Re-makes, re-boots, and re-runs

[white avenger]

It seems that the current trend in Hollywood, or in the entertainment industry in general, is to either remake an older movie using new, younger actors (the new "Star Trek," "Batman" "Highlander," etc), to reinterpret established characters (Daniel Craig's interpretation of James Bond), or to simply make sequels to established successes ("Spiderman," "X-Men," "Resident Evil") Even on tv, we've seen "Knight Rider," and "The Bionic Woman." Does it seem to you that Hollywood has just run out of original ideas?

 

[Blondie Bear]

Hollywood has ALWAYS been out of original ideas. Sometimes it's more obvious than others.

Now, in their defense, there are only so many storylines that people can relate to. And Hollywood has to try to relate to as many people as possible. Kind of like novelists. But novelists don't (tend to) get away with the trivial, banal, frivolous storylines that Hollywood does. I think it's because we EXPECT to turn our brains off when watching a movie, but not when reading a book. Reading is supposed to be more difficult than watching TV.

But, yeah, it does seem to go through stages where they'll come out with a slew of wonderful movies that do make you think and are enjoyable, and then a slew of sequels to those movies or bad remakes of those movies or bad rip-offs of those movies.

 

[AndrewCrossett]

I just had a big argument about this on another board, actually.

I've been on a pretty strict "no-remakes" policy for several years as far as what movies I watch. My position is that remakes are usually a result of creative laziness combined with fear on the part of studios. (Fear of taking a risk on something that hasn't already been proven successful in the past.) Give me a remake, and 99 times out of 100 I'll say "let me see the original instead."

There are too many writers and directors out there with new ideas who can't get their foot in the door because Hollywood wants another live-action movie based on a 70's Hanna-Barbera cartoon. (I'm sure a Magilla Gorilla movie will be coming along shortly.)

I only make exceptions to my no-remakes policy if:

1. The original movie was a great concept with very poor execution. (e.g. Casino Royale)

2. The remake changes so much and adds so much original material as to make it truly a new creative effort. (e.g. the Coen Brothers remake of "The Lady Killers")

3. It's simply a new take on an existing, non-movie source. (e.g. The Lord of the Rings, any given version of Hamlet, etc.)

 

[Old Master 3.0]

Agreed with Blondie Bear. Tinseltown has been fresh out of ideas for quite a while now.

Here's the newest, shining example. My BB boss, Faith, told me about this remake abomination a few days ago. As a die hard fan of the original film, it just turns my stomach......


http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117997365.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

 

[Blondie Bear]

I heard about the Crow remake. I was like, Why?! And apparently, they want to make it more "realistic." Oh, come on. We don't need realism from the Crow!

 

[Spuffy78]

It's not lack of originality it's what studios know will make more money.

Thousands of plots and ideas are pitched but only a few are actually given a green light.

Re-makes are cash cows because mainly with Horror films people don't stop talking about the original.

 

[Bluebird]

Remakes are depressing. 🙁 I haven't been to the cinema in a long long time because of all the crappy remakes. I want originality!

 

[Randy Giles]

I don't think all remakes are bad. There are tons of genre films from the 70's and 80's that have good plots, but basically suck because of the writing, acting, and production values. I have no problem with them remaking them.

Or take Friday the 13th. The original movie was not only completely unscary, but dull and slow and just not very good. I highly doubt the remake will be scary, but if it's more entertaining than the original, it will have been worth it.

Tim Burton is set to film a Dark Shadows movie with Johnny Depp. I have nothing against that. Dark Shadows was already resurrected by its own creator in the 90s and it's a story that could be brought back every couple of decades if need be.

However, some remakes are completely uncalled for, like "Rosemary's Baby"...I'm very glad they canceled that one, because the original is a high quality film that couldn't be improved.

 

[Spuffy78]

The original F13th like the first one before Jason came in is overrated. It's a decent flick but the sequels up to Part 5 arguablly Part 6 are much better.

 

[Randy Giles]

Speaking of horror remakes: Halloween. That remake was a disappointment, but the original sucks hard as well. Although I think I hate the original just a little more, because I literally cannot watch it without laughing - that's how badly written and badly acted it is. The most hilarious part is the opening scene...it feels more like a parody of a horror movie than a real horror movie.

 

[Airam]

Continuing on the horror remake rant train... I for one am very pissy that they are remaking Nightmare on Elm Street. It is far too soon for that movie to be remade... especially since Robert Englund, freaking Freddy!, is still alive and kicking yet someone else will be playing that part. The Nightmare on Elm Street films might be a tad cheesy and campy but I LOVE them and I am not ready to accept another actor as Freddy... its stupid and just far too soon! Grrr. K, I'm done.

 

[Buffanator]

Tim Burton is set to film a Dark Shadows movie with Johnny Depp.

Oh sweet jew on a stick.... may I just say that I am TOTALLY SICK of Johnny Depp? AND Tim Burton's fascination with him???? Bleh.

Generally, I think remakes ARE the ultimate laziness of Hollywood. Especially movies made from old TV shows (Beverly Hillbillies, Starsky & Hutch, Charlie's Angels, etc.) - SERIOUSLY! - I have not seen ONE movie made from an old TV show that I thought was remotely "ownable". And I am a huge DVD collector.

Now movies made into TV shows - that's different... mostly. I can site MASH and Buffy as my two favorites, but there are others.

Remakes of really AWESOME movies, such as Johnny Depp's "Charlie & the Chocolate Factory" compared to Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka.... OH GOD! -Gouge my eyes out, PLEASE!-

I keep expecting some idiot to remake Gone With the Wind or The Wizard of Oz (I know the WoO has had "other" movies, but OMG they suckedass!)

NOW... certain movies, that have different ANGLES - that I can do. Such as "A Christmas Carol" - personally, I love "SCROOGED" with Bill Murray - and that's BASED on A Christmas Carol, but not the "Ebenezer Scrooge" character... the character's name was Frank Cross, and altho the movie was modeled after ACC, it WASN'T "ACC". Dig?

I really would just rather see Hollywood keep up with new & different movies; movies that show today's technology, dreams, etc. For instance, we see a lot of "spy" movies in today's world. Government secrets & spies are interesting today, whereas a few decades ago, John-Wayne style westerns were all the rage... westerns wouldn't get much "play" today. Nobody cares about "cowboys & indians" - and "indians" are not seen as the "bad guy" anymore, but rather as a people who were done terribly wrong.

I remember when Sandra Bullock's THE NET came out... it was cutting-edge racy; scary what people can do thru a computer! how they can take your life completely away! - and yet, TODAY, that movie would be nothing special. Or how about Will Smith's ENEMY OF THE STATE....? Totally cool! - AND FREAKY! - and The Bourne Identity movies - oh yeah, that's Hollywood doing it's thing, & doing it well.

I also like to cite Buffy (TV) at how TV shows are different now, & how Joss Whedon built a tiny empire from Buffy, Angel & even Firefly - a tiny empire that gained 1000's of faithful fans, he truly gave us something NEW - something ORIGINAL - a girl who fights vampires & other baddies? A vampire with A SOUL who fights evil!?!?!? A "western" set in THE FUTURE? - I ask you... who is more original than Joss Whedon??? Nobody! I say, nobody! Yup, Joss is my hero. And I can hardly wait for DOLLHOUSE! 😀

 

[itsxpaperdoll]

I only make exceptions to my no-remakes policy if:

1. The original movie was a great concept with very poor execution. (e.g. Casino Royale)

2. The remake changes so much and adds so much original material as to make it truly a new creative effort. (e.g. the Coen Brothers remake of "The Lady Killers")

3. It's simply a new take on an existing, non-movie source. (e.g. The Lord of the Rings, any given version of Hamlet, etc.)

yeah, that sort of sums my take on remakes up as well. If the new film is actually gonna improve the original, or if it simply is the same story in a completely different light, re-makes are okay, and, as was the case with for example casino royale, maybe even neccesary, since an interesting story should be told well. Unfortunately, producers seem to see classic, decent, good films or tv series as a cheap and easy way to make some extra money, without having to actually *write* a whole new story and all. It's all so easy. It seems like they just go: "We need money, what shal we do?" "Oh! I saw this nice film yesterday..." You know?

And about the Crow re-make. I decided to run away screaming. Like, it's a fairy tale. How on earth do you want to make that more realistic?!

 

[Lyri]

Hey, has anyone noticed that without a remake of an old movie that bombed, none of us would even be here?

Granted, BtVS was remade into a TV show, but still, it made me giggle, lol.

 

[Harm]

Moulin Rouge remake = disaster.
It's nothing like the old movie, just the same name is all.