Remakes - Why?

I never really understand why some people go completely overboard about remakes of their favorite movies.

For example, for the last year or so there has been plans to remake Walter Hill's The Warriors.

Being such a cult classic and in some ways iconic movie it has a lot of hard core fans...and the minute the remake was announced the internet went ballistic. Calls for boycotts, petitions, even violence to be prepertrated against the makers.

I just don't get that - if you don't want to watch the remake, then ignore it. You still have the original, it does not change, and is not altered in any way by a new version...so what's the problem?

But these people just won't let it go...it usually starts with the casting, they start speculating about usually getting the original cast back (usually impossible because it's been too long and they are too old), but then whoever is cast they never agree with the choice.

Then other changes are made, perhaps moving the location, changing the time period, using certain music on the soundtrack. And that sets them off again...rant, rant, rant.

And you know the best thing? As much as they will say they will never watch the remake, they usually do - curiosity gets the better of them.

With remakes, I am always prepared to give them a chance. I am able to be objective and enjoy the movie for what it is, and not think about the original.

Italian Job, for example. I love the original, but in it's own way the remake was a reasonably watchable little heist movie.

And then there are directors that can completely revamp the concept of a movie and make something really interesting out of it, like Scorcese's The Departed.

At the end of the day, different does not automatically equal bad.
 
I do agree to an extent that some remakes, like The Departed, and i would also add Zack Snyder's Dawn Of The Dead(which wasn't really a remake but a completely different film IMO) into the equation, can work if a decent writer and decent director are onboard to do something different with a remake.

However, i think the main problem people have with them at the moment is that the concept has went into complete overkill mode and its getting to the point soon where we'll be having remakes of remakes because all the original films will have been remade and there will be nothing original left to actually remake.
 
How did I miss the point of his post? Was there something deep and hidden in it? I take what people write at face value. Please be more specific be more pacific. Wtf?
 
well I'd like to think nobody would be insane enough to try to remake the John Ford cavalry trilogy of Rio Grande, Fort Apache, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon and The Searchers
but nothing would suprise me these days.

love him or hate him you simply can't remake a John Wayne film with some one else in the lead part.
 
Anyway, enough of this remakes discussion, we need more pointless crossover films!

I am already banging the drum for the following films:

Aliens Vs Predator Vs Johnny From Mike Leigh's Naked

Freddy Vs Jason Vs Richard Hillman from Coronation Street

and

Rambo Vs Warden Ferguson from Prisoner Cell Block H
 
But goddarndammit they'd try wouldn't they?

The Searchers starring Will Smith in the lead role of Ethan EdwarRAB, with obligatory tie-in movie soundtrack pop single.

Probably called something like Big Willy Search Style :eek:
 
I didn't comment on any posts about those films, so I'm not sure where you're coming from tbh. My advice - stop sniffing the Brasso.
 
I think that was Larry who missed your point not revolver :D

I'm not fussed by remakes, doesn't change the original which i'll always have and sometimes they are a half decent watch.
 
If you bothered checking the thread you'd see that I didn't reply to your post or "agree" about anything you wrote. . I only replied to Larry's line "thank God they havent remade Ben Hur". So clearly YOU missed the point.



Thank you kingjeremy! Thought I was going mad for a while there. Bloody hell you don't half get some beauts on this site! :D
 
I can see the point of remaking films that should have been good first time round, but weren't (the original Ocean's 11 possibly being an example). What I can't see the point of (other than money) is remaking a classic. All the elements that came together so sublimely to make the original so much more than the sum of its parts will be absent in the remake. Honourable exception for King Kong. Special effects have moved on a bit in the last seventy five years, so that could possibly be justified. Even if Peter Jackson's remake was at least an hour too long and went hopelessly over the top at times, there are occasions when it it is pure cinematic magic.
 
With respect, that also misses the point as well.

Because it presupposes there is a 'point', or a concrete 'reason' to remake a movie.

And all too often a lot of people seem to think that studio's look at classic movies and think they can improve on it, and make it better...and that's why they get so ticked off.

But it has nothing to do with that...as we keep saying, it's all down to money.

Studios need to have a certain number of movies per year that are guaranteed to make a lot of money. They are a business, never forget that. And how do you guarantee a return on your investment and a healthy profit?

Well, the easiest way is the recognition factor. It's much easier to sell something that the public are already familiar with.

And far from decrying it, I think we should probably be grateful.

Because as long as the studio's are making healthy profits, they are much more inclined to invest in unknown directors, scripts etc that they know will possibly not make a profit - but they can afford to absorb those small losses because they are making big profits from the rubbish.
 
Back
Top