Your thoughts on remakes, in general

[lovecraft68]

I think all of the movies starting with Phantom Menace are a big step down from the original trilogy, and I blame Lucas in part for that. He forgot that they're supposed to be fun, not serious. But still, he deserves credit for the original movie (I give the screenwriters a lot of credit for Empire--I don't know if Lucas could have pulled that off on his own).

True, he seemed to want to take these movies from being something great for all ages, and make them more mature. I wonder if its because fans of the originals were now adults.

But as much as I enjoy horror and darker works, not everything has to, or is meant to be that way.

The reason I've lost any interest in anything Zack Snyder does is his penchant for wanting everything dark. He turned Superman into some type of dark brooding god and has him and Batman killing which is something both vowed not to do in the comics and its what made them heroes, his view of them is amoral and above others in many ways.

They do it in comics, they're not for kids in anyway anymore, and now the latest craze is R-rated superhero films.

Talking about Star Wars made me think of that feeling of pure wonder and joy I experienced when I first saw it. That really doesn't exist anymore in anything other than flat out kids movies.

 

[OffNSFW]

Take Star Wars from his body of work and what do you have left?

A stellar directorial career that was derailed midstream by becoming very wealthy, very quickly.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

A stellar directorial career that was derailed midstream by becoming very wealthy, very quickly.

He had one OK movies before Star Wars.
American Graffiti, that's it.
Plenty of other directors have hit it big and continued to direct great movies. Heck, you've got guys like Eastwood and Scorsese who are also stupid rich and continue to make great films even though they are old as hell.
The only thing that "derailed" Lucas was Lucas.

 

[Voboy]

To each their own, but I don't believe this for a second.

I think it's very fair to think of Lucas as a visionary storyteller without being a visionary filmmaker. I think it's also fair to conclude that he was a competent filmmaker at one time, but that he later lost his fastball and/or failed to understand how the industry was changing. I don't think either of those things makes Star Wars any less of an achievement.

And I think it's undeniable that most wildly successful people have a healthy dose of luck involved in the specific time and place at which they achieved their successes. I don't think that's any knock on the people involved.

Where I think Lucas failed is in his lack of understanding that his story didn't simply belong to him. His hubris in the remastering of the original material, his obstinate refusal to make the original versions available to fans, his insistence that it was still his to complete, and his apparent relish at throwing shit like Jar Jar into fans' faces over the years is an indicator, to me, that he loved his creation too much to truly let it go. To "publish" something means that it becomes something you've shared; it's no longer solely yours.

JMO.

 

[alohadave]

I think it's very fair to think of Lucas as a visionary storyteller without being a visionary filmmaker. I think it's also fair to conclude that he was a competent filmmaker at one time, but that he later lost his fastball and/or failed to understand how the industry was changing. I don't think either of those things makes Star Wars any less of an achievement.

And I think it's undeniable that most wildly successful people have a healthy dose of luck involved in the specific time and place at which they achieved their successes. I don't think that's any knock on the people involved.

Where I think Lucas failed is in his lack of understanding that his story didn't simply belong to him. His hubris in the remastering of the original material, his obstinate refusal to make the original versions available to fans, his insistence that it was still his to complete, and his apparent relish at throwing shit like Jar Jar into fans' faces over the years is an indicator, to me, that he loved his creation too much to truly let it go. To "publish" something means that it becomes something you've shared; it's no longer solely yours.

JMO.

With the success of the first three SW movies, he no longer had anyone who would push back against what he wanted to do.

Ep4 was saved in the edit by his wife, Ep5 was saved by having Irvin Kershner direct, Richard Marquand directed Ep6. He worked better as a producer and visionary guiding people to fulfill his vision. The prequels, on the other hand, were all him, and everyone worked for him, and who's going to tell the boss that their ideas/direction suck?

There is video online showing that he wanted Anakin acted with a flat affect.

 

[SimonDoom]

I think it's very fair to think of Lucas as a visionary storyteller without being a visionary filmmaker. I think it's also fair to conclude that he was a competent filmmaker at one time, but that he later lost his fastball and/or failed to understand how the industry was changing. I don't think either of those things makes Star Wars any less of an achievement.

That's how I see it. Star Wars was his baby, and it was a great achievement in its day, for which he deserves credit, but it doesn't mean he was a great director. Compare it to Spielberg's Jaws, which came out two years before. There are scenes and cuts in Jaws that show what a directorial talent Spielberg was. Star Wars was a great story and spectacle but it didn't show the same kind of directing chops. It's not that surprising that once Lucas's one big idea was done he didn't continue making good movies.

 

[OffNSFW]

He had one OK movies before Star Wars.
American Graffiti, that's it.

Again, to each their own, but I do not share your taste in movies at all. And, even if you personally dislike them, THX and American Graffiti demonstrate a wide range of skills and interests. That's a pretty big hair in the soup if we're to believe that George Lucas is Mr. Star Wars and nothing else.

Then again, I know Coppola himself has said that George Lucas is a talentless shithead whose failings were evident from the beginning, so what do I know?

 

[OffNSFW]

Where I think Lucas failed is in his lack of understanding that his story didn't simply belong to him. His hubris in the remastering of the original material, his obstinate refusal to make the original versions available to fans, his insistence that it was still his to complete, and his apparent relish at throwing shit like Jar Jar into fans' faces over the years is an indicator, to me, that he loved his creation too much to truly let it go. To "publish" something means that it becomes something you've shared; it's no longer solely yours.

This does bug the shit out of me. Revising his movies and memory holing the originals is something I'll never understand. We can have comprehensive box sets of all the different editions of Blade Runner and Close Encounters. Why not Star Wars?

I know it wasn't a happy period in his life and that he sees nothing in the old movies but the things he wishes were different. But, man, that's art, isn't it? At some point, you have to set yourself free of it.

I went a long time without watching the original Star Wars movies. The changes just stuck out like a sore thumb. I couldn't get into them in the way I used to. (It didn't help that I'd rented the originals so many times that it would have been cheaper if my parents had just bought the damn tapes.) I figured Star Wars and I were done, that it would just be a relic of my childhood. When the Despecialized Editions started finding their way onto the Internet, it all came roaring back. I actually think the original three are better movies now, as seen through the eyes of a doddering old fart, than they were when I was a kid.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I actually think the original three are better movies now, as seen through the eyes of a doddering old fart, than they were when I was a kid.

I've never understood the Star Wars cult.

The first three are a part of cinematic history for good reasons. The first movie was innovative, if derivative; the next two were very good films made by capable directors. The next three (the prequels) were self-indulgence because Lucas had more more money than sense, and the latter God knows how many are studio exploitations that make money, but so what?

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Again, to each their own, but I do not share your taste in movies at all. And, even if you personally dislike them, THX and American Graffiti demonstrate a wide range of skills and interests. That's a pretty big hair in the soup if we're to believe that George Lucas is Mr. Star Wars and nothing else.

Then again, I know Coppola himself has said that George Lucas is a talentless shithead whose failings were evident from the beginning, so what do I know?

No need for the hyperbole. No one is accusing Lucas of being a talentless hack, I've simply said that his legacy won't be as one of the great directors. Maybe he'd have been successful if he'd done other things. Maybe he wouldn't. We'll never know, which makes him a one trick pony.

 

[SimonDoom]

One of the more interesting classes of remakes is American remakes of non-English speaking movies. That's justified because it makes a good movie idea more accessible to the vast American audience. Scorsese's The Departed was a good example. It was based upon the highly regarded Hong Kong thriller Infernal Affairs, and remade to be set in Boston. It's a very entertaining movie. Some like the original more but I thought it worked perfectly in an American setting. I felt the same way about the horror film The Ring, which has one of my all-time favorite horror flick scenes near the end (no spoilers here). It was a remake of a Japanese film.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

One of the more interesting classes of remakes is American remakes of non-English speaking movies. That's justified because it makes a good movie idea more accessible to the vast American audience. Scorsese's The Departed was a good example. It was based upon the highly regarded Hong Kong thriller Infernal Affairs, and remade to be set in Boston. It's a very entertaining movie. Some like the original more but I thought it worked perfectly in an American setting. I felt the same way about the horror film The Ring, which has one of my all-time favorite horror flick scenes near the end (no spoilers here). It was a remake of a Japanese film.

Eastwood's Unforgiven was remade as a Japanese Samurai movie with Ken Watanabe. When you consider how many westerns were based on Samurai films it sort of completes the circle. Kurosawa's Seven Samurai remade as the Magnificent 7 in the 60s, then remade again 2016.

 

[Bamagan]

The discussion above about remakes, and the number seven, made me muse that Ocean's Eleven, and perhaps the whole sub-genre of 'we need to assemble a team of bad-asses' books and movies, are honest descendants of Seven Against Thebes (although there are numerous versions of the tale aside from Aeschylus' version, and the origins of the story are considerably older than his play). Not surprising, I suppose, given how much our modern Western ideas of 'heroic' stories owe to ancient Greece and their neighbors.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

The discussion above about remakes, and the number seven, made me muse that Ocean's Eleven, and perhaps the whole sub-genre of 'we need to assemble a team of bad-asses' books and movies, are honest descendants of Seven Against Thebes (although there are numerous versions of the tale aside from Aeschylus' version, and the origins of the story are considerably older than his play). Not surprising, I suppose, given how much our modern Western ideas of 'heroic' stories owe to ancient Greece and their neighbors.

Interesting that you use Ocean's 11 as the example. The premise of the original 1960s Rat Pack movie wasn't recruiting a team, so much as convincing people they already knew. The crew was 11 guys who had all served in WW2 together. The idea being that none of them would be on anyone's radar as criminals, and they could all trust each other.

Brings up another problem with the current remake craze. There is a big difference between remaking a movie that is 51 years old (1960 to 2001 for the Ocean's 11 remake) because it's a great premise for a movie and an audience isn't familiar with the original vs. just trying to cash in on name recognition and nostalgia (looking at you, Roadhouse!).

 

[SimonDoom]

Brings up another problem with the current remake craze. There is a big difference between remaking a movie that is 51 years old (1960 to 2001 for the Ocean's 11 remake) because it's a great premise for a movie and an audience isn't familiar with the original vs. just trying to cash in on name recognition and nostalgia (looking at you, Roadhouse!).

Or Spiderman. How many reboots do we need? It's so lazy, such an obvious cash grab.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Or Spiderman. How many reboots do we need? It's so lazy, such an obvious cash grab.

Yes, and if we are going to reboot it, can we PLEASE stop doing the origin story over and over and over. We know how he got started. If you want to tell a Spiderman story, fine, tell a DIFFERENT story.

 

[jehoram]

One of the more interesting classes of remakes is American remakes of non-English speaking movies. That's justified because it makes a good movie idea more accessible to the vast American audience.

I'll agree to that. As good as "La Cage aux Folles" was, the adaption by Mike Nichols was better suited to American audiences, largely thanks to some re-writing by Elaine May (not to mention outstanding performances by the cast). Although the critical reception of "The Bird Cage" was lukewarm, it was a popular success and is one of those films, like "Princess Bride," achieved its status as a cult classic.

 

[Cindy027]

I think maybe that there's benefit in reaching a new audience with old stories, plus there's AI to assist now

 

[SimonDoom]

I got around to watching the remake of "Road House," the original of which might be my all-time favorite "trash" movie.

My overall reaction: "meh." It doesn't come close to matching the first one for its campy, silly, trashy fun.

Jake Gyllenhaal is pretty good. He's a very good actor, and he obviously worked hard to prepare for the movie, because his body is incredibly jacked. But he's slumming it in this role. He does what he can with a script that doesn't give him a lot to work with.

The movie has nowhere near the quotable lines of the original.

Conor McGregor plays the hired villain like a clown. It was too much for me. The villain in RH 1 was more menacing, to me. It's hard to top the line, "I fucked guys like you in prison."

This movie, to me, is a good example of the industry exploiting an existing property, attempting to update it for a modern audience, and dropping it into the movie stream to make some bucks. There's no new twist that really makes it worthwhile. If you go into it with low expectations, it's not bad as low-brow entertainment. But it left me thinking, "I'd probably enjoy re-watching the original more."

Recommendation: If you like Jake Gyllenhaal, see Nightcrawler. Very disturbing and creepy, but very good, and he's great in it.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Recommendation: If you like Jake Gyllenhaal, see Nightcrawler. Very disturbing and creepy, but very good, and he's great in it.

Plus one!

 

[Yarglenurp]

Remakes can be much, much better. It depends on having someone who has real vision though, and recognizes where an earlier version is flawed.

Dune and Dune 2 were much better than the original movies, and improves on the book in some ways.

The 2000s version of “True Grit” as played by Jeff Bridges was much, much better than the old version with John Wayne.

The “live action” Disney version of Jungle Book is an improvement over the original Disney version of Jungle Book.

Theres also an ocean of remakes that are plain unnecessary. But there’s enough diamonds in the roughs to make a universal declaration inaccurate.

 

[SimonDoom]

Some examples in the realm of Sci Fi:

The original The Day The Earth Stood Still is one of the best Sci Fi movies ever made, despite it being somewhat dated and having by today's standards meager special effects. It's a lot better than the 21st Century remake with Keanu Reeves. I like Reeves in a lot of things, but this remake seems especially uninspired, and he's dull in it.

On the other hand, the 70s remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers with Donald Sutherland (and a supporting role by Leonard Nimoy) was excellent, probably better than the original, and it was well written and well acted and changed the ending in a very effective, memorable way. I won't say any more about it, but I recommend it.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

Amusingly, there's a fantastic Flintstones comic from DC that they put out a few years ago, where it treats Fred, Barney and the rest as "real" character working and living in a semi-realistic take on that environment, while still retaining things like the talking dinosaur tools, etc. It has one of my favorite quotes about bigotry, actually:

View attachment 2353592

There were some other great ones from that time, too, like Snagglepuss the gay-coded pink tiger taking on HUAC and Dastardly and Mutley as a Gulf War-era satire, along with some more standard takes on the characters.

I wanted to get some of those D.C. H.B. collabs. I saw one with the Flash where Speed Buggy was created in the speed force.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/m...astwood-fistful-of-dollars-remake-1235943449/

I really wish they left this one alone...

 

[Yarglenurp]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/m...astwood-fistful-of-dollars-remake-1235943449/

I really wish they left this one alone...

Having watched both the original and new True Grit, I think westerns are usually the best candidates for a good remake. Limitations in picture quality and acting standards at the time combined with a simple story that speaks to most audiences make them a decent opportunity for technical and substantive improvement.

Besides, Fistful is already a remake, so remaking a remake is hardly an unfair situation.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is a totally different beast though. A remake worthy of that one would have to be epic.