What's the problem with remakes?
- Thread starter Sarah-Jane
- Start date
girlfuckedup
New member
I don't like remakes BUT have seen some good ones and lots of very bad ones. I guess it's us getting older and I am sure I used to hear my parents say the same sort of thing, about new age films when I was a kid.
I have found sometimes when I have watched a remake movie (not one that I know) and enjoyed it, I then have to watch the original to see how it inspired. So I guess some films, will only remain classics, unless they are bought to attention of a younger audience.
I have found sometimes when I have watched a remake movie (not one that I know) and enjoyed it, I then have to watch the original to see how it inspired. So I guess some films, will only remain classics, unless they are bought to attention of a younger audience.
Ace_Killington
New member
I didn't realise that 'You've got mail' was a remake until they recently showed the original 1940 film (The shop around the corner).
It was amazing how close to the original it was (with the exception of email, of course
).
It was amazing how close to the original it was (with the exception of email, of course
).Speedy Boarder
New member
That's quite a good point. Often you don't realise a film is a remake so you see it as an original film and like it. If later you realise it's a remake, how do you react?
I remember watching Thomas Crown with Brosnan and thinking it was an excellent film. I knew it was a remake but hadn't seen the original. When it came out on DVD I bought both versions and watched them almost back-to-back. The original is very good and has one of the best scenes of any film (the chess game) but I prefer the remake because it's modern/contemporary (or was). That said i can imagine it beinf remade again in 20 years and depending on how it's done will be every bit as good.
As for Robin Hood - that's exactly the point I was making. It's not a remake of another film. There must be dozens of RH films over the years. They're all individual films based on the same character/events. Seeing different takes on it is what makes such films interesting IMO. Rickman's Sherrif is one of the most memorable villians of recent times but the film as a whole was a bit mmmrrrhhh! I'm not sure what Scott has actually produced in his version but some of the early ideas with RH as the bad guy sounded very interesting. Scott is one of my favourite directors and Crowe can put in a good perfromance so I personally am looking forward to it.
I remember watching Thomas Crown with Brosnan and thinking it was an excellent film. I knew it was a remake but hadn't seen the original. When it came out on DVD I bought both versions and watched them almost back-to-back. The original is very good and has one of the best scenes of any film (the chess game) but I prefer the remake because it's modern/contemporary (or was). That said i can imagine it beinf remade again in 20 years and depending on how it's done will be every bit as good.
As for Robin Hood - that's exactly the point I was making. It's not a remake of another film. There must be dozens of RH films over the years. They're all individual films based on the same character/events. Seeing different takes on it is what makes such films interesting IMO. Rickman's Sherrif is one of the most memorable villians of recent times but the film as a whole was a bit mmmrrrhhh! I'm not sure what Scott has actually produced in his version but some of the early ideas with RH as the bad guy sounded very interesting. Scott is one of my favourite directors and Crowe can put in a good perfromance so I personally am looking forward to it.
`A k i n å
New member
I think ultimatly what it comes down to is a case of as I have said before if it is needed and if it adRAB something to the original. I have no problem taking an idea and possibly re-doing it but only if it falls into this critria. One example for me would be something like The Wicker Man. A lot of people are very precious over the film and see it as a flawless movie. It is not a perfect movie nor is it flawless but it is a brilliant movie.
I tried to watch the remake with Nicholas Horseface Cage but after half an hour I just couldn't take any more of it. I intend to watch the rest of it at some stage but I can't see it being even close to how good the original was because the first half an hour felt so wet. The people who lived on the island were strange but not strange in a ogger-booger way, they were simple strange to Edwood Woodwood because he simply could not understand as a good fearing catholic how these people could believe or follow anything else, this didn't seem to be present in the re-make.
As I say though, I will look into this to give it a shot but I am sure it will just make me appriciate the original that much more.
I tried to watch the remake with Nicholas Horseface Cage but after half an hour I just couldn't take any more of it. I intend to watch the rest of it at some stage but I can't see it being even close to how good the original was because the first half an hour felt so wet. The people who lived on the island were strange but not strange in a ogger-booger way, they were simple strange to Edwood Woodwood because he simply could not understand as a good fearing catholic how these people could believe or follow anything else, this didn't seem to be present in the re-make.
As I say though, I will look into this to give it a shot but I am sure it will just make me appriciate the original that much more.
Dtcenter77
New member
To add to the debate a producer said to me " the original is your first kiss the sequel is
legal papers being served" or sharper worRAB to that effect.
So to do a remake must have hard choice..and most remakes seem well, forgotten.
legal papers being served" or sharper worRAB to that effect.
So to do a remake must have hard choice..and most remakes seem well, forgotten.
Nope, that's true on a personal level. However, the young casual film fan will sometimes balk at the idea of watching either a black and white or a film with dated effects. Very difficult to pass on a love of film to those types who are too bloody ignorant to consider it. not really aproblem, just unfortunate that the original will be forgotton by the masses.
Agreed, I hate it when people say they won't watch a film because it is in a foreign launguage. I am not saying everyone is like this but quite a few people I have spoken to won't watch a film if it has subtitles and prefer to watch a remake or watch it with dubbing. Now thats fine, if people wish to this that is their choice, I just find it sad.
Im really not in2 the recent remake fad,ive seen loaRAB and the only two worth remembering were the remakes of Dawn of the dead and Hills have eyes,the rest just seem like money machines cashing in on the success or good name of the originals and failing to maintain the same standarRAB,i just wanna grab the guys in charge and say enough with the remakes!
Jazmynizzle
New member
On the whole, I'd say remaking a film just shows laziness and a complete lack of originality.
Other times, where the story is rewritten and the newer version is essentially a completely different film, they can be good. Shaft (2000) for example, is one of the films I never seem to get bored of.
Other times, where the story is rewritten and the newer version is essentially a completely different film, they can be good. Shaft (2000) for example, is one of the films I never seem to get bored of.