What's the problem with remakes?

S

Sarah-Jane

New member
Why is there such snobbery among 'film fans' about remakes and reboots? How can remaking a film effect the original? It's not like the original version is deleted for ever from history. I can just as easily watch the original King Kong as either of the remakes. Occassionaly a remake can actually be an improvement over the original and if not it just goes to highlight how good the original is.

In the theatre new productions of classics are put on regularly and the audience have a chance to revist their favourite play with new actors and new production 'visions'. Why are films any different?
 
I was disappointed with the Friday 13th (2009) reboot/remake because

(1) the series didn't need a rebooting and/or re-invissioning - two movies away from a Friday 13th Part 13 and they decide to go back to the beginning, what fools.

(2) the re-invissioning done by the writers basically blandified the Jason character, turning him into just another forest dwelling killer

and (3) the 2009 movie could have acted as the fore-runner for a whole new series of F13 movies, but has in effect killed off the series.

Not a happy bunny :mad:

btw: I'm not saying the series was a perfect example of classic cinema'ing, but I loved the series and the Jason character. The 2009 movie just didn't work as a F13 movie. :cry:
 
I think a lot of the reason is if the question of if there is a need for a remake or a prequal/sequal. I am not agaisn't remakes per say as long as they are done well and for the right reasons.

For example, Texas Chainsaw Massacre. What was the need for a remake? Well it could be that they improve on the storyline and give an insight into why Leatherface did what he did and why this family was out there in the first place. They didn't do this because nothing was known about the family and making up a story is re-writing history so if they are not going to try to do this or they can't then why bother? To me it comes across as jumping onto the name of TCM just to make some extra money off it.

Another example was Halloween. In the re-telling of it Michael lives with an abusive mother, a nasty father and a not very nice sister, this was why he did what he did. Now good for Rob Zombie for trying to add something good on him for adding something to the story, except Mr Zombie that whole point of the film was you didn't know why he was doing it in the first place and that was what made it so good!

Sequals and Prequals fall into the same catagory, I have no problem with them if they have a reason to be for instance adding something into a story or having a logical step. Horror films seem to be the worst for this. I have stopped counting how many Nightmare and Halloween films have been made but from the sequals to Halloween I have seen don't add anything on to it and I feel that if they had left Halloween alone it would not have suffered for it. I am a big Saw fan but even I think it is time to say that enough is enough thogh to be fair I liked the story of Saw 6 and fealt it was interesting.

I in no way know a massive amount about film and I don't presume to. I also don't wish to sound like some kind of purest, this is simply my oppinion.
 
They can remake crap films til the cows come home as far as I'm concerned, but as ginock posted above, if a film's considered a classic then it should be left alone. They don't re-write books do they???
 
Hollywood has ran out of ideas so they re-use formulas that have been successful in the past. I don't mind all the remakes but your set for dissapointment even before you see it as it will never live up to the first film. I loved Saw and kept up with the franchise but I sort of wish they would end the story so it can be completed....but 10 years down the line they will re-boot it again becasue they can't think of anything fresh.
 
Books may not get re-written but new books get written covering the same topic/story/historical event all the time.

It's about seeing someone-else's view or take on things, how they interpret and present the material. Why should film be any different than TV or stage? How many film versions of Richard V have there been, or Othello, to name two 'classics'? How many different 'versions' of Taming of the Shrew have there been? Interestingly they're all Shakespeare. What about War of the WorlRAB? That's had at least 3 different film versions and IMO none have been brilliant. I'd love to see a proper film version of the original book.
 
I see it as the film industry trying to cash in on an already successful movie. I can see the point with some action/sci-fi films where the use of CGI would have made it better but if they're not adding anything to the movie then instead of a remake/reboot - change the settings, names, movie title and see if it's a film that would stand on it's own merit rather than making it on the back of an existing movie.
 
Maybe King Kong was a bad example for a good movie. :)

Casino Royale was much better the second attempt.
Both versions of Cape Fear are good.
If they remake Highlander it'll be dire.
 
It's not just Hollywood. Every film industry around the world is struggling to come up with fresh ideas.

Movies from China, Japan & Korea (I watch a lot of them) have been making the same thing (particularly their horror & action films) for a very LONG time now. I've lost count on how many female ghost movies have been made. :eek:

Bollywood looks at films from the west and remakes them all the time - or incorporates scenes from popular western films into theirs. Hell, they even remade "Blue Streak" (the Martin Lawrence film)! :D

So it's not a Hollywood problem. It's a "creativity" problem that's literally global.

That being said, I'm ok with remakes or ripping off other films. Believe it or not, even though there are bad remakes out there, there are also some good ones too. It's pointless to get upset about it. If you don't like remakes then don't watch them. It's that simple. :)
 
I'm not sure if this thread was started after the OP read my comments about them remaking Commando or not. As I said in that posting, why did it need to be made? They could take 80% of the idea of the film, add a few new bits and give it its own title.

Are we to assume that from now on every vampire film has to be a remake of Twilight because it's impossible to do anything else that involves vampires?
Even if they do make an 100% original vampire film they will still have to call it twilight because that is an established title for that genre of film. Under no circumstances must anything be done that could be different in the genre that might confuse the film fan as to what they are watching.

In the coming week we have another version of Robin Hood. Do we need another version of the film? Nope, but we are going to get it. Of course there is likely to be lots of the same stuff that has gone before but there is a reason for that. it's based on folklore. When you are taking films based on original scripts or novels and remaking them that says a hell of a lot about how unoriginal the producers and the film companies are. there are literally tens of thousanRAB of original novels being released every year and we can't make a film based on any of those, we have to remake The Wizard of Oz, Planet of the Apes etc.
 
I agree you can put an argument for a remake if they are doing something completely different for example the was Ian McKellen did an totally unique modern version of Richard III. Or Baz Lurhmann's version of Romeo and Juliet which hadn't been done that way before.

I'm in favour of trying new stuff especially stuff that's pushing ideas and will piss someone off. As you say it's down to the producer/director/actor's interpretation or ideas. If they cast a black or an asian actor to play Freddy Krueger it wouldn't have bothered me at all, but the fans would have gone nuts purely because they can't seperate their idea and what was in the past with the idea that this is the producer/director's choice for what they want to do.

I've inadvertantly started many flame wars on the imdb site for the superhero films because I point out that the films don't have to be the same as the comics and what has happened in them in the past. They're two seperate entities and I treat them as such. the fans seem to think the films are being made for them and not to make as much money as possible.
If they decide to make the next Wolverine film a musical then they do. That's up to them. If I don't like the idea I wont go and see the film, but I'll give them credit for at least doing something different and not just churning out another version of the same old superhero film formula.
 
I would rather watch him than Russell Crowe. The guy leaves me cold. I can't think of a single thing he's done that I've not lost interest in and started clock watching or looking out the window.
 
I don't have a problem with remakes, as others have said, if done with a certain amount of integrity then it's not a pointless, money making exercise, however there dosen't seem to be much integrity around Hollywood at the moment.
 
I see no problem with remakes providing the motive for making it is justified.
IMO, The original 'War of the WorlRAB' wasn't that great and since the technology is so much more advanced these days I had no problem with them remaking it. I'm not too keen on the remake either but given the choice I would watch the recent version. Similarly I will be interested to see what they do with the remake of 'Forbidden Planet'.

With some films however, like 'Haloween', 'Overboard', 'The Hitcher' and the like, I feel they are just cashing in on a generation that may have not seen the original. These films relied purely on good acting and direction.

I find it hard to believe that the producers honestly thought that 'Sean Bean' would be better than 'Rutger Hauer' or that 'Jennifer Lopez' will be better than 'Goldie Hawn' and if this is correct then they are setting out to make a lesser version than the original, a bit like a cheap replica.

Saying that, I can see why they do it. Like any business the studios have to produce x number of movies a year and if the stories aren't there then they have to take an old one off the shelf.
 
Back
Top