No One Should Ever Remake ... ?

[babyblob]

One of my favorite movies Inherit the Wind with An old George C Scott is a remake. Yet I hate the Remake of 12 angry Men.

To be honest i dont care about remakes. I dont freak out. If I dont like what they did with it I wont see it.

In Harm's Way was a great John Wayne WW2 movie. It is great. It has Kirk Douglas in a great support role and Burgess Meredith and Carrol O Connor have very brief parts. But the remake that they turned into that **** truck love story I hated. So I dont watch it. I dont get made at other people who like it. I dont say how dare you remake a John Wayne movie even though he is one of my favorite actors. I just tend to ignore it.

[Powerboy]

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.

It depends. If it was a movie that was mostly about special effects to begin with, yes. But then, you take something like "The Day the Earth Stood Still" which was about the message and you get a lousy CGI remake that brings almost nothing to the story except better effects.

Even "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" in the 1950s got a late 1970s remake that, by the standards of the time, was a great improvement in special effects but, otherwise, a totally inferior remake.

Let's hope they don't remake "This Island Earth" or "2001". In fact, there had been plans to remake "2001" for a release in theatres in the year 2001. Tom Hanks lists 2001 as his favorite movie and was willing to do it. So was Arnold Schwarzenegger and he was even willing to play a secondary role if Hanks was going to be in it. The studio still decided not to do it because it could only work again as an action movie which would be endlessly ridiculed.

[BeastieRunner]

It depends. If it was a movie that was mostly about special effects to begin with, yes. But then, you take something like "The Day the Earth Stood Still" which was about the message and you get a lousy CGI remake that brings almost nothing to the story except better effects.

Even "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" in the 1950s got a late 1970s remake that, by the standards of the time, was a great improvement in special effects but, otherwise, a totally inferior remake.

Let's hope they don't remake "This Island Earth" or "2001". In fact, there had been plans to remake "2001" for a release in theatres in the year 2001. Tom Hanks lists 2001 as his favorite movie and was willing to do it. So was Arnold Schwarzenegger and he was even willing to play a secondary role if Hanks was going to be in it. The studio still decided not to do it because it could only work again as an action movie which would be endlessly ridiculed.

I think that is a modern sci-fi problem, even in literature.

The old stuff was more about the message and philosophy vs. the more modern which tends to be about the spectacle and action.

For every Asimov, Herbet, or Clarke there’s a Vance, Burroughs, or Moore. For every Day The Earth Stood Still or 2001 there is a Flash Gordon serial or a Forbidden Planet.

And pulpy is not bad per se, I enjoy it. I think that might what you're talking about. Pulpy vs. hard sci-fi.

Often times when you take a pulpy property and give it a hard sci-fi bend, it does well. But not very often the other way around. Your Body Snatcher comparison and the previously mentioned Thing come to mind as examples of both of those shifts.

[ChrisIII]

It depends. If it was a movie that was mostly about special effects to begin with, yes. But then, you take something like "The Day the Earth Stood Still" which was about the message and you get a lousy CGI remake that brings almost nothing to the story except better effects.

Even "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" in the 1950s got a late 1970s remake that, by the standards of the time, was a great improvement in special effects but, otherwise, a totally inferior remake.

Let's hope they don't remake "This Island Earth" or "2001". In fact, there had been plans to remake "2001" for a release in theatres in the year 2001. Tom Hanks lists 2001 as his favorite movie and was willing to do it. So was Arnold Schwarzenegger and he was even willing to play a secondary role if Hanks was going to be in it. The studio still decided not to do it because it could only work again as an action movie which would be endlessly ridiculed.

I thought was more like they were considering filming the other two novels? Tom Hanks looks a lot more like the original Heywood Floyd actor (William Sylvestor) than Roy Scheider did. Keir Dullea's still around too, since Bowman shifts ages (seen in 2010) it could still work.

[ChrisIII]

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.

Funny thing is, a TV series was just announced. Although it's unclear if it'll stretch out the film's main story (Two warring families/gangs in a small town with an innocent family caught in the middle as leverage while MWNN pits the two against each other to his own advantage) or feature more adventures with the character.

[ChrisIII]

The Back to the Future trilogy.

Sequels, maybe, as long as Michael or Chris are involved and/or respected. Otherwise no.

There was briefly talk of Doc bringing in a new sidekick (Maybe a woman) with Marty on the sidelines due to MJF's health problems, but I don't think they went anywhere.


I think for now the video games and comics are sort of considered the canon sequels, since they involved Lloyd although mostly new VAs for everybody else (Although Fox did a cameo or two) and were written by Bob Gale.

[ChrisIII]

One of my favorite movies Inherit the Wind with An old George C Scott is a remake. Yet I hate the Remake of 12 angry Men.

To be honest i dont care about remakes. I dont freak out. If I dont like what they did with it I wont see it.

In Harm's Way was a great John Wayne WW2 movie. It is great. It has Kirk Douglas in a great support role and Burgess Meredith and Carrol O Connor have very brief parts. But the remake that they turned into that **** truck love story I hated. So I dont watch it. I dont get made at other people who like it. I dont say how dare you remake a John Wayne movie even though he is one of my favorite actors. I just tend to ignore it.

The Jeff Bridges remake of True Grit turned out pretty well.

[Osiris-Rex]

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?

No, a remake would bear some resemblance to the original. It would be more akin to refilling a Dr. Pepper bottle with Mr. Pibb.

[MyriVerse]

Even "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" in the 1950s got a late 1970s remake that, by the standards of the time, was a great improvement in special effects but, otherwise, a totally inferior remake.

I cannot agree. That 1950s movie might be one of the most boring movies ever, imo. Love that 70s version.

[Kirby101]

The singular vision and greatness of 2001, whose special effects still hold up today, should preclude it from being remade.

I liked both the 50s and 70s Body Snatchers.

I see they have remade The Right Stuff into a mini series, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7423322/

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I cannot agree. That 1950s movie might be one of the most boring movies ever, imo. Love that 70s version.

My favorite is the 90s version...BODY SNATCHERS, directed by Abel Ferrara, starring Gabrielle Anwar, as well as Forest Whitaker.

And in any case, they are all adaptations of the short story.

[Comic-Reader Lad]

It's really hard to answer because, to me, there are no hard and fast rules.

For example, I think Casablanca shouldn't be remade because it really is a product of its time in terms of both subject matter and the way it was executed. That dialogue is some of the most quotable in movie history, but it's really done with a knowing wink of parody/irony when people say it today. You couldn't say "Here's looking at you, kid" today without the audience rolling its eyes if it were said with dead sincerity.

However, the bare bones idea of Casablanca could be redone -- a bunch of strangers suffering the effects of a war find themselves in each other's orbit for a brief period and combine and combust in interesting ways that leave them changed forever. Update it, change the war, change the styling, change the dialogue, etc. -- and don't call it "Casablanca."

In fact, Hollywood already did that with "To Have and Have Not" among other times.

However, there are times when you can really redo the exact film and it works. True Grit has been mentioned, and I think Steven Spielberg's West Side Story will be another.

But, Gus Van Sant's Psycho? Just no. Especially doing it as a shot-for-shot remake.

Also, I think franchise series don't need to have their prior movies remade. So, no Goldfinger or Jaws or Batman Returns or Iron Man 2.

What would be the point, exactly? To make money? But it won't.

[Gaastra]

It's also hard to impossible to remake movies that are strongly defined by performances and direction -- Taxi Driver,

Taxi driver did get a remake. It is called joker.

[Kirby101]

Taxi driver did get a remake. It is called joker.

I thought that it remade King of Comedy?

[Powerboy]

I think that is a modern sci-fi problem, even in literature.

The old stuff was more about the message and philosophy vs. the more modern which tends to be about the spectacle and action.

For every Asimov, Herbet, or Clarke thereÂ’s a Vance, Burroughs, or Moore. For every Day The Earth Stood Still or 2001 there is a Flash Gordon serial or a Forbidden Planet.

And pulpy is not bad per se, I enjoy it. I think that might what you're talking about. Pulpy vs. hard sci-fi.

Often times when you take a pulpy property and give it a hard sci-fi bend, it does well. But not very often the other way around. Your Body Snatcher comparison and the previously mentioned Thing come to mind as examples of both of those shifts.

Not so much hard sci versus pulp. Pulp can still have its merits. As much as Burroughs can be criticized, the John Carter books originated most of the stuff modern science fiction takes for granted. Beings from different planets with different gravities have different strengths, durability and speed. An alien planet with a very detailed culture and not just one culture but many as opposed to most sci fi where an alien world has one race, one culture and one language. Cultures that are highly advanced in some ways but have a very tribal and primitive mentality in other ways (boy, does that sound familiar). Things like cultures based on illusion that have forgotten how to really live. Body/ mind switching due to fear of death. Metaphorically criticizing all religion as steeped in fear and the need for emotional comfort. Parasitic life forms that use other life forms as slaves and control them. All Burroughs and all in the John Carter books.

And I honestly consider "Forbidden Planet" to be an awesome movie that was at least trying to say something.

Heck, I've been re-watching the the original Lost in Space, the first season, before it went totally stupid, and there are some really good stories, some written by people that also wrote for Star Trek. There was one speech that an alien gave that was meant so ironically, so sarcastically and so wonderfully, that it gave me goose bumps. The alien says about Will Robinson, "This creature is useless. He is driven not by logic but by love and tenderness, mercy and compassion. He is a barbaric primitive. We can learn nothing from him". Now, that's a speech worthy of Star Trek and was dripping with the writer's sarcasm. As much as I admire hard science fiction, it means nothing to me compared to dialogue like that.

I think something can be both fun and meaningful. Yet it doesn't have to be meaningful as long as it's good. I loved the Flash Gordon serials, especially the first one. The 1979 movie I disliked, except for the music, because it added nothing new that was worth anything.

What I didn't like about the Body Snatchers remake was that I felt it had no message but was just trying to be scary (plus I just generally don't like Donald Sutherland).

The Thing would be definitely taking a pulp movie and making it more serious but the serious version was the one that actually followed the original short story.

The one example I can think of where a really serious and great novel was made beautifully into a great comedy, maybe the funniest movie ever made, was Young Frankenstein.