Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
"You gotta be ****ing kiddin"
- Thread starter Devil's Refugee
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You all need to remember that remakes are something Hollywood has been doing from the start...it is not, unfortunately, a modern phenomenon. 
...Though the movies Hollywood chooses to remake are often mystifying...the Poseidon Adventure? What?
It's laziness. Easier to recycle an idea than create a new one.
...Though the movies Hollywood chooses to remake are often mystifying...the Poseidon Adventure? What?
It's laziness. Easier to recycle an idea than create a new one.
The thing is, we say remake, but in actual fact, they are re-imaginings. I know that is a word used a lot now, but it is actually more fitting. Just because for example they made a new Ocean's Eleven (I'm my opinion even better than the original), it does not mean that all copies of the original have been destroyed. It does not mean that we can no longer ever watch the original film and if you want to watch Ocean's Eleven, you must watch the contemporary one. It's not like we've taped over a wedding video, and the footage is lost forever, is it?! The film really wasn't remade. It was imagined differently and recorded slightly differently. If you want to go back and see the original, it's still there, no one has taken it away.
A film shouldn't be instantly classified as bad because it is a remake. Batman Begins was a remake and look at the praise that received.
A film shouldn't be instantly classified as bad because it is a remake. Batman Begins was a remake and look at the praise that received.
I can't speak for others, but the problem I have with most remakes is that the throw out what make the original great to begin with. The original War of the World, the storyline was what I thought made it great. The newer version's story had me thinking, "WTF? Most of the time."
There are a few remakes that I enjoyed more than the original: Ocean's Eleven and Battlestar Galactica are two examples.
PS. Sometimes a good retelling can do wonders for a story. Ever read the original Brothers Grimm's versions of a fairy tale (ie Cinderella) and the newer versions? Without a doubt, I'd rather have my daughter reading the new version.
Well, in the case of War of the Worlds, neither film are anything like the book they are based on so, it doesn't really matter. Then you have things like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory which was far superior to the original film, in which they even changed the title. Apparently Roald Dahl was so disgusted with the first film he refused to let them make the Great Glass Elevator.
So, I guess it really goes both ways. However, just because something is a remake, doesn't make it instantly bad. Give it a chance first.
Enjoyed reading the posts in this thread about different remakes. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder it seems.
Sad to hear that they are going to do the "The Thing" and "The Karate Kid" again.
Enjoyed the "Italian Job" -- IMHO better than the original.
Some of the others mentioned, I agree the original is better.
Tired of Batman remakes. Liked the original the best.
Having said all that, apparently, enough folks want to see the remakes, so Hollywood is obliging.
Sad to hear that they are going to do the "The Thing" and "The Karate Kid" again.
Enjoyed the "Italian Job" -- IMHO better than the original.
Some of the others mentioned, I agree the original is better.
Tired of Batman remakes. Liked the original the best.
Having said all that, apparently, enough folks want to see the remakes, so Hollywood is obliging.
Remakes predate the invention of film. A substantial chunk of Shakespeare's plays could be considered remakes.You all need to remember that remakes are something Hollywood has been doing from the start...it is not, unfortunately, a modern phenomenon.
...Though the movies Hollywood chooses to remake are often mystifying...the Poseidon Adventure? What?
It's laziness. Easier to recycle an idea than create a new one.
Yes, and it behoves Hollywood to stir-up said "want".
One I liked was Forbidden Planet, based on The Tempest.
Beware of creatures from the Id.
We are running out of new ideas. As of last count, there are only 394 left. They must be used oh so wisely.
Hollywood has less than 1/3 of those ideas allocated so we are in for lots of do-overs.
We are running out of new ideas. As of last count, there are only 394 left. They must be used oh so wisely.
We can make at least 7 more Police Academy films. There are already 7 of them, but with 394 ideas left, we need to make very good use out of that single idea. Maybe nobody will notice.
Then we need to get Jackie Chan to play a cop from Hong Kong again, and give him a white or black American side-kick. He can act like he has never seen a big city before despite coming from Hong Kong, while the black or white sidekick teases him and his culture through the entire film, which ultimately serves to make a fool of himself and stereotypes Americans as people who are completely ignorant of other cultures. Actually, instead of a white or black guy, lets make him latino. It's fresher.
We are running out of new ideas. As of last count, there are only 394 left. They must be used oh so wisely.
I'll be happy as long as one of those 394 ideas is allotted to me for use in my doctoral dissertation (crosses fingers).
We should go full-on cynical and use an Asian-American actor. Then, according to popular wisdom, he can mock Asian culture mercilessly and it will be OK. We'll manage to insult both Americans and Asians at the same time, and people will pay $12.50 a head for it!
Thank God I'm not alone in this
And now Ghostbusters is on the cards as well I hear ?!
I read via Ain't it Cool that The Thing is actually going to be a 'prequel' set in the same context and arctic setting and focuses on McCready's brother ?????
WTF ?
Any bets the focus will be on SFX rather than storytelling.
Preoccupation with dredging up classics, giving them to directors of coke commercials with a cast of Z-10 list actors has to stop !!
And now Ghostbusters is on the cards as well I hear ?!
I read via Ain't it Cool that The Thing is actually going to be a 'prequel' set in the same context and arctic setting and focuses on McCready's brother ?????
WTF ?
Any bets the focus will be on SFX rather than storytelling.
Preoccupation with dredging up classics, giving them to directors of coke commercials with a cast of Z-10 list actors has to stop !!
Thank God I'm not alone in this
And now Ghostbusters is on the cards as well I hear ?!
I read via Ain't it Cool that The Thing is actually going to be a 'prequel' set in the same context and arctic setting and focuses on McCready's brother ?????
WTF ?
Any bets the focus will be on SFX rather than storytelling.
Preoccupation with dredging up classics, giving them to directors of coke commercials with a cast of Z-10 list actors has to stop !!
It's a shame we've reached the age where CGI is now viewed as a bad thing in films, so much hard work goes into all the effects, its a shame hollywood over did it to buggery, which takes more away from the film because CGI has yet to get to the advanced stage of photorealism, so the audience becomes aware it's a film, leaving them with no sense of realism, and subsequently, not able to get into thew storyline.
(We so didn't cover cinema realism in a recent lecture
)
It's a shame we've reached the age where CGI is now viewed as a bad thing in films, so much hard work goes into all the effects, its a shame hollywood over did it to buggery, which takes more away from the film because CGI has yet to get to the advanced stage of photorealism, so the audience becomes aware it's a film, leaving them with no sense of realism, and subsequently, not able to get into thew storyline.
(We so didn't cover cinema realism in a recent lecture
It's just most directors studios don't use it in a subtle manner. Christopher Nolan uses CG extremely well, to where you can almost overlook that it's there.
It's funny, I think the original Star Wars trilogy's effects are so much better/cooler than the new one's. The only exception being the light sabers look better now.
Wasn't the Karate Kid just remade recently and called "Never back Down"?
Also, to clarify - the poster who mentioned Hancock and the Omega Man - did you mean Hancock or the other will smith movie "I am Legend"?
As for the remake of "The Thing", they better do a damn good job, as that movie set a milestone for FX creativity alone...
Also, to clarify - the poster who mentioned Hancock and the Omega Man - did you mean Hancock or the other will smith movie "I am Legend"?
As for the remake of "The Thing", they better do a damn good job, as that movie set a milestone for FX creativity alone...
Which one? The original (The Thing from Another World) from 1951, or John Carpenter's remake from 1982?
I guess I'm showing my age. I was referring to the 1982 version (though it could possibly hold true for both).
No I agree, the older films made better use of the special effects at the time, where as now it's just all CGI glitz and glamor, it's horrible.
I haven't seen the original, but I view the 1982 version as having some of the most realistic special effects to date. Obviously there's a few that are as good and better (can't think of any off the top of my head at the moment), but it's still incredibly realistic, not only for the time, but even now it's still got good moments where it can really freak you out.
How about instead of CGI all the time, we go the other direction with technology and do, oh I dont know, REAL things?
Like, animatronic heads, robots, people, whatever. The Jurassic Park Trex from the 90s still works on people today...almost 20yrs later and its not even close to the norm CGI is.
I am far more interested in seeing something real on screen, it always looks better. Seemless is a trick. Shooting a real object, aint. Miniatures and matte paintings come to mind.
Like, animatronic heads, robots, people, whatever. The Jurassic Park Trex from the 90s still works on people today...almost 20yrs later and its not even close to the norm CGI is.
I am far more interested in seeing something real on screen, it always looks better. Seemless is a trick. Shooting a real object, aint. Miniatures and matte paintings come to mind.
That much is certain. All about $.Yes, and it behoves Hollywood to stir-up said "want".
You are definitely not alone.Thank God I'm not alone in this
Agree. Too many movies get CG happy. It overpowers the story.
Interesting that you mention this.
When watching for nostalgic sake, I watch in this order:
4 - Original
5 - Original
6 - Original
1
2
3
When watching for the story, I watch:
1
2
3
4 - Updated
5 - Updated
6 - Updated
IMHO, both ways are good, but provide a much different feeling.
In this case, I much prefer John Carpenter's version and love the ending. The special effects seem real unlike many CG effects today. The dogs, the head, all good. The blood test scene is awesome.
Even after all these years, it still gets one to think about the possibilities.
This is all part of the same cycle that started about 9 or 10 years ago in television and film.
There's no such thing as originality left any longer, so writers just keep remaking the same old films or TV series - or at best, taking existing stories from other media (like Spider-Man or Twilight) and turning them into films...
There's no such thing as originality left any longer, so writers just keep remaking the same old films or TV series - or at best, taking existing stories from other media (like Spider-Man or Twilight) and turning them into films...
They assume that because something is popular in one medium, there's a built in audience already for a transition to film. With the comic book movie boom, we've seen they are on to something. Doesn't make most of these movies any good, but people(me) still go see them.
Same thing goes for remakes. It was a hit once - I'm sure it will be again! I don't think they care that our love for these movies is most of the time pure nostalgia.
