Does it bother you when they remake one of your favorite movies? Why?

[Michael Bergeron]

It's still there, it's still a viable piece of work. Nothing about it has changed.

Not entirely true. If they make a sequel to Blade Runner and Ford's character is a Nexus 6 you can never look at the original film the same way. Part of the magic was not knowing.

The original is still a fantastic stand alone piece of work but a bad sequel can ruin the context in which it's seen. Many folks can't simply "ignore" canon once it's been put into place.

 

[Macrossmaster]

Here's the problem with remakes: They assume (incorrectly many times) that they have mastered what made the original "good." Some movies become classic through wardrobe, some through the way lines are written, some art direction, some by the director, and many, many others through that rare combination of alchemy that makes a great movie.

To remake a movie assumes (wrongly) that those remaking it have put their finger on that pulse that existed when making it, and then (foolishly!) that they can just "whip up some more, because those old people were too stupid to have CG or Brad Pitt."

Sometimes things are great through ineffable quality. You want a nightmare? Give anyone, anywhere, the license to remake "A New Hope." It would be awful from start to finish.

 

[JD]

Not entirely true. If they make a sequel to Blade Runner and Ford's character is a Nexus 6 you can never look at the original film the same way. Part of the magic was not knowing.

The original is still a fantastic stand alone piece of work but a bad sequel can ruin the context in which it's seen. Many folks can't simply "ignore" canon once it's been put into place.

Again, I think if you can't ignore the sequel or accept the original for what it is... it's a simple lack of conviction on your part. (Not your personally... hypothetically)

Does knowing that Vader is Luke's father hurt ANH?
Does bringing Spock back from the dead ruin the impact of TWOK?

If a sequel reveals that Deckard is a Nexus 6 (and tragic flaw in my character is never having seen Blade Runner), what's to stop the next sequel reveal that he wasn't and that it was all a set up.

These are fictional worlds and retcon happens all the time. Regardless of the possible or potential for retconning, it still shouldn't effect the original. The AFI doesn't remove movies from their top movie lists because of a bad sequel/prequel/remake/reboot and they don't retract Oscars for the same. It is what it is.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Does knowing that Vader is Luke's father hurt ANH?

Nope. That's an example of a great plot twist that doesn't affect the first film in any significant way. That said, it was 2 years later. If it were 30 it might be a different story, who knows.

Does bringing Spock back from the dead ruin the impact of TWOK?

No, but it does change it. It's still incredibly sad but can you imagine how much sadder it would be if that was the last Trek film?

I think in general we're on the same page. I'm just trying to explain the other side which I do see as being valid.

Oh, and watch Blade Runner! Quick before it's ruined with a sequel! :lol

 

[JD]

Here's the problem with remakes: They assume (incorrectly many times) that they have mastered what made the original "good." Some movies become classic through wardrobe, some through the way lines are written, some art direction, some by the director, and many, many others through that rare combination of alchemy that makes a great movie.

Sometimes what made the original good has nothing to do with a remake. Sometimes it's simply a different take on a story, making it their own and sometimes it's taking the original and just retelling that story.

Folks have done it both ways and both ways have worked.

To remake a movie assumes (wrongly) that those remaking it have put their finger on that pulse that existed when making it, and then (foolishly!) that they can just "whip up some more, because those old people were too stupid to have CG or Brad Pitt."

Again, you're assuming (foolishly?) that they're remaking a movie for the reason you think they are. We've all seen plenty of movies that have been remade that have nothing to do with what you're stating.

I've already listed a few movies that many consider the remake superior over the original... it's not too hard to find lists like that online that are written by better movie reviewers than I.

Sometimes things are great through ineffable quality. You want a nightmare? Give anyone, anywhere, the license to remake "A New Hope." It would be awful from start to finish.

Unproveable argument is as unproveable as your logic is flawed throughout your post.

 

[Mr Webber]

Get a grip people, if SRS was serious about the Nexus 6 thing which Im positive he was not, big deal. Such a thing would have to be explained and I would be fascinated to see it. No one wanted a bar of this movie when it came out and now its in the untouchables section along with Bonzai.... Bahhh.

We are dealing with movies that we all love as they are set in different, vast universes. A universe is a big thing to explore last time I checked.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Get a grip people, if SRS was serious about the Nexus 6 thing which Im positive he was not, big deal. Such a thing would have to be explained and I would be fascinated to see it. No one wanted a bar of this movie when it came out and now its in the untouchables section along with Bonzai.... Bahhh.

We are dealing with movies that we all love as they are set in different, vast universes. A universe is a big thing to explore last time I checked.

Was joking on the BR man... Relax.

 

[Mr Webber]

Its hard to tell whos joking and whos not i guess, some people have their fingers crossed on a BR sequel and three posts later they think its a bad thing.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Its hard to tell whos joking and whos not i guess, some people have their fingers crossed on a BR sequel and three posts later they think its a bad thing.

A touchy one for sure! I don't mind it but I sincerely hope they leave a little mystery to Ford's character. That said I doubt he'd be in it. Let's get a whole new story in that world.

 

[Zombie_61]

Does knowing that Vader is Luke's father hurt ANH?

No, but knowing Vader is really just a whiny b!tch does.

 

[Dexter2999]

The thing with remakes is that they really serve to re-introduce stories to markets that may not have seen them.

Some people don't watch foreign movies. Perhaps they don't like reading subtitle. Some people don't like watching a dubbed film. Sometimes the storytelling paradigms of foreign cultures don't translate well across international boundaries.

Some younger people don't watch black and white films. I personally never got into silent films.

This same principle applies to making books into movies. A survey from about ten years ago said that only about 20% of the population reads for recreation. So, you figure a popular book still doesn't reach 80% of the population.

YOU'VE GOT MAIL was a remake of SHOP AROUND THE CORNER. Great job there.
Remaking PSYCHO? Not so much. But I welcomed 2008's THE INCREDIBLE HULK as it helped remove the memory of the Ang Lee's HULK of 2003. However, rebooting of Spiderman so soon, I really didn't get very excited about that. It just seemed like Hollywood recycling material to squeeze another dime out. (The same could be said about BLUES BROTHERS 2000, or CONEHEADS THE MOVIE.)

It's a mixed bag for sure.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

This same principle applies to making books into movies. A survey from about ten years ago said that only about 20% of the population reads for recreation. So, you figure a popular book still doesn't reach 80% of the population.

That is INSANE...

 

[JD]

It just seemed like Hollywood recycling material to squeeze another dime out.

Everything Hollywood does is to make a buck.

Sure there are some very rare exceptions - like when a producer/director finally "makes it" and has a project that they can finally do. But, most films that we see is all about the almighty dollar.

There are too many focus groups, too many people meddling with trying to perfect a film into their little specific categories to appeal to the masses.

But, one might also say every story has already been told and everything we watch/read is just a variation on a theme or combination of themes that we've already seen.

But, that doesn't mean that a prequel/sequel/remake/reboot can't be a great film experience.

 

[Solo4114]

Here's my take.

Remakes/Reboots

In general, those films don't affect my enjoyment of the original material because they don't "change" the original material for me. It's like a different continuity, different universe. So, in regards to the original product, not a big deal to me.

What bothers me about remakes and reboots is that it is far often more about pure marketing than about actually good content. Sometimes it works out great, but much of the time it's just slapping a brand name on otherwise ho-hum material.

If I could convince Hollywood producers to think like this, here's what I'd say: If you're thinking about doing a remake, stop and ask yourself whether, if you removed the branded material, your movie would be worth a crap. If the answer is "not really, no," then don't make that movie.

Sequels/Prequels

These I have a problem with. I've tried to explain it before, but my bet is that if you don't get what I'm about to say...you just won't get it. It'll never make sense.

For me, a bad sequel or prequel CAN ruin an original, if only because, as OB described, it "fills in the blanks" or tells me "What happened next?" Moreover, I can't put the bad sequel/prequel out of my mind when I'm watching the original. I know what happens next now or what happened before, and so I'm thinking about that while watching the original. If those sequels or prequels are lame, then the disappointment I feel at those bleeds into the original for me.

Sometimes I can get enough distance from them to still enjoy the originals, but often I can't. This is the reason why I haven't popped the Matrix into my player in probably five years. Maybe more. I just have no desire to watch it, because while I'm watching it, I'll be thinking of how I think the next two movies just suck. With other movies, I can sometimes come back to them years later, if the originals are good enough and stand well enough on their own, but the experience will never be as enjoyable to me as it was before I saw the next entry.

I know this is a weird thing about me. I don't understand it, myself, even. And in many cases I WISH I didn't function this way. I'd love to be able to watch a bad prequel or sequel and be like >shrug< whatever. Doesn't bother me any, but if it's a movie I really really love, I know that's not gonna happen. I've learned this the hard way. It's happened with too many franchises for me. So, now I just...opt out. I don't bother watching sequels/prequels if I'm worried they're gonna suck, particularly about favorite film franchises. I wish I didn't have to, because sometimes I'm curious about a film, but I know that if it sucks, I'll just end up enjoying the originals less. Or at least that there's a chance for that to happen, so...I avoid 'em.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

If I could convince Hollywood producers to think like this, here's what I'd say: If you're thinking about doing a remake, stop and ask yourself whether, if you removed the branded material, your movie would be worth a crap. If the answer is "not really, no," then don't make that movie.

Shouldn't that be said about any movie being made and not just remakes?

If there absolutely IS a reason to do a remake - the script writer or the director or the producer coming up with an interesting new take on the piece and not just carbon copying the best parts of the original and hoping it'll be a success, then I really have no problems with remakes.

Let the Right One In / Let Me In was mentioned earlier. I just felt the American adaption didn't really add much, but just copied what the Swedish one had done, only making the peripheral characters younger, and adding more cheesy horror effects, instead of going with the mysterious: "wtf did I just see?" that the original had. I like both, but prefer the Swedish one for the simple reason of the ambiguous and subtle effects where you are not really sure what just happened, giving you that weirded out sensation absolutely required for that kind of movie. The American one was too much in-your-face with the vampire stuff. I really want to read the book but it has been absolutely INSANE trying to find it here in DK - all discontinued! .(

If a movie has a good story, with good characters and an emerging plot, then it really doesn't matter if it is a remake or reboot. Good stories are worth my time, bad ones will quickly be forgotten.

Regarding Star Wars. Well, if a director went back to the original script that is basically what we know as ANH and the latter half of RotJ but with Wookies instead of Ewoks and made that into a movie, then that might be pretty interesting to me. Since the Star Wars from the creator's hand has gone more and more towards a younger and younger audience, then this new one could go in the opposite direction to set it apart. However... without the John Williams score... it may turn out to be a seriously bad idea as that score... well... you can't really have Star Wars without that score. So, if this has to be done, then Hans Zimmer would probably be my bet to make things different. With the technology available today... Star Wars would be a completely different experience with far less human characters than in the originals, and more alien diverse as the original script that Lucas broke up to make his movies.

 

[Solo4114]

Shouldn't that be said about any movie being made and not just remakes?

In general, yes, when you're talking about branded properties. The one I keep coming back to is the first G.I. Joe movie (the live-action one, I mean). That movie...should not have been made. It was one of the most transparent and BAD uses of branding I've seen. And I guarantee you that if you did nothing more than change the names of the characters and organizations involved -- just that -- it would have flopped. It SHOULD have flopped because it's just a lousy film, but because of the name, people went to see it.

If there absolutely IS a reason to do a remake - the script writer or the director or the producer coming up with an interesting new take on the piece and not just carbon copying the best parts of the original and hoping it'll be a success, then I really have no problems with remakes.

Yes, but that begs the question of why bother using the old name at all? Why bother doing a remake instead of doing a separate film that can stand on its own two feet? Once you get so far away from the original material, what's the point in having it be a remake at all? Why bother? Why not just do a new thing? At a certain point, you're not "introducing a new audience to the material." You're just doing new material, but stamping it with an old brand to make it more familiar and approachable. It's a marketing strategy and I hate that it works.

That said, sometimes remakes are good. In spite of my disappointment with the ending, the Galactica remake was pretty damn awesome. But more often remakes are just a good brand cloaking an otherwise crappy film.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Oh... yeah, I see your point. To a degree, with that comment, I was talking about remakes that are basically new adaptions of a book. Should have made that more clear.

When doing a new adaption, don't copy the earlier movie, but do your own version of the book. Sure, you are telling somewhat the same story as the previous movie, but there are usually more things in the book than there are even in the previous adaptions.

I started watching Galactica and though it started out somewhat strong, I just quickly lost interest because of the lousy mystery structure and the fact that it just seemed to take itself WAY too seriously.

 

[JD]

Let the Right One In / Let Me In was mentioned earlier. I just felt the American adaption didn't really add much, but just copied what the Swedish one had done, only making the peripheral characters younger, and adding more cheesy horror effects, instead of going with the mysterious: "wtf did I just see?" that the original had. I like both, but prefer the Swedish one for the simple reason of the ambiguous and subtle effects where you are not really sure what just happened, giving you that weirded out sensation absolutely required for that kind of movie. The American one was too much in-your-face with the vampire stuff. I really want to read the book but it has been absolutely INSANE trying to find it here in DK - all discontinued! .(

I started watching Galactica and though it started out somewhat strong, I just quickly lost interest because of the lousy mystery structure and the fact that it just seemed to take itself WAY too seriously.

Wow. To say I disagree with your comments here is simply an understatement.

I think both Let Me In and Battlestar Galactica (which I've previously mentioned in this thread) are shining examples of why remakes are very important. And both for very different reasons...

Let Me In brings this great story to an American audience. Yes, the Swedish version was fantastic - but, how many American's are truly going to watch the dubbed or subtitled version? Yes, it had a cult following and I'm sure the American version had more viewers here and in English speaking areas. There's a few of us, myself included who feel the remake surpassed the original.

And I'm not the only one who might think your opinion (which you're definitely entitled to) is a little off base (particularly those about the in your face vampire stuff). Roger Ebert summed it up with 3 1/2 stars and this line in his review: "Those hoping to see a "vampire movie" will be surprised by a good film." Even Stephen King hailed it and the Telegraph (and many others) called it better than the original.

...and well, BSG was highly regarded by many. Time magazine, a Peabody award. It's accolades were many, but sadly underappreciated by the Emmy Awards (which many theorized was due to the Sci Fi branding).

I think both of these properties are examples of remakes done very well and very much worth watching.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Let Me In brings this great story to an American audience. Yes, the Swedish version was fantastic - but, how many American's are truly going to watch the dubbed or subtitled version?

I think that's the whole point in a nutshell. American viewers.

But, the vampire stuff WAS in your face in Let Me In. The yellow eyes, the abnormal movements when going to CG and the overly gory stuff.

And as I said, I like both for very different reasons - they both tell a great story about growing up and friendship and the realization that the world is a scary place. I prefer the toned down and almost voyeuristic vampire stuff of the Swedish version to the more clearly shown stuff in the American version. And to be honest, I really don't feel some of the CG effects were that well executed and they could easily have saved the money on those and done it practically. Some prefer the less score in LTROI, but I actually like the score in LMI... but... I understand the point completely that too strong a score takes away from the realism of the piece and makes it more cinematic, if that makes sense.

I never got the sense that this could possibly be happening right next door to me with the American version, which I got out of the Swedish version.

With Battlestar... they just lost me with their going on and on and on and on and on... and never really getting anywhere and it absolutely did take itself way too seriously... and for me that just made it fall flat on its face.

 

[Solo4114]

This discussion reminded me that I actually liked the American version of The Ring better than Ringu. For me, the American version was a lot creepier and weirder.

The Ring 2, however, was HILARIOUSLY bad.