Your thoughts on remakes, in general

[Kelliezgirl]

I agree on all counts. With The Maltese Falcon, you'd run into he crowd that will be upset with trying to replace Bogart
Salem's Lot would be awesome if they could stick with the novel well.

How many members of the crowd who'd be upset about recasting Bogart have even seen the original?

 

[Yarglenurp]

How many members of the crowd who'd be upset about recasting Bogart have even seen the original?

Depends... are we including the people who can only be reached by séance?

 

[Rob_Royale]

How many members of the crowd who'd be upset about recasting Bogart have even seen the original?

It's a fair question. It was 1941 after all. Even my 81-year-old parents weren't born yet.
So lets play devil's advocate. Bogart was 42 when he played Sam Spade in this film. Assuming the plot is still good enough to grab modern audiences, who could be cast, in Bogey's fedora? Liam Neeson did a fairly respectable Marlowe in 2022.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

It's a fair question. It was 1941 after all. Even my 81-year-old parents weren't born yet.
So lets play devil's advocate. Bogart was 42 when he played Sam Spade in this film. Assuming the plot is still good enough to grab modern audiences, who could be cast, in Bogey's fedora? Liam Neeson did a fairly respectable Marlowe in 2022.

Well, they are putting Chris Pratt in everything these days....


But seriously, Viggo Mortensen would be good. Think about him in A History of Violence or Eastern Promises.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Speaking of remakes, there's yet another "Dracula" remake on the way, a remake of Nosferatu by director Robert Eggers with Bill Skarsgaard (Pennywise in "It") as Nosferatu.

This seems to me a good example of a justifiable remake, because it's a story with a timeless fascination, which can be interpreted in different ways. I liked Herzog's 1979 Nosferatu. I had mixed feelings about Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula from 1992. Despite Gary Oldman's strengths as an actor, Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder were terrible, and the whole thing seemed underdeveloped.

Dracula is sort of a special case I think. It's more a fascination with a character. He's an archetype, we aren't remaking a movie so much as examining a character.

 

[jaF0]

Generally opposed, but reading a few of these posts we seem to be talking about adaptations as much as remakes.


Flicks like The Day The Earth Stood Still should never have been touched again.

People say the new treatment of Midway was more historically accurate than the more famous one. I saw wthe first, but as with most remakes, I'll never watch the second.

I saw The Money Pit before I saw Mr. Blandings Builds His Dreamhouse, so I can't say much there, both were good for their time periods and casts.

 

[Ren_eh]

My thought . . . "Doesn't anyone . . . anywhere . . . have an original idea?"

 

[jaF0]

Some movies I would like to see remade:


4. Logan's Run: A cool sci fi movie idea that was limited by some cheesy special effects. You can't beat Jenny Agutter in the skimpy sea-foam dress, but this could be a good remake.

I could have sworn they redid that, but it's only been in the talking stages since the 90s and is probably dead now.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

Not everything needs a fucking remake. At this point all these remakes come off as unoroginal, noncreative, no new ideas filler to make money. Especially when they don't have the spirit of the original, or just trying to push today's bullshit narratives, than actually make a good movie. Same for most if these adaptations like that Ghostbusters; the fact they replaced the Caddilac with a LeSabre alone is why I wasn't gonna watch it. That new Robocop wasn't even rated R.

I'll tell you what was a half decent one that tried and didn't go too far off the rails; the The Car remake.

 

[jehoram]

With The Maltese Falcon, you'd run into he crowd that will be upset with trying to replace Bogart

And let's remember that Bogie's Maltese Falcon was (I think) the second remake of the story.

I'd like to see a remake of Little Big Man, maybe as a television serial. Somebody in another writer's forum pointed out that as good as the Penn version was, it barely scratched the surface of the original book. It really needed a twelve- to fifteen-hour format to do justice to the story.

I suspect that there a lot of books out there that have been viciously cut to fit into a cinematic format.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I suspect that there a lot of books out there that have been viciously cut to fit into a cinematic format.

I'd love to see a World War Z that actually follows the book.
Frame it the same way, start the interview with someone then flashback as they start talking. Definitely a mini series worthy story.

 

[SimonDoom]

How many members of the crowd who'd be upset about recasting Bogart have even seen the original?

Excellent point. I don't think it would be a problem at all if you filmed the movie in color and moved the setting to the present day. Many members of the modern audience wouldn't even remember Bogart (although that would be a shame).

 

[SimonDoom]

I'd love to see a World War Z that actually follows the book.
Frame it the same way, start the interview with someone then flashback as they start talking. Definitely a mini series worthy story.

There's an interesting idea. I read that book before I read the movie. The book was interesting; the movie seemed to me very Hollywood and underwhelming. The one hiccup is that zombies have been so overdone, but that take on the zombie threat would be a lot more compelling than Walking Dead.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

There's an interesting idea. I read that book before I read the movie. The book was interesting; the movie seemed to me very Hollywood and underwhelming. The one hiccup is that zombies have been so overdone, but that take on the zombie threat would be a lot more compelling than Walking Dead.

The movie had nothing to do with the book. I've never understood why Hollywood does that. Pay for the rights to a book to totally not use it. You were making a big budget Brad Pitt movie, you didn't need the bump from a semi-famous book title.

 

[alohadave]

I'd love to see a World War Z that actually follows the book.
Frame it the same way, start the interview with someone then flashback as they start talking. Definitely a mini series worthy story.

Give it a 26 hour Ken Burns style documentary format (break it up into 2-3 seasons if needed). Since the book is already broken up into self contained chapters (besides the framing chapters at the beginning and end), it would work perfectly for a serialized TV format.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Give it a 26 hour Ken Burns style documentary format (break it up into 2-3 seasons if needed). Since the book is already broken up into self contained chapters (besides the framing chapters at the beginning and end), it would work perfectly for a serialized TV format.

EXACTLY!!!!

 

[OffNSFW]

The movie had nothing to do with the book. I've never understood why Hollywood does that. Pay for the rights to a book to totally not use it. You were making a big budget Brad Pitt movie, you didn't need the bump from a semi-famous book title.

Remember that these projects are being pitched to financiers who are not really movie people and don't have much in the way of imagination.

If you have something you can show them that already exists, you have a much better shot than if you simply describe it to them and ask them to picture what it would be like. (Especially if it's something that's already a proven commercial success. Get them to believe that there's no risk involved.) This is one of the reasons why so many contemporary movies are based on toys, video games, comic books, and previously existing movies. Those things are their own pitch. The look and the vibe are built right in.

And if they make calamitous changes that damage the structure and spirit of the source material, it's because those same financiers don't understand or care about the reasons why artistic decisions get made in the first place. They're capitalists. A movie is nothing more than a tool to help them dominate their competition.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Remember that these projects are being pitched to financiers who are not really movie people and don't have much in the way of imagination.

If you have something you can show them that already exists, you have a much better shot than if you simply describe it to them and ask them to picture what it would be like. (Especially if it's something that's already a proven commercial success. Get them to believe that there's no risk involved.) This is one of the reasons why so many contemporary movies are based on toys, video games, comic books, and previously existing movies. Those things are their own pitch. The look and the vibe are built right in.

And if they make calamitous changes that damage the structure and spirit of the source material, it's because those same financiers don't understand or care about the reasons why artistic decisions get made in the first place. They're capitalists. A movie is nothing more than a tool to help them dominate their competition.

I think that's a bit of an oversimplification, and stereotypes the people involved.
The people who greenlight movies are people who have been in the industry for years, they aren't some Mr. Burns caricature that only cares about money. Heck, Disney's problems recently have a lot to due with them NOT focusing on making money by appealing to their audience.

I do think there is some merit to the idea it's easier to sell something that has a proven track record in a different medium.

 

[RetroFan]

REMAKES

THE GOOD - For the most part good remakes are loyal to and respectful to their source material, and use the acronym 'KISS' - i.e. Keep It Simple Stupid. Like the 2005 movie remake of 'Starsky and Hutch'. The TV show was a crime/comedy made in the 1970s, and the movie was a crime/comedy set in the 1970s. It worked. The Brady Bunch movie and its sequel found a great premise of the family living in the 1990s but still behaving as though it was the 1970s and this worked, and while obviously a parody of the TV show it was not mean spirited. This worked too. In the mid-late 2000s the first three of CS Lewis Narnia books were adapted to movies, and these were faithful to their source material, and excellent films.

THE BAD - Bad remakes can be just mediocre films or TV shows, but other times the reasons are more obvious. The Bridge to Terabithia remake of the mid 2000s was by no means terrible, but was poorly adapted from its 1970s source material and this made much of the film look anachronistic. Why not just set it in the 1970s? The Dukes of Hazzard movie made a major blunder of changing the roles of Boss Hogg and Sheriff Roscoe to flat out bad guys with no semblance of humour or morals, whereas in the TV show these characters were bumbling, funny villains, and while corrupt were not evil. More recently, the 2024 remake of the 2004 smash hit 'Mean Girls' seemed too afraid of offending anyone in the modern era to take any risks. The premise of the movie also didn't work in the modern day 20 years on, and with character names remaining the same as for the original film, this also made the movie appear anachronistic at times.

THE UGLY - There's three types of ugly remakes. There's those where the whole thing is so ugly in spirit that it transcends bad and lands here. Case in point, the Dad's Army movie from 2016. This did stick to the premise of the original much loved TV series and cast actors similar in looks to the sitcom, which seems a good start. But it was so mean-spirited and these characters so awful to each other, it was an insult to the original classic and its fans. You swore that the characters in the movie genuinely hated each other, the nastiness evident in nearly every scene. The second type of ugly remake is one where a simple premise is turned into some bizarre project that leaves everyone scratching their heads as to how anyone ever thought this a good idea. The Bewitched movie of 2005 is a good example of this. The premise was that the actress who auditions for and gets the role of Samantha in a remake of the TV sitcom really is a witch, something her co-star playing Darren finds out the hard way. Just WTF? Why not have a simple premise of a young married couple Samantha and Darren set in the 1960s and Samantha is a witch? The third type of ugly remake is the woke remake. Mostly woke projects tend to be new films in existing franchises, like the Last Jedi or Solo - A Star Wars Story in the Star Wars films. Or a number of woke Marvel films made in recent years, or Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. Some woke movies and TV shows are original, but some do qualify as remakes like Ghostbusters from 2016 or Charlie's Angels from 2019. Then more recently there's the animated reimagined Scooby Doo show Velma. All I can say about this one is lets go to the graves of William Hanna and Joseph Barberra and listen to them spin.

 

[lovecraft68]

Well, they are putting Chris Pratt in everything these days....


But seriously, Viggo Mortensen would be good. Think about him in A History of Violence or Eastern Promises.

History of Violence is criminally underrated. Seriously good movie, and not a lot of people know it was based on a graphic novel, and the ending to that was so gruesome I see why they changed it.

Also points for the hate fuck on the staircase

 

[OffNSFW]

Mostly woke projects tend to be new films in existing franchises, like the Last Jedi or Solo - A Star Wars Story in the Star Wars films. Or a number of woke Marvel films made in recent years, or Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. Some woke movies and TV shows are original, but some do qualify as remakes like Ghostbusters from 2016 or Charlie's Angels from 2019.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

History of Violence is criminally underrated. Seriously good movie, and not a lot of people know it was based on a graphic novel, and the ending to that was so gruesome I see why they changed it.

Also points for the hate fuck on the staircase

Apparently they had to get a bunch of pads and things from the stunt coordinator for that scene. Saw something about it and the stunt guy was like, "20 years in the business, first time they called me in for help with a sex scene..."

 

[lovecraft68]

I'm tired of remakes because that's what everything is now. Hollywood is creatively bankrupt. They have nothing. I have no idea why they even cared about the writer's strike because just about all they're doing is remakes, sequels, reboots etc...

I don't say this in the sense of all the toxic you tubers squealing about the remakes are all woke. I do see some of that virtue signaling phony crap in some of these things (Death of the MCU in many ways) but, unlike them, I can acknowledge this is not the 80's anymore-the generation most of these guys are from who think it was the height of cinematic talent...yeah-and movies are trying to appeal to a different age and society, so whatever. If I don't like it I don't watch it, no big deal.

But some of the things they are bringing back or talking about its just insane.

Officer and a Gentlemen is one of them....people are really hungry for that? Really?

I think the Beetlejuice sequel was ridiculous. 40 years later lets do part 2? It reeks of "Crap, we got nothing, but nostalgia so..."

The recent Roadhouse remake was well past awful and its not like the first was Oscar worthy just had a plot so mindless it was a fun ride and had a goof cast, this thing was pure shit in every way. Even the fight scenes were like two kids playing with action figures and using 1970's Marvel comics insults.

I could go for hours on that Exorcist abomination

So, at this point I've just come to see any remake the way I see a story here that goes nowhere other than each chapter being the same two people having sex and nothing else. Its copy and paste, and what seems to be missing in the remakes from the originals is any type of feel to it, it's like it is just an assembly line production with awful writing and bored casts cashing a check.

 

[cadeauxxx]

Remakes have existed for almost 100 years now.

The first major one I can think of is the Maltese Falcon from 1941 with Humphrey Bogart. It's a remake of a film from 10 years prior. Everyone remembers the remake now as the classic that was one of Bogart's breakout movies along with High Sierra. I've seen them both as a big Noir buff. The remake is definitely better, as it built up on the foundations laid by the original. It also helped being the movie that launched an iconic actor of that generation.

One remake I have long adored is Martin Scorsese's version of Cape Fear. The original is good for it's era, but the remake is downright terrifying. If you haven't seen that, definitely check it out. Robert DeNiro's character is the stuff of nightmares. You won't be forgetting about it soon after watching.

This conversation on too many remakes has been recurring for a long time. I first remember hearing the phrase back in the late 2000s.

How I personally feel about remakes comes down to if it's being done by a visionary director (like Scorsese) or if it's some cash-in movie approved by the IP holders. The right director can take something and make it their own, opposed to trying to "update" it to current era.

 

[lovecraft68]

I want to make one venting comment on the above mentioned Toxic shitheads all over the internet.

I see this most in the Lord of the Rings/Rings of Power crowd and anything Star Wars, but its a lot more

The "This isn't my Star Wars/My Tolkien!" it ruined the Legacy!!!!!!!!

First off....its not yours. You don't own it, you did not create it, you did not inspire it. It came out in your time, you loved it, and you think it has to be that way all the time. That is not true. People from the 40's thought 70's movies were crap, and this goes on and on, "It was the best of times! The salad years, the golden age phhhtttt" Hollywood shifts with cultural shifts and that's all it is. You are not being personally attacked because they changed something you grew up with, and you sure as hell are no victim and have no right to make endless videos(That they make money on) crying and playing victim

they also then attack the cast, especially female leads, and on a personal level. then when these people-who are working and earning their living on their craft and making more money than your sad ass ever will-get fed up with being attacked, they say something back and then its "They're attacking the fans reeeeee" when you were never a fan now you're just playing passive aggressive victim and their comment section is filled with people who admit to never watching the movie/show in question but are hating on it because their favorite hatemonger hates it

Grow the fuck up. Worth mentioning, the vast majority of these yahoos are men. What a shock. But in fairness there are a few female you tuners who do this, but even their base seems almost exclusively male. Welcome to modern times, the age of the man baby. The guys who said the Barbie movie 'emasculated' them. Newsflash, punk, if a movie based on a girl's doll upsets you, you were already emasculated.

Legacy? Maybe I'm wrong, but when something new comes out, did they take away the original? You can't watch it anymore? Its been tainted for you? Again grow up because if anything if you don't like the new stuff it makes you appreciate the original even more. After my daughter talked me into seeing that shit Exorcist reboot, I watched the original a couple days later and enjoyed it even more.

Like I said, don't like it,cdon't watch it. don't support it, and of course you're free to have an opinion. But there's a difference between a Yeah, didn't like it cause...and just bashing and bashing and bashing and spewing and making twenty videos about it, that you're profiting on.

Imagine, having such an easy life that "woke Star Wars" is the hill you want to die on.

Must be nice.