Film remakes and reboots and adaptations

Bullgrit · Jun 2, 2015

Hand of Evil posted about the remake of Big Trouble in Little China, and that made me think of this topic. I don’t want to derail that specific discussion, so I’ll make this new thread for the general topic of remakes/reboots.

I don't mind the general concept of remaking or rebooting stories that were great in their cultural time but need an update for modern culture (like pre-Vietnam vs. post-9/11). Or that were great for their technology level but could be updated with modern technology (like stop-motion vs. computer animation). There have been at least a few good such remakes.

And then some stories stand well even over decades. Either the story transcends a specific cultural time, or the story depends on its specific cultural time, so any cultural updating would fail to improve it.

For me, the aggravating and disappointing remakes/reboots are those that do far more than update the story or use better tech. Those that change the base concept, or change the core story. You know, those remakes/reboots that really just use the original name recognition on a completely different story. This is especially maddening with something that is a sequel or some other kind of continuation or expansion of the story franchise.

For example:

Someone new to the whole Mad Max story who sees Fury Road comes away with an accurate idea of the whole franchise. FR is pretty true to the style and stories of its predecessors.

But someone new to the Star Trek story who sees the recent reboot (2 movies) comes away with the idea that ST is an over-the-top action adventure genre. That’s not the Star Trek that I grew up with (over 30+ years).

Other examples that aren’t remakes/reboots, but are movie adaptions of books: World War Z, and Starship Troopers. Two excellent books that became things completely different – different in story and in feel – when portrayed on film.

An example of a good book-to-movie adaptation is The Watchmen. The movie was pretty dead on to the graphic novel in both story and feel.

Let’s see, some other examples…

Invasion of the Body Snatchers had a good remake – updated for culture and with technology. Also, The Fly, the most recent King Kong, the Batman franchise reboot.

What do you think about remakes/reboots and adaptations in general? What are some films that got a good remake, and what are films that got worse remakes? What films completely changed the original material to the point of unrecognizability? What are some older stories that do need a remake because they are good but terribly dated in their original form?

Bullgrit

Morrus · Jun 2, 2015

I said this elsewhere, but it bears repeating.

Reboots of IP that matters to you are bad. Reboots of things that don't are fine. The truth is, neither matter - the existence of a thing shouldn't bother anybody.

I preferred the new Trek movies to the tedious rubbish that was Voyager or Enterprise. But then, I objected to TNG at the time. I changed my mind later.

I also don't see the need to just repeat stuff. A reboot is supposed to change things. The new BSG was superior to the original in every way. The A Team movie was inferior to the original in every way, but it doesn't take away from it.

Bond movies of today do not resemble Bond movies of yesteryear. Neither do Batman movies. New interpretations of characters and tales are perfectly OK - we'll like some, not others. Not a problem.

After all, how many Hamlets have their been? How many Draculas? How many Batmen? BTiLC isn't any more inviolate than any of those.

One day we'll have someone new play Rocky. Or Indiana Jones. Or Wolverine. Iron Man. It's all OK.

Dannyalcatraz · Jun 3, 2015

I'm not anti-reboot/remake/cover/homage/adaptation, etc. per se, I just think that when you redo something, you really need to bring your A-game. Half-assing around won't do it...and x1000 if something is considered a classic or iconic in some way.

If you're remaking something, it should be respectful of the original*. Changes made should make sense, not undermine major themes or premises just for the sake of making changes. When Nick Cage starred in the remake of The Wicker Man, his character was so thoroughly rewritten that it completely undermined the reasoning behind the character portrayed in the original by Edward Woodward being perfect for- and thus, deliberately and specifically lured to be- the pagan sacrifice.

I could go on- versions of "Take 5" done in 4/4 time, maddening changes in the TV miniseries for Earthsea, etc.

But when someone remakes something well...

As Morrus raises the issue, the specter of The Bard looms large here. There are all kinds of adaptations I've seen of Bill S's work, some good, some bad, some incredible.

Personal faves among the Shakespearean remakes: Richard done in a setting echoing WW2; Taming of the Shrew as a Western; Romeo & Juliet as a modern-era gangster saga; The Tempest as a Sci-Fi cautionary tale; Hamlet deconstructed as a story between 2 dead characters; King Lear set in feudal Japan...

(There are more I enjoy, but most of them are straight renditions.)

But one thing I'd LOVE to see? Using remakes as a litmus test. There are a lot of hacks out there who get to make movies, over and over again, despite their hackiness. I think they shouldn't be allowed into a director's chair (or lead role, depending on the hack) until they can take something that was merely OK or objectively bad and demonstrate they have the skills to make something good of it.

* though parody is perfectly acceptable

Ryujin · Jun 3, 2015

I'm very anti remake. Good ones are few and far between. In general they are just lazy attempts to cash in on an existing IP without putting out any additional cash, because the rights have already been bought. Sometimes a film is even made simply to hang onto a property because if it isn't used by a specified time, the rights revert and can be resold. The last tend to be hastily thrown together abortions.

The worst, to me, are when a studio decides to take a property and satirize it. "Starski and Hutch" and "Starship Troopers" immediately come to mind. Second worst are when a property is bought strictly because of it's popularity, then is gutted and turned into something completely different (yes, the Star Trek reboot falls into that category for me).

I think that there were 3 remakes of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." The original was 1956. Remakes were "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (1978), "Body Snatchers" (1993), and "The Invasion" (2007). There may be more. When in doubt, dig up an old property that made money.

delericho · Jun 3, 2015

I don't really have a problem with reboots, remakes, and adaptations in principle, but for a while there it seemed like that was all we were getting! Things have calmed down in the last couple of years (now it's all superheroes all the time - I guess those are also adaptations, but at least they're adaptations of stories I haven't read), but it was quite tedious.

I also have a problem with them rebooting things too quickly, as was notably the case with Spider-Man (and, indeed, with the new Batman incarnation) - I've just seen this story, so why are you telling it again? (And it doesn't help that every superhero series starts with the inevitable origin story, so ASM1 really wasn't different enough to SM1 to be worthwhile.)

But the best reboots, remakes or adaptations are probably those things where the original version had potential but for whatever reason the execution never quite lived up to that potential - BSG being a very good example of this. If you remake something that was good, chances are the fans won't adopt the remake; if you remake something bad, chances are the audience isn't there. But there's a sweet spot there...

Umbran · Jun 3, 2015

Dannyalcatraz said:
As Morrus raises the issue, the specter of The Bard looms large here.

The bard, *and* pretty much any mythology or legend. Robin Hood. King Arthur. The Greek pantheon. Comic book superheroes (which, really, are modern mythology - the Marvel Cinematic Universe can be seen as a modern equivalent of the Illiad....)

I think I've seen the Richard you're talking about. Branagh's Henry V was excellent, his Much Ado... was very good (it needs to be respected if only for giving us Michael Keaton's truly inspired Dogberry). Branagh's Hamlet? Most. Boring. Play. Ever.

There is great utility to redoing a piece, because you get automatic comparison and contrast along with it, you get to make clear things the audience should think about, by where you put your differences. But, if you choose those differences poorly (like in the recent Spider Man reboot), or you execute poorly, then that works against you.

The Marvel Universe, overall, is getting some reboot work done this summer in the comics. I am hoping they use the opportunity wisely, and they choose their differences well, so they can continue in useful and interesting directions.

Hand of Evil · Jun 3, 2015

Why I dislike re-makes:

Casting - sometimes this is what makes a movie great, they get the right person for a role, an example of this The Big Lebowski, Jeff Bridges owned that role but it was also how he and the other cast members interacted. Re-makes seem to make bad casting choices.
Timing - some moves just come out at the right time, The Crow (being re-booted) hit at the right time, the end of punk and the peak of gunge music and look, the move to goth and vampire was starting. Re-makes miss this and appear to play dress up.

Morrus · Jun 3, 2015

Hand of Evil said:
Why I dislike re-makes:

Casting - sometimes this is what makes a movie great, they get the right person for a role, an example of this The Big Lebowski, Jeff Bridges owned that role but it was also how he and the other cast members interacted. Re-makes seem to make bad casting choices.

Timing - some moves just come out at the right time, The Crow (being re-booted) hit at the right time, the end of punk and the peak of gunge music and look, the move to goth and vampire was starting. Re-makes miss this and appear to play dress up.

I get not wanting to see a film. I'd say I only want to see about 3% of the films that get made each year, so 97% of films are ones I don't want to see.

I don't really get the objection to films I don't want to see existing, though. And reboots and remakes - they're not for the original audience, usually (with some exceptions). I wasn't interested in the Transformers movies; I enjoyed the original cartoons and the animated movie. Michael Bay films are very much not for me. But clearly lots of kids like them, and that's fine.

sabrinathecat · Jun 7, 2015

Twelvth Night had a great adaptation.
Best reboot/remake I'm aware of was DOA (the 80s version of the 50s movie, nothing to do with the video-game movie).

For the most part, remakes have been pathetic failures, as have reboots.