DVDizzy Forum

Remakes are inevitable. Whenever a film passes a certain mark of time, a remake of it pops up. When one playwright sees a film they think has even an ounce of potential to be on Broadway, they throw in some music.

Before the discussion starts, there are differences between the terms a "remake" and a "reimagining", so keep that in mind.

So there it is: Remakes are bound to be around forever.

Some notable remakes (although that doesn't mean they're good) are:

Ocean Eleven/Twelve/Thirteen
Psycho
The Amityville Horror
The Ring
Friday the 13th
Halloween

So, how does everyone feel about remakes?

Remakes: No

Re-imaginings: Yes

I hope someday a die-hard fan of Harry Potter gets a chance to re-imagine the series. I also think that now knowing how the whole series plays out it will be easier to create the series without glaring omissions that affect the finale.

The thing about remakes I don't get is that everyone hates them, both re-imagining and shot-by-shot. My view on shot-by-shot is that is dosen't destroy anything to the original (literally!) which is a good thing. SOME re-imagings are good (Charlie and The Chocolate Factory and Halloween) but not as good as the orginal.

In general, remakes will, as Panfan said, be inevitable. As bad as this sounds, no film (or television show, book, music) is untouchable and all of them have the opportunity for a remake or a re-imagining. Just look at the countless covers of popular songs, or revisionist novels that provide alternate points of view to a story. Television has remade older shows into new ones, though it's not as common as movies remaking movies (or movies remaking television shows). Even if most of these things are done right the first time around and there really should be no need to make another one - be it for financial or artistic reasons - a remake is something that will still happen.

What I do with remakes is judge it (as I do all films/tv shows/books/movies) on its own. It's a film first and a remake second, and I base whether or not I like/enjoy it on that. Sure, later on I'll compare it to the original, just to see how they handled things differently. But ultimately, my judgment on how it works is based solely on how it functions on its own. I prefer the remake of Disney's The Parent Trap to the original because I felt Lindsay Lohan better portrayed two different characters of Annie and Hallie as opposed to Hayley Mills' portrayal of Sharon and Susan (Mills, IMO, seems to be "Hayley Mills as Hayley Mills" in all her 60s' Disney roles rather than "Hayley Mills as [insert character]"). I found the parents' relationships and portrayals to be equal, though.

It's funny, when a remake of anything is announced, all of a sudden there will be people who'll say, "Why bother? The original was perfect!" and yet in most cases, they may not have seen the original. How many of us under 30 were even aware of Frank Sinatra's Ocean's 11 before Steve Soderbergh directed a new one in 2001? Be honest now.

At the same time, sometimes remakes help establish a newfound audience to the original. Most moviegoers likely never saw a Star Trek movie until Abrams' came out, and the new one is unique as it can be perceived as a sequel (to the established continuity) and a re-imagining (obviously), and an original film (remove the established continuity, and it might as well be). Thanks to the success of Star Trek, some people are checking out the older movies and television shows.

My favourite movie of all time, 1956's The Ten Commandments, is a remake. And in one of Hollywood's rarer cases, it's a remake that is made by the original's director (another example is The Man Who Knew Too Much, originally made in 1934 and remade in 1956 by director Alfred Hitchcock). Director Cecil B. DeMille originally filmed the epic tale in 1923, however, the Biblical portion was more or less a prologue to a then-contemporary morality tale of two brothers (one who keeps the Commandments, and one who doesn't). After The Greatest Show on Earth, DeMille announced that he would remake his 1923 hit, and the fruits of his and many others' labour were finally revealed in 1956. It was to be DeMille's last *credited* picture. He was originally due to produce and direct The Buccaneer (itself a remake of his 1938 film), but ill health led him to relinquish those responsibilities to his son-in-law Anthony Quinn (director) and longtime associate Henry Wilcoxen (producer).

Anyway, the story of Moses and the Ten Commandments is one that's been filmed and refilmed several times (Burt Lancaster's 1974 miniseries, DreamWorks' 1998 animated film, the 2004 musical with Val Kilmer and pre-Idol Adam Lambert, a horribly cheap 2007 CGI film, to name a few), though I honestly don't consider any of them to be remakes (save for DeMille's 1956 one), as each one is a unique interpretation of the story.

Some of my other favourite remakes and/or re-imaginings include

State Fair - a 1945 Rodgers & Hammerstein musical version of the 1933 original (which I unfortunately have yet to see). It was remade again in 1962, but that version is best left alone.

"Peyton Place" - it wouldn't be fair to call the television series a remake of the movie, as there are noticeable differences (there is no Selena Cross in the series, Rodney Harrington is alive and well, etc.). I need to start buying them on DVD - they just started coming out this year! Both the film and television series are based on Grace Metalious' Peyton Place, a tawdry novel that was controversial in its time but by today's standards is quite dated in some of its attitudes (small town gossip, calm and tranquil facades in the face of scandal).

"Buck Rogers in the 25th Century" - the 1979-1981 television series, which was the next project for Glen Larson after the cancellation of the original "Battlestar Galactica." I have yet to see the 1939 film serial, or read the original short stories and comic strip. I'm looking forward to the new web series, which is being produced by James Cawley (who stars in and produces "Star Trek: Phase II") and will debut in Fall 2010 and even features Gil Gerard (1979-1981's Buck) as a series regular and co-executive producer. Bobby Rice ("Star Trek: Hidden Frontier", "Star Trek: Phase II") will play Buck Rogers.

Flash Gordon - FLASH! AAAAHHHH! SAVIOUR OF THE UNIVERSE! Hehehe. It's a delightfully campy 1980 film adaptation of the serials, with a bitchin' soundtrack by Queen. The 2007-2008 series from SciFi was...well, not as good as I expected it to be. But Eric Johnson and Gina Holden were good as Flash Gordon and Dale Arden, respectively. Hopefully next time they remake this, they'll get it right.

Match Point - Woody Allen likely won't admit it, but the story is essentially Theodore Dreiser's An American Tragedy, which became 1951's A Place in the Sun.

Widdi wrote:I hope someday a die-hard fan of Harry Potter gets a chance to re-imagine the series. I also think that now knowing how the whole series plays out it will be easier to create the series without glaring omissions that affect the finale.

I was actually talking about this with Kram and Jane today. Kram saw the midnight showing of Half-Blood Prince and Jane and I didn't mind being minorly spoiled so he told us about some of the changes.

The first three books worked well enough as movie adaptations, and Goblet of Fire is perfect as its own movie (if one had never been exposed to any Harry Potter book or movie). But the fifth one was a mess (I blame the need for it to be condensed to 2 hours and 19 minutes) and all the movies so far (save HBP, as I haven't seen it yet) just feel like visual CliffsNotes.

Hopefully one day, a seven-season television series can be made. I can easily see a 13-episode season for each book. It'll flesh out the early books, and also be able to tell all the sidestories that start filling up the later ones. There really is enough story in all seven books to sustain several television seasons, and the actors will age normally with their characters (as opposed to the movies, where the breaks really make the actors' aging apparent). It will really need a good enough budget to pull off some movies' awesome effects (though really, I'm more concerned for fleshing out the story than making sure a dragon looks realistic).

albert

I tend to see remakes (I assume we're talking exclusively about movies) as being like cover versions. Basically, perhaps three quarters are needless, but perhaps one quarter has a legitimate artistic reason for existing.

Of course, there's also a problem that that one quarter may have great artistic and creative integrity, but its still going up against people's memories. And nostalgia is a powerful emotion. Which means that of that one quarter of cover versions, the most innovative and daring (and therefore, arguably, the most valid as existing as a cover version rather than another artist/group simply re-recording the song) tend to be dismissed.

"It's not as good as so-so's version from 1968!". Well, probably not. But its probably better as an example of modern music, for a modern audience than a song from the 1960's.

However, with movies there are lots more creative reasons for making a remake than re-recording a song. Movies do date. Movies made in the 1950s or 1960s or even 1970s which were supposed to take place in the "now" (i.e. the viewers own time-frame) become period pieces. And viewing them as period pieces can be decremental to the story.

The Ocean's films may be such an example. I must admit, I've never seen the originals.

Also for foreign films, the culture is not the same. It's creatively valid to take the essence of a story and remake it in a way more suitable for the target audience.

The Ring (Series) is a good example of this. The Japanese series seems to invoke elements of (what I assume are) Japanese folk stories. Presumably, all this talk of Sadeko being a daughter of a water nymph or oceanic deity has cultural significance and recognition in Japan. Where as to a Western viewer it seems somewhat silly, and distracts from the character.

Finally, a remake can be seen as a way of rebooting a series. I personally don't have strong feelings either way on remakes like Friday 13th or Halloween. It's hardly as if the originals - especially the later sequels in each series - were made with huge artistic intent. Does it show a lack of imagination? Well, yes and no. A slasher film is a slasher film no matter how you dress it up (with of course a few exceptions). I see no more lack of imagination in making a re-boot of Friday 13th than making "Generic High School Slasher Movie".

I am aware that Halloween especially not only propelled the genre to mainstream acceptance (although you could say Psycho influenced Halloween) but was shot with a good, artistic eye for tension and style.

The problem with most movie remakes that fail is that they don't really attempt to do or say anything new. Its wrong to assume you can capture the spirit and feel of the original - as the saying goes, lightening never strikes twice - and its also wrong to assume a film will be better simply if it has whizz-bang CGI effects. It has to be reshaped, re-moulded to appeal to the contemporary audience, and have meaning. You can't just put out a film and rely on the name.

I almost typed out a reply earlier and then I thought, "Netty will be here soon and post what I want to say". Thanks for doing that, Netty! Great post!

-Aaron

Escapay wrote:What I do with remakes is judge it (as I do all films/tv shows/books/movies) on its own. It's a film first and a remake second, and I base whether or not I like/enjoy it on that.

This is also excellent and reflects what I wanted to post. I say bring on the remakes and let the bad ones be judged and dismissed like any other bad movie that isn't a remake.

-Aaron

AwallaceUNC wrote:I almost typed out a reply earlier and then I thought, "Netty will be here soon and post what I want to say". Thanks for doing that, Netty! Great post!

-Aaron

Thanks. But Netty's a little concerned about how late you appear to be up...

I am not really a fan of remakes, especially if it ruins the image of the original films. There are, however some decent remakes now and then (Such as Peter Jackson's version of King Kong).

2099net wrote:Thanks. But Netty's a little concerned about how late you appear to be up...

Par for the course...

-Aaron

PixarFan2006 wrote:There are, however some decent remakes now and then (Such as Peter Jackson's version of King Kong).

See, I would have said the opposite. There's probably a good movie in that 3 hour patience-tester, but it's dragged down by at least an hour of unnecessary footage on the island. Not to mention the longer director's cut...

In theory I have no problems with remakes / reimaginings / reshooting a movie frame by frame like some bizarre film school exercise. I never got people who got so offended when a movie remake was announced. You don't like it? BFD. It's not like the producers are coming to your house to destroy every existing copy of the original film. If someone wants to remake "The Birds", let them remake "The Birds". I'm not going to see it, but there's no point in getting bent out of shape and making a stink. It's not like any whining you do will cause studio execs to think "Gee, maybe we should stop remaking movies."

Also certain things I don't consider remakes. "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" isn't a remake of "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory", it's another film based upon the book. And frankly, I prefer it to the original, which for me had nothing but Gene Wilder going for it. "Red Dragon" likewise is based on the book and manages to be more faithful than the 1980s-drenched Iron Butterfly-infused pastel mess that is "Manhunter". But as I said, I don't consider it a remake.

And I had previously heard of / seen the original "Ocean's Eleven". And it was pretty lousy. I give Soderbergh and the screenwriter(s) credit for making a fun and entertaining movie out of what was basically an excuse for the Rat Pack to get together on a film set.

I have friends who always prefers remakes and considers many as the definitive versions. They say the originals are dated and remakes improve on the original by default. I definitely disagree with remakes being better by default.

Remakes are just what they say - "remakes" and nothing can change that. It is Hollywood's loss of originality and their tight pocket books that won't pay a struggling writer who has a marvelous idea for a film.

Remakes can usually cost less than the original, in some cases, and then of course there are the 'big budget' giant unneeded versions that get put out to the unsuspecting public.

The problem with remakes is that they usually change the story, not update it, and make it totally a different movie than it was originally intended - for example "Cheaper By The Dozen", the Steve Martin fiasco was a vapid remake of the Clifton Webb/Myrna Loy movie of the 50's that had heart, great story, and was a fabulous movie. The director of the Martin flick made it a vehicle for Steve Martin and all his schtick which getting old, just like in the two horrible "Pink Panther" remakes. Steve Martin is no Peter Sellers and why they think he can be as funny as Sellers is beyond me.

Now there have been some fairly decent remakes - like the recent "Taking of Pelham 123" which aside from the overuse of foul language is a remarkable film that captures all of the suspense of the original Walter Matthau vehicle in the 70s. John Travolta and Denzel Washington are excellent, except for Travolta's potty mouth which I thought was overdone. Another great remake was "3:10 to Yuma" starring Russell Crowe and Christian Bale. Now this was a true re-imagining of the 1950's movie that starred Van Heflin and Glenn Ford and without losing the original story improved on the whole premise of a gunman making a journey under guard to meet a train in a small town, where an ambush lies waiting. Excellent movie, and one of my favorite remakes.

Some of the worst include "The Day The Earth Stood Still", "The Longest Yard", "Fun With Dick and Jane", Disney's "Three Musketeers (live action version), and there are many more, but those are at the top of my "must avoid at all cost" list.

I don't mind a remake, as long as they stay true to the original story. They can update the technology, like "Pelham", but don't change the basic story, because that is what people remember the original film for. It is very sad to hear that they are remaking "Short Circuit" and "The Karate Kid". What are they thinking???

AwallaceUNC wrote:

Escapay wrote:What I do with remakes is judge it (as I do all films/tv shows/books/movies) on its own. It's a film first and a remake second, and I base whether or not I like/enjoy it on that.

This is also excellent and reflects what I wanted to post. I say bring on the remakes and let the bad ones be judged and dismissed like any other bad movie that isn't a remake.

-Aaron

Exactly!

A bad movie is a bad movie whether it's a remake or not, just as a good movie is a good one.

PixarFan2006 wrote:I am not really a fan of remakes, especially if it ruins the image of the original films.

How so? The film is the same film that it was before the remake ever existed, and is the same film after the remake came out. If by "image of the original" you mean "people's perception of the original," then I agree to an extent. Sometimes a remake does hinder a person's thoughts on the original, but conversely, sometimes a remake does make one appreciate the original even more. Still, I always judge remakes as a movie first, remake second.

Brenders wrote:I never got people who got so offended when a movie remake was announced. You don't like it? BFD. It's not like the producers are coming to your house to destroy every existing copy of the original film.

Maybe they should do that, just to teach them a lesson.

Brenders wrote:Also certain things I don't consider remakes. "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" isn't a remake of "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory", it's another film based upon the book. And frankly, I prefer it to the original, which for me had nothing but Gene Wilder going for it.

Ditto.

I think the main problem with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was Burton's need to give Willy Wonka a backstory. The charm of the book and Wilder movie is that he's this jolly but mysterious man who changes the life of one little boy. It was just unsettling to suddenly see that Wonka had Daddy issues and have Charlie be the one to get him to face them. The rest of the film is fine as is, in its Burton-esque way, but the whole backstory was just unnecessary.

The_Iceflash wrote:I have friends who always prefers remakes and considers many as the definitive versions. They say the originals are dated and remakes improve on the original by default. I definitely disagree with remakes being better by default.

I wonder if they'll be whistling a different tune in 30 years when the remakes become dated.

Bill wrote:Another great remake was "3:10 to Yuma" starring Russell Crowe and Christian Bale. Now this was a true re-imagining of the 1950's movie that starred Van Heflin and Glenn Ford and without losing the original story improved on the whole premise of a gunman making a journey under guard to meet a train in a small town, where an ambush lies waiting. Excellent movie, and one of my favorite remakes.

How could I forget 3:10 to Yuma? That was an excellent movie! Thanks for mentioning it, Bill!

albert

I think everybody gets protective about their favourite films and if somebody tries to remake one of them, then they'll get up in arms, a feeling of which I can understand. However, I have to agree with Aaron in agreeing with Escapay and Netty, as essentially, nothing is black and white. Sure, some remakes leave us with a feeling of "what was that all about?", but one can't thus dismiss all remakes. In addition, they aren't simply made for commercial purposes; there's many artistic reasons why we see so many remakes, ranging from new special effects to cultural mannerisms.

And if we're going to slam remakes for being just that, then where are we supposed to draw the line? A literary adaptation, for example, is essentially a remake (albeit one that transcends mediums), and the art of "remaking" is centuries old, if not millenniums. Think of how the myths and stories of antiquity are so similar at times, or how the Brothers Grimm collected tales which had previously existed yet had evolved via word of mouth. And so many plays, operas and musicals are revived and staged in new productions, yet nobody honestly bats an eyelid; I think if Mozart realised people would be staging The Magic Flute 200 years after his death, he would be proud, and not gravely offended. I therefore believe that it's pretty safe to say that "unoriginality" has existed and will always continue to.

Escapy wrote:I was actually talking about this with Kram and Jane today. Kram saw the midnight showing of Half-Blood Prince and Jane and I didn't mind being minorly spoiled so he told us about some of the changes.

The first three books worked well enough as movie adaptations, and Goblet of Fire is perfect as its own movie (if one had never been exposed to any Harry Potter book or movie). But the fifth one was a mess (I blame the need for it to be condensed to 2 hours and 19 minutes) and all the movies so far (save HBP, as I haven't seen it yet) just feel like visual CliffsNotes.

Hopefully one day, a seven-season television series can be made. I can easily see a 13-episode season for each book. It'll flesh out the early books, and also be able to tell all the sidestories that start filling up the later ones. There really is enough story in all seven books to sustain several television seasons, and the actors will age normally with their characters (as opposed to the movies, where the breaks really make the actors' aging apparent). It will really need a good enough budget to pull off some movies' awesome effects (though really, I'm more concerned for fleshing out the story than making sure a dragon looks realistic).

I love the idea of a TV series and with the cost of CGI dropping it is not unfathomable that 10 or 15 years from now they could make a show with great effects (at least by today's standards). A detail orientated and character driven series is what all us Potterheads would give our leather bound first edition copies for.

Only question is will Harry Potter still be relevant enough after 15 years. My heart says yes, but only time will tell.

There are also "remakes", for lack of a better word, of some TV series, although most are parodies.

The Brady Bunch Movie, A Very Brady Sequel, and The Brady Bunch Go to the White House, are all spoofs of the original television series.

Betwitched is... more of a homage than a spoof to the original show, as well as others such as Charlie's Angels, Starsky and Hutch, The Addams Family, etc.

Can I please just ask:

What's the difference between a remake and a reimagining?

I personally like the remakes of The Parent Trap and Annie better than their original films. Then there's the Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella movies. I would call the 1997 movie an updated version of the 1957 and 1965 films. The basic story is the same, but the changes in the script were vastly different and speaks to today's audience.

I really like the 1964 movie version of My Fair Lady, and I am excited for its remake. I know plenty of fans are against it, but I see it as another interpretation of the story.

tsom wrote:Can I please just ask:

What's the difference between a remake and a reimagining?

Technically... it's a buzzword created for when focus groups grew weary of the word "remake". It sort of implies that what might be viewed as a remake will take the established property in an exciting, different direction.

SpringHeelJack wrote:

tsom wrote:Can I please just ask:

What's the difference between a remake and a reimagining?

Technically... it's a buzzword created for when focus groups grew weary of the word "remake". It sort of implies that what might be viewed as a remake will take the established property in an exciting, different direction.

So like... the new Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is being described as a "reimagining" because he's just adding a new light and direction the book by Lewis Carroll. Most of Burton's films are "reimaginings", actually. Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, Sleepy Hollow, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Alice in Wonderland, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, Beetlejuice, and Planet of the Apes.