It's not a remake...it's a re-imagining...

[psycheoutsteve]

Besides Batman Begins and the Dark Knight, which I'm excited to see, I'm getting sick and tired of Hollywood producers and filmmakers giving the excuse, "but we're not remaking it, we're re-imagining the franchise." Very few filmmakers actually have something legitimate to say and to work into an old franchise like Christopher Nolan did, I seriously doubt everyone in Hollywood is so sincere with these re-makings or whatever you want to call them. Maybe filmmakers finally started listening to all the complaints about the remakes coming out over the last five years because now they've found a seemingly guilt free excuse. Films like Robocop, Pirahna, Friday the 13th are all slated to be reinvented, and IMO butchered...Leave them be Hollywood!!! The Latest example that's pissing me off is the Incredible Hulk...I mean, why is it necessary to reinvent that franchise when the last movie came out such a short time ago and wasn't that bad? They seriously have something more to say with that movie with action director Louis Leterrier at the helm? Call me cynical, but I doubt it will be as developed as the last film, it's all about more hulk smashing...and when it comes to reinventions it's all about more...more action, more special effects, and more money. I realize that I'm going to draw a line between some people here, but I'm all for originality and not another rehash of a film, especially when the film is done right in the first place...

[RustyRazor]

Hollywood has no balls, my friend.
Tony Montana said that the only thing he has in this world is his balls and his word.
Rehashing, redoing, remaking, and destroying really enjoyable movies from the past few years is being considered "acceptable" because of "new ways of looking at a classic tale".

Pardon me.
How many friggin' screenwriters out there, established and just starting out in the business have fresh, new ideas that can be greenlit and tossed up on the screen?

Nah! Let's just remake "The Day The Earth Stood Still".
We'll put Keanu Reeves as the main character and have the scary robot voiced by Jack Black.
People will LOVE it!



"But Rusty, execs are going with proven formulas because the millions of dollars that go into these movies can't be wasted on a new, untried idea!"

Execs are going with copping out by remaking good movies because they believe we'll watch whatever they crap out of their "silver screen" ass as long as it has:

Popular star(s) in it
A soundtrack with today's hottest artists
Or if it's a horror movie, that same "killer jumps out when it's silent" bit that every fucking "horror" movie uses nowadays.

No balls, my friends.

SPOILERS******



True, Tony Montana got shot in the back for his troubles, but the same thing is happening to creativity and originality in the entertainment industry.
Right in the back.

Don't believe me?
Why DID they remake "Prom Night"?
Director had a fresh new idea on how to kill kids at a prom?
Seriously?

[X-Nightcrawler]

I'm sure you would lack balls too if you were gambling 50+ million dollars.

It's a huge investment, of course they need to make sure it pays back.

[DarthWade]

I love how our society today is so filled with doublespeak....re-imagining is just a phrase they are using now instead of remake, because someone in Hollywood did research and realized that people don't usually like remakes. Well, duh.

A while back in Canada, a tv network started calling repeats "favorite episodes".

You gotta love doublespeak.:rolleyes:

[bigred760]

If it's got the letters "re-" in front of it, it usually doesn't mean unique or creative. It's happening (A LOT) because it seems to be a dependable money-making formula. Sad . . . but true.

[starcat]

my favorite is how there are no used cars anymore... now they are all certified pre-owned...cause that makes it sound so much better...

[john_rambo]

my favorite is how there are no used cars anymore... now they are all certified pre-owned...cause that makes it sound so much better...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JdpsEvDE5Z8

the 1:50 mark

[shoe1985]

There is a difference between re-imaging and remake. Re-imagining is taking a movie and using the characters, but the movie is different, like Batman Begins. Is the first Batman and Begins the same movie? No, Begins could be a prequel to it, but is a start over.

Remakes are taking a movie and changing a few things, more like updating it. Examples would be Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Halloween. They change things a little, maybe add things, but they are the same movies. Halloween added more to the story, but it is still a remake.

The new Friday the 13th is supposed to be a re-imaging. I haven't see it or read the script, so I can't say if it is a remake or the other.

[The Postmaster General]

"Blah. I fucking hate remakes, reimagining, TV show adaptions, and all that shit... Well, I mean except the stuff I like. That's cool."

Very interesting...

[psycheoutsteve]

"Blah. I fucking hate remakes, reimagining, TV show adaptions, and all that shit... Well, I mean except the stuff I like. That's cool."

Very interesting...

I don't know if that's a stab at me and my original post, but if it was I'll just clarify somethings...I only support Nolan's reinvention of the batman franchise because it was almost dead and buried with batman and robin and also the prior films never dug that far into the essence and psychology of the character, they were mostly theatrical. I don't think Hollywood has announced another movie in need of a re-imagining yet, they've all seemed unnecessary since then.

In all honesty, what the hell could they do with Robocop anyways?

[bigred760]

In all honesty, what the hell could they do with Robocop anyways?

Lose the stop-motion for starters.

[psycheoutsteve]

Lose the stop-motion for starters.

but...whaa? I mean, that's part of what makes the film so enjoyable and cheesy, the 80's feel. If they redid it and scrapped the stop motion i think they lose some of the essence to the movie. Maybe not, but that's just me and I don't want to see that classic get reinvented by anyone.

[The Postmaster General]

The thing for me is that a bad movie is a bad movie. Remakes have always happened in Hollywood. Always. I like a lot of remakes, and adaptions. Hell, I even enjoyed Planet of the Apes.

But then there are totally original movies that are total shit. There's like a 3 page thread floating around in here about Southland Tales and what a piece of shit it is, but that was neither a remake, or anything. There's more Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake fans than there are Southland Tales fans.

I get that you don't want to see something like RoboCop get remade. I'm scared it'll suck too. I was terrified and finally glad that Revenge of the Nerds fell through. But who knows? They might still be fun, or even good movies. There's a point to be had in that you can say that these remakes might ruin the original for people who haven't seen the original, but you know what I say? Who cares? If someone hears from so many people that the 60s Rosemary's Baby is one of the greatest horrors of all time, and then refuse to see it because the upcoming remake is shit... those aren't even real movie fans.

[Antonio141]

I think a filmmaker would have to possess an actual imagination to label their ripoff a "reimagining"!!!

PSYCHO, HALLOWEEN, THE AMITYVILLE HORROR, THE OMEN (the latter two which I actually liked!)...what's next? TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD with Tom Cruise as Atticus Finch (hey, he was arrogant enough to play LeStat!), THE GODFATHER with Brad Pitt as Michael Corleone? WTF? Remakes should be banned unless the original was awful!

[psycheoutsteve]

The thing for me is that a bad movie is a bad movie. Remakes have always happened in Hollywood. Always. I like a lot of remakes, and adaptions. Hell, I even enjoyed Planet of the Apes.

But then there are totally original movies that are total shit. There's like a 3 page thread floating around in here about Southland Tales and what a piece of shit it is, but that was neither a remake, or anything. There's more Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake fans than there are Southland Tales fans.

I get that you don't want to see something like RoboCop get remade. I'm scared it'll suck too. I was terrified and finally glad that Revenge of the Nerds fell through. But who knows? They might still be fun, or even good movies. There's a point to be had in that you can say that these remakes might ruin the original for people who haven't seen the original, but you know what I say? Who cares? If someone hears from so many people that the 60s Rosemary's Baby is one of the greatest horrors of all time, and then refuse to see it because the upcoming remake is shit... those aren't even real movie fans.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but what about the good original movies that come out every once in awhile. I'll cite Pan's Labyrinth and The Fountain as my examples of original films. Those filmmakers didn't dig up older films and remake them, nor did they stand around waiting for other original movies to break ground for them. Hollywood needs to put more faith in some up and coming directors and they need to trust some of the ideas from the already established ones! There have always been remakes, but wouldn't you agree that the number of them coming out these days is ridiculous? Where's the heart and originality? It's fading fast my friend.

I do think that these remakes and re-imaginings have a negative impact on the original sometimes...There's just something different about knowing that an original film is standing alone, untouched, and not having money grubbing assholes try to make a penny off it with a re-imagining or remake...no matter how much money or quality they infuse into it. If it was great to begin with, don't revisit it...either expand the contents with a sequel or prequel. If it's a prequel, I don't believe filmmakers should just take liberties with the content, disregard the happenings in the original, and label the final product as a, "prequel re-imagining," which seems to be an idea that Hollywood is going to milk for all it's worth. The same thing could happen with sequels.

I think sometimes the problem is that there are directors who think they could improve upon an idea and want to disregard whatever was placed before them, and again, the only example I approve of thus far is Batman Begins. There are others out there that are making a mess of things and ruining the essence of the previous films. I just want to see an age of minimal remakes and re-imaginings and more originality in films, that is all.

[psycheoutsteve]

I think a filmmaker would have to possess an actual imagination to label their ripoff a "reimagining"!!!

PSYCHO, HALLOWEEN, THE AMITYVILLE HORROR, THE OMEN (the latter two which I actually liked!)...what's next? TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD with Tom Cruise as Atticus Finch (hey, he was arrogant enough to play LeStat!), THE GODFATHER with Brad Pitt as Michael Corleone? WTF? Remakes should be banned unless the original was awful!

I agree fully with your statement. The golden rules: 1. You must possess imagination, creativity, and an important voice with something deeper to say than the original, while making a re-imagining.
2. If the original wasn't awful or underdeveloped, don't remake it!


And this is sort of off topic, but it bugs me that Warner Brothers drops an original horror film like Trick R' Treat and crappy Asian horror remakes like Shutter and Pulse come out every year.

[FatSakHead]

I'm sure you would lack balls too if you were gambling 50+ million dollars.

It's a huge investment, of course they need to make sure it pays back.

What a way to reiterate something he already addressed in his post.

[X-Nightcrawler]

What a way to reiterate something he already addressed in his post.

Addressed. Not countered.

It wasn't in argument or defiance, silly. It's to point out that he already explained his own issue with them. So I'm a little confused.

[RustyRazor]

I'm sure you would lack balls too if you were gambling 50+ million dollars.

It's a huge investment, of course they need to make sure it pays back.



That's their business.
They thought "Gigli" was a can't miss.
Jennifer Lopez when she was "hot", her boyfriend Ben Affleck, Christopher friggin' Walken AND Al Pacino?!
How could it miss?
It's the business of "will the public like it or hate it".
They've been doing it for years.
They could take a chance with up and coming writers' ideas and not neccessarily have to spend that kind of price tag to make the movies.
They gambled on "Leonard Pt.6", my friend.
It's what they do.

[X-Nightcrawler]

That's their business.
They thought "Gigli" was a can't miss.
Jennifer Lopez when she was "hot", her boyfriend Ben Affleck, Christopher friggin' Walken AND Al Pacino?!
How could it miss?
It's the business of "will the public like it or hate it".
They've been doing it for years.
They could take a chance with up and coming writers' ideas and not neccessarily have to spend that kind of price tag to make the movies.
They gambled on "Leonard Pt.6", my friend.
It's what they do.It is. Things don't always go the way of the logical, I suppose.

But hey, if it helps. The more shitty movies Hollywood makes that do make money, the more money they'll be willing to spend financing the indie subsidiary studios that make the good movies you've seen more of lately.

[NathanRomano]

I saw a dvd that was "Previously Enjoyed"

[X-Nightcrawler]

I saw a dvd that was "Previously Enjoyed"Best one.

[RustyRazor]

It is. Things don't always go the way of the logical, I suppose.

But hey, if it helps. The more shitty movies Hollywood makes that do make money, the more money they'll be willing to spend financing the indie subsidiary studios that make the good movies you've seen more of lately.

Good point.
And with a rumored re-remake of "The Poseidon Adventure" coming out, the future might be bright enough to wear shades.

I hear they've shortened the title down.

Just "Po"



*Rusty's just spreadin' rumors.
Or is he?

[cuddleworthy]

Most of the stuff that comes out of Hollywood nowadays is shit. Pretty much like the music industry as well. Indie for me has been where it's at lately. What also drives me nuts is how people have little knowledge of history. You can't talk to many people about film noir, jean renoir, C'était un rendez-vous, anything with foreign with subtitles, etc.

I shouldn't be surprised though.

[The Postmaster General]

I understand the point you are trying to make, but what about the good original movies that come out every once in awhile. I'll cite Pan's Labyrinth and The Fountain as my examples of original films. Those filmmakers didn't dig up older films and remake them, nor did they stand around waiting for other original movies to break ground for them. Hollywood needs to put more faith in some up and coming directors and they need to trust some of the ideas from the already established ones! There have always been remakes, but wouldn't you agree that the number of them coming out these days is ridiculous? Where's the heart and originality? It's fading fast my friend.

I do think that these remakes and re-imaginings have a negative impact on the original sometimes...There's just something different about knowing that an original film is standing alone, untouched, and not having money grubbing assholes try to make a penny off it with a re-imagining or remake...no matter how much money or quality they infuse into it. If it was great to begin with, don't revisit it...either expand the contents with a sequel or prequel. If it's a prequel, I don't believe filmmakers should just take liberties with the content, disregard the happenings in the original, and label the final product as a, "prequel re-imagining," which seems to be an idea that Hollywood is going to milk for all it's worth. The same thing could happen with sequels.

I think sometimes the problem is that there are directors who think they could improve upon an idea and want to disregard whatever was placed before them, and again, the only example I approve of thus far is Batman Begins. There are others out there that are making a mess of things and ruining the essence of the previous films. I just want to see an age of minimal remakes and re-imaginings and more originality in films, that is all.


No, you don't see the point I'm trying to make.

You say, "What about the good original movies that come out every once in awhile."

Well, not even 3 words into your initial rant, you bring up Batman Begins...

There's just a lot of shitty movies, period.

So where you say there's good original movies that come out every once in a while, you also say there's good reimaginings that come out every once in a while.

When they start remaking shit like The Hottie and the Nottie, or Meet the Spartans, then I'll support your complaint.

[psycheoutsteve]

No, you don't see the point I'm trying to make.

You say, "What about the good original movies that come out every once in awhile."

Well, not even 3 words into your initial rant, you bring up Batman Begins...

There's just a lot of shitty movies, period.

So where you say there's good original movies that come out every once in a while, you also say there's good reimaginings that come out every once in a while.

When they start remaking shit like The Hottie and the Nottie, or Meet the Spartans, then I'll support your complaint.

I'll clarify this further...I think the essence of what I'm trying to say is that Batman Begins is the ONLY good re-imagining that has come out thus far, so I would have to disagree with you that there are other good re-imaginings that are being released, (my opinion of course). I mean, unless you really fix something that's in dire need of repair, (the Batman franchise) then you aren't really making a good contribution to cinema as far as re-imaginings go. Why would films like Hulk, Robocop, and Friday the 13th be redone? Here's my speculation on each one...

Hulk didn't have enough action for most people and Marvel knows there's at least a buck or two to squeeze out from the franchise before it's dead. Look, I understand any of you who support that film being redone and believe that the filmmakers are interested in making a quality film, but I'm unconvinced as of now. I'm open to the possibility that I could proven wrong, but right now I'm unconvinced.

Robocop...I don't even know why anyone would touch this classic except for maybe to improve on the special effects with an overload of CGI and draw an action-buff crowd. Since the first installment covered so much ground, satirically, philosophically, and psychologically, I don't think there's really anything to expand on. There's no reason for this to be redone except for money.

Friday the 13th? Well, if the remakes of Texas Chainsaw and Prom Night actually made money from the young adult crowd, why not milk this franchise for all it's worth eh?

This is what irks me, there's no real reason other than money, to remake these films. Ya, I know the studios have to make money, but how about spending it on some more original ideas that could make just as much money?

Every studio would rather play it safe now a days, and as far as that philosophy applies to making movies it's lame. Where's the risk taking, the excitement, the originality?

IMO you're partially right Bubba, there are good and bad originals that come out every year, but can you actually show me a re-imagining, having been released or in the works, that is necessary besides Batman Begins? If I see 2 or 3 necessary ones that are concerned with story and characters more than action in the next couple of years, I'll change my attitude towards re-imaginings.

And if studios want to make money off of mindless action pictures they don't need to fall back on the plot of an original movie to do it. It doesn't take much effort to develop a plot for those kinds of films and to rely on a pre-existing one for that purpose is lazy.

[Grn_Str_Movies]

i dont have a big problem on the remakes of movies as people here do


let the people of today enjoy the classics of yesterday in there form of way.

if you dont want to watch it, dont watch it.
your not being forced to watch it

and it wont ruin the original.
because the original will always be the original and the best

[psycheoutsteve]

i dont have a big problem on the remakes of movies as people here do


let the people of today enjoy the classics of yesterday in there form of way.

if you dont want to watch it, dont watch it.
your not being forced to watch it

and it wont ruin the original.
because the original will always be the original and the best


Original movies that fail or suck at least had the fact that they were trying something new going for them. If some talentless hack butchers a re-imagining of a much better movie, with a good pre-existing story I might add, it's twice as disgraceful. Then, not only did those filmmakers fail, it just proves that they had nothing to add to the original and the re-imagining was unnecessary. I've seen original movies that didn't communicate their message or meaning as well as they could've, but the conception of a unique idea was present.

I'll say this again, (directed towards filmmakers) if you can't add anything constructive or with depth to the original, don't fucking touch it!

[bigred760]

but...whaa? I mean, that's part of what makes the film so enjoyable and cheesy, the 80's feel. If they redid it and scrapped the stop motion i think they lose some of the essence to the movie. Maybe not, but that's just me and I don't want to see that classic get reinvented by anyone.

Those are the parts that take me out of the movie . . . makes it dated. I still enjoy the hell out of the movie, but I like it for its character and story development, not forgetting it's a kickass action movie. One of my favorite lines from it is, "I can feel them . . . but I can't remember them." That sums up the Robocop character for me, that he's not entirely machine, but he's no longer human.

If the "remake/reimagining" can keep that part of the original in it, then I doubt I would have much of a problem with it.

[The Postmaster General]

...but can you actually show me a re-imagining, having been released or in the works, that is necessary besides Batman Begins?

I don't know what you mean by 'necessary' but here's some movies that had been made before, but are still widely considered to be good films...

The Departed
Heat
Cape Fear
The Man Who Knew Too Much
Ben Hur
The Ten Commandments
The Magnificent Seven
A Fistful of Dollars
3:10 to Yuma
1984
Scarface
The Chronicles of Narnia
The Fly
The Thing
I Am Legend
King Kong
Sweeny Todd

That's just naming them off - I know Heat and maybe Chronicles could be considered pushing it, but still -- they had been filmed before. I'm sure for each of those, you could probably name 5 that suck, but I bet for every movie in the IMDb Top 250, there's probably 100 that suck.

[psycheoutsteve]

I don't know what you mean by 'necessary' but here's some movies that had been made before, but are still widely considered to be good films...

The Departed
Heat
Cape Fear
The Man Who Knew Too Much
Ben Hur
The Ten Commandments
The Magnificent Seven
A Fistful of Dollars
3:10 to Yuma
1984
Scarface
The Chronicles of Narnia
The Fly
The Thing
I Am Legend
King Kong
Sweeny Todd

That's just naming them off - I know Heat and maybe Chronicles could be considered pushing it, but still -- they had been filmed before. I'm sure for each of those, you could probably name 5 that suck, but I bet for every movie in the IMDb Top 250, there's probably 100 that suck.

Based on some of the movies in the list, I'll change my opinion somewhat, with a few exceptions...

I think many of those films in the list you mentioned weren't redone until 30 or 40 years later. The technology used in the originals was out dated and the some of the possibilities in the story hadn't been utilized for one reason or another, (The Thing, The Fly). There was even a lot of things that needed to be expanded upon in King Kong, which Jackson proved. Sometimes it is technology or the customs of the time that keep a modern audience from relating to the material. Invasion of the Body Snatchers is another example of this. The chief reason I support many of those flicks though is that it was necessary to re-imagine them because there was so much material to expand upon. So, I yield to one of your points being that good re-imaginings do come out every once in awhile because obviously you proved that.

However...our present times are what I'm more concerned with.

It seems more often that Hollywood is concerned with remaking movies for the wrong reasons. The prime reason now a days tends to be cash, and even though we are granted a good re-imagining every once in awhile, the bad tend to out weigh the good in that category. Now that a trend has been started again with Batman Begins, Hollywood is pumping out re-imaginings at a rate like never before, and it's getting crazy. They've turned to the 80's for re-imaginings now, I decade I covet and believe doesn't need to be re-invented at this time. Most of those films, (Robocop, Alien and Aliens, Predator, to name a few) can stand on their own two feet just fine. So when does this stop getting crazy? I don't know...maybe if the market is so saturated one day that all there is in the theater are re-imaginings and graphic novel/comic adaptations, maybe, just maybe they'll stop...

It's just one of those things that pisses me off, and a bad rehash pisses me off twice as much as a bad original.

[Zebra 3]

Enough already with the cheesy remakes, er, reimaged fromage homage crapola.

[An0rd]

nvm

[AaronisMe]

I'm upset that they're trying to remake the Birds. It's like if they tried to make a shot-by-shot remake of Nosferatu, it just doesn't work. That would be trying to recapture magic in a hat. Just a horrid idea.

And remaking a foreign film to English when it's less than half a decade old is absurd. It really bugs me.

All I am asking is to strive for more originality. It's tough because all the major studios are run by corporations that make something else entirely.

[JohnLocke2342]

I'm upset that they're trying to remake the Birds.


holy shit.. i didnt even know that. Wow, can't wait to see a ton of CGI birds. Fuck that

[LordSimen]

I don't know what you mean by 'necessary' but here's some movies that had been made before, but are still widely considered to be good films...

The Departed
Heat
Cape Fear
The Man Who Knew Too Much
Ben Hur
The Ten Commandments
The Magnificent Seven
A Fistful of Dollars
3:10 to Yuma
1984
Scarface
The Chronicles of Narnia
The Fly
The Thing
I Am Legend
King Kong
Sweeny Todd

That's just naming them off - I know Heat and maybe Chronicles could be considered pushing it, but still -- they had been filmed before. I'm sure for each of those, you could probably name 5 that suck, but I bet for every movie in the IMDb Top 250, there's probably 100 that suck.

BubbaStrangelove win's the thread.

[plantpage55]

I second what LS said about what Bubba said!

I'll take a remake ANY day, as long as we get a good movie out of it!

[psycheoutsteve]

Since I've kind of reformed my opinion, I think it just depends on the movie being remade. I can't really disagree with the films on Bubba's list because most of them did bring a new concept or direction to a familiar story. However, it still sucks when inane filmmakers butcher one of your favorite films. I guess it depends on the crew making the film as well then.

[LordSimen]

Since I've kind of reformed my opinion, I think it just depends on the movie being remade. I can't really disagree with the films on Bubba's list because most of them did bring a new concept or direction to a familiar story. However, it still sucks when inane filmmakers butcher one of your favorite films. I guess it depends on the crew making the film as well then.

How do they butcher your favorite films? They didn't replace the original film on the shelf claiming to be the original. They just added a new film right beside it on the shelf. A remake and an original film are two different films, they aren't one and the same and therefore what one does has no effect on the other. If they butchered their own story in the remake and failed to make a good movie, that has NO bearing on the original film what so ever and it's quality.

[mel1ssa]

're-make' vs 're-imagining' -- it's all semantics. i also don't think batman begins should be brought into this discussion. i don't think it's an example of a re-make. kind of like the bond films. i don't think anyone would call them re-makes. they are franchises, and they exist because the public likes them (for good or bad).

the number of re-makes we've had in the last 5 years shows that something is not working. the popularity of the re-make is irrelevant; the question is -- is there any nose for creativity left in hollywood?

[psycheoutsteve]

How do they butcher your favorite films? They didn't replace the original film on the shelf claiming to be the original. They just added a new film right beside it on the shelf. A remake and an original film are two different films, they aren't one and the same and therefore what one does has no effect on the other. If they butchered their own story in the remake and failed to make a good movie, that has NO bearing on the original film what so ever and it's quality.

I was speaking more about the reputation of the original film. It was brought up before that many remakes are of films that a prior generation saw and many people of a new generation have not seen. If the remake or re-imagining sucks, how inclined do you think the new generation will be to check out the original? Now, I know the first response some may have is, "fuck em, they don't know good movies anyways!" but I think if some of these people gave the original a chance they could potentially be blown away. Afterwards they might take my stance and grow irritated that better talent wasn't called upon to make a better film and do the original justice.

This is the part that's subject to opinion, I say the bad taste of a remake or rehash could effect the original in some ways, and you and others take the opposite stance. That's fine, I have no problem with that. I even conceded that Bubba's perspective on this debate was mostly correct, there are indeed good remakes and re-imaginings as well as bad ones. In my ranting and anger I may have lost sight of this major point, but this is a rant forum and I was just sick of the growing number of shitty remakes and re-imaginings coming out over the past couple of years. If you continue this debate further, I suggest we switch the focus of discussion to the filmmakers behind the remakes and re-imaginings because that's what really determines if the films will be good or bad.

I think there's some weight to the complaints that people have against too many remakes falling into incapable hands.

And also, in response to another comment....I never said Batman Begins was a remake. It's an example of a great re-imagining.

[LordSimen]

I was speaking more about the reputation of the original film. It was brought up before that many remakes are of films that a prior generation saw and many people of a new generation have not seen. If the remake or re-imagining sucks, how inclined do you think the new generation will be to check out the original? Now, I know the first response some may have is, "fuck em, they don't know good movies anyways!" but I think if some of these people gave the original a chance they could potentially be blown away. Afterwards they might take my stance and grow irritated that better talent wasn't called upon to make a better film and do the original justice.

I hardly see anyone hating on the original movie because the remake was bad. In fact, when remakes come out, it tends to inspire more people to SEE the original, regardless of the quality of the remake. Why? Because it's just human nature. We're curious. It's like how the book sales on a book increases when a movie adapting it is released.

[mel1ssa]

And also, in response to another comment....I never said Batman Begins was a remake. It's an example of a great re-imagining.

not to belabor this minor point, but how so? how is this not like casino royale, or something more formally labeled as 'prequel/sequel'?

[LordSimen]

not to belabor this minor point, but how so? how is this not like casino royale, or something more formally labeled as 'prequel/sequel'?

Because it's not a prequel or a sequel. Batman Begins has no connection whatsoever to the first three Batman films.

[bigred760]

not to belabor this minor point, but how so? how is this not like casino royale, or something more formally labeled as 'prequel/sequel'?

What is it a prequel or sequel to? Tim Burton's Batman? No. It's linked more to the comics than any of the previous movies. It stands on its own and is not connected to any of the previous movies (and a damn fine job it does too :D).

[mel1ssa]

Because it's not a prequel or a sequel. Batman Begins has no connection whatsoever to the first three Batman films.

then how can it be 're-imagined' if it was never imagined to begin with? in other words, what is it 're-imagining'? (i am sick of that silly word).

[bigred760]

then how can it be 're-imagined' if it was never imagined to begin with? in other words, what is it 're-imagining'? (i am sick of that silly word).

The character of Batman. It's "re-imagining" the comic book.

[mel1ssa]

The character of Batman. It's "re-imagining" the comic book.

k, guys. got it, just wasn't my first interpretation when i saw the word in this context.

batman begins was awesome -- definitely agree.

boys, and your damn superhero movies... :D

[bigred760]

I just consider the source of the "remake." Batman Begins did not use any prior movie as a basis for what was in it.

I technically don't consider Charlie and the Chocolate Factory a remake because the Gene Wilder movie wasn't used as the source of the Burton flick . . . the book was.

[psycheoutsteve]

I hardly see anyone hating on the original movie because the remake was bad. In fact, when remakes come out, it tends to inspire more people to SEE the original, regardless of the quality of the remake. Why? Because it's just human nature. We're curious. It's like how the book sales on a book increases when a movie adapting it is released.

True, I suppose a mixed response could occur. Some would check out the original source material, others wouldn't, (depending on the quality of the film and their interest in it).

[LordSimen]

True, I suppose a mixed response could occur. Some would check out the original source material, others wouldn't, (depending on the quality of the film and their interest in it).

True. But I think the ones who wouldn't see the original after the remake is released would probably be the same ones who wouldn't see the original after the remake is released. Depending upon how old a movie is and how often you could catch it on television.

[Larry121283]

I'm upset that they're trying to remake the Birds. It's like if they tried to make a shot-by-shot remake of Nosferatu, it just doesn't work. That would be trying to recapture magic in a hat. Just a horrid idea.

And remaking a foreign film to English when it's less than half a decade old is absurd. It really bugs me.

All I am asking is to strive for more originality. It's tough because all the major studios are run by corporations that make something else entirely.

They already "re-imagined" or gave a different slant on the Nosferatu story...Shadow of the Vampire, and it was pretty damn good.

Not quite the "re-imagining" or "re-make" we are talking about here, but they were able to capture some magic in working with a a previous great, benchmark film.

While I'm not much a fan of many of these horror re-makes...remaking a film is like covering a song, you just try and put your twist on it and making it doesn't take away from the original at all.

[Jig Saw 123]

There is a very major difference between a remake and a re-imaging. Remakes are things like The Wicker Man, King Kong, Charlie and The Chocolate Factory, something that basically is a rehashing of the original just with some new added material. A re-imaging is something like Batman Begins, Casino Royale, The Incredible Hulk, these try to bring a new look on an already dead or well established franchise or series. When I hear of a re-imagining I get more excited to hear that instead of a remake. For explain the upcoming Friday the 13th film it's not a remake, since in the first film it was Ms. Voorhess and in this film it will be Jason once again. Re-imaginings are better in my opinion because they try to add something new to a already popular icon.

[bigred760]

There is a very major difference between a remake and a re-imaging. Remakes are things like The Wicker Man, King Kong, Charlie and The Chocolate Factory, something that basically is a rehashing of the original just with some new added material.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory didn't "rehash" the original; it re-adapted the book. If it was a remake, it would still have been a musical - only the oompa-loompas sang in the Burton version.

[Brendan M.]

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory didn't "rehash" the original; it re-adapted the book. If it was a remake, it would still have been a musical - only the oompa-loompas sang in the Burton version.

Didn't they also deliver a mean rap?