Remakes

[mike]

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.

As in, can someone redo John Barrymore's Richard III? Lost to time. One can only wonder! I know I do!

 

[anon`]

As in, can someone redo John Barrymore's Richard III? Lost to time. One can only wonder! I know I do!

Something like that, yes. I'll never know what Barrymore's Richard was like. But I know what Marco Baricelli and James Newcomb did with the character, and both were phenomenal. For my part, I love seeing how my favourite plays are treated in subsequent productions, and indeed look forward to it.

I dunno... perhaps it's a different "thing", what with t live theatre being so fleeting?

 

[Atomic]

There are some remakes that I really like both the original and the remake. Willy Wanka and then Charlie and the Chocolate Factory are a prime example. I think Gene Wilder is awesome and the Umpa Lumpas are much better in the first one, but the story itself is better and more closely follows the book in Tim Burton's version.

I'm interested in whats going to happen with Alive in Wonderland even though its going to be animation vs cinema.

 

[Zombie_61]

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.

This is technically inaccurate. Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 film may have been based on the novel, but Tod Browning's 1931 film was based on the stage production, not the novel. Of course, the stage production was loosely based on Bram Stoker's novel, so this might be splitting hairs...

Back on topic, as a general rule I'm not in favor of remakes. Rarely, if ever, do modern remakes even match the quality of the original works they are based on, let alone surpass them. Filmmakers involved with remakes generally don't understand what made the original material successful in the first place, then they want their version to somehow be distinctive from that original material so they start making changes, and they often change those things that made the original so successful and/or popular in the first place--they almost always think they have a "better" idea. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Of course, that's the dilemma. Change too much, and people will say you ruined what made their favorite film special; do a direct remake, and people will ask, "Why bother?"

 

[HadleyH]

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...

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap Yes! lol

Remakes suck!

 

[Carlisle Blues]

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap Yes! lol

Remakes suck!

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Yeps]

Something I find interesting is that some source material is constantly remade. There has been an Alice in Wonderland movie every 10 or so years for the last hundred, and sometimes more often.

 

[Edward]

Didn't someone once say there truly only are twelve stories, so by now everything is a remake?

 

[Atomic Age]

Ah THE THING! A masterpiece, I could never work out why Carpenter's version wasn't well-received, by coincidence I saw the original the other night" it was very much of its time, and cheesy to boot, but it had some nice flight jackets in it I never noticed when I saw it as a kid.

I'm a huge fan of The Thing From Another World, and The Thing. The Thing did not do well because it was buried in the summer of 82. A summer that was almost overloaded with sci-fi films.

CONAN
BLADE RUNNER
FIREFOX
POLTERGEIST
STAR TREK: THE WRATH OF KHAN
THE SECRET OF NIMH
TRON
THE ROAD WARRIOR

Just to name a few.

And of course the 800 pound gorilla that summer, E.T. was probably the real undoing of The Thing. Everyone seemed to want to see the sweet alien rather than the gore fest downer. I think if The Thing had been released 10 years later, it would have been a huge hit.

Doug

 

[Atomic Age]

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap Yes! lol

Remakes suck!

I don't think they ALL suck.

I wouldn't say A Star Is Born (1954) sucked in spite of being made originally in 1937. As others have said, the Maltese Falcon in 1941 had been made twice before. Then there is...

Ben-Hur (1959) Original 1907 remade again in 1925.

The Narrow Margin (1952) Made as Sleepers West (a Michael Shane film) in 1941 and Sleepers East in 1934.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) A remake by the master himself of the 1934 version.

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954) Made in 1905, 1907, 1916, 1917.

Rio Bravo (1958) Remade as El Dorado in 1966 and Rio Lobo in 1970 all 3 starring John Wayne and directed by Howard Hawks.

The High and the Mighty (1954) basically remade as Zero Hour! in 1957, Airport in 1970, and Airplane in 1980. Airplane is actually a direct remake of Zero Hour, using much of the original plot, dialog, and characters. Funny when you realize that Zero Hour isn't a comedy.

Doug

 

[Feraud]

Cecil B. Demille made The Ten Commandments in the 20s and remade it in the 50s. We can list more than enough examples to bore everyone.

The vehement oppostion to the idea of a remake is silly.

 

[Atomic Age]

Cecil B. Demille made The Ten Commandments in the 20s and remade it in the 50s. We can list more than enough examples to bore everyone.

The vehement oppostion to the idea of a remake is silly.

I forgot that one. Sorry if I bored you.

Doug

 

[Feraud]

I forgot that one. Sorry if I bored you.

Doug

Doh! I didn't mean you bore anyone at all. I meant we can list enough remakes to bore anyone who thinks remakes are unworthy, unoriginal pieces of drek!

 

[HosManHatter]

Atomic Age,I did not realize so many sci-fi films got released in Summer,1982.Wow

The Thing was definately ahead of its time and had some of the most graphic and disturbing special effects ever.For prosthetic and live action FX they still hold up well.

HMH

 

[HadleyH]

in my opinion...

I don't think they ALL suck.

Doug

I see your point, but still.... let's put it this way, more clearly - ALL remakes after the 40s suck! (ok, 99% do) [huh] ... and the WORST are from the 80s 90s 00s... no doubt about it!

 

[Naphtali]

Were a "remake" offered with a different, distinct title, most otherwise watchable motion pictures that are insulting because they must carry the baggage of trying to measure up to previous versions, would, in fact, be watchable rather than torture.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I see your point, but still.... let's put it this way, more clearly - ALL remakes after the 40s suck! (ok, 99% do) [huh] ... and the WORST are from the 80s 90s 00s... no doubt about it!

 

[HosManHatter]

I am not anti-remake.Far from it. I`m just anti-bad remake. The problem with most remakes is,well...they suck. I suppose some film purists are offended and disgusted by remakes of classic and seminal film but I enjoy it when those few well made remakes are made.Carpenter`s "The Thing",Burton`s "Charley and the Chocolate Factory" to name a few.

Somebody posted earlier about all the classic films of the 50/60s that were actually remakes of much earlier versions.Food for thought.

HMH

 

[Atomic Age]

I see your point, but still.... let's put it this way, more clearly - ALL remakes after the 40s suck! (ok, 99% do) [huh] ... and the WORST are from the 80s 90s 00s... no doubt about it!

With very rare exceptions I tend to agree with you there.

Doug

 

[Atomic Age]

Atomic Age,I did not realize so many sci-fi films got released in Summer,1982.Wow

The Thing was definately ahead of its time and had some of the most graphic and disturbing special effects ever.For prosthetic and live action FX they still hold up well.

HMH

I agree. I own it on HDDVD and it still looks fantastic!

Doug

 

[Atomic Age]

Doh! I didn't mean you bore anyone at all. I meant we can list enough remakes to bore anyone who thinks remakes are unworthy, unoriginal pieces of drek!

OH I didn't think you were. I was just ribbing you!

Doug