# What Do You Think of Reboots and Remakes ?



## BAYLOR (Sep 21, 2014)

Do You Think Hollywood should make fewer of them of those made which o you like and which do you dislike ?


----------



## Droflet (Sep 22, 2014)

Generally a waste of time. The Day the Earth Stood Still is a classic. The remake, to quote Mouse, is a steaming great pile of putrid... 
If they made remakes better than the original, fine. But they don't. I can't think of a remake that was better than the original.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 22, 2014)

telford said:


> Generally a waste of time. The Day the Earth Stood Still is a classic. The remake, to quote Mouse, is a steaming great pile of putrid...
> If they made remakes better than the original, fine. But they don't. I can't think of a remake that was better than the original.



I liked *Gort and Klaatu's Excellent Adventure .

*
In all seriousness, Im not a fan of remakes but, this film wasn't bad.


----------



## Vince W (Sep 22, 2014)

Remakes/reboots smack of a lack of creativity on the studio's parts. The only 'remake' I ever liked was John Carpenter's The Thing.


----------



## Juliana (Sep 22, 2014)

Sometimes remakes help make things pertinent to younger audiences. Will give two non-sff examples (just because they're the first to cone to mind); my 10yo daughter loves the Lindsey Lohan version of The Parent Trap. My mother-in-law loves the Hayley Mills 60's original, but my daughter finds it hard to connect with it.

Another: much as I absolutely adore Audrey Hepburn, I prefer the 90's remake with Julia Ormond. It just made sense to me at the time it came out, as a young adult, while the original is one of my least favourite Audrey movies.


----------



## J-Sun (Sep 22, 2014)

Juliana said:


> much as I absolutely adore Audrey Hepburn, I prefer the 90's remake with Julia Ormond. It just made sense to me at the time it came out, as a young adult, while the original is one of my least favourite Audrey movies.



But do you really _love_ the remake or just prefer it? I've never seen the remake but the original just isn't very good.

I've only got one outright remake in the dvd collection and that's just because it has Nastassja Kinski in it (_Cat People_) and I actually saw the films backwards (didn't even know the original existed at first), so ended up with both. The remake is pretty awful - it just stuck in my head forever so, when I saw it cheap on DVD, I decided to refresh my memory. And then got curious about the original. The original is kinda neat. (But conspicuously lacks Kinski.)

Arguably, the first couple of Batman flicks by Burton are re-somethings but that was really the first "movie from the start" treatment as opposed to TV-based, though both are derived from comics. I didn't like the one Nolan Batman I saw. And, of course, the '31 Dracula wasn't the first film treatment of Dracula but it was probably the first sound film of the name.

Generally, remakes and reboots are pointless or worse. If it was a success, why mess it up? If it was a failure, why try to make a silk purse out of the sow's ear? (It can happen but it's not a wise course of action in principle.) And if the course of the concept has run and it's been driven into the ground, why "reboot" it rather than admit the parrot's dead and move on to, I dunno, a _new_ idea? But as long as the risk-averse and avaricious can continue to do it and laugh to the bank, that's what will keep happening.


----------



## Vince W (Sep 22, 2014)

I sometimes picture film studio meetings going like this:

Okay, what are we going to do next?
*silence*
Anything?
Well, I saw this film the other day...


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 23, 2014)

Vince W said:


> Remakes/reboots smack of a lack of creativity on the studio's parts. The only 'remake' I ever liked was John Carpenter's The Thing.



The reason they do remakes and reboots  is because they own the rights and don't have to pay royalties to anyone. The high cost of making movies makes studies less willing to take a chance on things that are new.


----------



## TheDustyZebra (Sep 23, 2014)

Juliana said:


> Another: much as I absolutely adore Audrey Hepburn, I prefer the 90's remake with Julia Ormond. It just made sense to me at the time it came out, as a young adult, while the original is one of my least favourite Audrey movies.



Err...I presume you meant to add *Sabrina* in there somewhere?   I do love the Julia Ormond one. I watch it over and over, where I've only seen the original once.

I pretty much hate the whole Hollywood remake craze. There is just no reason to remake every darn movie just so that kids today can have a version with computers and cell phones. We managed to understand, watching old movies, that technology and clothing and culture was different in whatever time the movie was set, and it didn't discombobulate us beyond all redemption.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 23, 2014)

TheDustyZebra said:


> Err...I presume you meant to add *Sabrina* in there somewhere?   I do love the Julia Ormond one. I watch it over and over, where I've only seen the original once.
> 
> I pretty much hate the whole Hollywood remake craze. There is just no reason to remake every darn movie just so that kids today can have a version with computers and cell phones. We managed to understand, watching old movies, that technology and clothing and culture was different in whatever time the movie was set, and it didn't discombobulate us beyond all redemption.



The 2002 remake of the Time Machine, I didn't like it initially , but over time and repeated viewings , Ive gotten to like it .


----------



## Juliana (Sep 23, 2014)

Oops, yes, TDZ. It was supposed to say 'Sabrina'!   Love the remake.

Some remakes make sense, like with Batman, where it's almost like two separate things - completely different approaches, visuals etc (I happen to like both approaches). But Spiderman doesn't make any sense; they didn't change it enough and too close together. If you're going to redo something, in my opinion, either it's because you want to try out a whole new version (like Batman) or because it's an older piece that would gain a new angle by being set in current times.


----------



## Rodders (Sep 23, 2014)

I genuinely do not have any objection what so ever and my attitude tends to lean toward the fact that a remake or reboot could bring new fans to a movie i already love and may lead these new fans to seek out the original. If they're not to my liking, well, i still have my original to fawn over. But If they're done right they are superb. (Ron Moore's BSG comes to mind as well as the recent Batman movies). Also, like them or loathe them they make for great discussion points on forums.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 27, 2014)

They're doing a Remake of Ben Hur. Why?


----------



## markpud (Sep 28, 2014)

With 100% less Ferrari's? 

For me i don't mind a good reboot/remake, but the emphasis has to be on "good". Too many times the heart of a film is lost when it's dragged into the 21st Century with a boatload of CGI effects rather than strong characters and a well thought out plot. 

BSG is a good example, heck even TNG could be classed as a reboot, before we used the word reboot - technically it's a continuation of the same franchise, but it was essentially a 90s version of 60s Trek thus a reboot.

Every time I hear of a rebooted Highlander it sends shivers down my spine. One of my favourite films of all time and I can't see them possibly capturing the heart of that film again. But the car-crash continuity of the later films and series' means it's better for the franchise to start over than to try to come up with a 3rd MacLeod or some such ret-conned character into the original timelines. So if it's halfway decent I'll be happy, but there's pretty much no way it'll better my love for the original film.


----------



## Vince W (Sep 28, 2014)

Yesterday I remembered David Cronenberg's version of *The Fly.* That was a great remake.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 28, 2014)

Vince W said:


> Yesterday I remembered David Cronenberg's version of *The Fly.* That was a great remake.



One of the best remakes of all. I loved Cronenberg's take on the concept. He is such a great filmmaker .


----------



## Highlander II (Sep 30, 2014)

markpud said:


> Every time I hear of a rebooted Highlander it sends shivers down my spine. One of my favourite films of all time and I can't see them possibly capturing the heart of that film again. But the car-crash continuity of the later films and series' means it's better for the franchise to start over than to try to come up with a 3rd MacLeod or some such ret-conned character into the original timelines. So if it's halfway decent I'll be happy, but there's pretty much no way it'll better my love for the original film.



Yes... this!  I cringe every time I hear about a reboot/remake/expansion of the franchise.  (the 3rd film is a sloppy repeat of the 1st and everything after that is laughable garbage) Every time I hear this brought up, I hide and peek around the corner, waiting to see what they're coming up with.

I've heard about a _MacGyver_ remake/reboot too (for TV, I think) and that is just terrifying.  *shudders*


----------



## Juliana (Sep 30, 2014)

Highlander II said:


> I've heard about a _MacGyver_ remake/reboot too (for TV, I think) and that is just terrifying. *shudders*



I don't know... I tried watching the original the other day and it did _not _age well.


----------



## Highlander II (Oct 1, 2014)

Juliana said:


> I don't know... I tried watching the original the other day and it did _not _age well.



It being one of my favorite shows ever, I don't have a problem watching it now.  It's v. 80's/90's, but that's to be expected.  Though, *most* of the things he did - the MacGyver-isms - don't work so well now b/c of technology/security changes.  I still <3 it. =)


----------



## j d worthington (Oct 1, 2014)

Generally speaking... the concept tends to make me want to firebomb whatever studio is behind the damned thing. But, as with sequels, every great once in a while, they pull it off, so I'm not _entirely_ against it. A couple have been mentioned here already: The Fly and The Thing, both of which revisited the basic material with considerable creativity and style.

I am, however, reminded of a story which Ellison has told on more than one occasion, of how a friend of his who was (if memory serves) one of the people responsible for development for one of the major studios told of a subordinate coming into her office terribly excited and just boiling over with this great idea he had, and how he just knew she'd love it, etc., etc., etc. So, unsuspecting of what was coming, she (who was by this time really getting pretty darned excited herself) asked "So what is it?"

Answer (completely straight, mind you): "Let's do *The Wiz*... white!"

And, after she managed to politely reassure this nit that she'd think about it, that it needed consideration, etc., until he was out of her office... she fell off her chair laughing, called Harlan still in stitches, and then they both fell apart. Until, of course, the fact that someone actually made such a suggestion in perfectly sober earnest, began to dawn with all its implications....

Things like this are why I've almost never attended a movie theater in the past 10 years.....


----------



## Dave (Oct 9, 2014)

In general, No. It strikes me as having a certain lack of originality and creativity and it smells of money rather than love for film.


markpud said:


> For me i don't mind a good reboot/remake, but the emphasis has to be on "good". Too many times the heart of a film is lost when it's dragged into the 21st Century with a boatload of CGI effects rather than strong characters and a well thought out plot.


I agree, but then as others have pointed out here, among all the really awful remakes, there is _The Thing_ and _The Fly._

One thing I never thought could ever be remade would be _Dad's Army. _And then I read this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ilm-remake-revealed-one-notable-addition.html

If a cast can make a film, then this must have 10 stars. If the script is even half as good then I think it is a winner. On the other hand, it could still be _The Day the Earth Stood Still _or _Rollerball_.


----------



## Major Eazy (Oct 17, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> Do You Think Hollywood should make fewer of them of those made which o you like and which do you dislike ?



Hi. I'm new here, just joined, and this is my second posting.

I can see that most people have a love-hate relationship with remakes and reboots, some think it's great, others thinks it's bad idea. Everyone got their own likes and dislikes. Of course, sometimes remakes using modern filming, modern technology, and so on, helps to make the remake look better than the original. An example would be a classic 1950s got a cheesy sets, cheesy props, men seen as brave and women seen as those who put their hands in front of their mouths and scream, then a remade 2010s movie got more realist looking background using on location or CGI sets, real weapons made to look like future weapons, and women are now seen as being more equals to men. Starships will look better in the remake that when it was in the original. And all that.

But...

It just feels like Hollywood is scared of making new movies on grounds that they are worried the new ones will flop, so they decided to recycle originals which were box office hits into remakes, on the understanding that if the original is good enough, then the remake would be a box hit. It just feels to me, like someone decided to rewrite a novel just by changing some character names, or change little plots, and I feel like I have to read the same book again because there were some changes to the original novel.

I don't mind some remakes and reboots, of course for me, the reimagined _Battlestar Galactica_ do look much more serious than the original, but then again, some rebooted movies like the 2012 _The Amazing Spider-Man_ do meant I feel like I have to forget the 2002 _Spider-Man_ movie, well, it's kinda hard for me to try to explain what I meant.

I just think that there must be many more new ideas that could be interesting, but Hollywood is kind of holding back by remaking and rebooting originals rather than to try to make new ones. They should try to ease off with remakes and try fresh ideas, otherwise, we'll start seeing remakes of the remades.

How would you feel if there was the 1984 _The Terminator_, then a 1994 remade of the original, then there's a 2004 remade of the 2004 remade _The Terminator _and after that, yet another 2014 remake, instead of some new Sci-Fi movie that we would like to see what Hollywood could come up with?

That's just my option.


----------



## Mouse (Oct 18, 2014)

I don't mind when it's a remake of something that's really old, but remaking something that's only a few years old is daft. I refuse to watch the 2010 _Death at a Funeral_ because it's a remake of the 2007 UK film _Death at a Funeral._ Both films star Peter Dinklage.


----------



## markpud (Oct 18, 2014)

Yep, the remakes of very recent shows/films in a different market smacks of unoriginality. The Office, Being Human, Life on Mars, Utopia (coming soon in a US version) - they love to rehash British shows stateside!

Is the next Terminator film a reboot or continuation - I lose track?! I hear Arnie is involved, inevitably....


----------



## Vince W (Oct 18, 2014)

Depends who you ask and on what day. Terminator Genisysilly probably.


----------



## HanaBi (Nov 25, 2016)

Reboots/remakes have been going on for donkey's years, and will continue to do so for years to come.

Some will be good, some will be average. And I would hazard a guess the majority will be bloody awful!

However, one is not compelled to watch these films, even if they're really quite good after all. For those that have watched the "original" they might not want to spoil those happy memories watching a remake even if it lives up to expectation.


----------



## Rodders (Nov 25, 2016)

I don't have an issued with it, really. It's important for some very good, but dated movies to be redone for newer audiences. 

I'd like to see movies that i grew up with remade for modern audiences like Logan's Run and Silent Running.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Dec 6, 2016)

For the most part I avoid the reboots/remakes. The new 'twist' or sometimes the director/producer of the new film thinking they can do it better, just doesn't work. 

It might be okay for a new audience, but having seen the old, I am jaded when this happens, and it impacts on the viewing experience in a negative fashion for me.


----------



## Randy M. (Dec 6, 2016)

_Nosferatu the Vampire _directed by Werner Herzog (1979) is a slower, more philosophical movie than the silent movie (_Nosferatu_, 1929) it's based on, but the combination of Herzog's grasp of imagery and Klaus Kinski's acting made a strong impression on me at the time I watched it.

The idea of a remake doesn't bother me as long as some imagination and creativity are spent in the effort. For instance, _The Maltese Falcon_ (1941) directed by John Huston was the third film version of the novel, and from all accounts by far the best.


Randy M.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 11, 2016)

The 1978 Remake of the *Invasion of the Body Snatchers   *was as good if not better then the original.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 22, 2021)

The reboot of *Poltergeist* , didn't add anything new.


----------



## AstroZon (Feb 26, 2021)

There are a few good remakes, however, far too many bad ones taint the field.  

Solaris with George Clooney is a great remake IMO.  The recent remake of Fahrenheit 451 seemed mechanical and irrelevant.


----------



## Droflet (Feb 26, 2021)

Let's not forget the reboot of Psycho. A shot-by-shot copy of the brilliant original. Why? Well, money of course. Hideous waste of time.


----------



## Rodders (Feb 26, 2021)

The Omen was remade shot by shot, too. I really enjoyed that one. 

I also really enjoyed the remake of Dawn of the Dead. (I have to confess to not seeing the original though, so i had nothing to compare it against.)


----------



## paranoid marvin (Feb 27, 2021)

I have to agree with remaking a movie shot-for-shot; utterly pointless.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 28, 2021)

Droflet said:


> Let's not forget the reboot of Psycho. A shot-by-shot copy of the brilliant original. Why? Well, money of course. Hideous waste of time.



It disappeared very quickly at the box office 

Id like to  see A remake of *On Golden Pond *  directed and produced by Michal Bay .


----------



## Droflet (Feb 28, 2021)

Sometimes, Bay, I worry about you.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 28, 2021)

Droflet said:


> Sometimes, Bay, I worry about you.



Im just being my usual silly self.


----------



## Vince W (Feb 28, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> It disappeared very quickly at the box office
> 
> Id like to  see A remake of *On Golden Pond *  directed and produced by Michal Bay .


No, that would be an Oliver Stone epic.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 28, 2021)

Vince W said:


> No, that would be an Oliver Stone epic.



And there would be a conspiracy storyline.


----------



## Boneman (Feb 28, 2021)

In another thread a few years ago, I was bemoaning the casting of Steve Martin in 'Dirty Rotten Scoundrels', saying it was ripe for a re-make. 

"Be careful what you wish for... the remake!!! I love Rebel Wilson, but this was dire... The whole film was predictable, with not an ounce of the class that the original had (Steve Martin notwithstanding...)"


----------



## SashaMcallister (Mar 10, 2021)

There's such a short of good original stories these days! That and people seem to be drawn to the familiar.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 10, 2021)

SashaMcallister said:


> There's such a short of good original stories these days! That and people seem to be drawn to the familiar.



Reboots and remakes are generally viewed as safe bets for movie studios.


----------



## J-WO (Mar 11, 2021)

I wish, instead of remaking good films, they remade films that almost worked the first time around but didn't quite. That would be the artistically sound reason to remake something but unfortunately not the moneymaking reason.


----------



## CupofJoe (Mar 12, 2021)

J-WO said:


> I wish, instead of remaking good films, they remade films that almost worked the first time around but didn't quite. That would be the artistically sound reason to remake something but unfortunately not the moneymaking reason.


The trouble with that is I don't think you could get enough people to agree on which films would be ripe for the challenge. Everyone would have their pet[-hate]s.
Personally there are a few Christopher Nolan films I think could do with a rewrite to get rid of the pretentious clap-trap.
But I know I'm probably alone in that.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 22, 2021)

J-WO said:


> I wish, instead of remaking good films, they remade films that almost worked the first time around but didn't quite. That would be the artistically sound reason to remake something but unfortunately not the moneymaking reason.



They should bring back the low cost  B movie , and they could experiment . try different things to see what works .


----------



## .matthew. (Mar 22, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> They should bring back the low cost  B movie , and they could experiment . try different things to see what works .


This goes hand-in-hand with not hiring famous actors who let's face it, mostly can't act anyway


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 22, 2021)

.matthew. said:


> This goes hand-in-hand with not hiring famous actors who let's face it, mostly can't act anyway



Many A lIst actor are simply props.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Mar 22, 2021)

I think Blair Witch was an attempt to make a horror movie on a low budget. Horror seems well suited, but scifi often doesn't.  Having said that, I'd rather watch the worst 50s/60s sci-fi B movie than trash like The Predator.


----------



## Maseeha.Aellari (Apr 13, 2021)

I hate reboots! I'm only 16, but I've seen Toy Story get dragged on for way longer than it needed to be. Disney's other reboots and live-action remakes are just a way to boost their revenues because these beloved films and characters have already become residents in our hearts. The fact that there is no animation reduces the magic of the movies (there is 0 expression in the new Lion King)

I feel that reboots and remakes have become popular because the demand for new content is too great. There is no time to iron out new ideas due to the demand for new films, so these new movies fail 9 times out of 10 (Tenet and Artemis Fowl). That's why reboots work. People walk in expecting the same emotions they did all those years ago, even if the reviews are negative.

This is why I am never invited to the cinema


----------



## Guttersnipe (Apr 26, 2021)

My advice for filmmakers is to lay off the classics. We didn't need a Carrie film with cell phones, for instance.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 26, 2021)

Guttersnipe said:


> My advice for filmmakers is to lay off the classics. We didn't need a Carrie film with cell phones, for instance.


There have been multiple reboot incarnations of Carrie , enough already .


----------



## Rodders (Apr 26, 2021)

IT worked well, from what i hear. (Still on my "to watch" list)


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 26, 2021)

Rodders said:


> IT worked well, from what i hear. (Still on my "to watch" list)



That one was surpassingly good.


----------



## KiraAnn (Jul 11, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> They should bring back the low cost  B movie , and they could experiment . try different things to see what works .


That's what NetFlix is for


----------



## Guttersnipe (Jul 11, 2021)

Films largely considered classics, imo, or widely described as "timeless," shouldn't require a remake or reboot. But even some films can be improved upon if they didn't do well among their contemporaries, or just didn't land. Some films made long ago may feel more relevant to today.


----------



## Laura R Hepworth (Jul 11, 2021)

I approach remakes and reboots with a healthy dose of skepticism and apprehension. There have been some that I enjoyed (the Pink Panther remakes actually weren't too bad, yeah Steve Martin is certainly no Peter Sellers, but he did a decent job) but so often they just fail. I do like retellings of classic stories (i.e. the various fairy tale adaptations, the steampunk version of _The Secret Garden_, etc.), but the fun there is seeing what changes and what stays the same. 

However, I agree with @Guttersnipe, films that are regarded as 'classics' or 'timeless' should be left alone. It also gets boring see so many remakes and reboots all the time and, seriously, some film lines really needed to learn when to stop! I groaned every time they came out with a new _Land Before Time _movie.


----------



## J-WO (Jul 12, 2021)

The new Suspiria is a great example of a remake. The director and Tilda Swinton described it as a 'cover version' of a classic. It takes elements the original only hinted at and explores them while leaving elements the original covered perfectly.


----------



## Alextrax52 (Jul 27, 2021)

9 times out of 10 they are pretty dreadful IMO. It never feels the same and is usually a lot worse. Someone actually thought making the Lion King into a live action movie was a good idea


----------



## AllanR (Jul 27, 2021)

The Adam's Family, Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Airplane are some good reboots.


----------



## JunkMonkey (Jul 27, 2021)

Whenever I hear of yet another remake I have an instant replay of this conversation in my head:


Me: 
Another remake? WHY?

Other me: 
Money.

Me: 
Ok.​


----------



## JunkMonkey (Jul 27, 2021)

Guttersnipe said:


> Films largely considered classics, imo, or widely described as "timeless," shouldn't require a remake or reboot. But even some films can be improved upon if they didn't do well among their contemporaries, or just didn't land. Some films made long ago may feel more relevant to today.



Some films largely considered classics _were_ remakes; the best example being the 1941 *Maltese Falcon* which was  a remake of *The Maltese Falcon* (1931) - the story had also been reworked as *Satan Met a Lady* in 1936.  So what we know as the noire classic is the third attempt. (There was a further spoof version in 1975.)

The trouble with modern remakes is they remake really good films that DON'T need a remake (because they were hits made a lot of money and have recognition value) - but ignore all the ones that didn't quite work (and therefore flopped and no one has heard of and are harder  sells) that DO.


----------



## AllanR (Jul 27, 2021)

JunkMonkey said:


> Some films largely considered classics _were_ remakes the best example being the 1941 *Maltese Falcon* which was  a remake of *The Maltese Falcon* (1931) - the story had also been reworked as *Satan Met a Lady* in 1936.  So what we know as the noire classic is the third attempt. (There was a further spoof version in 1975.)


His Girl Friday (from The Front Page) is another example.


----------



## Chris 1978 (Jul 27, 2021)

The Dune remake is about to be released shortly. As its a remake of a film that's been made from a book it does I suppose have a bit more leeway as far as expectations go. Essentially it's another persons adaptation of the book, or at least it should be.

I think a worthwhile remake or reboot should be different enough that it almost feels like an entirely different film but just contains some of the same essential concepts and plot lines. I thought Total Recall 2012 wasn't bad at all for example, but it got universally panned.


----------



## Droflet (Jul 27, 2021)

I was amongst the panners of Total Recall. The new Dune? Hmm, I'll wait and see.


----------



## Mon0Zer0 (Jul 27, 2021)

I think reboots tend to work best when the memory of the original has faded away. It's easier to work a movie with low cultural awareness that bombed or is long forgotten about into a good movie than it is to take a beloved property and attempt to emulate its success.  It was easier to reboot Who goes there into The Thing, or bodysnatchers because it wasn't easy at the times to have access to the original (movies). There's too much cultural baggage and conversation around iconic franchises to please everyone's take on the original. 

Dune isn't remembered as a great film, even if it has a cult following, so I think Villeneuve won't suffer too much from comparisons to Lynch's movie. 

Total Recall, whilst not being a terrible movie, suffered by comparison to an iconic movie. Same with Robocop.


----------



## Chris 1978 (Jul 27, 2021)

Droflet said:


> I was amongst the panners of Total Recall. The new Dune? Hmm, I'll wait and see.



You and 79% of people on Rotten Tomatoes. Maybe I should watch it again!



Mon0Zer0 said:


> Total Recall, whilst not being a terrible movie, suffered by comparison to an iconic movie. Same with Robocop.



I quite liked that too!


----------



## JunkMonkey (Jul 27, 2021)

Droflet said:


> I was amongst the panners of Total Recall. The new Dune? Hmm, I'll wait and see.



The remake?  Stupidly dumb movie.  I mean the first one was dumb but hokey the second has a plot hole so big they literally used it to move from one side of the Earth to the other.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 27, 2021)

JunkMonkey said:


> The remake?  Stupidly dumb movie.  I mean the first one was dumb but hokey the second has a plot hole so big they literally used it to move from one side of the Earth to the other.




The original Total Recall was funny, had great actors clearly enjoying their roles and some great set pieces, The reboot had none of those things.

At least the reboot of TR tried something a bit different, even if it was tedious.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 16, 2021)

The Reimagined classic is anther word for reboot/remake.


----------



## Astro Pen (Oct 16, 2021)

The Saint. Quintessentially British






How Hollywood tried to  remake the character





I rest my case.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 16, 2021)

Astro Pen said:


> The Saint. Quintessentially British
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I saw the commercial for that film and, that was enough.


----------



## Randy M. (Oct 16, 2021)

B.M. (Before Moore): 





And yes, quintessentially British. Sort of James Bond 1.0


----------



## paranoid marvin (Oct 17, 2021)

Same goes for Day of the Jackal. Brilliant original with stellar performers from the leading roles and a movie that never needed to be remade or reimagined.

The sad thing is that as time goes by, people will likely only remember the later reboots of these movies, and not realise that there were far superior original versions.


----------



## Rodders (Oct 17, 2021)

The same can be said for most generations, i think. 

I adore John Carpenter's The Thing, but i've not gone back and seen the original. (I haven't even read the book, for that matter.)


----------



## Vince W (Oct 17, 2021)

Rodders said:


> The same can be said for most generations, i think.
> 
> I adore John Carpenter's The Thing, but i've not gone back and seen the original. (I haven't even read the book, for that matter.)


I've seen the original film, read the Campbell novella, read the ADF adaptation of Carpenter's film. They were all good but the Carpenter film is the best.


----------



## Mon0Zer0 (Oct 17, 2021)

Best remakes:

The Thing (Thing from another world)
Alien (Planet of the vampires)
Star Wars (Flash Gordon)
Invasion of the body snatchers [1978] (IOTBS)
Invaders from Mars [86] (Invaders from Mars)
The Blob [1988] (The Blob)
Magnificent Seven (Seven Samurai)
A Fistful of Dollaras (Yojimbo)
Sorceror (Wages of Fear)
Scarface (Scarface)
The Fly (The Fly)
Insomnia (Insomnia)
True Grit (True Grit)
Casino Royale (Casino Royale)
Big Trouble in Little China (Zu Warriors from the Magic Mountain)


----------



## AllanR (Oct 17, 2021)

add in Airplane (Zero Hour!) for a good remake


----------



## Don (Oct 17, 2021)

JunkMonkey said:


> The remake?  Stupidly dumb movie.  I mean the first one was dumb but hokey the second has a plot hole so big they literally used it to move from one side of the Earth to the other.


They left three words out of the title. The true title's: _Total Recall - The Lens Flare._ Because there's a lens flare every three to five seconds. Any plot quickly fades into oblivion while my mind mentally counts off the seconds until the next lens flare. Cinematographers are supposed to learn how to operate a camera before someone hires them to make a movie, right?


----------



## Astro Pen (Oct 24, 2021)

Scent of Desperation around the drama planning desk.
It will be a scripting challenge. I once holidayed in Jersey, nothing happens there and it's as prissy as a maiden aunt.










						Bergerac: Reboot of 80s TV crime drama in the works
					

The show ran from 1981 until 1991,  with much-loved British actor John Nettles playing the eponymous role in Jersey.




					news.sky.com


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 24, 2021)

Vince W said:


> I've seen the original film, read the Campbell novella, read the ADF adaptation of Carpenter's film. They were all good but the Carpenter film is the best.



The 1951  Howard Hawks film is a good 50's Science fiction film . The 1982 film is a great film.


----------



## Vince W (Oct 24, 2021)

Hawks' film is pure cold-war era paranoia on film. Carpenter's film is demented Lovecraftian horror brought to life.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 24, 2021)

Vince W said:


> Hawks' film is pure cold-war era paranoia on film. Carpenter's film is demented Lovecraftian horror brought to life.



H P Lovecraft would loved the John Carpenter film for that reason.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 25, 2021)

JunkMonkey said:


> Some films largely considered classics _were_ remakes; the best example being the 1941 *Maltese Falcon* which was  a remake of *The Maltese Falcon* (1931) - the story had also been reworked as *Satan Met a Lady* in 1936.  So what we know as the noire classic is the third attempt. (There was a further spoof version in 1975.)
> 
> The trouble with modern remakes is they remake really good films that DON'T need a remake (because they were hits made a lot of money and have recognition value) - but ignore all the ones that didn't quite work (and therefore flopped and no one has heard of and are harder  sells) that DO.



Studios  figure (wrongly in most cases ) that there  is a built in audience for original and,  that this audience will come to see the remake.  Even when such films fail at the box office (as most of them do) The studios persist in doing remakes.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 6, 2022)

Droflet said:


> I was amongst the panners of Total Recall. The new Dune? Hmm, I'll wait and see.



The Paul Verhoeven film with Arnold is quite good . The remake was unimpressive.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Feb 6, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> The Paul Verhoeven film with Arnold is quite good . The remake was unimpressive.




I really enjoyed the Arnie movie. Funny, exciting and fast paced. The newer version was very disappointing.


----------



## Rodders (Feb 6, 2022)

Two pretty different movies.

As a B5 fan, I’m looking forward to that reboot and I hope that it’s the success that the original should’ve been. I’m less excited by the thought of a Firefly reboot, though.


----------



## Mark_Harbinger (Feb 26, 2022)

This topic evokes some strong emotions for me. Y'know, the sort of thing my sons and I can stay up 'till 3am discussing...

A few $.02 thoughts/random examples.

Reboots: Some 'historical' heroes (The Three Musketeers and Zorro) are so episodic in nature that they really lend themselves to reboots. Also true with superheroes in comics, right? (Google Umberto Eco's essay "The Myth of Superman" for a deeper dive)

_My personal favorites are the ones that actually do end up moving the character along through life-stages and creating different generations of the legend_; so, like, in those above examples, I would first point to—one of my stranded-on-an-island-movies—"The Mask of Zorro" (1988), or "The Musketeers" (2014-2016, BBC television series, 30 episodes). But, like everyone has said, for every one of those, how many cash grabs do we have to sit through?

Remakes: These tend to go down less well with me. This is especially true of those that have original works that are so well done nothing thereafter really even has a chance of coming close (e.g., IMO, "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory", "Ghostbusters", "Robocop") so what you end up with are either 'cover band' efforts or outright abominations.

On the other hand, someone mentioned the latest Dune. IMO, Some remakes are of such quality that I would consider them all-time greats in their own right. Dune will be there, I think. When it's done.


----------



## Mark_Harbinger (Feb 26, 2022)

Rodders said:


> As a B5 fan, I’m looking forward to that reboot and I hope that it’s the success that the original should’ve been. I’m less excited by the thought of a Firefly reboot, though.


There's a Babylon Five reboot coming? Hm, don't know how I feel about that. The original was impressive.

Total Agree on Firefly+Serenity. Go ahead and carry the story forward, but no need for a remake. Funny story—I actually saw Serenity at a time when I didn't have cable; consequently, I'd never even heard of Firefly. So, the entire movie I'm like, "Who the hell is this crazy girl kicking everyone's ass?"


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 27, 2022)

Mark_Harbinger said:


> This topic evokes some strong emotions for me. Y'know, the sort of thing my sons and I can stay up 'till 3am discussing...
> 
> A few $.02 thoughts/random examples.
> 
> ...



One reboot thats kind of grown on me is the 2002 version of *The Time Machine* with Guy Pierce . I didn't initially like this film when I saw it but, repeated  viewing it have given me appreciation  of it . In it own own right  it's a very good film , well written , produced  and acted .


----------



## Mark_Harbinger (Feb 27, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> One reboot thats kind of grown on me is the 2002 version of *The Time Machine* with Guy Pierce . I didn't initially like this film when I saw it but, repeated viewing it have given me appreciation of it . In it own own right it's a very good film , well written , produced and acted .


I'll check it out. Thx!


----------



## Anthony Grate (Mar 2, 2022)

Personally I'm tired of Hollywood's obsession with reboots. Even so, I can think of some films, particularly some '80s films, that I wouldn't mind seeing on the screen again with updated FX and better writing.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 2, 2022)

Anthony Grate said:


> Personally I'm tired of Hollywood's obsession with reboots. Even so, I can think of some films, particularly some '80s films, that I wouldn't mind seeing on the screen again with updated FX and better writing.



At one point , we supposed to get a remake of *Quatermass and the Pit *


----------



## Anthony Grate (Mar 2, 2022)

I wouldn't mind seeing updated versions of The Black Hole or Outland.


----------



## Randy M. (Mar 3, 2022)

Anthony Grate said:


> Personally I'm tired of Hollywood's obsession with reboots. Even so, I can think of some films, particularly some '80s films, that I wouldn't mind seeing on the screen again with updated FX and better writing.


They usually show up with better FX and worse writing/directing.


----------



## Droflet (Mar 3, 2022)

I agree that remakes are usual crap but one poked into my head. The remake of A Guy Called Joe remade by Spielberg as Always. Not necessarily better but a very different take of the original even though they used some of the original dialogue. Both wonderful, in their own ways.


----------



## Anthony Grate (Mar 3, 2022)

Randy M. said:


> They usually show up with better FX and worse writing/directing.


Agreed. If they can't make a project happen with both, then just leave the property alone.


----------

