# Remake vs. New



## Ahdkaw (Mar 16, 2004)

Is anyone else out there sick and tired of Hollywood remaking all the classic movies? Why can't they just leave them alone, these movies stand perfectly well on their own and do no need support from some terribly bad remake. 

Let's take The Italian Job as an example. The original was fantastic, and can be watched again and again and again without it's losing it's high quality. The remake however was absolute rubbish, and is barely worth watching once never mind over and over.

I think it's time that Hollywood started extending it's reach to modern day authors who have plenty of *new* ideas that a film hasn't been made about. Which would you rather see after all, a new film or a remake of an old?

I hate Hollywood and all the trappings of it, cocaine-snorting executives deciding what should be made and what shouldn't is a bad idea.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Mar 16, 2004)

Ahdkaw said:
			
		

> I think it's time that Hollywood started extending it's reach to modern day authors who have plenty of *new* ideas that a film hasn't been made about. Which would you rather see after all, a new film or a remake of an old?


Now there's a good point. 

I suppose this wave of remakes started off with a couple of movie makers genuinely wanting to pay homage to and update an old favorite, but over the years it's become another sad case of history repeating itself, first as tragedy and then as farce, or whatever it was the man said.


----------



## mac1 (Mar 16, 2004)

Yep definately. Some films should never have been adapted from book the way they were either though, Huxley would be turning in his grave if he ever saw the Brave New World movie for example! The Time Machine, The Italian Job, and The Ring spring to mind as examples of why not to remake classics.

BTW, I have seen mention of an upcoming film called "The Day After Tommorow", does anyone know if it is aremake of "The Day After"? I certainly hope not, that is another classic film that Hollywood will be sure to ruin if so.

Hollywoood should take a little influence from classics though, the pap they are producing at the moment is hardly worth watching. Why not resurrect films in the style of Lawrence of Arabia, Ben Hur and Spartacus for example. There isnt enough epic majesty in todays films.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Mar 16, 2004)

Now there's a though. Gladiator was at least a step in that direction?


Has anyone read Stephen Pressfield's brilliant novel on the battle of Thermopylae, 'The gates of fire'? I think that would make a great movie!


----------



## Brian G Turner (Mar 16, 2004)

Bigmacscanlan said:
			
		

> Ye Why not resurrect films in the style of Lawrence of Arabia, Ben Hur and Spartacus for example. There isnt enough epic majesty in todays films.





			
				knivesout said:
			
		

> Gladiator was at least a step in that direction?


Gladiator showed Hollywood that it could make epic historical films again. 

Unfortunately, as in the 60's, we should expect variable quality.

We already have Troy due for release - "loosly" based on the Iliad.

We also have the movie of Alexander the Great coming closer to release - directed by Oliver Stone, and starring the likes of Val Kilmer and a string of names.


----------



## Foxbat (Mar 16, 2004)

> Is anyone else out there sick and tired of Hollywood remaking all the classic movies? Why can't they just leave them alone


To many remakes is a sign of the times. In many cases it's just a case of minimum effort - maximum profit. The idea is there ready to use - all they need do is put together a vaguely similar script, pump it out and make a mint. Look beyond Hollywood for fresh new and vibrant filmmakers and you will be happily surprised. 



> Why not resurrect films in the style of Lawrence of Arabia, Ben Hur and Spartacus for example. There isnt enough epic majesty in todays films.


I'm a  fan of BIG films but take The Longest Day for example - look at how many stars were in that one - and consider this: John Wayne was the highest paid at £15000. Look at today's price for an A list star in your film and you can see why most have only one or two major players - money.

Hollywood lost all credibility in my eyes when it actually considered a sequel to Cameron's vastly overrated Titanic  

Long Live people like David Lynch - people who actually make us think.


----------



## dwndrgn (Mar 16, 2004)

I'm both for and against remakes. Basically there are several factors in whether a film or tv show should be remade and how it should be done. 

1)Is the subject such that it will have an immediate fan-base? (Godzilla)
2)Is the remake going to be an 'update' or an 'overhaul'? An update would be remaking the film and adding modern elements, gadgets, clothing, and speech that couldn't have been seen in the original (a la Romeo & Juliet). An overhaul would be remaking the film using basically the same story, characters, scenes, but just re-done with modern filming technology and fresh new actors.
3)Is the film being remade because the director/producer really loved the original and wanted to pay homage to something from his/her past? Or is it just being remade because the original made lots of money and they think it can be done again?

Some do it well and others don't. The same happens with music - a popular band will re-do a song from the past and either ruin it forever or create a new facet to a wonderful work. 

You also have to take into account the fact that everyone's tastes are different. Take as an example the Depp as Wonka thread. A couple of people can't see why a remake of a classic is needed. Others can see that a remake could bring a wonderful classic out of the storage shed for today's world.

Ok, I'll shut up now 

Edited to add: BigMac - I don't think The Day After Tomorrow is a remake of The Day After.  Go to http://www.hsx.com and you will be able to find out about it for sure.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Mar 16, 2004)

Sometimes remakes are justified, I think. I like the idea of the "Wonka" remake; although I liked the Gene Wilder version when I saw it, I can't watch it now. It just seems dated. And I don't have much of a problem with Peter Jackson remaking "King Kong" because I think it is needed as a corrective for the other remake (that thing starring Jessica Lange).

And, like it or not, classics will get remade over and over. Sometimes this is good. I think the Zefferelli version of "Romeo and Juliet" was long overdue. At least it had actors of the appropriate age playing the parts - and they were good actors. However, I have a real problem with "updated" remakes of classics. I've never seen "West Side Story" (even though I'm a fan of Natalie Wood's work) and I don't have any desire to see it. And from the clips I've seen, the newest remake (the one with Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes) is just beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned. I'm kind of ambivalent about remakes like Kenneth Branagh's "Hamlet" - he updates the story, but not into contemporary times. Perhaps I'm too much of a traditionalist about this. Still, its how I feel.

Some remakes just puzzle me. Why, for example, did we need a remake of "Ocean's Eleven"? The original was just a toss-off, a reason for the members of the Rat Pack to get to hang out together in Vegas for a few weeks. And why in heaven's name did we need the "Planet of the Apes" remake; all apologies to Tim Burton fans (and I'm one too) it was, in my humble opinion, a waste of time.


----------



## mac1 (Mar 16, 2004)

Foxbat said:
			
		

> Long Live people like David Lynch - people who actually make us think.


Amen to that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Wild at Heart! Thats how you do a remake! 



			
				dwndrgn said:
			
		

> Edited to add: BigMac - I don't think The Day After Tomorrow is a remake of The Day After. Go to http://www.hsx.com and you will be able to find out about it for sure.


I am still not entirely sure to be honest. The plot does sound different to The Day After, the survival of mankind horrific global warming, but this could still be as a result of a nuclear bomb, I havent really found anything too concrete on it. Hopefully its not a remake as its by the guys who did Armageddon! Thats all we need!



			
				littlemissattitude said:
			
		

> And why in heaven's name did we need the "Planet of the Apes" remake; all apologies to Tim Burton fans (and I'm one too) it was, in my humble opinion, a waste of time.


Sorry littlemiss, but I disagree. I thought Tim Burton did a superb job of remaking the film, even if they wouldn't let him include his proposed interspecies monkey lovin' scene - lol!  (Beastiality in a Hollywood blockbuster - That proposal really pushed the boundaries of decency! lol!) But seriously, the original had started to look dated, and the remake looked amazing in my opinion.

As for the epic film thing, perhaps "The Passion Of Christ" will help resurrect such films. BTW, does anyone know why it is carrying an 18 certificate? Is it due to laws on blasphemy, or as a result of its allegedly graphic nature.

... and a sequel to Titanic, the only suggestion I have even heard that was stupider, was by my old boss, he suggested that they should make a sequel to "Tombstone"! How you make a sequel to a biopic I don't know, and he couldn't even figure why I found his dumb suggestion so ammusing! 

Yeah, I think ultimately it is down to opinion and the way the remakes are done. If it brings something new to the film, without trying to replace a classic then I am all for it, but I cant stand easy-profit cash-ins. If you are going to remake something classic, at least give the project to a director with a little integrety.


----------



## zorka (Mar 17, 2004)

Ahdkaw said:
			
		

> I think it's time that Hollywood started extending it's reach to modern day authors who have plenty of *new* ideas that a film hasn't been made about. Which would you rather see after all, a new film or a remake of an old?


 I agree with everyone, but I think what is being left out here is that Hollywood is a business and a volitile one at that. Given the salaries of the big stars who are responsible for many people going to the films (as one of you said before, you don't get these big stars for what they use to pay under the Studio control methods of the old days), and the production costs of most Hollywood films today, in order to make money they feel (the operative word) they have to have a sure thing. That sure thing in their minds seems to be to stay within the popular genres. Thus we see lots of SF related films because of the success of earlier films such as the Terminator films, etc. I expect we'll see a bunch of fantasy oriented films ala LOTR.

 Some have even said we'll see a resurgence in the biblical films due to Gibson's "The Passion."

 Occasionally, Hollywood takes a risk, but recent history has shown it is the independent film makers such as Gibson has done or Peter Jackson with LOTR who first buck the trend - succeed - and Hollywood follows. Under the old studio systems, with lower star salaries and mostly stage constructed non-location productions, Hollywood tended to lead. No more. It just cost too damn much sadly for these businesses to take the risk.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Mar 17, 2004)

Bigmacscanlan said:
			
		

> Sorry littlemiss, but I disagree. I thought Tim Burton did a superb job of remaking the film, even if they wouldn't let him include his proposed interspecies monkey lovin' scene - lol!  (Beastiality in a Hollywood blockbuster - That proposal really pushed the boundaries of decency! lol!) But seriously, the original had started to look dated, and the remake looked amazing in my opinion.


Mac...I guess I didn't phrase my appraisal well. I don't think Burton's filmmaking was bad. I don't think he can make a "bad" film, cinematically speaking. I just didn't like the story - which was different in some appreciable ways from the original - as a piece of storytelling. I couldn't find the level of social commentary that was so evident in - and such a key part of - the original film, which I have always felt made the original so worthwhile. Additionally, I just didn't find the ending of the sequel anywhere near as powerful as the ending of the original. I'll go back and watch Burton's version again when I have the chance, to see if I missed something.

I guess at least part of my reaction to the Burton film is that I am (sigh) old enough to have seen the original "Planet of the Apes" in its first release. Yeah, the original does look a bit dated now, despite having state of the art makeup for the time it was made. But it has been one of my favorite films ever since I first saw it.


----------



## BAYLOR (May 6, 2020)

I liked the original *Time Machine* with Rod Taylor  and I own it on dvd . The 2002 Time Machine I didn't liked when I saw it in the theaters  but having seen it numerous time since , it grown me. Though it not quite the classic the original is . It in own right it tis a pretty good science fiction film.


----------



## Major Eazy (May 6, 2020)

Ahdkaw said:


> Is anyone else out there sick and tired of Hollywood remaking all the classic movies? Why can't they just leave them alone, these movies stand perfectly well on their own and do no need support from some terribly bad remake.
> 
> Let's take The Italian Job as an example. The original was fantastic, and can be watched again and again and again without it's losing it's high quality. The remake however was absolute rubbish, and is barely worth watching once never mind over and over.
> 
> ...



I agree with you, sometimes some of the originals are fine, and I enjoy watching them, until Hollywood decided to remake the original. And then the remake kind of spoiled my pleasure in trying to watch the original. Sometimes I would watch the original but my mind wanders and remember the scenes from the remake. Taking your _The Italian Job_ as an example: I watch the original, and I see the original British Leyland Minis, but then somehow I ended up thinking I'm seeing the modern BMW Minis!!

Also it can be an annoyance when you talk about the actions of a character, the plot of the story, the settings, something, whatever, but you were talking about the original, and others were not aware of it. They then try to correct you by pointing out you got it wrong, and tell you the correct actions, plots, settings, etc., that is really from the remake.

Let's say as an example: You're talking about _Total Recall_, but you did not mention that it's the 1990 one starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. Someone would say to you "Mars?! What are you talking about? It's not on Mars, it's in Australia." which happens to be the 2012 remake starring Colin Farrell.

Sometimes a few remakes are better, but not all of them are. I do wish Hollywood would come up with new ideas instead of recycling old movies.


----------



## Astro Pen (May 6, 2020)

Remaking _The Saint_ with Val Kilmer should have resulted in jail time!
I'm sure Sir Roger Moore was spinning in his Volvo.
And don't start me off on_ Solaris_ the Clooney vehicle. Tarkovsky's work  should be left well alone, it was art and cinematic history.

I'm sure they would do a 'repaint' of the _Mona Lisa _given half a chance. "Now see her six foot high in dazzling fresh pigments."


----------



## Rodders (May 6, 2020)

Trouble with remakes is that they bring a new audience to our best loved films and books and I personally think that is a good thing. (I think there is probably a similar argument to be had for our favourite books being made as movies, too.)

I have to be honest, I’m not too bothered by a remake or reboot. If the project is something that I adore, well I may choose not to see it. (This is rare as curiousity always gets the better of me. ) However, some remakes I actively look forward to. Take David Lynch’s Dune which is being discussed elsewhere in this forum. I loved that movies as a 15 year old and still rate it highly today, but I am very much looking forward to seeing Villeneuve’s version and I strongly suspect I’ll enjoy it.


----------



## Vince W (May 6, 2020)

The problem with remakes/reboots is that they tend to be lazy. The remakers tend to take the original and put a 'spin' on it and expect it to do just as well. All too often it results in embarrassment. Villeneuve's Dune is something else though. They aren't trying to remake Lynch's Dune, but are adapting the book in their own right.


----------



## .matthew. (May 6, 2020)

My biggest problem with Hollywood isn't the remakes (which I can always just not watch), but the criminally overpaid 'stars' that can act no better than ten thousand others in that sun scorched place. Them, and the crazy costs of production makes making movies so epically expensive that they end up controlled by half a dozen major studios.

Then even with those budgets, they make a metric ton of money from them, through outrageous pricing. 

I say get back to making films with a reasonable budget and new actors/actresses to further reduce costs. They couldn't possibly be any worse than the trash that is foisted on us currently. Plus we'd get a lot more variety...


----------



## CupofJoe (May 6, 2020)

While I am not a fan, I don't mind remakes or reboots. I've quite liked the Ghostbusters, Footloose, Hellboy and Robocop revamps, but they didn't really give me anything new. Most of the time I don't know why anyone okay'd production. Especially with Hellboy, when I forgot!  was watching the remake several times. Oddly, in the case of the Footloose, I liked the way it blended the old and the new together.


----------



## Avelino de Castro (May 8, 2020)

dwndrgn said:


> I'm both for and against remakes. Basically there are several factors in whether a film or tv show should be remade and how it should be done.
> 
> 1)Is the subject such that it will have an immediate fan-base? (Godzilla)
> 2)Is the remake going to be an 'update' or an 'overhaul'? An update would be remaking the film and adding modern elements, gadgets, clothing, and speech that couldn't have been seen in the original (a la Romeo & Juliet). An overhaul would be remaking the film using basically the same story, characters, scenes, but just re-done with modern filming technology and fresh new actors.
> ...


I see your point when you mention Depp as Wily Wonka.  Tim Burton's reimagining of Roald Dahl's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is in many ways better than the original film.  For one thing in Gene WIlder's time the CGI and effects technology weren't available to really do the story justice.


----------



## Rodders (May 8, 2020)

I still haven’t seen Burton’s version.


----------



## BAYLOR (May 17, 2020)

Vince W said:


> The problem with remakes/reboots is that they tend to be lazy. The remakers tend to take the original and put a 'spin' on it and expect it to do just as well. All too often it results in embarrassment. Villeneuve's Dune is something else though. They aren't trying to remake Lynch's Dune, but are adapting the book in their own right.



Many of them fail because they tend to be nothing more then  paint by the numbers retreads of the originals  . Part of the problem is often you have executives , producers, writers, directors doing them,  who have no regard or appreciation of the original and nothing but  arrogant contempt for the audiences they expect to come see  these films.


----------



## Narkalui (May 17, 2020)

I think Ocean's Eleven is an excellent case. Yes, the original was a poor film and was only made as an excuse for the Day Pack to hang out in Vegas. My guess is that in the late '90s someone saw it and said "Hold on, this could work!" and it did...

Oh and interestingly, the original Ocean's Eleven is itself a remake of a '50s Ealing caper called The League Of Gentlemen, an excellent little film that I strongly recommend


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 30, 2020)

The 1978 remake of Invasion of the Body Snathers is every bit as a good as the original 1956 film .  Kevin McCarthy the lead in the fist film has a cameo I the 1978 film.


----------



## Vladd67 (Jul 30, 2020)

Narkalui said:


> I think Ocean's Eleven is an excellent case. Yes, the original was a poor film and was only made as an excuse for the Day Pack to hang out in Vegas. My guess is that in the late '90s someone saw it and said "Hold on, this could work!" and it did...
> 
> Oh and interestingly, the original Ocean's Eleven is itself a remake of a '50s Ealing caper called The League Of Gentlemen, an excellent little film that I strongly recommend


With an amusing out of character appearance of Oliver Reed.


----------



## Narkalui (Jul 31, 2020)

Ah yes! Babes In The Wood


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 6, 2020)

The 2008 version  of  *The Day the Earth Stood Still *will never top the 1951 film . But the remake and its message about ecology  has more relevance  to the here and now than does the the 1951 film  whose themes were influenced  by  a different.  political  reality  of the that era, most  notably the Cold War.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Sep 13, 2020)

Vladd67 said:


> With an amusing out of character appearance of Oliver Reed.



Oliver Reed only ever played himself!

They don't make actors like him anymore...


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 13, 2020)

paranoid marvin said:


> Oliver Reed only ever played himself!
> 
> They don't make actors like him anymore...



No matter what film he did, He always had a commanding presence. Even his last film *Gladiator* , he outshined  Russel Crowe in the scenes they were in together.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Sep 13, 2020)

BAYLOR said:


> No matter what film he did, He always had commanding presence. Even His last film *Gladiator* , he outshined  Russel Crowe in the scenes they were in together.



Definitely, and it's sadly lacking in many actors now. He even managed to upstage the wonderful Ron Moody's Fagin when playing Bill Sikes in Oliver!


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 13, 2020)

paranoid marvin said:


> Definitely, and it's sadly lacking in many actors now. He even managed to upstage the wonderful Ron Moody's Fagin when playing Bill Sikes in Oliver!



He was a  hell of good actor. It's very sad that he's no longer here.


----------



## Vladd67 (Sep 13, 2020)

One of his best performances was as a drunk on the Micheal Aspel show. His brother was there in the green room with him before he went on and is quoted as saying that Ollie was cold stone sober but said before he went on "if they want a drunk that's what they are going to get,"
Of course, that could just be his brother defending the memory of Oliver Reed.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Sep 13, 2020)

Vladd67 said:


> One of his best performances was as a drunk on the Micheal Aspel show. His brother was there in the green room with him before he went on and is quoted as saying that Ollie was cold stone sober but said before he went on "if they want a drunk that's what they are going to get,"
> Of course, that could just be his brother defending the memory of Oliver Reed.




If he was acting then it was the best performance of his career.  If memory serves this was the first of a number or drunken states he ended up in on tv programmes. It was quite sad really that he was treated this way.


----------



## Randy M. (Oct 2, 2020)

Astro Pen said:


> Remaking _The Saint_ with Val Kilmer should have resulted in jail time!
> I'm sure Sir Roger Moore was spinning in his Volvo.
> ...



And George Sanders, too. And Louis Hayward. And Ian Oglivy ... 

Simon Templar is another, like Sherlock Holmes and Superman, a series character that could be good in future movies/tv shows if someone really applies some imagination. We're not going to get rid of him anytime soon, I think, and I see there was another Saint movie as late as 2017.

As for remakes in general, I'm ambivalent. For every _Nosferatu_ the Vampire (1979) or _Invasion of the Body Snatchers_ (1978), you have a long line of movies like _The Haunting_ (1999) that show no imagination or innovation, no spark of an original idea. We're usually lucky if we get something as interesting if not exactly good as _Cat People_ (1982).

Randy M.


----------



## paeng (Oct 3, 2020)

Several factors are coming into play: large amounts of money at stake, competition and lots of films to choose from, maximizing profits, and high ticket prices.

Given these factors, producers have to bank on tent-pole movies, or movies that look expensive in order to justify high ticket prices. That means films that are more than two hours long and crammed with lots of CGI.

Because they're expensive (with a large chunk spent on marketing), they have to be sold to an international market to increase sales and recoup costs, and that means story lines that can cut across different cultures and lots of action and spectacular scenes.

One least one movie has to be made for each part of the year outside dump months, and that means re-using franchises through reboots, remakes, rehashes, re-imagining, sequels, prequels, and spinoffs. This keeps development time low and release of new titles high. Sometimes, the plots are cobbled from previous movies in the same franchise or from others.

The result are movies that look and sound alike, and similar can be seen in television shows, music, and video games.

In time, customers become weary because of that, having too many choices, and because of high prices, so they just watch one and wait for the others to be shown cheaper on streaming, cable, FTA TV, or in recorded format in bargain bins. At the same time, with CGI and cheaper digital cameras, more lower-budget movies are being made, usually direct to video or streamed, and mostly of quality (in terms of storytelling) as mediocre as expensive ones, if not worse.

The result are major gains coupled with major losses, and a possible implosion of the film industry as the market can no longer absorb increasing numbers of movies, especially tent-poles.


----------

