No One Should Ever Remake ... ?

[DrNewGod]

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...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."

Agreed, but at that point, you're really not remaking Casablanca. At best you're making The Magnificent Seven rather than remaking The Seven Samurai.

[BeastieRunner]

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.

Excellent points you made. I appreciate your Young Frankenstein example. I forgot about that one.

And, like I said previously, I enjoy pulpy sci-fi. There's room for both. I was merely contrasting the styles.

My main point is that it is hard to take something serious and tone it down or streamline it without it losing that oomph that made it work before. But much easier to take the bones of something that worked before and give it a deeper meaning.

[Powerboy]

Excellent points you made. I appreciate your Young Frankenstein example. I forgot about that one.

And, like I said previously, I enjoy pulpy sci-fi. There's room for both. I was merely contrasting the styles.

My main point is that it is hard to take something serious and tone it down or streamline it without it losing that oomph that made it work before. But much easier to take the bones of something that worked before and give it a deeper meaning.

Absolutely. The remake of Battlestar Galactica and the current Netflix remake of Lost in Space are examples that the core idea and even a lot of the details of silly stuff are good and can be done in a more meaningful way. Even Space Ghost has proven to be adaptable to a far more serious format.

A friend of mine from way back used to genuinely think a Star Trek/ Space Ghost crossover (the Hanna-Barbera version) would be great. To paraphrase Dr. Richard Dawkins, I can see where that might look great on Space Ghost's resume. But it doesn't look so good on Star Trek's resume.

[Gaastra]

I thought that it remade King of Comedy?

Take your pick.

[ChrisIII]

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/

The novel of 2001 was a lot more descriptive than the movie, with the stargate actually going to different planets and an alien space station, apart from the weird patterns and colors in the movie.


In a funny way, the 2010 movie is actually kind of closer to it's novel in style, although it erases the Chinese mission, aliens on Jupiter and elevates cold war tensions.

As for Star Wars, some would argue it's pretty much been remaking itself since 1983

[Kirby101]

The novel of 2001 was a lot more descriptive than the movie, with the stargate actually going to different planets and an alien space station, apart from the weird patterns and colors in the movie.


In a funny way, the 2010 movie is actually kind of closer to it's novel in style, although it erases the Chinese mission, aliens on Jupiter and elevates cold war tensions.

As for Star Wars, some would argue it's pretty much been remaking itself since 1983

True, but the novel was written at the same time as the movie. And they showed the intent of the two different creators. The movie was a visual tour de force with Kubrick using the camera to take us on a immersive voyage. Clarke used to book to pursue the story in his hard science expansive genre.

[Kirby101]

Agreed, but at that point, you're really not remaking Casablanca. At best you're making The Magnificent Seven rather than remaking The Seven Samurai.

Speaking of which. I am not sure they should have remade The Magnificent Seven. But they really needed to do a better job. It kinda sucked.

[A Small Talent For War]

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.

Casablanca is interesting as, like many of the best films throughout history, it wasn't an original story. In this case it was based on a play "Everybody comes to Rick's" instead of a novel. So, in that sense, a new adaptation could be made from it. A similar situation would be TRUE GRIT which is the sort of old Classic Western that one would expect never to be remade, but the Coen brothers were certainly successful doing just that by going back to the original novel for inspiration and distinction apart from the original film.

It would hard to see many of the famous movies from the 90's period getting remade. FORREST GUMP, THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, DANCES WITH WOLVES, GOOD WILL HUNTING etc. though there have been plenty of movies made "inspired by" that period. DEN OF THIEVES (2018) was practically a remake of HEAT (1995) but genre films are always a bit easier to remake than less defined dramatic movies. It would be hard to think of a remake of any Ivory Merchant movie or a film like THE ENGLISH PATIENT or THE GREEN MILE even though, obviously, there is no reason the novels they were adapted from could not be adapted again. Though it does seem like there is more success with television shows following up on them like FARGO and HANNIBAL.

[Valentis]

The Lord of The Rings Trilogy

[ChrisIII]

Speaking of which. I am not sure they should have remade The Magnificent Seven. But they really needed to do a better job. It kinda sucked.

There was a TV series remake in the 90s I think as well.

[Gaastra]

It would hard to see many of the famous movies from the 90's period getting remade. FORREST GUMP,

Didn't forrest gump get remade as a bollywood movie?

[DrNewGod]

Didn't forrest gump get remade as a bollywood movie?

Seriously?

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

Rush hour.

I rather see a spinoff with Su Young as an adult than recasting Li and Carter as women.

[Güicho]

So long as they never do:
-An all white version of The Wiz
-Battle Beyond the Stars, as a Western Samurai Epic.
-A gender flipped Barb Wire set in a WWII.
-Lion King with humans set in Denmark.
-or Forbidden planet in some silly Elizabethan island setting.

Cause that would just ruin those classic.

LOL everything gets remade, nothing should be sacred.

The Lord of The Rings Trilogy

That'll definitely inevitably get a remake.

[Vakanai]

So long as they never do:
-An all white version of The Wiz

Um, isn't that just The Wizard of Oz?