Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
I don't mind remakes if they can improve significantly on the original. So I'm ok with The Thing, Ocean's 11 and The Fly. Not sure about Willard, and I definitely didn't see any reason to remake Chainsaw Massacre.

I agree with you to a point because that's the dilemma, what is the deciding factor on the improvement? That's why IMO, it's all or nothing.

Massacre is a good example of this. I find the character development in the sequel leagues better than the original. If the original had the CD that the 2003 version had, it would have been a much better film.

I don't hate the 74 version, but I do find it dated and doesn't hold up as well when I first saw it. That doesn't mean it doesn't belong in its place as one of the best horror movies, because it does. Yet I also fully embrace the remake because it stands on its own as both a remake and a solid film. Plus the fact they brought back Daniel Pearl, the DP of the original, makes me like it even more.

Should there be movies that should be remade? No, probably not. But I'll take a Psycho to get a Dawn of the Dead. (Don't get me wrong, Dead, the original, is my favorite horror movie of all time, but I enjoyed the remake quite a bit, and was glad it was done.)

Quote:
And by the way, The Fly was a short story first, too. Published in Playboy, if memory serves me right. But that was a few years before I started to read Playboy... 

I believe you are correct, sir. If that's the case, It really shouldn't count it as a remake, then (kind of like The Thing).

On a side note (but related), I'm really looking forward to the Tron remake. With today's technology, if done proper, it can kick some tail.

Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
On a side note (but related), I'm really looking forward to the Tron remake. With today's technology, if done proper, it can kick some tail.

Yeah, I saw the trailer for that one and it looks interesting. I got the impression, though, that it's a sequel rather than a remake. Not always easy to tell the difference...

There are only seven basic plots.

So, given that, by the eighth film ever made, one had to have been a remake.

Let's talk remakes. Alice in Wonderland, An Affair to Remember, Against All Odds, Annie, Another Fine Mess, Beau Geste, Ben Hur, The Blob, The Bucket List, Cabaret, Cape Fear, Carousel, Chicago, The Children's Hour, Clueless, D.O.A., Dangerous Liaisons, Dark Water, Dawn of the Dead, The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Departed, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, A Doll's House, Down and Out in Beverly Hills, El Dorado, Far from Heaven, Fatal Attraction, Father of the Bride, A Fistful of Dollars, Godzilla, The Grudge, Hairspray, Halloween, Heaven Can Wait, Hello Dolly, High Society, His Girl Friday, House of Wax, I Am Legend, In the Good Old Summertime, Invaders from Mars, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Killers, The King and I, The Last House on the Left, A Little Princess, Little Shop of Horrors, Lost Horizon, The Magnificent Seven, The Maltese Falcon, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Meet Joe Black, Miracle on 34th Street, Missile to the Moon, Mogambo, Move Over Darling, My Fair Lady, My Sister Eileen, Never Say Never Again, No Reservations, Nosferatu, The Nutty Professor, Ocean's Eleven, Oliver Twist, One Million Years B.C., Orphans of the Storm, The Parent Trap, Payback, Peter Pan, Planet of the Apes, Pocketful of Miracles, The Postman Always Rings Twice, The Producers, The Ring, Rio Lobo, Rollerball, Scarface, Scarlet Street, Scent of a Woman, The Secret Garden, The Shaggy Dog, Shall We Dance, She's All That, Show Boat, Silk Stockings, Sorcerer, The Squaw Man, Stagecoach, State Fair, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, Swept Away, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, Tarzan, The Ten Commandments, Ten Little Indians, They Drive by Night, They Made Me a Criminal, The Thief of Baghdad, The Thing, Three Men and a Baby, The Thomas Crown Affair, True Lies, Twelve Monkeys, Vanilla Sky, Victor/Victoria, Village of the Damned, Walk Don't Run, War of the Worlds, Waterloo Bridge, What a Girl Wants, What Price Glory?, The Wicker Man, The Wizard of Oz, Xanadu, You've Got Mail...

These are maybe 25% of the Hollywood remakes which I can recall. Would we be better off without the Humphrey Bogart Maltese Falcon? The Squaw Man was in its second remake in 1931. Hitchcock remade a number of his own films. Howard Hawks' Rio Lobo is a remake of his own El Dorado, which in turn is a remake of his own Rio Bravo... he made the same film three times in eleven years!

Some of these remakes are crap. 80% of everything is crap. Some of these are better than the first films. The mere idea of a remake makes no difference as to whether a film will be good or bad. Some of these are excellent, equal remakes of non-American made films by Hollywood Studios. Argue as you will, but I enjoy both versions of Shall We Dance, Ju-On, and the Ring. They are similar, but good.

Your mileage may vary.

I don't mind the looks of this though   

As for being out of ideas i think it's more the case they rather go with what they know than try anything new .

But there have been some relay good original films in the the last 10 or so years. L.A Confidential changed the view many studios had on period pieces.

Which lead to some great period films down the line, like The Prestige and Atonement. There's also been this last decade Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind, Hotel Rwanda , Donnie Darko, Requiem For A Dream, Lost In Translation, Kill Bill, Training Day, Big Fish, Iron man, The Dark Knight and man many more i don't think it's bankrupt yet.

But if that should happen it would not be the first time and well that lead to the likes of The Godfather and Taxi Driver.

Quoting widescreenforever:

Quote:
Point to remember is the the best movies and music were made before the 1980's.. and for those amongst us that were lucky to live it live for the first time.,, remakes are not only flattering to the originals,,but for the most part never are as good as the originals..(apart from camera lens and modern technical aspects in todays world), as the directors and actors of that period made it very beliveable and realistic stories.
So,, for all the younger members of todays filmography classes,, Try make that extra effort to try and watch and learn from these B/W and classic techicolor films of yesteryear., as they will never be forgotten or be disappointing for one 's own entertainment values.

The 80's was a great time for music. The death of disco allowed for a whole diverse new wave of music to appear. Yes it might be argued that 86 and 89 where bad years.

Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
Quoting widescreenforever:

Quote:
Point to remember is the the best movies and music were made before the 1980's.. and for those amongst us that were lucky to live it live for the first time.,, remakes are not only flattering to the originals,,but for the most part never are as good as the originals..(apart from camera lens and modern technical aspects in todays world), as the directors and actors of that period made it very beliveable and realistic stories.
So,, for all the younger members of todays filmography classes,, Try make that extra effort to try and watch and learn from these B/W and classic techicolor films of yesteryear., as they will never be forgotten or be disappointing for one 's own entertainment values.

I disagree to an extent. I agree that an effort should be made to watch the classics, but many, many movies came out post 1980 that were groundbreaking in, at the very least, technology. Plus, there are many movies already considered classics. The Shawshank Redemption immediately comes to mind as a movie post-1980 that rivals some of the classics pre-1980.

Music is also debatable. Each decade has its share of crap, as well as its share of genius. Let's not forget that the 70s gave us disco. (Taste is definitely a factor here, though. )

Lot of good music from the 18th century

The obvious: I love old movies. (see my collection)

Sturgeon's Law: 80% of everything is crap.

I tend to forget (and dvd manufacturers remember) that 80% of silent films were crap, 80% of the films made in the '30s were crap... repeat every decade, every year since the 1880s.

Evaluating films (cinema, if you will) requires two sets of skills: placing an old film in both the context of its time and how it fits the entire history of filmmaking; imagining how a more contemporary film will reflect its time and what aspects of it will fill (or not) a place in the history of film.

Too many film reviewers and fans think only of the initial experience of seeing a new film: are its effects amazing? Did the film "wow" me? Did the actors (and or actresses) turn me on? Did I like it?

My first experience at real film criticism (as opposed to a film review) was to write a paper on "Rocky" a few weeks before it was released. Months before, Garrett Brown showed his ten minute steadicam demo film to one of my filmmaking classes (including running up the Philadelphia library steps) and then we saw both "Bound for Glory" and "Rocky" (including Brown's long, long steadicam shot in "...Glory" through the migrant workers' camp, over and under tent ropes, where at the end of this time-consuming shot, as Carradine and the other actor deliver dialog concerning conditions in the camp, an extra interrupts the scene with an autograph request, ruining the shot). So, for a film criticism class I wrote the paper on "Rocky" attempting to place it within the history of 20th Century cinema. I speculated that it would be both hugely popular and highly influencial on a decade's worth of films, citing Rocky's character of the tough-guy with a soft heart (comparing it to the older film cliche of the hooker with the heart of gold) and citing it as a '70's cliche. The instructor said it was the type of film that would be fun to watch on tv at 2 am. I think, as it turned out, we were both correct.

The point is, Citizen Kane was a box office flop. Easy Rider was highly influencial for a while, then it was everything that needed to be avoided, now it once again is gaining a positive reputation as being both influencial and a good representation of its time. Lord of the Rings was huge a year after they were released, now nearly completely ignored. What will we think 25 years from now?

Most of the dvds I own of stuff from the past quarter century is stuff I avoided in theaters, but was cheaper and more comfortable to view on dvd in my living room. 80% of it is crap. The dvds I own for pre-1980 films is only 20% crap -- the crap I love anyway. The passage of time allows me a perspective to better evaluate what I wish to own and view often. While I might like the Lohan version of Parent Trap as much as I like the Mills' version, neither will be as important to cinema as Snow White or Maltese Falcon.

Excuse me while I put in my dvd of Shop around the Corner. Maybe next week I'll watch In the Good Old Summertime, but I'm musicalled out right now. For the time being I'll avoid You've Got Mail.

Quoting tweeter:

Quote:
I recall Siskel & Ebert lamented more than once after reviewing a remake that if someone had half a brain they'd remake a bad movie instead of a good one.

You already knew what was wrong with the bad one and could correct and improve it. 

Good films provided a much steeper hill to climb but the jugheads always try and do it anyway.

But it's easier to get a producer to finance a remake of a hit than of crap.