Remakes aren't that bad!

[Backstabba]

...The "!" and the "mad face" might make me seem angry, but...im just.....confused.

Whats so bad about remakes? Everytime a remake is mentioned, everyone says the same thing "Hollywood is stupid! Hollywood can't come up with any new ideas! Remakes suck!". But not ALL remakes are bad. For example, The hills have eyes remake looks great, Dawn of the dead was a decent remake, King Kong (2005) was a great remake, and everyone still says Remakes are horrible.

One of my favorite movies, "The Fly" is a remake, I know theres alot of love for it on these forums, but still everyone says remakes are complete shit and whenever one is announced, it turns into "hollywood is unoriginal".

I actually like remakes, I mean, sometimes they will fuck with the idea (the hitcher remake supposedly has the main character be a WOMAN now), but I think when remakes are true to the original, and show some promise, I think they are alright...

Maybe Im just not understanding some of you, I just am alittle tired of hearing so much Remake bashing (I know this is a rant forum, but..meh). Im not saying your opinions are wrong, just that remakes are barley given a chance.

[jaw2929]

Totally agree... And have found that a lotta times the remakes are BETTER than the originals (IE. Amityville Horror, Dawn of the Dead and TCM 2003)... So yea, I'm with ya bro... King Kong was fuckin' fantastic! :D

[poopontheshoes7]

I agree with you. I do think all the remakes are tiring, but I like the majority of them I've seen:King Kong, TCM, Dawn of the Dead, Oceans 11, The Grudge (technically it is a remake), Mr and Mrs Smith, and Im sure theres more I like but cant remember.

And of course theres another that blow: The Fog (from what I'v heard), Amityville Horror, among others.

Im sick of all the remake bitching to. I think its funny how people automatically say its gonna be pure and utter shit just because its a remake. If the original can be good, why cant the remake? Remakes have bad films and good films, like any other movie out there.
Plus i think its funny how some bitch its either to close to the original and/or not close enough to the original. WTF? Contradicting much?

And I've seen people totally rip certain remakes apart for changing the tiniest little thing. I think some people want to hate a remake so they sit there and compare every little detail to the original.

Not trying to be a dick but thats how I see it.

[ParileseMonster]

Not all remakes are shit.
There was a time when they were made well and with care and not so much for the money. They were spaced out as well because it was not a popular trend and people were not so burned out.
Oh but not today. Remakes of today are sad and far too many of them are being pushed out. Most of them are shit and some seem as if a heartless bastard robot made them. At least to me.
DOTD remake was shit, so was Psycho and so was Amityville in my opinion and it is a shared opinion by quite alot of folks.
If you like them fine, but I hate them and that should be fine as well.
When A Stranger Calls looks like shit also.
It is time for more original thought, I have had enough of careless sloppy copies. I am sure I am not alone.

[Lazy Boy]

Remakes of bad TV shows are shit. Starsky and Hutch, The Dukes of Hazzard...I could probably name a few, so I would say that a lot of remakes give a negative impression for a vast whole, many of which (War of the Worlds, King Kong) are quite good.

[TheDeadWalk]

They get dogged on because there have been more bad than good remakes made in the last five years.

[ChemicalRomance]

Dawn of the Dead, and especially King Kong are my shining examples of when remakes can be a beautiful thing.

[Cronos]

recently theres been some remakes of old american films that i havent minded/even liked such as Oceans 11. what i have a problem with is the constant bloody remaking of foreign films that arent even 10 years old, Pulse, The Grudge, Ringu, Oldboy etc, its not needed and all the ones that have currently come out have paled in comparisson to the originals

i also have a problem with remaking films that dont need it, TCM, Dawn Of The Dead, The Hitcher, Near Dark...these films are classics, dont need to be remade and the first 2 were shite compared to the original films....there have been some that i didnt mind were remade though such as The Amityville Horror because the original film wasnt perfect and could be improved on greatly...they are the sorts of films that should be remade

[Deckard]

Sure there are some remakes that havent been to bad.

John Carpenter's THE THING was worthy remake of the Howard Hawkes original.

Hitchock remade THE 39 STEPS and THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH. Though some would argure they arent as good as his originals they are still fine films in there own right.

BEN HUR is another good example of a worthy remake.

In the last 10 years
WILLARD with Crispin Glover was possdibly better than the original.
GLADIATOR was an ok remake of Anthony Mann's THE RISE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE
As a massive fan of the original Steven Soderburgh's SOLARIS exceeded my expectations

Even with that in mind I still would have been happier to have just had the originals. All that vreative energy and bucks would have been much better spent on fresh ideas and interesting contemporary concepts.

Unfortuanetly 98% of remakes in the last 15 years are uneccesary and downright insulting to the source material. Dumbed down, generic entertainment that neither challenges nor inspires.

The problem with remakes is they are always remaking great, classic, loved films that are perfect first time round and have earned a sentimental place in our heart.

The list is endless of originals that I adore being pissed on (The Italian Job, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, House of Wax etc)

They should remake things that sucked originally or were horribly miscast, fuckin movie stars and studios forcing that forced great ideas that were sanatized and marketed for mass consumption.
Pussying out of more controversial subject matter in favor of making a great film.

A ton of films made in the last 10 years could definetly do with remakes.
Infact if I had a gun to my head, ordered to do a remake my suggestions would all be films made in the last 15 years. A lot of great ideas that suddenly morphed into pieces of shit once a big star signed on...now theres something to rant about.

Damn right remakes suck, but we live in an era where box office is all that matters. Plus adult movies have to be toned down so that 12 year olds can understand them. removing any sense of reality based fiction or charecters carved from real life........i give up

[bigred760]

I don't mind remakes; they're a lot of good ones out there that include Ben-Hur, King Kong (2005), and Ocean's 11. If a remake looks like crap - I just won't watch it. That was the case with Dukes of Hazzard, Psycho - didn't see the appeal of them, so I didn't watch it.

My argument is if the movie isn't going to add anything when it's remade, why make it? Ben-Hur added story and action - not to mention sound (the original was a silent film), King Kong added the love story and better technology to portray the title character, and Ocean's 11 basically changed the story and the heist details (for the better in my opinion).

That's why I stay away from most horror movie remakes (and sequels for the most part) - not that I stay close to them to begin with, but from what I've seen, they don't bring anything new to story, character, or suspense.

[RustyRazor]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
They get dogged on because there have been more bad than good remakes made in the last five years.




THAT'S RIGHT! Vanna, tell him what he's won!



To each his own? Yes.
Different strokes? Yes.
I'd just like to see some up and coming screenwriters get a shot at putting their ideas on the big screen as opposed to

THE FACTS OF LIFE movie starring Kathy Bates as Mrs. Garrett

or

PERFECT STRANGERS THE MOVIE starring George Clooney as Larry & Chris Kattan as Balki Bartokomous!

[chinton]

Did anybody ever see the 70s version of Invasion of The Body Snatchers. Now thats one Hell of a remake

[AngelDust06]

I say if they can makea remake better or close to the original then I say go for it. If not then stay away from it. Its that simple. Keep them coming if you can give me a calibur film such as King Kong

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by ParileseMonster
It is time for more original thought, I have had enough of careless sloppy copies. I am sure I am not alone. [/B]

To the people who bitch and moan about the lack of originality, and then line up for movies like King Kong, Narnia, Spiderman 2, and so on, you should know that Hollywood pays much less attention to your empty words than they do your wallet full of money.

[AngelDust06]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
To the people who bitch and moan about the lack of originality, and then line up for movies like King Kong, Narnia, Spiderman 2, and so on, you should know that Hollywood pays much less attention to your empty words than they do your wallet full of money.

True True .... the only thing not true here is my wallet being full. :D

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
Remakes of bad TV shows are shit. Starsky and Hutch, The Dukes of Hazzard...


Yeah, but those are just bad remakes of bad shows. It's like trying to make diamonds out of turds using piss.

I know there's a lot of detractors, but The Brady Bunch movie and Charlies Angels are based off bad shows, and they were able to inject some life into the shows.

There is something horribly wrong when a show is remade based on kitch appeal, and it is made tongue-in-cheek. It's like an paradoxal event that cancels out goodness. Shows like the ones you mentioned, they are all popular because of the kitche appeal -- that is impossible to capture on film.

This is what I think is so cool about the Miami Vice movie -- That show was really great, but because of the dating of the costumes and music, it also has kitch appeal. Now they are remaking it as a movie, but sticking true to the source material -- and not the camp value. The end result is a pretty straight forward movie, and a lot of mild fans are going nuts trying to figure it out.

[Lost in Space]

mhmm inded i like this whole thing
although one thing i would like to adress is a simple fact. Steriotypes normaly arise because of a common thing
so the steriotype that remakes suck was created because many remakes in the last five year have been quite atrocious

bUTT....... dawn of the dead and king kong were excellent
no doubt

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by Lost in Space
[so the steriotype that remakes suck was created because many remakes in the last five year have been quite atrocious

Most remakes suck because most MOVIES suck. That's just the way it is.

[ParileseMonster]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
To the people who bitch and moan about the lack of originality, and then line up for movies like King Kong, Narnia, Spiderman 2, and so on, you should know that Hollywood pays much less attention to your empty words than they do your wallet full of money.

I do not watch those shitty movies. I do not pay for them or line up for them. My words may be empty to you or to them but they are not empty to me.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by ParileseMonster
I do not watch those shitty movies. I do not pay for them or line up for them. My words may be empty to you or to them but they are not empty to me.

You've never seen Spiderman? The Godfather? Superman? Schindler's List? Your entire viewing experience is made up ONLY of films that were not adapted from any previous material?

And second, how do you know those movies are shitty if you've never seen them?

[Psychocandy]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
They get dogged on because there have been more bad than good remakes made in the last five years.

Yeah...but there are more bad films made than good films regardless of whether they are remakes or not. Perhaps you should look at the bigger picture.

[bourahioro]

I like alot of the remakes, not all of them, but certain ones are far superior to the originals, I loved the Texas Chainsaw Massacare remake, I loved the Amityville Horror remake, I have the originals and the remakes to these movies, and the remakes are FAR better than the originals, the only remake that I love, in which the original was on par with was Dawn of the Dead.

King Kong looks great, and the Hills have eyes looks promising.

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
Remakes of bad TV shows are shit. Starsky and Hutch, The Dukes of Hazzard...I could probably name a few

Uh, those aren't remakes.

[Tony_Montana]

True, not all remakes are bad. Hell one of my favourite movies, Scarface, is a remake.

However the problem seems to be that they are not necessary and sometimes, at least in the younger generation, screw up the reputation of the original. I mean look at the Ring. It was an OK remake I guess, but it has nothing on the creepiness of the original. But now when someone mentions the RIng, kids only think of the remake. Which is sad.

[The Heart Collector]

The original RING sucked balls in comparison to the remake.

[Psychocandy]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
The original RING sucked balls in comparison to the remake.

I didn't think so. I did enjoy the remake and thought it better in some ways. But it screwed the ending up and if ever a movie relied to a large extent on the effective deployment of some serious scares at the end the Ring is it. Still...each to their own.

Ringu - 4.5/5

The Ring - 4/5

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by Tony_Montana
However the problem seems to be that they are not necessary and sometimes, at least in the younger generation, screw up the reputation of the original.

No, the problem is that sometimes movies are bad, remakes included. People want to make a principle out of everything, but they never really hold up to even the slightest scrutiny. Some movies are good and some are bad. What's so wrong with just liking the good ones and not liking the bad ones instead of pretending like there's some principle involved?

There's no such thing as a "necessary" remake. None of them are "necessary", including Scarface. And I could argue that the remake of that film screws up the original as well. I personally think the original is a classic and that the remake is a cheesy melodrama. But I'm not going to say it has anything to do with it being a remake. It would be a cheesy melodrama regardless.

And this isn't a response just to you, Tony Montana. The same applies to the rest.

[Lazy Boy]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
Uh, those aren't remakes.

What are they? Reinterpretations?

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
What are they? Reinterpretations?

The Dukes of Hazzard and Starsky and Hutch are adaptations, not remakes. They are films created from material in a different form, same as a book or play.

[Lazy Boy]

My mistake. I just thought it was a newer version of a previously released format.

[ParileseMonster]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
You've never seen Spiderman? The Godfather? Superman? Schindler's List? Your entire viewing experience is made up ONLY of films that were not adapted from any previous material?

And second, how do you know those movies are shitty if you've never seen them?

Because I know they are in my own special way.

[Psychocandy]

Originally posted by ParileseMonster
Because I know they are in my own special way.

Do you lick the posters?

[blk_flower]

remakeas aren't bad but none have ever captured audiences the way the orignals have, even king kong but that improved the whole king kong story visually and more grand.

[ParileseMonster]

Originally posted by Psychocandy
Do you lick the posters?

Nah, what do you have flavored in your country?
There are many ways in which to decide what films are good and what films are bad. I think everyone has their own system.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by RustyRazor
THAT'S RIGHT! Vanna, tell him what he's won!



To each his own? Yes.
Different strokes? Yes.
I'd just like to see some up and coming screenwriters get a shot at putting their ideas on the big screen as opposed to

THE FACTS OF LIFE movie starring Kathy Bates as Mrs. Garrett

or

PERFECT STRANGERS THE MOVIE starring George Clooney as Larry & Chris Kattan as Balki Bartokomous!

Kattan as Balki = fucking oscar

[Backstabba]

Another thing I'd like to add.

There are remakes of great movies coming out, Oldboy, Infernal Affairs, The wicker man, When a stranger calls, etc. Even though some of these have potential under the right circumstances, why do people say "leave it alone hollywood!"...They aren't doing anything to the original film, they aren't messing it up, if your against a remake of a film you liked, just don't see it. Pretend it never happened, but I don't think it can destroy the original by being a remake...Honestly folks!....

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by ParileseMonster
There are many ways in which to decide what films are good and what films are bad.[/B]

Actually watching them is a good place to start.

Throwing darts at movie posters would be about as effective at arbitrarily deciding that a bunch of movies you've never seen are shitty. Is that what you do? Do you use darts?

[robk]

I agree that remakes aren't exactly bad. The thing is that for every War of the Worlds that comes our way, we get a dozen House(s) of Wax

[CyclicNightmare]

http://joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74898

[Digifruitella]

Originally posted by Backstabba
...The "!" and the "mad face" might make me seem angry, but...im just.....confused.

Whats so bad about remakes? Everytime a remake is mentioned, everyone says the same thing "Hollywood is stupid! Hollywood can't come up with any new ideas! Remakes suck!". But not ALL remakes are bad. For example, The hills have eyes remake looks great, Dawn of the dead was a decent remake, King Kong (2005) was a great remake, and everyone still says Remakes are horrible.

One of my favorite movies, "The Fly" is a remake, I know theres alot of love for it on these forums, but still everyone says remakes are complete shit and whenever one is announced, it turns into "hollywood is unoriginal".

I actually like remakes, I mean, sometimes they will fuck with the idea (the hitcher remake supposedly has the main character be a WOMAN now), but I think when remakes are true to the original, and show some promise, I think they are alright...

Maybe Im just not understanding some of you, I just am alittle tired of hearing so much Remake bashing (I know this is a rant forum, but..meh). Im not saying your opinions are wrong, just that remakes are barley given a chance.

I'm with ya on this one bro.

I dig remakes too, and whenever I see some cheap thread about some folk complaining about a remake I just roll my eyes cuz I cant understand what everyone's bitching about. It seems that whenever there's a remake is announced people use the "unoriginality" as an excuse to bash it before they see it. Pretty childish if you ask me. Some remakes are greater than the original films, and some are utter shit. But dont use the unoriginality part to bitch about remakes. See the movie first then make your judgment.

[X-Nightcrawler]

Oh you see, there's nothing wrong with remakes, except the fact that they are remakes. This is the 'racist' topic on these boards, many of the schmoes even agree that the remakes aren't bad, what's bad is the 'escence' of remaking stuff, the prejudice if you may.

I know, I know . . .

[MisterTwister]

I like remakes, personally.

he Fly, The Thing, Night of the living dead and The Blob are the only remakes i dig more then the original.

I did enjoy Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Dawn of the Dead remakes. But i do prefer the originals.

I;m looking forward to Hills Have Eyes remake which looks great.

When a Stranger Calls remake looks lame. It does nothing for me and lead actress looks wooden and dull.

I'm not sure about The Omen remake. The teaser trailer did nothing for me but i won't judge intill i see a full trailer.

I didn't like the Psycho and Charlie and the Chocolate factory remakes.
I found them lifeless and dull.

Planet of the Apes remake was enjoyable at best.

Thats all i can remember seeing for now.

[Mr.HyDe807]

I enjoy some remakes {the thing, Dawn of the dead, night of the living dead, Charlie and the chocolate factory, King Kong}, but i do prefer the originals over some of them. Now though, everything is being a remake. I know i was the one that was saying "not hate the reamke of texas chainsaw masscre", and i enjoyed it too, although YES i prefer the orignal. I just get annoyed at the remakes that suck {amitville horror remake was pure utter shit compared to the original}. Lets jst keep the true classics sacred and not tarnish their great success

Oh and this is just me

I need to see the original hills have eyes, cause that remake looks fucking sweet!

[Backstabba]

AHHHH!

I was just on The Departed IMDB board, and I must post in here again.

The main point for the hate is "It's a remake of a classic!". Now, I thought Infernal Affairs was a good movie, don't get me wrong. It was a good movie. But they are hating it, SOLELY for the fact that it's a remake!

That's basically the only point they are giving for hating it. Because it's a remake.

Even though it has SO MUCH potential, with a great director, a great cast, a good budget, with everything a movie would need to be good, people automatically hate it, because it's a fucking remake. That's it, because it's a remake.

They say "Can the film already, and leave a classic alone." Ok, One, after investing months of work and millions of dollars into a film, do you REALLY think they are just going to can the movie? Honestly. It may just be them exaggerating how angry they are, but ok. And Two, how can it hurt the original? If anything, it'll give the original more publicity, and more people will see it. As long as it doesn't say "A remake of the foreign film Infernal Affairs" and then have Jack Nicholson shitting in a fishbowl, full of gummy bears, then I don't think it can do much harm to the reputation of the original.

....Ok.
All done.
Just had to get it off my chest.

[X-Nightcrawler]

Psh! Where have all these remake supporters been when I go on hair pulling matches about remakes being great!?

[Backstabba]

Originally posted by X-Nightcrawler
Psh! Where have all these remake supporters been when I go on hair pulling matches about remakes being great!?

Been here for a while, Mr. Crawler.

[MidnightAngel]

Let's put it this way; Hollywood is going on a mid-life crisis. They need to rejuvenate old movies into new remakes. Get it?

[X-Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by Backstabba
Been here for a while, Mr. Crawler. You better be next time I discuss this (which should be like . . . every day)! You're on my team now (and my team always wins!).

[Monotreme]

Originally posted by Backstabba
AHHHH!

I was just on The Departed IMDB board, and I must post in here again.

The main point for the hate is "It's a remake of a classic!". Now, I thought Infernal Affairs was a good movie, don't get me wrong. It was a good movie. But they are hating it, SOLELY for the fact that it's a remake!

That's basically the only point they are giving for hating it. Because it's a remake.

Even though it has SO MUCH potential, with a great director, a great cast, a good budget, with everything a movie would need to be good, people automatically hate it, because it's a fucking remake. That's it, because it's a remake.

They say "Can the film already, and leave a classic alone." Ok, One, after investing months of work and millions of dollars into a film, do you REALLY think they are just going to can the movie? Honestly. It may just be them exaggerating how angry they are, but ok. And Two, how can it hurt the original? If anything, it'll give the original more publicity, and more people will see it. As long as it doesn't say "A remake of the foreign film Infernal Affairs" and then have Jack Nicholson shitting in a fishbowl, full of gummy bears, then I don't think it can do much harm to the reputation of the original.

....Ok.
All done.
Just had to get it off my chest.
This has nothing to do with the fact that The Departed is a remake, and has everything to do with the fact that most of the people at IMDb are douchebags.

[Il_Duce]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
Remakes of bad TV shows are shit. Starsky and Hutch, The Dukes of Hazzard...I could probably name a few, so I would say that a lot of remakes give a negative impression for a vast whole, many of which (War of the Worlds, King Kong) are quite good.

I agree about the TV shows. However, good shows tend to make pretty good movies (e.g. X-Files).

[cthulhu]

OK! Some remakes are worth it and are pretty good. What pisses me off is when Hollywood decide they are going to slaughter perfectly good French or Japanese movies. Why should I spend my time trying to open peoples eyes to the wonders of foreign film when inferior clones are being processed due to lack of any original ideas.
I pray they don't give the same treatment to such great films as AUDITION, ZATOICHI, PERFECT BLUE, I would say dark water but they already screwed that one. Luckily I think there would be a problem with them redoing Battle Royale.

Any other thoughts???