Your Opinion - Reboots, Remakes, Prequels and Sequels

Just a few on my list IMO and in no particular order!

Bad:
Arthur
The Three Musketeers
The Wolfman
The Day The Earth Stood Still
The Thing (2011)
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
The Land That Time Forgot
Journey (Outake of Journey to the Center of the Earth)
Journey 2
Predators
Underworld (1 was good sequels MEH)
Resident Evil (1 was good sequels MEH)
Robin Hood
The Bourne Legacy
Conan
Footloose
Fright Night
Rise Of The Plante Of The Apes
Scream 4
Kung Fu Panda 2
Transformers 3
Fast Five
Ghostrider 2

Iffy:
Ice Age 4

Good:
Cars 2
Charlie and The Chocolate Factory
True Grit

Upcoming in which "I have a bad feeling about this......"
Carrie
Dredd 3D
Robocop
Total Recall

Please elaborate with your input!

You can put Total Recall into the bad category.

But I don't understand why you put Kung Fu Panda 2 in the bad category. Sure, it was rather short, but I felt it was a very potent sequel.

not worth it

/\ If not worth it why post? Why read?

Charlie and The Chocolate Factory was a terrible remake. Also, at the risk of angering the OP every POTC movie after COTBP was pretty bad.

I could go on, but as JD said, probably not worth it.

Next post will have the Prequels in it, I didn't do it because it's too obvious.

Capn_Jack_Savvy said:

---

/\ If not worth it why post? Why read?

I posted something else initially and edited it away - and decided it wasn't worth the argument.

Threads like this are silly - there are enough threads about invidual movies with real content and real discussion. Pointless lists are pointless.

Those Journey movies gave me cancer...

Most of the other ones recently made I just haven’t seen yet. The following list is ones I actually enjoyed –

The Three Musketeers
The Wolfman
Fright Night
Predators
Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance

Most of this is probably a generational thing, I love special effects (dur hur I like shinny things). I’m looking forward to the new Dredd movie. I did like the original with Stallone. Also, I don't support remakes, reboots... etc. Though if it looks decent I'd give it watch.

You thought Predators was bad? Nahhhh....

And Girl with the Dragon Tattoo! Pfft...

Predators was good . Ice age 4 was a disaster it was like hip hop animation they killed the film.
I like all the underworlds that last was good to.
The thing was a bad b- movie at best.
I cant stand the transformers its a CGI headache.
wolfman was good

If it's good, I'll watch it, I'll enjoy it, I'll buy it on blu-ray.

True Grit is an excellent example of a remake that was well done. It updated the genre to make it more coherent for today's audiences, and had a stellar cast that did good by the story.

Footloose, which I only watched because it was the in-flight movie, is conversely an excellent example of a totally superfluous remake. Everything about it was just adequate...barely.

I actually liked The Wolfman (2010) and Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011); not as much as the original films they were based on, but enough that I didn't feel as though I had wasted my time by watching them.

Another remake for the "good" column (in my opinion, anyway) would be Peter Jackson's King Kong (2005).

Conversely, I'd move Cars 2 (2011) to the "bad" column, or at least the "not very good" column. It was completely lacking in "heart" and "love of car culture" that was so prevalent in the first film.

High on the nomination list for "worst remake/reimagining in film history" would be The Green Hornet (2011). The Black Beauty and Jay Chou as Kato were the only good things about it.

I don't mind any of them as long as they bring something new to the table. I might be in the minority here but I enjoyed Rob Zombie exploring Michael Myers back story (although it was very stereotypical and it's still scarier when there is no motive) but at least Zombie had a new idea. Wasn't sold on the film itself though (I don't understand Zombies desire to have everyone as a foul mouthed redneck?)

I still don't know why with Hollywood's desire to remake everything that Casablanca and gone with the wind.

I'd put psycho at the top of my bad remake list though. A shot for shot remake? Why even bother especially when the original is so good and regarded as a classic.

Edited to add Ghost Rider 2 may just be the worst film I've ever seen.

Orange_Blend said:

---

Charlie and The Chocolate Factory was a terrible remake.

Man, I don't really get the hate on this movie. Some of it was truer to the book than the original, even, but all of it was entertaining and suitably bizarre at least. I liked it very nearly as much as the original, even if Depp's brand of crazy was not nearly as subtle and nuanced as Wilder's.

(Also, the modern Veruca and Mike were SPOT ON to the original cast)

I haven't seen Ghost Rider 2 yet, but I haven't heard a good thing about it - it's too bad, GR deserves a decent movie. I tend to at least "like" all comic movies though, even the crappy ones.

And reboots in general I don't understand when it's only been a few years, like the Spiderman reboot, what, 5 years after Raimi's last one? Feels like just a money grab, even if the new one is good.

PrimoOptimoso said:

---

Man, I don't really get the hate on this movie. Some of it was truer to the book than the original, even, but all of it was entertaining and suitably bizarre at least. I liked it very nearly as much as the original, even if Depp's brand of crazy was not nearly as subtle and nuanced as Wilder's.

I love Johnny Depp but his portrayal of Wonka was what killed it for me. In the original he was a quirky man, in the new one he was completely unlikeable child with an annoying voice and a back story we didn't need.

Nowhere near as good IMHO.

It's not like Depp was actually gonna play Wonka.

Whenever Tim Burton does a movie starring Johnny Depp, the lead character is always a certain unique creation of theirs, best described as "Johnny Depp in a Tim Burton movie".

The specific details of JDIATBM can vary widely. But it always feels more like JDIATBM than any of the characters he's supposed to be at the time.

Anyone hear that a remake of Jumanji is in the works at Sony Pictures?

I'd love to see a Spawn remake...

PrimoOptimoso said:

---

Man, I don't really get the hate on this movie. Some of it was truer to the book than the original, even, but all of it was entertaining and suitably bizarre at least. I liked it very nearly as much as the original, even if Depp's brand of crazy was not nearly as subtle and nuanced as Wilder's.

(Also, the modern Veruca and Mike were SPOT ON to the original cast)

Two parts -
One: It stacks up poorly against the original. If the original didn't exist, then I might have viewed the new one better.
Two: Depp just wasn't very good. I don't know who/what he was playing, but it wasn't recognizable as Willy Wonka.

The original had a certain magic. First, Gene Wilder as Wonka was absolutely brilliant - he played the part so well and all the wonderful wackiness of Wilder's character matched what I remembered from the book - I think he captured the essence of Wonka. Depp was just a loon - and it wasn't out of place with the other characters. All of the characters in the Depp movie were surreal, and this worked against Depp. If your characters are surreal, you have to be on a different plane of oddness, but Depp was pretty much equal to the other characters. Wilder was a foil to the other characters.

While I grant the SFX were better in the newer version, there were just too many and it overwhelmed the movie. In the original, there was lots of crazy stuff, but it took a back seat to the characters and the story. A large part of the wonderment came not from us seeing the factory, but from the characters experiencing the factory. In the modern version they splash so much effects on us that it takes "unbelievable" to a whole new height. I didn't get the same sense of awe and wonder that I got in Wilder's. Wilder's probably could have benefited from some better effects, but I think the film is clearly trying to tell us part of the enjoyment is going to come from us mentally adjusting the film ourselves using our imagination.

Misc: The music was 100x better in the Wilder version. The Depp movie was pretty clever in how they handled the Oompa Loompas - again, to a point it was overdone, but it's still clever. The secondary characters are all very good in the Depp version, but, again, I think they're more parodies of themselves.

I admit that, to some extent, the Depp movie was a little closer to the book, but I think the Wilder movie was a lot closer in capturing the spirit of the book. The Depp movie relied too heavily on SFX(to the point where Depp wasn't anything special). I get they were trying to capture the mood and the essence, but, in the end, it was all candy - which, maybe, is the ultimate lesson - In a movie about getting all the candy you ever want, you're never left satisfied.

I won't list all the same ones everyone else here has but I will say that the "Dawn of the Dead" remake was better than the original in my opinion.

Flagg said:

---

I won't list all the same ones everyone else here has but I will say that the "Dawn of the Dead" remake was better than the original in my opinion.

Sacrilege!!! The original to this day is the best zombie movie ever made!

TheDoctor said:

---

Two parts -

Misc: The music was 100x better in the Wilder version. The Depp movie was pretty clever in how they handled the Oompa Loompas - again, to a point it was overdone, but it's still clever. The secondary characters are all very good in the Depp version, but, again, I think they're more parodies of themselves.

The portrayal of the Oompa Loompas in the Burton movie was closer to the book, in that it was really racist. The original handled that exceptionally well, leaving out any reference to "black pygmies" and that they worked for cocoa beans.

Flagg said:

---

I won't list all the same ones everyone else here has but I will say that the "Dawn of the Dead" remake was better than the original in my opinion.

I agree. The remake had better actors and superior makeup effects. Of course, if Romero and Savini had the budget in 1978 that the 2004 remake had, the original would possibly have been a better movie. I'm not saying the original was bad, just that the remake had some financial advantages.

Oh man... I think I have to leave this thread now.

That said, a thread like this is just asking for nerd fights!