# Remakes



## Droflet (Aug 28, 2015)

I was just thinking (it's an annual event for me) that I could not think of one remake that was the equal or better of the original. Not sequels or prequels but *remakes*. This could be a very short-lived post unless some of my fellow Chrononauts can think of a movie remake that I've missed. The most recent example of an extremely bad remake would be The Day the Earth Stood Still. Truly   So, thoughts?


----------



## thaddeus6th (Aug 28, 2015)

Well... if you compare Daniel Craig's Casino Royale with the train crash of a film inflicted upon the splendid David Niven, the former is clearly better. That said, the older film was meant to be a comedy whereas Craig's was not.

Not a fan of remakes either. But those, prequels, sequels, reboots are all the rage in film now.


----------



## Droflet (Aug 28, 2015)

Hmm, interesting take, Thad. And, yes, sadly, you're right about the current trends. Shrugs and walks away mumbling.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 28, 2015)

Are films such as the more recent version of _Casino Royale_ remakes as such? Surely a strict definition of a cinematic remake would be taking an original film and producing a newer version of it rather than making another film adaptation of an original work from another medium.


Obviously, things are not always clear cut. For example, Hitchcock's _Psycho_ is based on Bloch's novel, but Gus Van Sant's _Psycho_ is meant to be a remake (almost a refilming) of the first film, _not_ a new adaptation of the novel. In the case of _The Day the Earth Stood Still_, I think we _are_ dealing with a remake as, based on what Wikipedia states about the original short story, _Farewell to the Master_, both films have (different) immediate-danger-to-the-world plot elements, which are absent from the book.


----------



## Droflet (Aug 28, 2015)

Hmm, another interesting take. I expected little feedback on my post but the replies so far make me think. Damn you people, haven't I mentioned I don't like doing that.


----------



## Temperance (Aug 28, 2015)

I much preferred the Dawn of the Dead remake to the original and its heavy handed "consumerism, look, look consumerism" hectoring.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 3, 2015)

Ive grown to like the 2002 Guy Pierce  remake of the Time Machine. It's a good film.


----------



## Ensign Shah (Sep 3, 2015)

Enjoyed Tom Cruise's War of the Worlds,even though I don't like Tom Cruise. 'Twas an action packed, scary survival film.


----------



## Mark Ragland (Sep 3, 2015)

Speaking of remakes, I hear that Will Smith is going to star in a 2016 remake of the Clint Eastwood movie Dirty Harry.

Thoughts?


----------



## Droflet (Sep 3, 2015)




----------



## Michael Colton (Sep 3, 2015)

I suppose it would depend on the question Ursa brought up. If we are taking 'remake' to mean a new take on an old _film_, then I cannot think of one either. If you simply mean a newer adaptation of an older story, then the first one that comes to mind is I Am Legend. I found it significantly more enjoyable than The Omega Man despite the fact that they departed strongly from the original story.


----------



## Phyrebrat (Sep 3, 2015)

Little Shop of Horrors.  

pH


----------



## Droflet (Sep 4, 2015)

Hmm, Phyrebrat, may, I say may, have a winner there. I'll cogitate. 

The other comments, though interesting, bring this thread an obvious conclusion. It's all subjective. Personally, I don't think any of the movies mentioned meet the criteria, except, possibly for the above. Maybe that's just me. 

Now don't get me wrong, I like Will Smith. But Dirty Harry? I must reiterate . However, if they're remaking it as a comedy?


----------



## Foxbat (Sep 4, 2015)

Not a fan of remakes but I think as you get older, you start to see them forming a pattern for each new generation. Where I think they can have particular relevance is when they have evolved to reflect the dangers or topics of the world as it is now rather than it was then.

I think the problem of 'remakes' has been exacerbated by the number of reboots (I'm thinking Spiderman as a example...it's not that long ago that we had the Toby McGuire versions and now we have a reboot in less than a generation).

As a consumer, I tend not to go to cinematic releases of reboots or remakes and I tend not to buy them on DVD or Blu-Ray. They would have to be very special to get me to part with any cash and, in my opinion, once you take away the crash, bang, wallop, look-at-the-pretty effects aspects, there's not a lot going for many movies coming out of Hollywood right now. I look more and more to foreign shores for my viewing.

My personal favourite remake is Werner Herzog's take on Nosferatu. Well worth a watch.


----------



## TheDustyZebra (Sep 4, 2015)

I can't see the point of so many of the remakes these days. To me, the only reason to remake a film is to use better technology and special effects than what were available to the original filmmakers. There is no reason on earth to remake Footloose, for example. (And I'm coming from a point of having liked the original, so that doesn't mean "it was a dreadful movie so why do it again" as some people would mean by that.) There aren't any special effects in Footloose, so the only thing to change is to modernize the setting, which is just stupid. A remake should be something that adds a dimension that wasn't possible the first time. SF movies are far better suited to the remake trend, for that purpose.


----------



## Droflet (Sep 4, 2015)

Keanu Reeves or Michael Rennie. Special effects aren't worth going through that remake again.


----------



## Vladd67 (Sep 4, 2015)

John Carpenter's The Thing is, I think, a better version than Howard Hawks' The Thing from another World, enjoyable though the original is.


----------



## Ursa major (Sep 4, 2015)

TheDustyZebra said:


> I can't see the point of so many of the remakes these days.


The whole point, the sole point, is the money; so as long as people are prepared, in large numbers, to pay to watch remakes, remakes will be made.


----------



## Droflet (Sep 4, 2015)

Sadly, oh adorably cuddly one, soo true. A big budget movie, with known actors and over the top special effects will NEVER make up for a well written script. For further explanation see Guardians of the Galaxy.


----------



## TheDustyZebra (Sep 4, 2015)

Ursa major said:


> The whole point, the sole point, is the money; so as long as people are prepared, in large numbers, to pay to watch remakes, remakes will be made.



Well, yes. As I tell my kids repeatedly, when the question is why, the answer is generally money. (And its corollary, when the question is why not, the answer is generally religion.)


----------



## ratsy (Sep 4, 2015)

It's the same with TV... I mean Heroes Reborn, Supergirl...blah blah blah..Give me something new!!!! 

I want to see a really good horror television show...not American Horror Story (which leans on some good stuff but ends up not good) Penny dreadful setting was nice, but the story bogged me down I gave up after 3 episodes. I tried Salem too and again, the setting is cool, but nothing seems to really happen. 

Wait...what are we talking about? Where am i?

Oh, if we move to sequel, not remake, I am looking forward to the new Ash vs Evil Dead

Okay, now I'm back on track!!!

best remake is Evil Dead 2, a remake of Evil Dead...

I knew my ramblings would get me there


----------



## JunkMonkey (Sep 4, 2015)

Huston's 1941_ Maltese Falcon_ was a remake that is better than the 1931 version.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 6, 2015)

Vladd67 said:


> John Carpenter's The Thing is, I think, a better version than Howard Hawks' The Thing from another World, enjoyable though the original is.



John Carpenter's version was more in line with the John W Campbell story *Who Goes There, *which  both films were based.


----------



## Ursa major (Sep 6, 2015)

So it's a better adaptation rather than a remake that happens to be an improvement on the original?


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 6, 2015)

Ursa major said:


> So it's a better adaptation rather than a remake that happens to be an improvement on the original?



Most remakes tend to not be an improvements  over the original . One Notable exception to this. David Cronenbergs 1986 remake of *The Fly.*


----------



## Ursa major (Sep 6, 2015)

They're both adaptations again, in this case of The Fly.


----------



## Michael Colton (Sep 7, 2015)

One thing that people tend to forget about remakes/reboots is that they almost have to be made. When a production company buys the film or television rights to something, they have to keep utilizing it. If enough time goes by, it will revert back. This is why you see endless Spiderman, Superman, etc. They can't stop making them or they will lose the rights.


----------



## Mark Ragland (Sep 10, 2015)

Anyone here remember the movie Road House starring the late Patrick Swayze? Yesterday, I saw that they're going to do a remake with MMA fighter Ronda Roussey in the Swayze role.

Thoughts?


----------



## clovis-man (Sep 11, 2015)

Ensign Shah said:


> Enjoyed Tom Cruise's War of the Worlds,even though I don't like Tom Cruise. 'Twas an action packed, scary survival film.



I was surprised to see that the Spielberg film was, in fact, a remake of the George Pal original. I somehow expected a new look at the H. G. Wells novel. In point of fact, I enjoyed the (modest) homage to the 1953 classic. Discounting the "Tom Cruise moments" I thought it was actually pretty good.


----------



## JunkMonkey (Sep 12, 2015)

clovis-man said:


> I was surprised to see that the Spielberg film was, in fact, a remake of the George Pal original. I somehow expected a new look at the H. G. Wells novel. In point of fact, I enjoyed the (modest) homage to the 1953 classic. Discounting the "Tom Cruise moments" I thought it was actually pretty good.



I agree. Right up till the moment where



			
				my film diary said:
			
		

> In a scene _almost _recognisably drawn from a scene in the book, our hero meets a character called Ogilvy hiding in a cellar. (In the book Ogilvy was an astronomer, the character in the cellar was just called 'the artilleryman'.) There are Martians all over the place and they are trapped, forced to keep quite in case they are discovered. Ogilvy's character is digging a tunnel and his continuous noise is putting them all in jeopardy. Our hero decides he has no option but to kill Ogilvy to save his own and his child's lives. He blindfolds his daughter and tells her to to sing while he goes to do the deed. This could have been - should have been - a horrible, terrible moment. Our decent, hard-working, loving family man forced to do something so horrible to protect those he loves. But it isn't. It isn't because the film-makers chickened out of making it a horrible terrible moment by making the character of Ogilvy a creepily weird possible paedophile, so repulsive that people just wanted him disposed of. There was no moral ambiguity. Cruise was acting his cotton socks off in this scene but the moment had gone. Ogilvy was broad brushstoke evil and therefore Cruise's character was entitled to dispose of him. Wouldn't it have been so much more interesting if Ogily had been nice. Helpful, friendly, nice - but just dangerously _noisy_. Wouldn't that have been one hell of a scene? Damn right it would. Oscar time all round I think, but Hollywood leading men don't kill 'nice' people do they? Three minutes later (having remembered he's an action hero) Cruise is blowing up previously impregnable Martian war machines with a couple of hand grenades he just happens to find lying about and reuniting his family. The End.


----------

