Movies that should never be re-made

I don't think remakes/reimaginings are a good idea in the first place. It was alright at first, 10-20 years ago. But Hollywood is so, so creatively bankrupt at this point they should just stick with sequels if they can't find anybody with an original idea anymore. And if they can't do that, then it's no wonder people aren't going to movie theaters as often anymore, especially me. Trying to remake a beloved classic film is a lose-lose situation financially and creatively.

I'd be a lot more interested in something that was a "Response" to another film or franchise, telling a similar story but with a deliberate twist of some kind. But certainly not the same IP. It may turn out to just be a ripoff, but is a ripoff the same thing as a film which attempts to subvert a particular genre or set of tropes, while telling it's own story? I don't necessarily think so.

There's no shortage of original ideas in Hollywood. Original films, good ones, are made all the time. The problem is that the average movie gowr doesn't want to part with their money without a guarantee. This makes them flock to seeing things they have some sort of familiarity with. The studios share the blame as they will always go with the least amount of rosk for losing money. Original movies are made, but the big ones tend to be franchises. They could control the narrative and just make new things, but investors and financeers don't like the risk that comes along with it.

It's an annoying cyclical problem that puts blame equally on studios and the public.
 
There's no shortage of original ideas in Hollywood. Original films, good ones, are made all the time. The problem is that the average movie gowr doesn't want to part with their money without a guarantee. This makes them flock to seeing things they have some sort of familiarity with. The studios share the blame as they will always go with the least amount of rosk for losing money. Original movies are made, but the big ones tend to be franchises. They could control the narrative and just make new things, but investors and financeers don't like the risk that comes along with it.

It's an annoying cyclical problem that puts blame equally on studios and the public.

For the vast majority of the last century people have been willing to part with their money to see original properties. It's in roughly the last couple of decades that movie studios have started playing really hard at the cinematic equivalent of moneyball. Unwilling to risk their bricks of gold on new properties and instead remaking whatever "Name" they can dig out of their cellar of IPs.

I would say your claim that the audience wants a guarantee is pretty much baseless. Mostly due to the number of well-known franchise that have done poorly in fairly recent years. Ghostbusters 2016, The Mummy 2017, Blade Runner 2049, Alien Covenant. Solo did poorly for a SW movie. Hard to get a more well known franchise than SW.

It is simply unfair to try and blame the audience. The public does not own the studios, does not decide what gets made. They only get to decide what to watch from the available choices. The tail does not wag the dog. People will got see good movies and tell others to go see them. And people will do the opposite when a movie is poorly made.

If the studios don't want to take the risk, the blame is all theirs.
 
I'm not blaming it on just the audience, I'm saying both parties are locked into this unhealthy cycle. You say audiences are ready for new material-- I say prove it. Just because we complain about it on message boards does not mean that the general public agrees. You say I'm baseless, which is absurd. I have the easiest evidence of all-- box office returns. Look at the top movies of the last month, last year, last five years. All the top earners are franchise pictures for the most part. Some original gems make an impact, but comparatively, it's not close.

This is all a studio needs to see to say "this is what the public wants." You're saying that if the studio would make quality original films people would go see them. When you put them up against known properties they never do the same business.

Don't mistake people into movies enough to argue about them on message boards as a barometer of the general public.

Either way though, my argument was against the idea that Hollywood has no good ideas. There are tons of great unmade scripts, studios just don't want to take the chance. That's factual. We could argue about the why forever, but box office returns are pretty telling.
 
I'm tired of Hollywood doing remakes, reboots, and a live-action adaptation of the animated film. I just hope they won't touch The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane, and Fight Club.
 
People used to see more original movies because they used to spend less money buying tickets & food. And they had fewer non-theatrical ways of seeing new content. And movies used to cost less for studios to make. It's a combination of factors driving the change.
 
Written in 2012:
Westworld.
Still sticking to that opinion in 2018? ;)

Looking back in the thread, I saw also mentions of Waterworld and The Postman, mentioned because they were stinking flops.
But I think that being stinking flops is precisely the criteria that should allow (not justify!) a remake of a movie to be made with a new angle. If the movie is dated and weird and not a loved classic and you have something new to tell, then you could remake it.

I think that choosing an old successful —but dormant— property to reimagine does not make it easier, but actually harder to make successful. The audience that you attempt to lure in through nostalgia becomes your core audience, and you would have to treat it right because then that is your real asset. If you do it right then that core audience will create buzz bringing casual viewers in ... but if you do it wrong, it will create vitriol keeping casual viewers away.
It should be evident that you don't not insult your core audience, and when the movie fails, you should not insult your core audience some more, no matter how much you feel provoked. We have seen several such vicious circles forming recently...
 
Last edited:
I'm tired of Hollywood doing remakes, reboots, and a live-action adaptation of the animated film. I just hope they won't touch The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane, and Fight Club.

Unfortunately the Wizard of Oz has been redone at least once that I'm aware of.
 
I actually wouldn't mind a remake of Wizard of Oz. Like everyone else, I love the Judy Garland version, but I actually liked Return to Oz better. I wouldn't mind seeing her first visit to Oz being done like that one.
 
Deliverance

As someone who fishes in the woods by themselves, it STILL scares the hell out of me.....



[video]https://media.giphy.com/media/XY6lLI4lokIkU/giphy.gif[/video]
 

Attachments

  • deliverance2.gif
    deliverance2.gif
    1.8 MB · Views: 73
Unfortunately the Wizard of Oz has been redone at least once that I'm aware of.
Several film adaptations were made even before the Judy Garland film, including an early one that has been lost forever if I'm not mistaken.
I don't think the film with Judy Garland has been remade, i.e. the first book as a musical, and with ruby slippers — which are unique to that version. (The Muppets don't count, no matter how awesome they are ;) )
 
Written in 2012:

Still sticking to that opinion in 2018? ;)
I don't have HBO, so yes. :)
I do not know if making a TV series based on a movie counts as a remake. Until you get into a weird situation like the Dukes of Hazzard movie. I don't remember the details and I'm not going to look it up, but there was a problem with the rights to make the movie because the show was based on some obscure movie.

It really comes down to people who think a movie was perfect the way it was and the people who think a movie was OK but could have been a lot better. Think of it as going to a concert. You listen to a song from group X 2-3 times a day, every day, for a year and then when you go to their concert you think the live version isn't as good. I'm not talking about a lot of the new groups that just lip sync while they bounce around on stage with their dancers.
 
I'm not blaming it on just the audience, I'm saying both parties are locked into this unhealthy cycle. You say audiences are ready for new material-- I say prove it. Just because we complain about it on message boards does not mean that the general public agrees. You say I'm baseless, which is absurd. I have the easiest evidence of all-- box office returns. Look at the top movies of the last month, last year, last five years. All the top earners are franchise pictures for the most part. Some original gems make an impact, but comparatively, it's not close.

This is all a studio needs to see to say "this is what the public wants." You're saying that if the studio would make quality original films people would go see them. When you put them up against known properties they never do the same business.

Don't mistake people into movies enough to argue about them on message boards as a barometer of the general public.

Either way though, my argument was against the idea that Hollywood has no good ideas. There are tons of great unmade scripts, studios just don't want to take the chance. That's factual. We could argue about the why forever, but box office returns are pretty telling.

Yes, I saw that part where you say there is equal blame. There is not. You want proof, I say again, the last century of movie-going wherein the general audience had no problem paying for original movies. Want something more modern? Again, easy.....Netflix. People have no problem doling out for a monthly subscription so they can watch all those new original shows and movies.

If the studios only released original movies for a year, then guess what would top the box office for that year? An original movie of course. The top box office returns in the past few years tend to be franchises because, again, the movie studios like to release safe-bets and put the most effort (advertising etc) behind those movies. And the fact that many of those franchises can fall flat on their faces further proves the audience doesn't just want what they are "familiar" with.

I don't think the general audience would see original movies because of the people on this website. Factually, people here tend to discuss franchises the most and in the prop sections the most discussed props tend to be from franchises. If someone were to extrapolate that into the general audience, they would probably conclude the general audience wants to only see familiar franchises. If anyone is doing that it's you.

Sure you did argue that Hollywood has original ideas. But, you also argued the audience was equally responsible for the choices that studios made based on a notion that the audience wants "familiar" movies. And I think I've offered enough arguments and examples to show that just isn't true.
 
1) The Princess Bride
2) Wizard of OZ
3) Back to the Future - Trilogy
4) Lord of the Rings Trilogy
5) Harry Potter (we can say all seven)
6)Marry Poppins
7) Sound of Music
8) Goonies
9) Beetlejuice
10) Terminator
11) ET
12) Hocus Pocus
13) Labyrinth
14) Willy Wonka
15) Forest Gump
16) God Father
17) It's a Wonderful Life
18) Ferris Bueller's day off
19) Good Morning Vietnam
20) Big
21) Grease
22) Rocky
23) The Big Lebowski
24) The Matrix
25) Groundhog Day
26) Reservoir Dogs
27) This is Spinal Tap
28) My Fair Lady
29) Uncle Buck
30) Home Alone
31) Gremlins
32) Die Hard
33) The Rocky Horror Picture Show
34) The Shining
35) Gone with the Wind
36) Elf
37) The Silence of the Lambs
38) Empire Records
39) Clerks
40) Fight Club
 
Films I don't want to see remade:

Jaws
Big Trouble in Little China
Tango & Cash - this was seriously discussed :angry
The Monster Squad - Shane Black actually saw scene with this one, did have to take a fan backlash though.

Movies that should not have been remade or rebooted IMOH

The Amityville Horror
Robocop
The Terminator - Genisys was shocking
Star Trek
Nightmare on Elm Street
The Day the Earth Stood Still

I could go on but I would bore you all :unsure
 
Yes, I saw that part where you say there is equal blame. There is not. You want proof, I say again, the last century of movie-going wherein the general audience had no problem paying for original movies. Want something more modern? Again, easy.....Netflix. People have no problem doling out for a monthly subscription so they can watch all those new original shows and movies.

If the studios only released original movies for a year, then guess what would top the box office for that year? An original movie of course. The top box office returns in the past few years tend to be franchises because, again, the movie studios like to release safe-bets and put the most effort (advertising etc) behind those movies. And the fact that many of those franchises can fall flat on their faces further proves the audience doesn't just want what they are "familiar" with.

I don't think the general audience would see original movies because of the people on this website. Factually, people here tend to discuss franchises the most and in the prop sections the most discussed props tend to be from franchises. If someone were to extrapolate that into the general audience, they would probably conclude the general audience wants to only see familiar franchises. If anyone is doing that it's you.

Sure you did argue that Hollywood has original ideas. But, you also argued the audience was equally responsible for the choices that studios made based on a notion that the audience wants "familiar" movies. And I think I've offered enough arguments and examples to show that just isn't true.

Again, this is just your perspective— a perspective that is pretty firmly rooted in not liking much of anything if your posting here is my barmoeter. You’ve only expressed your point of view, I’m saying go to box office mojo and look at actual data. Or go to the blacklist and look at all the original scripts being not made. You can argue your perspective all you want, but it’s not objective.
 
I think there's something to be said for the concern that an original movie can't really grab an audience's attention, at least in genre pictures. If you look at sci-fi and action/adventure films, the kind of stuff this site focuses on, the top grossing pictures in the last few decades have been franchise films and/or "branded" films. I don't like the remake/branded IP trend, but I understand why it happens. It's a much safer bet, and it's probably an easier sell to a studio exec for bankrolling purposes, especially if it capitalizes on the exec's own familiarity with the source material.

Not all remakes are bad, either. I actually liked the recent IT one. Looking forward to the 2nd half of that story.

But consider something like Jupiter Ascending. I thought that movies was really original, in terms of its setting and visuals...and it did not perform well at all. Granted, it wasn't all that gripping a story, and it seemed to rely far more on flashy visuals than solid storytelling, but at the end of the day, it was a gamble that the studio took, and it bombed at the box office.

I think what you're seeing is a shift in how people view films. Television and streaming services have risen to seriously challenge films, to the point where going to the theater is something that I, and I expect a lot of people, reserve for only certain kinds of films/stories. Why would I pay $20 a ticket plus babysitter fees to go see...I dunno...The King's Speech on the big screen? I have a 55" plasma at home. It'll look just fine on that, and I can pause it to grab a beer if I want without worrying about being annoyed by some ******* who brought their toddler to a 10pm showing or whatever.

These days, I only see the really big "spectacle" films. Which pretty much amounts to Marvel movies and Star Wars movies. The rest of the time, my wife and I can't be bothered to go to the theater, even if we'll catch the film later, even if we'll buy it on digital or watch it on one of the multiple streaming services we enjoy.

That leads to a vicious cycle where the only movies Hollywood is going to pour huge amounts of money into are...Marvel and Star Wars movies, or their equivalents.

Meanwhile, I'm watching all kinds of original content, usually in longer-form stories (which I far prefer these days) on Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, HBO, Showtime, etc. The point is, I don't need to go to the theater to see the kind of thing I want. I already get it at home, on my schedule, at my convenience.

The great news, though, is that this means there are actually more avenues for original content to reach your eyeballs. It might not show up at the multiplex downtown, but you can still enjoy it.
 
Again, this is just your perspective— a perspective that is pretty firmly rooted in not liking much of anything if your posting here is my barmoeter. You’ve only expressed your point of view, I’m saying go to box office mojo and look at actual data. Or go to the blacklist and look at all the original scripts being not made. You can argue your perspective all you want, but it’s not objective.

The movies I communicate my dislike the most about are Disney's Star Wars. Interpreting that as "not liking much of anything" is unreasonable. I simply have a strong dislike for those particular movies. And I do in fact often communicate my preference for the OT, especially ESB. Your "barometer" seems to have missed that.

You want numbers? Easy enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films

Highest grossing films by year....
Until roughly 1999, almost every highest grossing film for it's year is a non-franchise film.

Highest grossing films adjusted for inflation....
Adjusted for inflation 9 of the top 10 highest grossing are non-franchise films. And that top 9 spans from 1939 to 2009.

How about the top films not adjusted for inflation? The top two are Avatar and Titanic and neither are franchise films.

Original animated films tend to do very well. The top 50 highest grossing movies (not adjusted for inflation) are littered with them. Examples including Frozen, Zootopia, Finding Nemo, and The Lion King. Lion King still holds its own even when not adjusted for inflation, which is kind of amazing all by itself. And many of the highest grossing films for their year are non-franchise animated films.

Timeline of highest grossing films....
Every record breaking film leading up to Avatar was a non-franchise film.

These figures are about as objective as it can get. Historically and even currently when good original movies are on offer the audience will go buy tickets and see them. Conversely, if a franchise film is bad people will avoid it as I showed in prior posting.

It really is the studios fault for not wanting to take the risk and release more of them. The audience is blameless.
 
The audience is blameless.

Then why do they keep making Transformer movies when they are all terrible? Because they make a crap ton of money.

Look I'm agreeing on the bigger point, studios should absolutely be making more original films. But to say audience ticket sells doesn't influence their decisions on what to green-light is absurd.

Until roughly 1999, almost every highest grossing film for it's year is a non-franchise film.

...which means absolutely nothing almost two decades later.
 
This thread is more than 5 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top