Topic: Movies that should NOT be redone?

[seamas]

Seamas, what you describe as the attitude "among people who take things like movies and art a bit more seriously" is, in my experience, a very common attitude, perhaps not among teeenagers, but certainly among college-educated people in their 20 and 30s.  Of course we all like to think of our own attitudes as a bit more informed than average, but when memes like "they do too many remakes" or "remakes are never as good as the original" permeate culture so far that they are punch-lines on sitcoms, I think it's safe to say that they represent the prevailing popular attitude.

OK

I disagree.

I'd say the the prevailing popular culture could give a rat's ass about originality.

I suppose I understood your saying "permeates popular culture" to mean it was the dominant thinking.
From the look of what really sells out there, it looks pretty far from the truth from my perspective. Whether something is original or not doesn't seem to bother most people.

[superdave]

It's like covering a great song.  There's no point unless you want to bring something new to the table. 

[DeanMorrison]

Wizard of Oz certainly needs no remake. Especially if that remake were to be another Burton-Depp bastardization.

The only films where remakes are a good idea are modernizations of period pieces with classic stories, or films whose technical acheivements are noticably dated to the point of extreme cheese.

[Desert Fox]

The only films where remakes are a good idea are modernizations of period pieces with classic stories, or films whose technical acheivements are noticably dated to the point of extreme cheese.

I would like the special effects of "The Last Starfighter" redone similar to the old Trek but not a total remake

[Ah.hell]

I agree with KH.  It doesn't matter if a movie is a remake, adaption or even OMG and original screenplay, it matters if its a good movie. 

@Azink,

They were doing remakes before you were born let alone back when you were young and then you include adaptions and a pretty clear parody of an existing franchise in your list of originals?

Anyone remember the great performance by Ricardo Cortez as Sam Spade in the original Maltese Falcon?  Some bastard remade it 10 years later.

Its a shame Sergio Leone made A fist full of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More, those movies sucked.

Some remakes are good and some are even better than the originals and since the beginning of films, filmmakers have been remaking and adapting all sorts of material, I would bet a dollar that the majority of Movies have been either adaptions, remakes or uncredited theft of previous work. 

[Neon Genesis]

Wizard of Oz certainly needs no remake. Especially if that remake were to be another Burton-Depp bastardization.

I disagree completely.  As much as I love the Judy Garland film, The Wizard of Oz completely destroyed the original novel by Baum which was a much darker story and they turned Dorothy into a damsel in distress woe is me "heroine" when in the novel Dorothy was actually very clever and resourceful and saved her friends more often than they saved her. 

[seamas]

I agree with KH.  It doesn't matter if a movie is a remake, adaption or even OMG and original screenplay, it matters if its a good movie. 

@Azink,

They were doing remakes before you were born let alone back when you were young and then you include adaptions and a pretty clear parody of an existing franchise in your list of originals?

Anyone remember the great performance by Ricardo Cortez as Sam Spade in the original Maltese Falcon?  Some bastard remade it 10 years later.

Its a shame Sergio Leone made A fist full of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More, those movies sucked.

Some remakes are good and some are even better than the originals and since the beginning of films, filmmakers have been remaking and adapting all sorts of material, I would bet a dollar that the majority of Movies have been either adaptions, remakes or uncredited theft of previous work.

I think there should be a distinction between "adaptation" of certain source and a "remake".

When I think "remake, I am thinking just that--a verbatim (or close) recreation of a previous movie.

If say someone were top make a movie about Moses, I don't think it'd be correct to call it a "remake" of the Ten Commandments, unless the filmmakers were to use the actual script.

[Neon Genesis]

Can anyone think of a remake that was an improvement from an original? I suppose the Lord of the Rings *might* count, though previous attempts were never as fully tried, and it's really based on the same source, as opposed to an original script.

This might be blasphemous, but I thought Steven Speilberg's remake of War of the Worlds was actually better than the original cheesy 1950s movie.

[seamas]

Can anyone think of a remake that was an improvement from an original? I suppose the Lord of the Rings *might* count, though previous attempts were never as fully tried, and it's really based on the same source, as opposed to an original script.

This might be blasphemous, but I thought Steven Speilberg's remake of War of the Worlds was actually better than the original cheesy 1950s movie.

Well, Speilberg is something of a talent (though Tom Cruise sucks), but I just don't think of that as being a remake of a movie so much as an adaptation of the same (well known) literary work.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I think there should be a distinction between "adaptation" of certain source and a "remake".

When I think "remake, I am thinking just that--a verbatim (or close) recreation of a previous movie.

Well then you're talking about something that hardly ever happens, and is certainly not consistent with the way most people use the term "remake" these days.

In any case, Ah hell's Maltese Falcon and Spaghetti Western examples are great films that are "remakes" even by your definition!

[Neon Genesis]

I don't have a problem with remakes in themselves if they're done well.  My only problem is that it seems like nowadays movie reviews seem to be more of a competition between the remake and the original film by pointing out everything they got "wrong"  rather than analyzing the remake based on its own merits.  But right now it seems like the latest trend in Hollywood is making sequels to 90s and 80s movie franchises rather than doing full scale reboots.  One thing I will say that shouldn't be remade is Discworld.  I thought the BBC mini-series adaptations were good enough and there's no way the British style of humor would translate well into an American remake.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

One thing I will say that shouldn't be remade is Discworld.  I thought the BBC mini-series adaptations were good enough...

Yeah... because when a literary source inspires a film that is "good enough", there is no point in trying to make it better. 

...and there's no way the British style of humor would translate well into an American remake.

...and since Americans are the only ones capable of remaking BBC mini-serieses... oh wait... 

[Neon Genesis]

Yeah... because when a literary source inspires a film that is "good enough", there is no point in trying to make it better. 

Have you ever heard the phrase, "if it isn't broke, don't try to fix it?"  The only "problem" I have with the BBC adaptations of Discworld is that they're a bit low budget with the special effects but I'd rather have a low budget adaptation that stayed close to the source material than a heavily Americanized and inaccurate adaptation with flashy CGI graphics.  I don't see Discworld translating well for mainstream American audiences without them having to add in lowest common demonstrator fart jokes or replacing the fantasy parody gags with references to American pop culture or something. 

[Eternally Learning]

I agree with KH.  It doesn't matter if a movie is a remake, adaption or even OMG and original screenplay, it matters if its a good movie.

Well the title of the thread is asking which ones shouldn't be remade which implies it's ok that some are.  For myself, the problem is not with the concept of a remake or whatever, it's with the quantity of them nowadays and what implications that number has on how Hollywood views original works.  I'd rather Hollywood be more focused on taking risks on new concepts and ideas, but remakes are a safer bet like reality TV is; you have a proven concept going into it and consumers seem unable to steer away from them whereas original works may completely tank in theaters.

I think another reason for the popular dislike of remakes is that it triggers a defensive reflex in fans of the original.  It feels like an attack on a cherished memory.  Sometimes those feelings are vindicated (ala Psycho) and sometimes they are proven wrong (ala Battlestar).  That being said, it doesn't change that I'd prefer they leave some things alone like Robocop, or Indiana Jones, or MacGyver as I consider it much less likely to be done well.  Meanwhile, I might have said the same about Total Recall, but so far the trailers look like a really fresh take on the core concept of the original.

[seamas]

I think there should be a distinction between "adaptation" of certain source and a "remake".

When I think "remake, I am thinking just that--a verbatim (or close) recreation of a previous movie.

Well then you're talking about something that hardly ever happens,

Oh, it happens--it's just usually full of fail! (The Bad New Bears I mentioned is a typical example)

and is certainly not consistent with the way most people use the term "remake" these days.

Don't think either one of us need to qualify how"most people"  use the term,  now or in the past.

In any case, Ah hell's Maltese Falcon and Spaghetti Western examples are great films that are "remakes" even by your definition!

Maltese Falcon was a very popular novel first, film second.

I don't think John Huston spent much time studying the earlier adaptation, other than to compare the script --at least initially--mostly so to keep it clean for censors.

The spaghetti Westerns are interesting -and divergent takes on several stories. Those types of adaptations with a novel take on the earlier films and stories--actually a blend of several pieces of source material, are hard to peg as being remakes.