What Do You Think of Reboots and Remakes ?

[Boneman]

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]

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

 

[BAYLOR]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[BAYLOR]

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]

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

 

[BAYLOR]

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

That one was surpassingly good.

 

[KiraAnn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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