Movies that should be re-made — Page 2

C3PX said:

Honestly, I really don't see that any different than now. 

Only instead of classic films covered in shit, we have pure shit. I don't know about you, but I really like things to act like what they are. I get a cat, I want it to act like a cat. Dumb thing goes and starts acting like a dog, I am tossing it out. The SE is a confusing mess, is it an old film, is it a new film, complete mess. 

I don't think a remade sequel trilogy would have any adverse bearings on an eventual restoration of the original trilogy. It would be a bit like euthanasia for the poor old trilogy. Right now the things looks like crap, tubes coming out of every hole, hook up to life support. Nobody even really cares about it anymore. It has worn out its welcome for most people. The poor movies define dead horse beatings. It feels like the decent thing to do, to retire the poor things. Let the sleeping dog die. Burry the bloody horse corps. These movies deserve to be setting on everybodies DVD shelf, not under going cosmetic surgery every few years and having the little good that remains in them squeezed out for a profit.

Oh, I certainly agree about putting the old girl down.  She certainly needs it.  She's just embarrassing herself now.  I just think that if Lucas remade them, rather than just cast the originals aside and let us have them, he'd try to bury them even more as they obviously don't meld with his original vision like the prequels and remakes do.  While, true, it wouldn't make us any worse off than we are now, what with already having, um, something on DVD, I don't think it would help us get a good Blu-Ray release any sooner.

ChainsawAsh said:

LordVader said:

Oh for fuck sake why cant we just leave some movies alone...... To me, sequels will always be more acceptable than just "rebooting" a franchise, it completely devalues movies these days, there could always be that idea lingering that "we can just remake it" and it's turning hollywood into a giant clusterfuck, excuse me, a bigger clusterfuck than it has to be.

While I agree with you on general principle, there have been cases of remakes actually being (arguably, of course) superior to the original.

The few remakes I feel actually do improve upon the source material:

- The Thing (1982)
- Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) - I should note here that I do enjoy the original quite a bit, I just think the Sutherland-starring version is far superior
- Ocean's 11 (2001) - not so much "superior to" as "just as good as"
- Cape Fear (1991)
- Ben-Hur (1959)
- 3:10 to Yuma (2007)

That's all I can think of at the moment.  Then there are the remakes that change enough that they're still good, but not really comparable to the original (such as Seven Samurai vs The Magnificent Seven, or Yojimbo vs Fistful of Dollars).

My point is, while most remakes are unnecessary and utter shit, sometimes they work.

Star Wars is sort of a remake of Hidden Fortress though not really.  The 1974 script though was a blatant ripoff in my opinion.  Then you have shot for shot remakes like the prisoner of zenda.

Or absolute shit like the remake of psycho.

Or blatant remakes without having the right to the original like disturbia being supposedly an unauthorized remake of rear window.

Seven Samurai and Yojimbo are so superior to magificent seven and fistful of dollars it is not even funny.

Akira Kurosawa was not compensated For hollywoods theft, or Leones unauthorized remakes.

I mean if they were inspired by and not just blatant ripoffs it would be better in my opinion.  Like Kurosawa always claimed John Ford as an inspiration.  You can see the influence in some of the films but none are blatant ripoffs o John Ford pictures.

Does not matter how much i love the man with no name trilogy and like eastwood in that role or think Leone was a brilliant filmaker.  The eastwood character is clearly an Americanization of the Mifune character.

The only reason to transpose a samurai piece to a western and have it work so well is the mark of the western on kurosawas films, though has been overstated.

I couldn't agree more about the disposable mentality. But I do think that in some cases, some stories are just too good to let go. And that is where you see two different mentalities behind various sequels and remakes.

Some remakes really strive to take a loved story and give it a new spin. And others just seek to remake an old film because they see the opportunity to potentially to rake in cash because of it.

For example, one of my favorite books as a kid was War of the Worlds. I also really love the old 50s film version. I think the fifties film version is fantastic, but when I heard Spielberg was making new version of the film back in 2004, I was very excited. It is such a great story, I felt a remake was a very reasonable thing. Unfortunately the new movies was pretty awful.

Essentially Indenpendance Day was also a remake of the 1950s War of the Worlds. I'd often talk my friends into watching the 50s version of WotW, and they would be stunned at how much is was like Independance Day. No doubt ID took a lot of inspiration from that film (which followed a very different path from the book), but the result was an enjoyable modern take on the story.

Several non-official sequels to War of the Worlds have also been written (including one that is a collection of short stories retelling the events through the eyes of famous historical world figures who lived during the time the novel took place, and their reactions to the alien invasion and their various attempts at coming up with ways to fight them). In some cases things like this are simply "cashing in", but some of this stuff was actually very creative.

A story like War of the Worlds is the type of great premise that simply can't be left alone. Too many people have too many good ideas on how to add their own spin to it. 

Then you have a film like Planet of the Apes, which is also a really great story. But the idea of this being remade irritated me. And ultimately, it really ended up sucking. The original film is really the definitive version of the story. Sure it is based off a novel, but other than myself, I have never found anyone who has sat down and taking the time to read the thing. Most people experienced POTA through the original film. That film really struck all the right chords, and hit all the right marks. Why remake this film?

Magnificent Seven is another good example, there was nothing wrong with its source material. It simply took a great story, and gave it another spin. It lives in harmony with The Seven Samurai, and both films can be enjoyed side by side.

A film like Back to the Future being remade would be lame, because we already have a nearly flawless definitive version of the story. What could be gained via a remake?

A.I., while not the greatest film I have ever seen, was a very fascinating remake of Pinocchio. Imagine if Spielberg had simply decided to make another film about the wooden puppet? It would have been more of the same. Just another lame remake. Instead, it became its very own story, possessing its own good points and bad points.

I guess what I am trying to communicate, retellings of stories can be great, when they can bring their own spin to the tale and make it something that stands on its own (like The Forbidden Planet to The Tempest, or Chicken Run to The Great Escape). Rather than just re-filming what has been filmed with new special effects and technology.

In other words, remake does not always = crappy disposable money grabber, but more often than not they do. Same for sequels, some exist just for the sake of milking a little more out of an already successful film. But sometimes they are very worthy continuations of the original story.

Thus far, the current century seems to have been wholly devoted to remakes, sequels, reboots, spin-off, and adaptions or readaptions of well known books and comics. At this point, I think we are all pretty sick of it and are frantically reaching for the window hoping for a breath of freash air.

When Worlds Collide

Logan's Run

The novel of the latter has an epic scale to it, one that I'd love to see translated to the big screen (rather than confined to a couple of cheesy domes outside of a junglefied Washington, DC).  The former is the great-granddaddy of Armageddon and Deep Impact, but is so hopelessly dated (effects- and science-wise) that it almost screams to be remade.

MJPollard said:

When Worlds Collide

Logan's Run

The novel of the latter has an epic scale to it, one that I'd love to see translated to the big screen (rather than confined to a couple of cheesy domes outside of a junglefied Washington, DC).  The former is the great-granddaddy of Armageddon and Deep Impact, but is so hopelessly dated (effects- and science-wise) that it almost screams to be remade.

I think they are in pre-production on a re-make of "Logan's Run" at this time.

"When Worlds Collide" is an excellent choice for a re-make.  With all the conspiracy rumor talk of the arrival of planet Nibiru (planet X) in 2012, this would be an excellent time to cash in on that hype.

Since Dune was mentioned I will have to say that it would be the perfect film to remake. I just wouldn't want it to be made here in the US. We fuck up to many great things. So it would have to be made in the UK or France. While I love the movie a whole lot. It just doesn't have the pow that it should have. The film is just to 80's music videoish. I think Luc Besson could do it. Of course he did Fifth Element which was badass.

Reboot is just a fancy new word for remake anyway. So I am with Anchorhead, I didn't think it needed explained. Only "reboot" kind of makes the assumption that the film is going to spawn a zillion sequels and once again be milked for all it is worth. Kind of like saying, "Yeah we know we beat this dead horse for a very long time, and its smelling rotting carcass offended you so you left. Well, now we have a new horse with the same name, and we are proud to invite you to come and watch as we once again subject it to great abuses, watch as it collapses dead, then proceed to continue beating it until you once again leave offended at its putrid stink."

Of course, nobody is that honest, hence the invention of the term, "reboot".

Sluggo said:

Condorman would be a cool remake if a studio took it somewhat seriously.  I'd hate to see Will Farrell piss all over it.

Remake? How about a decent DVD release first? (Both the R1 Anchor Bay and R2 Buena Vista releases are non-anamorphic and single layer.)

I don't think anybody in Hollywood has an original thought. I looked at a list of upcoming films and 95% are remakes.

Conan- why would someone go and remake a movie that sucked already

Mad Max- Mel Gibson wasn't good enough. Now we have to go and ruin an Aussie classic.

WHY WHY WHY.

Even the great directors of our time cannot make a single good film.

What is our world coming to.