin focking Farrell and the completely unnecessary remake of a classic 80s horror film.

There are plenty of other examples where rebooting or remaking is simply despicable. Ghostbusters? Superman? Effing kidding me?

BLEH.

What exactly about the original Fright Night was "ruined" when the remake came out? Far as I can tell, the original film still exists in exactly the same form, so nothing has changed.

You may thing the original The Fly was poorly made and silly. For the time, it was not, and some people will still argue that it is not. Just because you think Fright Night was "perfect" - it was not - doesn't mean others do.

So what you deem unnecessary is opinion, and therefore not shared by everyone else.

[Xenia]

Remakes, reboots, sequels, etc. It sells. That's why studios make them. Original ideas and scripts with no "base" (inherent in all reboots, sequels, remakes) are harder to sell and much much riskier.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by SymbioticFunction

I once encountered someone on imdb (who genuinely appeared to be serious) that was complaining about a new Dracula film coming from Dario Argento. Complaining that no-one should have the nerve to try to remake the 1992 Francis Ford Coppola movie. At the time, I found it pretty funny.

Man, IMDB produces some of the greatest comments and arguments of anywhere on the Internet. That place is the absolute definition of insanity.

[BluRayTim]

Originally Posted by Mr.Twinks

That and the 1982 remake of The Thing was great as well. I have zero issue with remakes/reboots only if the story has some teeth or meet/exceeds the 'original'. Robocop remake had zero teeth and it was PG13. Far from Paul V's vision and it was simply a revenue generator.

The other issue is people will still see these movies because they make money at the box office, and that is on us consumers. IMO, most of these remakes are decided by a corporate committee rather than a bunch of enthusiastic artists. Add financial risk into that and you get what we have today in some of the films.

I actually liked the RoboCop remake (which was rated PG-13). But I agree that it was a far cry from Paul Verhoven's version and vision (which was Rated R with 11 unrated director's cuts that originally got X ratings). Only 2 of those directors cuts were ever printed.

The 1st director's cut was on the Orion laser disc, the MGM DVD and the first BluRay Disc. It is 5 minutes longer with more explicit and higher quanitity of violence and blood than the theatrical version.

The 2nd director's cut is on the gigantically improved remastered BluRay Disc. This director's cut is 10 minutes longer than the theatrical cut with even more explicit and higher quanitity of violence and blood than the 1st printed director's cut.

Oh, I agree with you that all 3 versions of Paul Verhoven's RoboCop are much better than Jose Padhilla's version (which, again, I still like). Afterall, I own both RoboCop 1987 BluRay Discs (the original copy with awful audio and video quality and remastered copy with excellent audio and video quality) and RoboCop 2014 on BluRay Disc.

I am going to pawn the original copy of RoboCop 1987 on BluRay Disc later this year.

[Mr.Twinks]

Originally Posted by Mystic

For what's it worth, the 1982 version of the Thing was not a remake, Carpenter's film was a re-adaption of the original short story.

True, the old The Thing from Another World film and the short story of Who goes there? Carpenter figured out how to tell a story a different way so much the film is up there with other great horror movies.

He needs to get to work on the Dead Space movie inspired from the video game!

[Mr.Twinks]

Originally Posted by BluRayTim

I actually liked the RoboCop remake (which was rated PG-13). But I agree that it was a far cry from Paul Verhoven's version and vision (which was Rated R with 11 unrated director's cuts that originally got X ratings). Only 2 of those directors cuts were ever printed.

The 1st director's cut was on the Orion laser disc, the MGM DVD and the first BluRay Disc. It is 5 minutes longer with more explicit and higher quanitity of violence and blood than the theatrical version.

The 2nd director's cut is on the gigantically improved remastered BluRay Disc. This director's cut is 10 minutes longer than the theatrical cut with even more explicit and higher quanitity of violence and blood than the 1st printed director's cut.

Oh, I agree with you that all 3 versions of Paul Verhoven's RoboCop are much better than Jose Padhilla's version (which, again, I still like). Afterall, I own both RoboCop 1987 BluRay Discs (the original copy with awful audio and video quality and remastered copy with excellent audio and video quality) and RoboCop 2014 on BluRay Disc.

I am going to pawn the original copy of RoboCop 1987 on BluRay Disc later this year.

I started movie collecting back in the LaserDisc days and I remember I paid about $99USD in the late 90's for the Criterion edition of Robocop. Movies like this and the remake of Poltergeist have me hesitating what to watch. Again with Poltergeist you have two greats that brought that film to life, Steven Spielberg and Tobe Hooper. I will try and save my biases till the actual remake of Poltergeist releases.

[Kevin Holly]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

Man, IMDB produces some of the greatest comments and arguments of anywhere on the Internet. That place is the absolute definition of insanity.

I've always believed that RottenTomatoes commenters are the dumbest motherf***rs on the Internet, but, yeah, IMDB commenters give them a run for their money.

Not to be offensive or anything, but I feel like I would be more likely to become a white supremacist if I were to frequent the StormFront forums, than I would be pursuaded of anything by anyone who posts on RT or IMDB.