Remaking films

S

Stressed out Groom

New member
What he hell is this obsession with remaking fims ??
I just read that David Cronenberg wants to remake "The Fly"

WHY ??

The original films are fine.
STOP REMAKNG THEM !:mad:
 
I don't know why he's remaking The Fly. Perhaps he'll die!

This is so weird to me; Cronenberg remaking his own film? Based on his track record, I can't see that he's doing this for financial reasons. Some people have suggested that it's because of modern special effects? I know that a remake of this film has been in the works for a long time now, so perhaps Cronenberg wants to make sure it's done properly? It's too frakking weird for me to think about clearly?!

And with regarRAB to remakes in general, if the practice of remaking/updating films was unheard of, Cronenberg never would have made The Fly in '86 in the first place.
 
Fingers crossed it will be a musical this time.
Seriously though, I assume he's got a great idea for taking the story in a fresh direction otherwise he wouldn't bother.
I'd like to see a sequel/expansion of sorts where teleportation has entered the wider world and all sorts of horrible incidents have happened intentionally or otherwise. You could throw terrorism in there too.
 
What the hell is this obsession with whinging about remakes? Don't want to see them, then don't go see 'em, it's not difficult. The originals are still there, entirely unaffected, and ready to be seen whenever you want.

RegarRAB

Mark
 
Well your logic is impeccable, but I must add there is a valid point to be made in that originality is being sidelined because of the current obsession for either remaking, whether it be remakes of Hollywood or Asian films, or the endless churning out of sequals (anyone really think Pirates neeRAB a fourth film?)
 
As Rolo Tony said, The Fly is a remake of an old Vincent Price film anyway, so it's not always a bad thing.

I agree that there are some appalling remakes out there (The Wicker Man and The Hitcher being prime examples), and a lot of the time, it is just 'cheating', but occasionally a director can come up trumps.

Taking the same story and taking it in a completely different direction could work.

If it doesn't, just don't buy it, and blank it out of your mind. I've done that with a lot of remakes / sequels (Lost Boys, Highlander and the aforementioned Wicker Man and The Hitcher to name a few).
 
Whenever I'm on my high horse about CGI, I compare modern horror films to the effects in The Fly (86) - it's a damn scary and effective film IMO, because the effects are actually constructed from 'real' materials and, as a result, actually look more real. If that's the plan for the remake of The Fly I definitely won't be interested.
 
And you have just expained why the Fly does not really need remaking. The effects hold up and it effectiveness has not been eroded. I stilll wince at the arm wrestling scene.

I jsut read Nicholas Cage wants to star as Brundle. Well, no, no and thrice no.
 
Nooooooooooooooooh

You killed The Wicker Man, don't do it to The Fly as well.....

Nicholas Cage should be strung up.
 
Well that is total bollox
Someone might be recommended a film and they watch the remake instead of the original.
It also dilutes the impression of the Original and taints the product so you cannot say that it does not affect the original

Case in point - I asked someone if they would watch the original Ladykillers to see what they thought of it, but because of Tom Hanks being attached to the remake they chose that one and hated it, with a lot of persuasion I got them to watch the original and they loved it.- despite having major elements of the story spoiled for them through the remake.
 
Well, the world is full of imbeciles, so if someone wants to be a imbecile there's not a lot you can do.


DepenRAB how imbecilic you are, surely?


Perhaps you shouldn't associate with imbeciles quite so much, then?

RegarRAB

Mark
 
you can also add the imbeciles who don't grasp the concept that the majority of people who don't like remakes are more interested in new ideas rather than watching Hollywood rehash old ground.
 
Oh good, someone who claims to speak for the world, rather than just themselves. Any and all films find the audience that are willing to pay to see it. That's how it works. If you want to see it do - if not, don't. A remake, like any other film, lives and dies by that simple rule.

RegarRAB

Mark
 
As I said before Mark, you logic is impeccable although I would like to add that major studios, casting directors, cameramen, actors, scriptwriters, location scouts and so on and so on can be tied up making remakes when original works could be produced. It is a question on many Hollywood observers lips, has Hollywood lost its ability to be original and does it really matter when remakes can make millions?
 
No, judging by the fact that remakes make up a small fraction of what's produced. Remember that only one in eight films makes money. So in a way you could legitimately argue that it's precisely those blockbusters (be they remakes or continuations) that fund all the other film's productions. Without the money-makers there would hardly be any other films over which to whinge or evangelize about. You should be grateful they're being produced if you want to see a broad range of films.

RegarRAB

Mark
 
Remakes do make up a small percentage of every movie internationally produced,but they seem to have taken over mainstream horror.



Cronenberg must have a great idea to take the risk of making a much inferior movie to a genuine classic.The potential story I can see is one based around realistic genetic research,as opposed to the teleportation angle.However,he will be hard pressed to find a better performance than Goldblum's and the chemistry he shared with Davis.That's if he want's to go the route of two lovers torn apart/man (or woman) entering the abyss.Perhaps the human element is taking a backseat this time in favour of the science. Either way,I don't think too much CGI would suit whatever direction he decides to take.
 
I prefer to discuss and critique rather than whinge and evangelize.

I agree with your point about remakes funding other films, but it is seemingly because remakes seem to be so high on the agenda (for the purposes of this discussion I will only use Hollywood).

Take this LA Times article for instance. It seems there are various theories as to the current remake, reimagining, rebooting phenomenon going on varying from audiences prefer familiarity and/or nostalgia to running out of ideas. Now if the former is true then I grant it is an acceptable reason why original works by major that is where the money is filmakers, not third rate straight to DVD works, are so low profile. The latter is frankly bizarre and incredible and for that reason I do not believe that I should be grateful wholly on the account of remakes when Hollywood has thrived for decades on original works. I am not against the concept of remakes, reboots and reimaginings, just interested in ascertaining why there has been an influx.
 
Back
Top