Remakes

[fobers95]

First off why are movies remade? There are two answers to that question, 1. Hollywood is lazy and money hungry they know if they remake a big movie like A Nightmare on Elm Street or really any horror film its going to make some big money because of the die hard fans. 2. Their trying to make it appeal to the modern audience.
　

Personally I hate the idea of remaking a movie, why? Because like the answer to number one it shows that Hollywood has become lazy, instead of finding an original idea they would rather remake an already great movie. I wouldn't have a problem with remakes if they didn't completely ruin it. Look at Halloween when it first game out it scared the crap out of audience not threw blood and gore but with suspense and allowing the viewer to imagine what was happening. This is completely diffident with Rob Zombie dreadful remake of Halloween he decided that that adding gallons of blood and gore would scare people he was wrong. He tried to make a back story for Myers and it failed because he tried to make it look like Myer's parents were abusive that they were poor and that they didn't care for him. Even though int the original Halloween we don't see his parents that much you can tel that his parents did care for him, were not abusive and not poor. What made Myers so scary was the fact that he was just a normal boy that snapped and went psycho. Why did Rob Zombie choose to do it this way? Today's audience wants a reason on why he killed people not that he was just naturally evil.
　

I feel that if you are going to remake a movie the original had to be awful, because there really is no reason to remake movies that were already successful It pushes young writers away who have an original idea and are trying to make a name for themselves Finally when your trying to find a movie to see what are you more willing to spend you money on something like Looper which is one of the most original movies to come out in awhile or Red Dawn a remake where the original was terrible and the remake is getting the same negative reviews the original got? Me I would rather spend $10 on Looper rather than waste my money on Red Dawn.

 

[Egg Born Son]

While I find movie remakes mostly (but not always) a pointless exercise, it isn't the end of the world. Stories have been retold for thousands of years. They are retold more often than they are not. It's often said the story is in the telling. While many hollywood remakes might be born of laziness, money grubbing and other low motives, they are still worked on by creatives. Stories such as A Christmas Carol have been made over and over again. The story is good and it has a seasonal connection so people welcome interpretations. Most originals are knowingly or otherwise remakes of far older stories. The only remakes with no value whatsoever are the couple that were shot-by-shot remakes.

 

[Gillvane]

There's plenty of reasons to remake a movie. What if it's a great story that was poorly done? Like someone makes a really bad Spider Man movie with a guy in red underwear throwing fish nets at people, then no one is ever allowed to remake it again? That's it? That's the Spiderman movie you get for the rest of time? That doesn't make sense.

Or what if it needs an update. it's a really good story, but it's black and white and a silent film. Maybe it's time for an update with color and sound? Or maybe a great story done with claymation, as cool as claymation is, could use an update with some cutting edge CGI for the current audience? Maybe different actors can give the characters in the story a new nuance that wasn't there before?

Many remakes are very bad and don't live up to the original, but many movies are bad even if they aren't remakes. Just because some bad remakes get made isnt' a reason to say they'll all be bad.

 

[craigbowman]

Capital doesn't like risk.

 

[robmneilson]

Remakes are inevitable I guess....but the ones that really piss me off are ones that are made so closely together in time. Like the remake of Let the Right One In....which while it wasn't terrible as far as remakes go just seems stupid.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

1. Hollywood is lazy and money hungry

Oh come on. Compare the rise of piracy the past ten years with the failing of the rental revenues and rise of relatively safe investments like remakes, prequels, sequels, 3D and HFR.

The film industry needs to be thriving in order to afford to make high risk creative films, and it's not. In fact, the film industry is in really bad shape economically.

 

[David Jimerson]

Looper, though I liked it quite a bit, isn't all that original.

 

[thehadgi]

Looper, though I liked it quite a bit, isn't all that original.

Is it a remake of an older one? Or do you just mean the whole 'time travel back and forth to solve a mystery' thing? I also thought it was good, although I think I've seen better executed and held together time-related movies. But hey I'm happy with the 9 bucks I spent

Egg Born Son, I really like what you said about 'stories being retold'. Never thought about it that way. Kind of puts things in perspective when I go to see a remake and start writing it off before I even sit in the chair!

 

[David Jimerson]

It's not a remake, but it contains quite a few familiar elements and tropes.

 

[Amr Rahmy]

i don't think the discussion was based on one movie remake/sequel/prequel, or a bad movie remake, all the IPs being remade in the past few years were the classic movies of the 70s and 80s and other eras that were instant classics of their time remade badly on all accounts. the problem is that it hogs all the theaters and distribution channels and the top new releases of internet services and applications.

current box office offerings include:
django unchained - remake
the hobbit - prequel
les miserable - famous IP
parental guidance, the guilt trip - they are using older actors that used to make comedies in the 70s-80s(that are in their 60-80s?) as parents to the children of the movie(in their 40-50?) in coming of age stories directly cloned from other comedies. the only non IP titles on the list?
jack reacher - famous IP
this is 40 - sequel
lincoln - biopic of sorts
monsters, inc 3d - re-3d
if you don't count 'monsters, inc', you get skyfall - sequel based on IP

and that's all you get year round, remakes, sequels, prequels, maybe more than 95% of all the movie we are allowed to see and know about are these movies(and they are all badly made). and Hollywood is making record breaking box office numbers every few month, they are not hurting right now, but they will. they will drive all the IPs to the ground.

there is no place or room in the theater or on shelves or virtual stores to put anything else.

 

[David Jimerson]

Django Unchained isn't a remake, any more than Inglorious Basterds was.

And even if something isn't original, to say "they are all badly made" is just plain silly. Preposterous. Heck, outrageous.

 

[Batutta]

The reason most remakes are lousy is because they aren't driven by a creative impulse. They don't come from a writer or director's desire to tell a story or say something interesting. How many writers sit behind a blank page and yearn to tell a story someone else already told (and probably pretty well as nobody remakes bad movies) They are made by corporations looking to make a quick buck. They are made by filmmakers looking for a paycheck. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. But at the same time, the odds of a good movie being made from those motivations are even smaller than the already small odds of a good movie being made out of any source material.

 

[Gillvane]

Remakes are inevitable I guess....but the ones that really piss me off are ones that are made so closely together in time. Like the remake of Let the Right One In....which while it wasn't terrible as far as remakes go just seems stupid.

You don't get as much from the movie if you constantly have to look down to read the subtitles instead of just watching the film in your native language.

Let the Right One is was remade so it would be in English instead of Swedish. I think that's a legitimate reason to do a remake.

Same goes for Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

 

[Egg Born Son]

Remakes are inevitable I guess....but the ones that really piss me off are ones that are made so closely together in time. Like the remake of Let the Right One In....which while it wasn't terrible as far as remakes go just seems stupid.

This is another case with a slightly different argument. Especially when, as you point out, the american remake is so close behind the original it's almost concurrent. The dvd releases here in australia were about a month apart if I recall correctly. There's a view which I sort-of buy into that the american market is somehow stealing the foreign film in these cases, but I wonder. Is the english-language remake costing the foreign film potential sales or are the sales boosted by the publicity for the major american release? I don't know but there's an argument both ways. Though frankly it sounds almost like the argument that downloading leads to sales.

I haven't seen the american version, it can't possibly match the poetic beauty of the original, the first movie in years to take my breathe away. The locked off, composed shots, poetic interaction of theme and scenery, the originality and touching relationships without compromising the horror, all things sadly lacking in other cinema of this millenium. I almost bought the remake for comparison but the promo-line on the dvd cover was something like 'the greatest american horror film...' or some such thing and that was just too 'on the nose'. Maybe when it comes on tv.

On the other hand I've heard the american version of Girl with a Dragon Tattoo is great. Which would be a good thing because I bought the swedish bluray and thought it was awful. Don't think I've managed to get much more than half an hour in on any attempt to watch it. And I almost never fail to watch a movie all the way through, especially when I've paid for it. I slept through much of The Hobbit but it's a long movie and I made it to the end. You still get 90 conscious minutes for your money and come out refreshed!

 

[HorseFilms]

I'm all against bad remakes like A Nightmare on Elm Street. That was one of the worst movies I've ever seen (and that's saying something). However, you occasionally get movies like The Thing (1982), which was way different from the original, but amazing.

 

[Amr Rahmy]

I'm all against bad remakes like A Nightmare on Elm Street. That was one of the worst movies I've ever seen (and that's saying something). However, you occasionally get movies like The Thing (1982), which was way different from the original, but amazing.

but that was the 70s and 80s era movies, a remake that you would get today would look like ...wait, i don't have to describe it. The Thing (2011).

edit: i think i fell asleep watching that movie, i don't remember anything about it at all. and i remember good movies scene by scene from when i was 2 years old. it must have been really terrible/forgettable.

 

[jghenderson]

While I tend to have doubts about the artistic merit of remakes, there are instances where the remakes are quite good. This years Dredd was miles ahead of the oringla film, and Let Me In is in my book basically on par with Let The Right One In, which is saying a whole lot. On the complete other side of the spectrum are remakes that you can't understand in a million years what would possess someone to do it, like the remake of Psycho, which even though it is almos shot for shot, managed to be a terrible film.

In the end I think we'd all like more original material, and i'm sure most filmmakers would rather produce original material, but I suppose we can't really blame the industry for trying to play towards already established IP's. It's a safer bet for them, even if it is artistically a bad decision.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

While I find movie remakes mostly (but not always) a pointless exercise, it isn't the end of the world. Stories have been retold for thousands of years. They are retold more often than they are not. It's often said the story is in the telling. While many hollywood remakes might be born of laziness, money grubbing and other low motives, they are still worked on by creatives. Stories such as A Christmas Carol have been made over and over again. The story is good and it has a seasonal connection so people welcome interpretations. Most originals are knowingly or otherwise remakes of far older stories. The only remakes with no value whatsoever are the couple that were shot-by-shot remakes.

I think this should be set in the context of Public Domain. In that case having a 'remake' or a 'retelling' does involve the creative process by a large number of people, each with their own reasons for the 'remake'.

In the case of copyrighted material, it is the 'same', modulo management/ownership/staff changes, and based on that companies own opinion as to what may 'sell'.

In the case of "A Chrstimas Carol", since it is PD status, any number of efforts may be made to adapt the story to film... some may work, others not... but it is not based on one entity's decision to make a new adaption or not.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

How many writers sit behind a blank page and yearn to tell a story someone else already told

Every single 'adaptation' is in fact a scriptwriter telling someone else's story, unless they happened write the original material...

An adapter may creatively bring subplots to the fore, or reduce them, combine characters or invent some set of new ones, but for an 'adaptation' to be such, the core story is someone else's... unless of course the screenplay disregards the entire contents of the book and just uses the title for some sort of 'name brand' recognition or 'shock value' such as 'Rebel Without a Cause"(1955)...

 

[Batutta]

Every single 'adaptation' is in fact a scriptwriter telling someone else's story, unless they happened write the original material...

An adapter may creatively bring subplots to the fore, or reduce them, combine characters or invent some set of new ones, but for an 'adaptation' to be such, the core story is someone else's... unless of course the screenplay disregards the entire contents of the book and just uses the title for some sort of 'name brand' recognition or 'shock value' such as 'Rebel Without a Cause"(1955)...

Writers are usually hired to do adaptations. They rarely go about adapting something on their own initiative. It's not what motivates most writers. They are motivated to write them by a paycheck. And I wasn't stating the opinion that it's impossible for a remake to be done well. Just that the odds are lower, since there is rarely a creatively valid reason for making one other than to make money. So scripts are cobbled together that are barely decent enough to be produced, or are rushed through development to make a date and exploit a window of opportunity. Also, there is a difference between adapting something from one medium to another, and remaking something that was already successfully done in that same medium. Usually, the writer ends up changing stuff for the sake of changing it, and usually for the worse. But if you're not going to change it, then what's the point? Which is why most remakes are lousy.