CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › 8 rules for movie remakes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

8 rules for movie remakes

post #1 of 23
7/3/11 at 2:10am
Thread Starter 

 

 

now i don't mind a remake that is done well, good, fun, excellent, decent or enjoyable. Sometimes it works like Scarface, The Departed, King Kong, Let Me In, Ocean's 11, The Thomas Crown Affair, True Lies, Dawn of the Dead etc.

Other times it doesn't like Sabrina, Planet of the Apes, Psycho, Pink Panther, Point of No Return etc. Now i have no problem with a remake unless it follows by these rules.

 

1. stories in the public domain that have been redone into multiple movies: Stuff like Dracula, Frankenstein, 3 Musketeers, 

 

2. The original was terribly dated in pacing and style or setting: Examples include The Thomas Crown Affair and Ocean's 11, i've seen the originals and their remakes back to back and the remakes are more modern and better paced. The pacing in some movies from the late 60's and early 70's are sooo slow they put you in a coma.

 

3. The original wasn't terribly well known or beloved: let me start off by saying there is a special place in hell reserved for that person who tries to get a Casablanca remake produced for some movies are off limits, period. Films that are part of cinema's history should be left alone because they have stood the test of time and can still be enjoyed today like Casablanca, Gone with the Wind, The Godfather, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Maltese Falcon (Yes i know Bogart's movie was a remake but let's no re-redo that one again), It's a Wonderful Life, 12 Angry Men etc.

 

4. The remake can bring something new to the table while respecting the original: Films like The Thing, Cape Fear, Magnificent Seven, King Kong, True Grit etc. are examples of movies that brought something fresh to the original story whether in concept or execution.

 

5. Don't be afraid to remake your own movie: Filmmakers can remake their own movie if they want to and examples include Evil Dead 2, Man Who Knew too Much, Heat, etc. 

 

6. The original was cheesy or tongue in cheek as most people don't care if it was remade: Films like The Blob, Piranha 3D and Little Shop of Horrors are examples of fun movies remade into equally fun movies. Fright Night falls in this category as the original 

 

7. It's ok to remake a foreign movie sometimes: Stuff like Magnificent Seven, Let Me In, The Ring, Three men and a Baby, True Lies, Star Wars, The Toy, Fatal Attraction etc. all good examples.

 

8. It has to be 20 years old or older: If no one saw a great movie 8 years ago, leave it alone and give it 20.

 

 

Reply
post #2 of 23
7/3/11 at 3:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrusGrissom View Post

The pacing in some movies from the late 60's and early 70's are sooo slow they put you in a coma.


 

Speak for yourself. rolleyes.gif

Reply
post #3 of 23
7/3/11 at 10:08pm

So you're only allowed to remake a movie if your remake is good. Good advice.

Reply
post #4 of 23
7/3/11 at 10:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrusGrissom View Post

The pacing in some movies from the late 60's and early 70's are sooo slow they put you in a coma.

 



Move along folks. Nothing to see here.

 

Reply
post #5 of 23
7/4/11 at 6:40am

Remakes don't bother me anymore, as I don't watch them unless I hear good things. That's my policy on all movies, anyway, so why the stress?

 

Plays are performed over and over, often for the joy of seeing different actors in the role, so why should movies be any different?

 

The only thing to fear is the creative bankruptcy of Hollywood, but there's as much threat from summer Blockbusters like Transformers 3 (which I have not and will not see) as there is from a remake of Straw Dogs.

 

Vote with your wallet. Also, be more open-minded about pre-1970s movies. I've been making my way through AFI's Top 100 List recently (Twelve Angry Men up next), and those old classics are what wrote the language of cinema.

Reply
post #6 of 23
7/4/11 at 8:35am

Brosnan's Thomas Crown may have better..uh..pacing but it's dumb as a rock. Folding up valuable paintings into briefcases? Really?

 

Yeah, the original is exceedingly dated but that's become a larger part of it's charm, IMO.

Reply
post #7 of 23
7/4/11 at 9:45am

Evil Dead 2 is not a remake. The fist eight minute recap the first movie without using any of the original footage cause they couldn't use it. Then it's a sequel from the moment Ash is picked up by the force and goes flying through the woods. Why this continues to be an issue baffles me.

Reply
post #8 of 23
7/4/11 at 2:21pm

Because "an 8 minute recap of the first movie except it's newly shot footage and has been changed somewhat and it then turns into a sequel or a continuation of the alternate universe version of the first movie presented in the first 8 minutes" is a weird concept? EDII is a weird beast, which I love, but it's not surprising that people don't know how to categorize it even with the behind the scenes explanation.

Reply
post #9 of 23
7/4/11 at 2:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post

Remakes don't bother me anymore, as I don't watch them unless I hear good things. That's my policy on all movies, anyway, so why the stress?

 

Plays are performed over and over, often for the joy of seeing different actors in the role, so why should movies be any different?

 

The only thing to fear is the creative bankruptcy of Hollywood, but there's as much threat from summer Blockbusters like Transformers 3 (which I have not and will not see) as there is from a remake of Straw Dogs.

 

Vote with your wallet. Also, be more open-minded about pre-1970s movies. I've been making my way through AFI's Top 100 List recently (Twelve Angry Men up next), and those old classics are what wrote the language of cinema.


This is more or less my attitude. As a cinephile, yeah I guess it bothers me a bit that people are being fed little more that rebranded and repackaged material, but I can't go losing sleep over this nonsense. I just have the good sense to avoid it. And let me say, though it has its defenders, I now and will forever view Let Me In as a good, well-acted film that is concurrently a bunch of bullshit. As I said in another thread, it's ultimately only a "good film" because it's a xerox of a great one. Watch it if you have something against Swedes and subtlety. 
 

 

Reply
post #10 of 23
7/4/11 at 3:23pm

Which makes me curious. I wonder how Fincher's Dragon Tattoo remake will compare to the Swedish version.

Reply
post #11 of 23
7/4/11 at 3:34pm

Art Decade, sadly this (folding paintings into briefcase) isn't as far fetched as it may seem.  Many of the paintings we're familiar with now were originally much larger, detailed works but have been repeatedly cut off the the blocking when stolen. Otherwise I agree with your sumation of TC, dumb as a box o' rocks. Slow though it might have been, the original had two very compelling leads in Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway. Mr. Brosnan and Ms. Russo, for all their charm, are simply not compelling nor was the direction/acting up to selling the premise. I never cared about either character.

Reply
post #12 of 23
7/4/11 at 3:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SithPriest View Post

Art Decade, sadly this (folding paintings into briefcase) isn't as far fetched as it may seem.  Many of the paintings we're familiar with now were originally much larger, detailed works but have been repeatedly cut off the the blocking when stolen. Otherwise I agree with your sumation of TC, dumb as a box o' rocks. Slow though it might have been, the original had two very compelling leads in Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway. Mr. Brosnan and Ms. Russo, for all their charm, are simply not compelling nor was the direction/acting up to selling the premise. I never cared about either character.


That's interesting regarding the paintings. I'd assume that folding decades old oil paint on canvas would irreparably damage them.

 

Now, I REALLY LIKE Brosnan, Russo, & McTeirnan by themselves but IMO, the TCA remake's most glaring failure was it's labored & tuneless attempt at "jazzy-contemporary cool". The original is dripping in an extremely dated "60s cool" but it does so effortlessly.

Reply
post #13 of 23
7/4/11 at 5:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Benenson View Post

Because "an 8 minute recap of the first movie except it's newly shot footage and has been changed somewhat and it then turns into a sequel or a continuation of the alternate universe version of the first movie presented in the first 8 minutes" is a weird concept? EDII is a weird beast, which I love, but it's not surprising that people don't know how to categorize it even with the behind the scenes explanation.

It's called Evil Dead 2.Completely different things happen. It's not a remake.
 

 

Reply
post #14 of 23
7/4/11 at 10:31pm
Thread Starter 

 

 

The Magnificent Seven was as good as it's Japanese counterpart and the same for Fistful of Dollars

Reply
post #15 of 23
7/5/11 at 2:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrusGrissom View Post

 

 

The Magnificent Seven was as good as it's Japanese counterpart and the same for Fistful of Dollars


Couldn't disagree more. The Mag Seven has been a favorite of mine for years but I recently saw Seven Samurai for the first time & they're simply not in the same class. SS is a boiling pot of life, cinematic invention & it contains an epic, stark beauty that makes TM7 look like a hollow, cliched Disney flick. I still love it but TM7's greatness has everything to do with it's casting but beyond that, it's pretty much just an old, stock Hollywood western playing the greatest hits of another film's screenplay.

Reply
post #16 of 23
7/5/11 at 10:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shreds View Post



It's called Evil Dead 2.Completely different things happen. It's not a remake.
 

 


Ugh, I know what it's called and what happens in it, I'm not saying it's a remake. But it's also atypical for a sequel. Sort of plays like a hybrid of the two. Why can't it be its own unique thing? A sequel, yes, but an unusual one. That's one of the things that makes it fun.

 

 

Reply
post #17 of 23
7/5/11 at 7:06pm
Thread Starter 

 

 

Who agrees with me that remaking Casablanca or It's a Wonderful Life would be a sin against humanity?

Reply
post #18 of 23
7/5/11 at 7:26pm

A remake's got to do its own thing to be successful in my eyes. Take the premise and run with it. Put it in a different genre. Play on expectations. Change up the character dynamic to make a modern statement in this "hindsight" context. Something. I still haven't seen LET ME IN. And I can't really muster a reason (are the cgi cats any better?).

 

"Americanize" isn't a good enough reason IMO. That's what crappy audio-dubs are for.

 

THE THING, THE BLOB, and THE FLY all kick major ass for slightly different reasons and in different degrees. Learn from the great remakes.

 

To tell you the truth, despite the pretty imagery and different cast interpretations, I didn't think the Coens' TRUE GRIT was that different from the original... Yyeah I'm aware it's based on a book. Both were. The same book. With the same characters, plot, and smart dialogue.

Reply
post #19 of 23
7/6/11 at 4:15am

for me original is original ! that must not be tried to remake !

Reply
post #20 of 23
7/6/11 at 5:55am


No cats, but Abby (LET ME IN's version of Eli) has one or two scenes where her CGI double behaves like Spider-Man on crack. It's awful.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 View Post

A remake's got to do its own thing to be successful in my eyes. Take the premise and run with it. Put it in a different genre. Play on expectations. Change up the character dynamic to make a modern statement in this "hindsight" context. Something. I still haven't seen LET ME IN. And I can't really muster a reason (are the cgi cats any better?).

 

Reply
post #21 of 23
7/6/11 at 6:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrusGrissom View Post

 

 

Who agrees with me that remaking Casablanca or It's a Wonderful Life would be a sin against humanity?


BarbWire is a remake of Casablanca & clearly awesome.

 

Reply
post #22 of 23
7/6/11 at 8:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrusGrissom View Post

Who agrees with me that remaking Casablanca or It's a Wonderful Life would be a sin against humanity?


They sorta remade Casablanca in 1990

 

 

It..uh...it didn't work out.

Reply
post #23 of 23
7/6/11 at 7:48pm
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 View Post

A remake's got to do its own thing to be successful in my eyes. Take the premise and run with it. Put it in a different genre. Play on expectations. Change up the character dynamic to make a modern statement in this "hindsight" context. Something. I still haven't seen LET ME IN. And I can't really muster a reason (are the cgi cats any better?).

 

"Americanize" isn't a good enough reason IMO. That's what crappy audio-dubs are for.

 

THE THING, THE BLOB, and THE FLY all kick major ass for slightly different reasons and in different degrees. Learn from the great remakes.

 

To tell you the truth, despite the pretty imagery and different cast interpretations, I didn't think the Coens' TRUE GRIT was that different from the original... Yyeah I'm aware it's based on a book. Both were. The same book. With the same characters, plot, and smart dialogue.


 

The Thing The Fly and The Blob were awesome remakes, the originals were these hokey 50's b-movies that had great ideas but didn't have the time or technology to do them justice back in the 50's. So three excellent directors remade them and made them better then their counterparts. Carpenter grew up with the 1951 movie since he was a kid and loved the novel since he was in college, so he made a movie that honored and respected both sources that he loves.

 

Who agrees with me that it's ok to remake movies that weren't terribly well known, obscure, unpopular or unloved films? now a good example of a remake to a very lesser known film is The Crazies.

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › 8 rules for movie remakes