Memento remake

[Skanky Vamp]

Ok, I normally don't bemoan remakes and generally am somewhat accepting of them, but in this case I don't get why.

AMBI Pictures will finance and produce the film, which they took ownership of remake rights to in September when it acquired the 400-title library of Exclusive Media Group, which also contains such films as Donnie Darko and Cruel Intentions.

So it entirely possible that not only are we getting a Momento remake but a Donnie Darko and Cruel Intentions as well. It's not that they wanted to do a remake, it's because they can do a remake. Therein lies the difference. It feels less like a 'passion project' to me than some of the other remakes.

 

[Buffy Summers]

This was the only film Christopher Nolan did a decent job on - why are they remaking it?

 

[Skanky Vamp]

This was the only film Christopher Nolan did a decent job on - why are they remaking it?

Because, I would imagine, that when Momento came out no one saw it for the name Christopher Nolan.. but now that they bought the rights they can remake it, claiming 'from the mind of christopher nolan' or some such thing in the title and cash in on his success.

At least thats how my jaded view took it.

 

[GwenRaiden]

not only are we getting a Momento remake but a Donnie Darko and Cruel Intentions

I can't imagine any of those being anywhere near as good as their originals. They all have a unique feel to them that seems, to me, impossible to recapture.

Because, I would imagine, that when Momento came out no one saw it for the name Christopher Nolan.. but now that they bought the rights they can remake it, claiming 'from the mind of christopher nolan' or some such thing in the title and cash in on his success.

At least thats how my jaded view took it.

I'd agree with that.

 

[Taake]

Ugh, can't stand remakes for the sake of remakes. I mean, granted, it was a while ago since I saw Memento, but to me it doesn't seem like it needs a remake. But hey, why stop with one? Can't they remake all 400-titles in that library until we have 8000 versions of all movies and not just Spiderman.

 

[Mr Trick]

I still think Memento is Nolan's best film. You just know that you will throw lots of money at the remake and spoil what made it sucessful in the first place which is the low-key feel and psychology of it.

Well in a way Cruel Intentions was remade anyway with Cruel Intentions 2😉 Their on a hiding to nothing trying to sell a Donnie Darko remake, and besides who can fill Jake Gyllenhaal shoes?

 

[JCoatsworth]

'Memento’ has been consistently ranked as one of the best films of its decade. People who’ve seen ‘Memento’ 10 times still feel they need to see it one more time,” Iervolino said. “This is a quality that we feel really supports and justifies a remake. The bar is set high thanks to the brilliance or Christopher Nolan, but we wouldn’t want it any other way.
Source

Isn't this exactly why they shouldn't remake it????

 

[Mr Trick]

Isn't this exactly why they shouldn't remake it????

Spot-on. Amongst other reasons.

 

[JCoatsworth]

Spot-on. Amongst other reasons.

Their logic is so weird. That person is, in a way, explicitly stating that fans can keep watch the original forever and never get tired. So what's the use of a remake?!
No, I just smell cash grab, like Pole said. They acquired the rights through some huge deal and obviously they don't want to throw that money out, so they're making a new version, only now they can slap "Nolan" on the poster, like they did it with Spielberg and the Transformers movies.

 

[Buffy Summers]

Because films take so much money now to market let alone make that they need any leg up they can find, and as long as people go to see remakes it's a money maker and studios will do it.

 

[Mr Trick]

Because films take so much money now to market let alone make that they need any leg up they can find, and as long as people go to see remakes it's a money maker and studios will do it.

Yeah but the answer to that is don't pour so much money into them. Like I said part of the success of the original film was because it was low budget and character driven and built as a cult film.

 

[Buffy Summers]

As long as you have to pay actors what you do and deal with unions the costs aren't going to go down.

 

[Mr Trick]

As long as you have to pay actors what you do and deal with unions the costs aren't going to go down.

Well clearly its a wider problem, but you can't convince me that they need to spend as much money as they do sometimes. And the other thing is just pay those actors silly money for starring in other films, not pointless remakes.

 

[JCoatsworth]

Because films take so much money now to market let alone make that they need any leg up they can find, and as long as people go to see remakes it's a money maker and studios will do it.

Jokes aside, I understand very well that film companies are companies like all others and need to make a profit. They have employees, same as a supermarket chain or a pharmaceutical company, that need to be paid, and those have families they need to take care of. But as a fan of films (and not film companies), I don't have to care about that. If they think they should remake a cult classic, they are free to do so. They have the rights, they can do with it whatever the want. But as a fan, I don't support the making movies for the sole reason of making a profit, because it is, after all, art.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

deal with unions

Do you advocate the deunionization of the industry? Would it be easier or harder to get work without a union?
 

And the other thing is just pay those actors silly money for starring in other films, not pointless remakes.

The problem is the audience does not go out to support the 'other' things as frequently. Franchise and remarks are what draws the audience and the safer bet to spend money on. You would lose money by spending 'silly' money for a film that doesn't have a ROI like franchise films.

 

[Mr Trick]

I can accept that franchise's are what draw the big money I am not convinced that the same is true of remakes. And these sorts of remakes are of films with neitch auidences to start with. But anyway there are a whole bunch of issues here which are too broad for this thread😀

 

[Buffy Summers]

Hell yes I advocate de-unionizing the industry. It would be easier to get work. Not easy, but easier. And production prices would go down just because of cutting out the waste.

The problem is the audience does not go out to support the 'other' things as frequently. Franchise and remarks are what draws the audience and the safer bet to spend money on. You would lose money by spending 'silly' money for a film that doesn't have a ROI like franchise films.

Exactly. People vote by what they go see. If no one went to see the remakes, they wouldn't make them. It's the same reason MTV stopped playing music videos.

 

[Mr Trick]

Jokes aside, I understand very well that film companies are companies like all others and need to make a profit. They have employees, same as a supermarket chain or a pharmaceutical company, that need to be paid, and those have families they need to take care of. But as a fan of films (and not film companies), I don't have to care about that. If they think they should remake a cult classic, they are free to do so. They have the rights, they can do with it whatever the want. But as a fan, I don't support the making movies for the sole reason of making a profit, because it is, after all, art.

I agree, and the other point is I don't mind the concept that the movie business like any other has to fund itself, but the problem is that the all the money go towards a small range of films. The money is not being spread out. For a business to functioning to its fullest then all sections have to be thrieving.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

The money is not being spread out. For a business to functioning to its fullest then all sections have to be thrieving.

How is it not being spread out when they are making more movies now than in the history of the industry. They are making more franchise and remakes and, despite what people claim, they are making more original movies than ever before. The money is being spread out.

 

[Mr Trick]

How is it not being spread out when they are making more movies now than in the history of the industry. They are making more franchise and remakes and, despite what people claim, they are making more original movies than ever before. The money is being spread out.

Because when you see the amount money (and I mean overall money going into everything not just making the films) going into the big pictures when being compared with everything then there is too much of a difference. Also, what you are talking about is basic numbers, of course when more movies are being made than ever then there will be more of a range. Don't forget that many of the big films of the 80s were pretty low budget and they were first time gambles, and that just shows that if you have a good story, and a fresh concept then you have a successful film.