[Film] Films Long Overdue a Remake

[Gwylan]

I think people are lazy in their dismissal of remakes. There are many classics that are themselves remakes, either regular remakes or 'reimaginings' (such as samurai films reworked as westerns).

I think reimaginings are somewhat different - The Seven Samurai and The Magnificent Seven are totally different films (even if they are the same story).

The reason that remakes are so easily dismissed is that there are very few examples of a remake being better than the original (and in most cases, they're considerably worse). There are some decent remakes: True Grit and The Thomas Crown Affair (that's one where the remake may actually be better) but the vast majority are dire: Alfie, The Italian Job, Get Carter etc

There was even talk, a few years ago, of remaking Casablanca - thankfully, that idea died a death.

 

[blue-shifted]

I think people are lazy in their dismissal of remakes. There are many classics that are themselves remakes, either regular remakes or 'reimaginings' (such as samurai films reworked as westerns).

For me, it comes down to vision. If there is a reason you're remaking it that goes beyond 'well, we've got the rights to it, lets make some money with something recognisable than risk losing money on something new' or 'I liked the original, I want to remake it and put myself in my favourite role'. Does technology/society let you do things you couldn't originally? Is there a narrative thread that was particularly resonant but didn't get a lot of attention? Is there something about the film's message that has a deeper meaning in a modern context? and so on.

Having said that, stay the hell away from Clue. That is movie perfection.

But the trouble is that 9/10 of them are cynical ways of raking in risk free money. I understand why people are reacting the way they are

 

[jakarta]

I think reimaginings are somewhat different - The Seven Samurai and The Magnificent Seven are totally different films (even if they are the same story).

The reason that remakes are so easily dismissed is that there are very few examples of a remake being better than the original (and in most cases, they're considerably worse). There are some decent remakes: True Grit and The Thomas Crown Affair (that's one where the remake may actually be better) but the vast majority are dire: Alfie, The Italian Job, Get Carter etc

There was even talk, a few years ago, of remaking Casablanca - thankfully, that idea died a death.

Locally of course, the remake of Brighton Rock was rubbish.

 

[portlock seagull]

But the trouble is that 9/10 of them are cynical ways of raking in risk free money. I understand why people are reacting the way they are

The answer is stop making films costing £100million, where A list actor is a third of that budget. The film industry is one greedy pigs trough like football a lot of the time. Obscene wages demanded (and paid) for ‘stars‘ we’d soon forget if we promoted others who would ironically replace them but demand less because they’d learn the lesson or suffer the same fate.

 

[Acker79]

I think reimaginings are somewhat different - The Seven Samurai and The Magnificent Seven are totally different films (even if they are the same story).

The reason that remakes are so easily dismissed is that there are very few examples of a remake being better than the original (and in most cases, they're considerably worse). There are some decent remakes: True Grit and The Thomas Crown Affair (that's one where the remake may actually be better) but the vast majority are dire: Alfie, The Italian Job, Get Carter etc

There was even talk, a few years ago, of remaking Casablanca - thankfully, that idea died a death.

Casablanca has been remade 'A Night at Casablanca' just a few years after the original.

Many films considered classics are themselves remakes - The Thing, The Man who Knew Too Much, Scarface, Apocalypse Now (arguable), His Girl Friday, Wizard of Oz and Heat spring to mind.

Many remakes are decent films and either dismissed because they're remakes, or dismissed because they're 'not as good' - something that is subjective and in a number of cases dependent on which you saw first. Everyone I know who saw the american remake of 'The Ring' preferred it to the high profile Japanese version (itself a remake I believe). Everyone I know who saw 'Ringu' first seemed to prefer it to the American remake.

When I say lazy, I mean people see the tag 'remake' and don't often bother to look beyond that. They don't look at the film on it's own terms and criticise it based on the film itself, but on the fact it is a remake.

 

[zefarelly]

The Italian Job tells you everything you need to know about film remakes.

 

[portlock seagull]

I tried watching the Papillon remake but it just felt so hollow I couldn’t get past the hour mark. The original 1972 version of Sleuth is one of my favourite films of all time but Michael Caine stomped on its memory with the remake. Consequently, I don’t go near remakes if I’ve any affection for the original film.

So can anybody tell me if the remake of The Taking of Pelham 123 was rubbish or not?

I can probably answer that question. Liked the original, have tried to watch remake several times but never finished it...

 

[pasty]

Locally of course, the remake of Brighton Rock was rubbish.

Especially as most of it was filmed in Eastbourne

 

[jakarta]

, Apocalypse Now (arguable).

Really? Unless there is a previous version of Heart of Darkness I don't know about?

 

[Fromthesouth]

Jaws

 

[blue-shifted]

The answer is stop making films costing £100million, where A list actor is a third of that budget. The film industry is one greedy pigs trough like football a lot of the time. Obscene wages demanded (and paid) for ‘stars‘ we’d soon forget if we promoted others who would ironically replace them but demand less because they’d learn the lesson or suffer the same fate.

Don't really agree. I'd say the studios have carefully researched consumer behaviour. Rightly or wrongly, the popcorn eating public go to see films, because they know the actors in it or they know the name of the film from their youth. Until consumer behaviour changes, casting won't either. You get the same phenomenon with novels.

 

[Gwylan]

Casablanca has been remade 'A Night at Casablanca' just a few years after the original.

Many films considered classics are themselves remakes - The Thing, The Man who Knew Too Much, Scarface, Apocalypse Now (arguable), His Girl Friday, Wizard of Oz and Heat spring to mind.

But a Night In a Casablance bears little relation to Casablanca - it's just set in the same place.
Yes, His Girl Friday is another example of a remake being better than the original - although the plot was drastically altered. TMWKTM was not remade - it has the same title but a completely different story.

If you're talking Hitchcock, the 39 Steps has been remade twice - a poor version starring Kenneth More and a pretty decent one with Robert Powell. But that's not a patch on the original.

 

[Acker79]

Really? Unless there is a previous version of Heart of Darkness I don't know about?

I said it was arguable: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0675574/

 

[jakarta]

I said it was arguable: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0675574/

Having read Heart of Darkness there is virtually no connection between it and Apocalypse Now aside from the fact there is a river and someone called Kirtz up the river who has become a rather bad man...

Certainly don't remember the Napalm scene in Heart of Darkness!

 

[Coach_Carter_92]

I would like to see remakes of films that didn't live up to expectations the first time round, especially if they were based on a book or real world events

 

[portlock seagull]

Don't really agree. I'd say the studios have carefully researched consumer behaviour. Rightly or wrongly, the popcorn eating public go to see films, because they know the actors in it or they know the name of the film from their youth. Until consumer behaviour changes, casting won't either. You get the same phenomenon with novels.

Less and less so I’d say. Public, even the dim ones, have cottoned on to franchising and ‘stars’ in multiple Turkeys. Cinemas increasingly not profit making, it’s the home entertainment sales and merchandise where money is made. Sadly, it’s lapped up at home by billions and we will probably end up with F&F 74 or Marvel 469 only, and these will be deemed successful simply because nothing else to watch! I can’t be the only one to be going back in time for great films or finding independent gems or hugh number of brilliant foreign films (If you’re ok with subtitles as I am) because I’m bored to death with what we get served in mainstream Hollywood studio owned cinemas. Popcorn flicks, as you say.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Braveheart. This time with a Scot in the lead role, a bridge during the battle of Stirling Bridge and no ludicrous storylines about impregnating princesses who were, in reality, only 8 years old at the time.

 

[GT49er]

Remakes have a tendency to be crap though, look at the mess they made of The Italian Job and Quadrophenia. But to even suggest they remake The Great Escape should be treasonable, and Where Eagles Dare!!!!!!! go and sit on the naughty step and think about that for a moment.
Classic opening Ariel shots over the Alps with one of the great movie themes, and dialogue at times worthy of Shakespeare!

"Broadsword calling Danny Boy, Broadsword calling Danny Boy"

"SIT DOWN COLONEL"!

Outrageous, at times farcical but the combination of Richard Burton, Clint Eastwood, Ingrid Pitt, and the guy who was Paddingtons TV voice! This a classic that must remain unsullied, We don't want realism brought into it, we want Germans who can't shoot straight, machine guns with unlimited ammunition, dodgy German accents, helicopters that the Germans didn't posses, cars that explode for no reason when pushed over a cliff and wobbly back projections. That's what we want!

They've remade Quadrophenia?

Personally I think re-makes are cr*p - unnecessary, not as good as the original, and only made for the money. For me, if we've got to have re-makes, I'd go for the Northern Rail version of Brief Encounter.

 

[BBassic]

I think remakes can be great if done right. A recent example for me is the Apes trilogy. Those three films are excellent and different enough from the original films (and Tim Burton's godawful effort) that they comfortably fall into the good remake category.

 

[Palacefinder General]

So can anybody tell me if the remake of The Taking of Pelham 123 was rubbish or not?

Coincidentally I watched it last night, which possibly inspired this thread, and it was utterly dire, even with a cast of Gandolfini, Washington, John Turturro and Travolta (who hammed it up too much). I haven’t seen the original.

One of the problems with the Papillon remake (apparently basically everything) was that I believe they just went for a scene by scene remake.