What movies should Hollywood remake?

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I dunno: without the very solid special-effects work of those movies, I'm not sure how fun they'd be. Computer graphics might just make them feel very flimsy, if they were the focus. I'd much rather see them redone with the same technology, only with the state of the art in the technology. Use stop-motion animation, in other words; just use modern filming equipment and all the advances in stop-motion that have come about over the last few decades.

That would be worth doing. I can't see the money-men going for it, unfortunately.

That's what they did with Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula, and that's why I liked that remake more than most others. (Lord knows it wasn't Keanu Reeve's role)

Sorry for the nitpick, but I have trouble calling that one a remake. It was a fresh start at adapting the book, whereas the previous films had no relation whatsoever to the book.

 

[Mog Elffoe]

This article in the the Economist (not everyone's source of movie news, but hey)
notes the recent trend of remakes in lieu of original filmmaking:

Shrek II
Spiderman II
Harry Potter III
a remake of Around the World in 80 Days.
etc.

I think Hollywood might be in a bit of an 'originality' rut right now.

As long as there has been fiction there have been sequels and remakes. This is nothing new, and has nothing to do with Hollywood, per se. It's just the way people are. Even the 'original' material will generally have its actual origins someplace else. Quality material is quality material regardless of whether there was already a part one, or if the subject at hand is a remake. And of course, the inverse is also true--crap is crap whether it's 'original' crap or a crappy sequel/remake.

 

[Bass Puppet]

The Hobbit (please...please...please...please)

Although I agree with some of you who say that you would like to see some originality from Hollywood, I would like to see D&D the Movie remade.

...with an entire different cast...different script...different director...hell...Just Start OVER!

 

[JimAde]

This article in the the Economist (not everyone's source of movie news, but hey)
notes the recent trend of remakes in lieu of original filmmaking:

Shrek II
Spiderman II
Harry Potter III
a remake of Around the World in 80 Days.
etc.

I think Hollywood might be in a bit of an 'originality' rut right now.

I haven't seen the Spider Man movie or 80 days, but I have to disagree on both Shrek and HP. The Harry Potter books were conceived as a single large story and the film adaptations are derived from the books. This isn't a case of a movie being successful and a hack screenwriter saying "Let's make one just like it, but with a 2 in the title!" As for Shrek II, well it's not Lawrence of Arabia, but I liked it better than the first one. It is different enough to be worthwhile, I think.

 

[Rackhir]

I think one of the first questions that should be asked is "Can remaking this movie improve upon the original in some fashion." This question alone would kill off many remakes, like the shot for shot Psycho remake.

A lot of classic movies are classics, because they are classics. If you remake them, they loose that intangible quality. People will just accept corny dialogue, bad special effects in many cases it seems just because the movie is in black and white. Night of the Living Dead is a good example of this.

That said, I'm just waiting for the technology to get to the point where I can edit Kiefer Sutherland out of Dark Cityand replace him with Tim Curry. That role was meant for Curry.

 

[Rackhir]

This article in the the Economist (not everyone's source of movie news, but hey)
notes the recent trend of remakes in lieu of original filmmaking:

Shrek II
Spiderman II
Harry Potter III
a remake of Around the World in 80 Days.
etc.

I think Hollywood might be in a bit of an 'originality' rut right now.

This isn't an originality rut, it's a very deep trench. I've seen essentially the same thing said for about the past 25 years or so from time to time. I remember first seeing it back when it was StarWars II (Empire Strikes Back), Superman II, Rambo II, etc....

 

[Villano]

A lot of classic movies are classics, because they are classics. If you remake them, they loose that intangible quality. People will just accept corny dialogue, bad special effects in many cases it seems just because the movie is in black and white.

And now let's all drop down onto our knees and thank God that Ben Afleck and J-Lo broke up and didn't get the chance to do that Casablaca remake they were pushing for.

I can actually envision the horror of it. Bad actors mangling their dialogue. And I'm sure they'd give us a "happy ending". That would, of course, happen after the big climax where Ben battles an army of cgi Nazis to prevent them from stealing the A-Bomb secrets.

It would end in a hotel in New York with Ben and J-Lo. Their snuggling is interrupted by a knock on the door; room service. Ben opens the door and the bellhop wheels in a cart. As soon as Ben's back is turned, we see that the bellhop is really Hitler, who pulls out a garrote and tries to strangle Ben! Ben elbows him a few times and J-Lo cracks him over the head with the icebucket, knocking him out the window. They look down and make a smartass remark. The End.

 

[Andrew D. Gable]

Other than the extremely cheesy demon at the end of the movie, it is pretty creepy and very close to Casting the Runes.

Good to hear. Maybe I'll track it down one day, as I love that story. I've seen pics; yes, the demon was very cheesy. In a kitsch 50s kinda way. Remember that the demon in "Runes" did show up, albeit very briefly, at the end (it's described as a vulture).

 

[beta-ray]

I second that D&D request!

 

[beta-ray]

Enough with the Dracula and Frankenstein remakes. I want a Creature From The Black Lagoon remake.

Wasn't this already done with Slithis ?

I JOKE!