Movie Remakes that shouldn't have been

Rackhir said:
The basic reason for remakes, is that Hollywood runs on fear. Anything that can reduce uncertanty or at least provide an excuse should failure happen will be latched onto like a drowning man onto a rope. If it was successful once then it might be again or at least people have heard of it and might go to see it for that reason.
That seems a bit harsh. It's not like Shakespeare himself wasn't looting all kinds of sources for plots to "remake" as plays that ran at The Globe. To ascribe a particularly cowardly subculture to Hollywood seems, at best, unfair.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ditto J-D-jazzy-Dyal. A remake is only bad if it's, well, bad.

Personally, I liked Ocean's Eleven. It was fun and goofy and didn't take itself too seriously, and it was updated nicely for modern security (at least enough to fool someone who didn't know anything about modern security, like me). I also thought Brad Pitt did a really nice job, and I'm not a big Brad Pitt fan all the time.

I actually really enjoyed seeing both versions within a short timespan and comparing them. It was fascinating to see the relative simplicity of the original's plot -- people today are expecting more -- but also the fact that the original had (avoiding spoilers here) a slightly different ending as far as where the money ends up. :) Characterwise, it was great to see the Rat Pack completely ignore the demands of the plot in order to pal around for awhile, which seemed to carry through in the remake. The Rat Pack also did a great job of exploring racial issues in a real but not heavy-handed way -- the line "Now, how do you wash this stuff off?" really really worked for me. The modern Ocean's Eleven didn't really address that stuff, although they played off it a bit with Bernie Mac's character and the "Angry Black Man" con, but on the other hand, the modern Ocean's Eleven wasn't radically misogynistic, either, whereas in the original, the women are either evil, and recognized as such, or vague doormats.

So I at least liked both, and liked watching both for different reasons.

On the other hand, the Lucille Ball version of "Auntie Mame" never needed to happen. Ever. Evereverever.

I didn't like the "I Spy" remake with Eddie Murphy and Owen Wilson. I have fond memories of watching reruns of the original with Robert Culp and Bill Cosby -- with a black man getting equal footing and two smart characters trading quips as they handle the secret agent shtick -- and seeing it dumbed down with Wilson and Murphy really ticked me off. If they're going to do a remake that has so little to do with the original, why not call it something else? Or call it something that I personally don't care about :)? The recent "I Spy" movie could just as easily have been called "Spies Like Us 2000" and nobody would really have known the difference.
 

takyris said:
The recent "I Spy" movie could just as easily have been called "Spies Like Us 2000" and nobody would really have known the difference.
Spies Like Us -- now there's movie crying out to be remade in a post-Soviet world... :confused:
 

Joshua Dyal said:
That seems a bit harsh. It's not like Shakespeare himself wasn't looting all kinds of sources for plots to "remake" as plays that ran at The Globe. To ascribe a particularly cowardly subculture to Hollywood seems, at best, unfair.

I have friends who have worked out there. I'm not being harsh, just honest. A lot of the same mentality is present in the TV industry as well. Remember these are people who have spent potentially decades working themselves into positions of power and influence and one or two bad decisions can end their careers. And they've seen it happen to people they know. Its the same thing that powers the 30 knockoffs of a successful Movie/TV show.

Besides there is a difference between drawing on older stories to make something new and simply retreading the same old thing.
 

Rackhir said:
"The Shinning"
A horror-stricken tale of one man's desperate descent into madness as he tries to navigate his living room during a nighttime power outtage.

:p :D

Only joshing.

I agree with takyris. Some remakes, o.k. Some, not o.k., but generally based on being a good or bad film in and of itself. Magnificent Seven was, essentially, a remake of Seven Samurai (I know, I know, they're different enough that one is clearly homage), but I enjoyed both films. Another example, I really liked both the original and the remake of The Italian Job. The original is great fun, very witty, and has some terrific moments. The remake is much more action packed, faster paced, and has Charlize Theron. They're both fun. And they both have Minis! :)

I am opposed, however, to the Pink Panther remake, even though I think Jean Reno, Steve Martin, and Kevin Kline are excellent actors and I really like their work. Nevertheless, Peter Sellers hit those movies and that role so far out of the park, they still haven't found the ball, and frankly, I don't think it needs to be redone.

Besides, every time a play is put on with a new set design and interpretation, isn't that kind of a remake? Some of 'em are really good. Some lousy.

Warrior Poet
 





Warrior Poet said:
I agree with takyris. Some remakes, o.k. Some, not o.k., but generally based on being a good or bad film in and of itself. Magnificent Seven was, essentially, a remake of Seven Samurai (I know, I know, they're different enough that one is clearly homage), but I enjoyed both films. Another example, I really liked both the original and the remake of The Italian Job. The original is great fun, very witty, and has some terrific moments. The remake is much more action packed, faster paced, and has Charlize Theron. They're both fun. And they both have Minis! :)
Hmm. Maybe they should remake Kurosawa's Seven Samurai with Ken Watanabe.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top