No One Should Ever Remake ... ?

[LoganAlpha30X33]

My problem with remakes is when whoever is making them thinks that they can do the remake better than who did it originally and so they end up changing a lot about the tv show or movie and then when the movie fails they blame everything else but said changes...

[BeastieRunner]

Remakes shouldn't even be a thing. That's just plain lazyness and the level zero of creativity.

It's like, you buy yourself a coke, you drink it and then some smartass fills the can up with water and sells it you again.

Or for an even higher price, why not?

I was talking to someone about this once.

Their favorite movie was a remake and they didn't even know. They watched the OG and liked it more.

This has been a part of films since their inception ... remakes will be made for many reasons. I think the above is one of the boons of a good remake.

[caj]

Jaws

I know there have been sequels, but no one should ever try to remake the original.

[Joker]

I remember a musician saying they wouldn't remix a song they liked. They didn't think they'd improve it, so why bother?

Remake bad movies that had good ideas, but poor execution.

But really, just tell an original story. It isn't that hard.

[Powerboy]

I guess it depends on just what our "Remake" actually entails.

For instance...

The Thing. Remake?

I would definitely say that the 1950s version needed a remake which we got in the early 1980s. Better story and acting and more true to the original short story. After that, meh.

[ChrisIII]

Jaws

I know there have been sequels, but no one should ever try to remake the original.

It's based on a book, so a re-adaptation might be made at some point. Although it's generally agreed that the adaptation was much better than the book, in which the characters were pretty much all unlikeable and corrupt.

[Sacred Knight]

The Godfather. Not only is it a timeless saga, anyone can make a mafia crime film, so there's no reason for anyone to ever want to go there as opposed to just making their own original.

[kingaliencracker]

The Godfather. Not only is it a timeless saga, anyone can make a mafia crime film, so there's no reason for anyone to ever want to go there as opposed to just making their own original.

unnamed.jpg

Sorry...couldn't resist!

[mburns]

We know that Hollywood doesn't like originality anymore. It was always wary of it - even back in its dawn - but these days The Studios' money men display a genuine allergy to anything that they think doesn't come with a built-in fanbase.

Consequently, Hollywood has spent the last decades on a campaign of IP mining that borders upon grave robbing. Sometimes (True Grit), a great film comes out of it. More often (Clash of the Titans), we're left wondering show could possibly have thought that a good idea.

What's a film no one should ever dare sully with an update?

I vote Casablanca. That was such an accident of actor chemistry, ad hoc script revision, and the events of the time, I don't know that it could ever be replicated with justice.

People like remaking old sci-fi/fantasy stuff like Clash of the Titans because they think the updated special effects can improve the the older film. That's why I expect the original Star Wars trilogy will eventually be remade. Stuff like the Godfather, Citizen Kane, Casablanca I don't see what could be done to improve those films. Any remake will always pale in comparison.

[chachi]

Showgirls...

[PCN24454]

Remakes shouldn't even be a thing. That's just plain lazyness and the level zero of creativity.

It's like, you buy yourself a coke, you drink it and then some smartass fills the can up with water and sells it you again.

Or for an even higher price, why not?

To be fair, people love nostalgia. That's why Digimon decided remake the show with the original cast rather than any new ones. It's why Superman and Batman will never be replaced as superheroes.

[j9ac9k]

In my mind, nothing should be off the table, but some movies are more problematic or challenging than others. The main factors as I see it:
-- What's the point of the remake? Is there something to be gained by telling the story in today's context or will it hurt the story to remove it from its original cultural context?
-- What was so great about the original and can that translate into a remake? If the movie is beloved because of the leads, then you're going to have an issue with a remake.
-- Does the remake actually provide something new or add to the original or do you just love the original so much, but you think you can "improve it" simply because of modern film techniques?
-- Are you going to remake something for essentially the same audience that already loved the original and can essentially see it any time they want now?

As with all things, it's about the idea and execution. Most times, if someone thinks they can just punch up the script, add a bit more action and tack on a modern socio-political message, then they can just replicate the original's success. But you can't just call a movie "The Manchurian Candidate", substitute one war for another and have the bad guys be some corporation called "Manchurian International" or whatever and think the remake will have the same impact. (as an example)

[Sacred Knight]

unnamed.jpg

sorry...couldn't resist!

Robert Duvall!

[numberthirty]

I would definitely say that the 1950s version needed a remake which we got in the early 1980s. Better story and acting and more true to the original short story. After that, meh.

To me, that's the hitch.

While my gut reaction is "No Remakes...", it's hard to deny that one of my favorite films ever is essentially a remake.

[Gaius]

Weird answer to give since the first one is an unofficial remake of an earlier film but the Dollars Trilogy. At least in terms of trying to mimic or recreate the Spaghetti Western and style of them, transplanting the basic plots and archetypes to different eras or locations would be fine.