Remakes

[Josephine]

A touchy subject for me at present, as Lou Adler is yet again threatening to do a remake of The Rocky Horror Picture Show...

With perhaps David Tennant as Brad?

 

[Edward]

Personally, I blame Michael Caine. Leaving Sylvester Stallone, Marky Mark and Jude Law to correct all his mistakes! Shameful.

He was only supposed to blow the bloody doors off, after all....

 

[Kassia]

A touchy subject for me at present, as Lou Adler is yet again threatening to do a remake of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, and this time it looks like it might actually be more than just a ruse to raise brand awareness ahead of a new DVD pressing.

Who is Lou Adler? Never heard of him.....

 

[Lady Day]

You also have the gore porn genera, getting a lot of focus now and banking on a lot of remakes of older horror movies 'more graphic' in visuals and ick.

LD

 

[happyfilmluvguy]

I remember in this thread, the real question iswaswhat is really considered to be a remake. Let's take Dracula, for instance. The 1932 version with Bela Lugosi and the 1992 one with Gary Oldman. They both follow the same material, based on Bram Stokers novel. So is the film from 1992 a remake of the 1932 film? Personally, I say no, because they come from the same material. What I would really consider a remake is when the story is not adapted from source material such as a novel or true story. If the story is original, written specifically for the screen, then it is a remake. That's how I see it. So technically 1998 Psycho is not a remake. I've never seen it but have been told it was made to copy Hitchcock's shot for shot. Still, you're not remaking the film, you're remaking his vision.

 

[The Wolf]

"The Maltese Falcon" makes for good discussion. As mentioned it had been made twice before Bogart's. However the Bogart/Huston version is THE version. Now imagine loving the book, you visualize this blond satan that is Spade and each time they make the movie he has black hair.
Speaking of Hammet, if anyone dared a remake of "The Thin Man" the person plaing Nick would be unfavorably compared to William Powell. There is a long dissertation here but I'll condense. I love William Powell in just about everything and love the Thin Man series but Powell is too urbane and smooth to play the rough and tumble Nick from the book.
Some of my favorite Douglas Fairbanks movies were remade a few times.

One thing I have found about my preferences: I don't like it when the remake is too close to the original. I thought the remake of "Bedazzled" was smart to not be just like the great Cook & Moore movie.

Sincerely,
The Wolf

 

[1911 Man]

When it comes to movies, I like to consider words written by Roger Ebert. "It doesn't matter what a movie is about, it is how well it is about it." Or something like that.

Some good cases in point. The 1993 movie "The Fugitive" with Harrison Ford. One of the best movies ever made, still love it to this day. Remake of an old tv series, in and of itself beloved. Did the series need to be remade? No, it could stand on its own. Did the film take away from the series? No, it just thrilled a new generation. Naturally, they tried to make a new tv series based on the success of the movie, but it failed. Not because a remake is in itself a bad idea, but this new series was not done properly.

Then there is the new Ocean's 11. Forget the two sequels for now, lets just focus on the first one with Clooney, Damon, Pitt, et al. The first time I saw it I loved it, and still do. It's classy, funny, well made, very entertaining. At the time I saw it, I was becoming more engrossed in older films, and learned this was a remake of a Rat Pack film from the 60's. Naturally I sought out a copy and watched it with my wife, who has also come to appreciate classic films. We both thought the original one stunk, and absolutely needed to be remade.

Now I don't know if anyone would stand for another remake of "The Maltese Falcon" or a remake of "Casablanca". I don't know how a remake could stand up to such a venerable classic.

 

[Brinybay]

How about The Fly?

Hated the remake. Vincent Price, whom I've always been a big fan of, once criticized modern horror films by saying "They've taken out subtlety and suspense and replaced it with gore and sex." I thought it was ironic that the remake of The Fly, a movie he originally starred in, was a perfect example of that.

 

[Nighthawk]

...or a remake of "Casablanca".

Barb Wire. Simply one of the worst movies ever made.

 

[Feraud]

I saw Jeff Bridges on a recent talk show. He mentioned he will be working with the Coen brothers again (excellent!) in a remake of...
True Grit!

 

[Edward]

With perhaps David Tennant as Brad?

Too old. He'd be a fi Frank, or Riff Raff though. Or a great narrator....

Who is Lou Adler? Never heard of him.....

Producer, big noise at Fox. The man in control of all filmed versions of the stage musical The Rocky Horror Show. Not a popular man in much of the fanbase, but certainly influential.

 

[Miss Golightly]

A remake of The Birds is in the pipeline - I can just imagine it will be dripping in CGI. No remake is necessary - I was only watching it yesterday on tv and the original is superb.

I know I shouldn't compare actresses in the leading roles but Naomi Watts is no Tippi Hedren....I remember watching The Birds and Marnie as a teenager and thinking how fabulous Tippi was - so poised and elegant.

In fact I would go so far to say that there are no actresses today who could portray the ice cool blonde that Hitchcock was so fond of....

 

[Yeps]

A remake of The Birds is in the pipeline - I can just imagine it will be dripping in CGI. No remake is necessary - I was only watching it yesterday on tv and the original is superb.

I know I shouldn't compare actresses in the leading roles but Naomi Watts is no Tippi Hedren....I remember watching The Birds and Marnie as a teenager and thinking how fabulous Tippi was - so poised and elegant.

In fact I would go so far to say that there are no actresses today who could portray the ice cool blonde that Hitchcock was so fond of....

to be perfectly honest, I am curious what that will come up with. I found the original to be the most disappointing movie I have ever watched (except perhaps the old Mummy movie). I found it neither scary nor suspenseful, and the lack of a resolution really annoyed me.

 

[Miss Golightly]

to be perfectly honest, I am curious what that will come up with. I found the original to be the most disappointing movie I have ever watched (except perhaps the old Mummy movie). I found it neither scary nor suspenseful, and the lack of a resolution really annoyed me.

It wouldn't be my favourite Hitchcock movie either (Vertigo is my favourite) but I found it sufficiently disconcerting - particularly the scene outside the school with the birds landing on the climbing frame and then the children making their escape - it was quite gruesome for its time.

 

[Nighthawk]

I hear that they are remaking Plan 9 from Outer Space.

NH

 

[HadleyH]

to be perfectly honest, I am curious what that will come up with.

I know exactly what they will come up with. shakeshead

The Birds is a great movie by a great director! To remake this would be unoriginal and yet another waist of time and money.

Thanks but no thanks.

 

[Mike in Seattle]

I know exactly what they will come up with. shakeshead

The Birds is a great movie by a great director! To remake this would be unoriginal and yet another waist of time and money.

Thanks but no thanks.

And to paraphrase one of the FL'er's quote ending all his messages, a quote from the late great Harry Truman - what they will come up with is something you don't want to kick on a hot day...

 

[mike]

I feel like I've written this elsewhere on the Lounge, but can't locate it at the moment.

The concept of remakes is not a bad one. The idea that Hollywood is out of fresh ideas is not new. The Universal monster films were in virtually all cases not the original adaptions of those stories. There were dozens of Invisible Men in the first 2 decades of the 20th Century. Frankenstein was first birthed in 1910 courtesy of Thom. Edison. Nosferatu predated Dracula, even if it was illegally made. Same is true with Der Januskopf and at least 3 other Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde versions. What is necessary are competent artists at the helm and new classics can emerge.

 

[anon`]

I feel like I've written this elsewhere on the Lounge, but can't locate it at the moment.

The concept of remakes is not a bad one. The idea that Hollywood is out of fresh ideas is not new. The Universal monster films were in virtually all cases not the original adaptions of those stories. There were dozens of Invisible Men in the first 2 decades of the 20th Century. Frankenstein was first birthed in 1910 courtesy of Thom. Edison. Nosferatu predated Dracula, even if it was illegally made. Same is true with Der Januskopf and at least 3 other Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde versions. What is necessary are competent artists at the helm and new classics can emerge.

Something just clicked for me whilst reading this, even if my question isn't really relevant:

If remakes of movies are A Bad Thing... what do y'all think about live theatre? Same basic concept, just more ephemeral.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Prior to the classic 1939 Wizard of Oz, there were two previous versions, one made in 1910 and the other in 1925. The 1925 Wizard of Oz featured Oliver Hardy (before he teamed up with Stan Laurel) as the Tin Man!