When Remakes are a Bad Idea — Page 2

To some extent, I am working my thinking out here. And that's part of the reason it might seem "all over the place."

My basic thought is that a remake of a movie, that was originally made as a movie, is a bad idea. To show why I think this might be, I compare movies to books. If an author declares that she is rewriting Jane Eyre, to me is absurd. It is already written. It is what it is. Maybe I'm not explaining this point well enough but strikes me as obvious, or at least instinctual.

One can be inspired by a book to write something similar or write about the same characters, but to write the same story with the same characters in the same format? It seems there would rarely be a good reason. Perhaps that is the crux of the matter.

The degree of similarity between an original and a remake comes into play to show whether or not it is really a remake - rather than merely inspired by the original. I'd toss Karate Kid and Living Dead into this category.

King Kong is the kind of true remake I'm talking about. It's about the same character in the same situation facing the same fate. It's not a shot for shot movie but is substantially the same. I thought it was a good, but not great, film. (Oh noes, I think it's good, my theory must crumble! JK.) So the question is what, if anything, makes it a worthwhile film when King Kong already existed? I'm truly curious about everyone's views on this question.

twooffour, you confuse two different points in this passage

In one sentence you say you wouldn't like something to be rewritten, or "told differently", the way you brought up, in another, you dislike the "pale imitation" that doesn't try to "interpret the source material".
Seriously, which is it now?

I never used the phrase "pale imitation" so I'm not sure which point you're referring to. Please stop making up quotes! I used the word "imitation" with regard to the Burton films - both of which are based on books - as a means of comparison. I suggested that - as an alternative theory from the one I'm pushing - that remakes may "pale in comparison," because only good movies are remade. So in either case, I was not talking directly about the merits of my theory.

You think there's a good gotcha quote in there that you raise again:

"I might want more stories about the characters, but not the same story told differently."
Well, that's the whole answer, isn't it? Some people take interest in seeing the same story told differently. In whatever medium.

Let me allow you to confuse yourself further for a moment: I enjoy the multiple cinematic tellings of a Christmas Carol (though the Alastair Sim version is probably my favorite). I would like to see a remake of Harvey. So I clearly don't have some broadly obstinate desire to not see different tellings of the same story. As the preceding sentence contextualized: "I don't think I've read a book that I'd like to see rewritten." Maybe you have. Maybe you finished reading LOTR, and thought it would be super cool to read it again with a bunch of arbitrary alterations. I can't account for the tastes of all consumers. But I would question the person's motivation in creating such an alternative telling.

I think what makes stories like A Christmas Carol and Harvey so amenable to multiple cinematic versions is that they are adapted. A future director doesn't just take what was already on the screen and dress it up or butcher it. He can go to the source and bring that source to life anew.

Some ways to convince me my theory is fundamentally flawed:

• Name movies (that were originally movies) that may be well-served by a remake.
• Name remakes of movies (that were originally movies) that are actually pretty good.
• Give good reasons for remaking movies (that were originally movies).

Some people argue that certain iconic movies should not be remade (eg Wizard of Oz, Godfather). Maybe you'd dismiss that argument out of hand as well. And certainly that is based on little more than sentimentality. My argument addresses the substantive nature of the works themselves.

doubleKO said:

I don't completely agree, for me it depends on the quality and characteristics of the remake in question, as well as my feelings for and familiarity with the original material. I enjoyed the new Star Trek and The Italian Job remake. I held the belief that Clash of the Titans should be remade for years and was very disappointed with the result when it finally was. Some regard the 1990 remake of Night of the Living Dead as superior. I agree that most remakes I have seen are inferior and demeaning to the original work in some way, but I am not against the idea altogether. It does make less sense to remake something in its original format.

My biggest problem with remakes is that by using the same name and material, comparisons are automatically invited and the importance of this comparison is often overblown to the point where the "loser" of the comparison suffers from a similarly overblown negative public perception rather than being judged on its own merits or appreciated for its own strengths.

Of course we are talking about Hollywood, and the major influence here is money. This means that movies that could be significantly improved due to having a great premise and shoddy execution are going to be sidelined in favour of stuff that they already know people like and will pay to see. So the movies that get remade will usually be the movies that need it least.

I agree about the Italian Job! It was a lot of fun (and I like what the director had to say in the commentary about not using CGI). As for Star Trek, I do think TV serials easily lend themselves to be remade (a point I made in my first post).

I did not see the new Clash of the Titans but why do you think it could benefit from being remade?

You're right about remakes inviting comparisons with previous efforts and Hollywood's zeal for money. I think these are certainly factors in the failures of remakes.

TV's Frink said:

doubleKO said:

I enjoyed the new Star Trek ... remake.

Agreed.  Though, would Star Trek 2009 really be considered a remake?

It would be my impulse to say "not really." It was a new story with the same characters. And that's really what a TV serial is all about. Granted with new actors, but I'm not sure that fact alone makes something a "remake."

"When Remakes Are A Bad Idea"

Sounds like a "When Good X Goes Bad" show.

The Manchurian Candidate

Anyone mention this yet?  I actually heard the remake wasn't bad (never saw it), but that's beside the point - it was totally unnecessary.

"You think I'm funny"

Sometimes I don't know if you fully understand the point I'm making, twooffour. 12 Angry Men was originally a play (technically a "teleplay")! It was meant to be adapted. I think that's why it lends itself to remakes so well.

twooffour said:

Oh, ok, so it's NOT about outrageous changes then, just the copying part.

Clearly I'm not arguing "eww, they changed it so I don't like it!" So again, I don't know that you really are trying to understand my argument.

Listen, I still maintain that this thread should be redubbed into "good remakes vs. bad remakes", because this "theory" of yours seems to be very arbitrary, and ill-supported.

Can we talk about what factors might-maybe-perhaps determine why remakes can be a bad idea? Or must we accept your premise that they might always be a good idea?

My theory is not arbitrary. So again, even if you disagree with it, it appears to me that you aren't even trying to understand it. I think it works better with regard to books. Anchorhead gives some good reasoning for it. Maybe it's a little philosophical, but not arbitrary.

Yea, it can be easily abused by producers who want a shortcut, there are many ways it can go wrong etc., so why don't you talk about those things?

 

Um, because I had this sort of philosophical idea I wanted to explore?

Nothing about this is "obvious", or "intuitive".  A work of fiction, be it a book or a movie, isn't just "written and basta", it's not some kind of holy, homogenous entity that just "exists" and that's it.
It's made up of lots of general concepts, details, and creative decisions, all of which can be reworked and modified. What's so "absurd" about that?

And many many many works have been inspired by pre-existing works and have totally ripped off plots, characters, and story elements. See Star Wars (in a good way); see Harry Potter (in a shameless way). I'm obviously not objecting to using pre-existing works to derive new ones. So again, I think you really just don't want to understand the argument.

The issue is about the need or the reasoning to make the same work again. And as stated, the absurdity of this is most clear with books. Technically I can't "rewrite" the same book. The book does exist as the precise collection of words and phrasing. Tolkien was quite particular about words and spellings. To "rewrite" it is only a bastardization, or at best an edit.

One book I really enjoy is L'Etranger. But most Americans will not enjoy it unless it is translated. That translation is done by necessity (or at least it's easier to translate than to teach everyone french). In some sense it is a "remake." But you can't really appreciate it until you've read it in the original Klingon french. Some of the meaning is lost in translation (a lot of it is in the tone). The same goes for rewriting a book in the same language. This is not an arbitrary point.

There are many movies that could be obviously IMPROVED, but then we're not talking about an innocent remake anymore, are we?
If it's just an innocent remake, the original doesn't have to "benefit" from or "need" it in any way, it'll just be another version.

I don't know what an "innocent remake" is. I'm questioning the need for "just another version." To my "why?" you say "cuz." The Burton examples I raised earlier, Charlie and Apes (which are adaptations of books, so not what I'm addressing under my argument, but raising them specifically for this point), were failures in my view because they were "just another version" of films that already existed (certainly they suffered from other flaws as well). When one makes a film based on a film this problem is all the more likely.

Not to get all too lost in examples... hmm... could imagine a Matrix remake somewhere down the line.

The Adjustment Bureau not good enough for you? Oh sorry, you mean the same movie about aliens and a guy named Neo who takes the red pill, unplugs himself, and fights in slow motion. Because we really need to see the same movie again, this time with passion. I certainly could see a sequel to Matrix (well envision, anyhow) that follows the same basic plot (really, that's what most sequels do). But to use the same script again? Has the well of creativity really dried up that much?

------

I completely disagree with thejediknighthusezni that the OT will be remade. Star Wars proper (ANH, ESB, ROTJ) exists as it exists. There is no rationale to "remake" them. For the reasons I've argued, I think it's an absurdity. Even cynical greed won't dictate they be remade. Cynical greed may result in sequels and certainly in every manner of product, but not in remakes. Star Wars is fixed in our consciousness as it exists. So much of its value lies in that shared consciousness. I'd direct you to watch Jeremy Messersmith's video/song "Tatooine." Even without dialogue and omitting much of the movies, it greatly captures the feelings many of us have about Star Wars. A remake can only degrade that (*note I have no problem with adaptations of Star Wars, to the stage, radio, even a cartoon - just with a live-action "remake") (*note I feel these lengthy parentheticals are necessary in order to stress the nuance of my arguments).

I also completely disagree with generations owning films and that every generation might need their own version. I'm thrilled when succeeding generations adopt the OT as their own. There are members of this site who are at least around 20. I don't think they missed the cutoff date for owning the OT. When we think of classical movies we love, they aren't obsolete or taken to the grave by our forefathers. Out of a lack of anything constructive to say I've held back on articulating my muzzel in your thread. I think we're all entitled to our exploration of "what ifs". That said, I disagree with your premise.