Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 08:59:40 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Fucking Pointless Re-Makes

Started by Beep Cleep Chimney, December 08, 2011, 09:49:00 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
So Universal have just shat out a completely redundant, unwanted, empty re-make of 'The Thing' for our viewing pleasure, and are planning on releasing a re-make of 'Scarface' which is currently in the process of being written by one of the people behind 'The Fast & The Furious'.

Now, as pointless as they both are, and there's clearly nothing wrong with the 80's versions, I can see how there might be an argument for these particular re-makes as the previous versions are 30 years old. (I didn't say it was a strong argument, I just said it might be AN argument!).

However, things are getting ludicrous now, as Lionsgate have apparently deemed it necessary to re-make American Psycho.  One of my favourite films of recent years. A film that is only 11 YEARS OLD!!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/08/idUS141443348220111208

I'm fucking sick of it.

We've already had a slew of completely unnecessary reboots this year (including Arthur (another one of my all time faves), Footloose and Fright Night) that NO-ONE was crying out for, and it seems it's going to get even more offensive next year, with proposed re-makes of more absolute classics like Robocop, The Evil Dead, Total Recall, Point Break, The Warriors and Akira to name but a few.

"Ohhh it makes me MMMAD!!"


Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

American Psycho. WHAAAAAAAT??!!!

On the other hand there was the Coen brothers version of True Grit, which people seemed to like.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Most remakes are so forgettable they need to be remade all over again.

I'd forgotten about the 5-year gap between Hulk in 2003, and the second attempt The Incredible Hulk in 2008.

(And the green fella still looks lousy in that trailer for The Avengers).

Noodle Lizard

What was the most recent mainstreamish film you saw which wasn't a remake or adaptation of sorts?

Harpo Speaks

If there's a literary source (as there is with AP), then it's simple enough for them to state that it's an alternate adaptation of the book rather than a remake of the film.

But yes, it does get rather tiring when there are so many remakes and sequels around. Still, at least there's the slew of films based on Board Games to look forward to, Hollywood isn't out of ideas just yet.

Bad Ambassador

Quote from: Noodle Lizard on December 08, 2011, 11:49:33 PM
What was the most recent mainstreamish film you saw which wasn't a remake or adaptation of sorts?

Contagion, two weeks ago.

Cohaagen

Quote from: Harpo Speaks on December 09, 2011, 12:29:44 AM
If there's a literary source (as there is with AP), then it's simple enough for them to state that it's an alternate adaptation of the book rather than a remake of the film.

They tried pulling that shit with the Total Recall remake. There isn't even a character called Cohaagen in the original Philip K Dick story.

It goes without saying that everyone involved in this travesty needs fucking liquidated. I hope their fish die and their cocks rot and drop off like pine cones. Piss on them.

Santa's Boyfriend

I think the thing that annoys me is that they don't seem to want to give Paul Verhoven any more work - yet they're in the process of remaking three of his films.  Robocop and Starship Troopers (both written by the same guy I think) are masterpieces of satire and are fairly unique as Hollywood movies.  Starship Troopers in particular couldn't have been made at any point after 2001, considering what it basically says about the nature of going to war.  I can only assume they're remaking that to make it closer to the Heinlein novel, which is certainly not a satire.  Robocop is being remade by the guy who made the Brazilian cop drama Elite Squad, which if you haven't seen I strongly urge you to do so as it's one of the most savage attacks on any social system I've ever seen - so much so that it was initially banned outright, and even had the police threatening to arrest the director for slander.  It only got a release at all because it became so widely pirated that it had already been seen by most of its audience.  I can imagine that guy making a very interesting Robocop film.

Total Recall is an interesting film but heavily flawed (mostly thanks to Schwarzenegger trying to act), so I can see that being remade, possibly a bit closer to the book's original ideas.


Jerzy Bondov

Quote from: Santa's Boyfriend on December 09, 2011, 08:44:31 AMTotal Recall is an interesting film but heavily flawed (mostly thanks to Schwarzenegger trying to act), so I can see that being remade, possibly a bit closer to the book's original ideas.
You're right, but if they were really going to do that properly then they'd call it We Can Remember It For You Wholesale and Len 'Underworld' Wiseman wouldn't be directing it. Although it does have Bryan Cranston. Could go either way I suppose.

Get your ass to Mars!

Shoulders?-Stomach!

QuoteTotal Recall is an interesting film but heavily flawed (mostly thanks to Schwarzenegger trying to act)

It's one film he suits perfectly, with its sort of manic plasticky surroundings. The idea of a po-faced Total Recall makes me glum.

CONSIDADADA DIVORCE

AsparagusTrevor

'The Thing' is supposedly a prequel, albeit one with the same title and very similar scenes and shots.

CaledonianGonzo

Um....the '80s versions of The Thing and Scarface are both remakes in the first place.


Hank_Kingsley

I want to see a version of American Psycho where he kills the dog, and the kid, and the gays. Also, more rats in vaginas.

Edit. In fact they should go back in time and let my 17 year old younger self direct it. Also, the little music essays need to be done better. Somehow.

AsparagusTrevor

Quote from: CaledonianGonzo on December 09, 2011, 11:10:07 AMUm....the '80s versions of The Thing and Scarface are both remakes in the first place.

That was back when remakes had something new to offer, and talented people were involved in their production.

Ignatius_S

Quote from: Beep Cleep Chimney on December 08, 2011, 09:49:00 PM
So Universal have just shat out a completely redundant, unwanted, empty re-make of 'The Thing' for our viewing pleasure, and are planning on releasing a re-make of 'Scarface' which is currently in the process of being written by one of the people behind 'The Fast & The Furious'.

Now, as pointless as they both are, and there's clearly nothing wrong with the 80's versions, I can see how there might be an argument for these particular re-makes as the previous versions are 30 years old. (I didn't say it was a strong argument, I just said it might be AN argument!)....

As others have said, The Thing film that came out this year is a prequel to Carpenter's, rather than a remake.

De Palma's Scarface came out nearly fifty years after Hawks' film, but I think the argument about whether it's worth doing a remake relies more on what the film is actually like, rather than how long the original came out previously. It a remake is bad, it's bad – it doesn't matter if it comes out six months later or sixty years. Incidentally, although the next Scarface film is being described as a remake, the studio has said it isn't going to be a straight remake.

Churning out new versions quickly isn't a recent development. The Maltese Falcon was adapted for film three times in ten years – the best one was the third time, but all were worthwhile projects. I suppose one could argue that as these were adaptations rather than remakes (although to some, there's effectively no difference), one could also argue that Hollywood was more keen on exploiting a successful writer and a successful story than coming up with 'new' projects.

Look at something like Yojimbo (which wasn't entirely original) and I don't think many people would say that all the films, whic have been essentially remakes of it (A Fistful of Dollars is a great example), were a complete waste of time. The Seven Samurai was remade The Magnificent Samurai, which was highly successful (later remade as Battle Beyond the Stars and there's a new version of the original coming out) but there are many other films involving a ragtag bunch being gathered to face overwhelming odds, which aren't remakes as such but obviously show a clear debt to Kurosawa's film..

Ultimately, the film industry is driven by profit – if studios are reducing output, which they have been in Hollywood for decades, it's more important that films make money and aren't flops. In that way, it's very understandable that they look to proven successes that they think can be exploited again. Personally, I think the theory is flawed, but being risk-aversivion is a major factor behind remakes and following trends (e.g. superhero films).

Quote from: Santa's Boyfriend on December 09, 2011, 08:44:31 AM
.... Starship Troopers in particular couldn't have been made at any point after 2001, considering what it basically says about the nature of going to war...

Possibly, but I believe the satire was lost on a lot of people – in the same way, people enjoyed Robocop for the graphic violence – and they were being pandered to, rather than challenged. One of my mates saw Starship Troopers in the States, as that's where his folks live, and the majority of the audience were whooping and shouting 'USA A-OK'. My impression is that the film's reputation has benefited so that it is perceived first and foremost as a satire, which wasn't the case when it came out – and I suspect this is partly to do with Verhoven discussing what the intent was.

Interesting about the Robocop remake.

Santa's Boyfriend

I've been endlessly entertained by the attempts to remake Red Dawn, only to be thwarted by the fact that the US has no conceivable enemy that could actually invade them.  They replaced the Russians with the Chinese initially, the only threat that is even vaguely plausible, but of course they realised the Chinese may not take kindly to such a portrayal and end up banning all US films from China (they only allow a handful through as it is).  So now they're being digitally tweaked to make them North Korean soldiers.  A concept even less plausible than Cuba invading the US.  I don't doubt North Korea's resolve, but at least Cuba is within striking distance.

CaledonianGonzo

Quote from: AsparagusTrevorThat was back when remakes had something new to offer, and talented people were involved in their production.

I'm not sure why a remake from the early 1980s is intrinsically superior to one from today - as you say, it's the talent of those involved that's important.  David Fincher's next movie is a remake, and will no doubt be superior to one made on the cheap by a hack director.

As Ignatius_S is intimating, arguments about the quantities of remakes are almost as old as the industry itself.

Famous Mortimer

I'm not sure why they're now moving on to the late 90s for their remakes, as it's not like - after the awful sequels (Starship Troopers) - anyone's clamouring for another film in the series, even a remake. I just don't get it. They're not going to get much positive publicity for this, and...how many of these recent-remakes made decent money? I just...

Well, it increases my desire to only give my money to decent films, and hopefully if enough people agree with me they might start making new films again.

Re: Fincher, I don't think foreign language films ought to count in this discussion, at least partly because remakes will change cultural things that we in the West might not be too familiar with (remember "Dark Water"? Based, apparently, on a cultural fear of water in that part of the world that we just don't have, which may be why the remake blew).

ersatz99

Let The Right One In(2008) and Let Me In(2010). The latter was supposed to be a remake of the novel for a wider audience i.e English speaking. i dont think it adds anything more that the original missed by virtue of being almost identical to it 

Zetetic

On a vaguely similar note, Insomnia and Insomnia. I didn't really see the point in the remake, although it's alright as a film I suppose, as it's got none of the special bright lights and disconcerting unpleasantness of the original. True, some minor cultural references in the original to do with language don't really come through to someone (like me) who had no idea about them, but changing the setting did a fair amount of damage to the film.

Ignatius_S

Quote from: Santa's Boyfriend on December 09, 2011, 12:24:51 PM
I've been endlessly entertained by the attempts to remake Red Dawn..

They should have gone with Redcoat Dawn – the United Kingdom trying to take back the colonies.... Or maybe, Zombie Redcoat Dawn where a War of Independence battlefield is moved onto the site of a Native American burial ground.

Quote from: Famous Mortimer on December 09, 2011, 12:52:20 PM
......how many of these recent-remakes made decent money? ..

Horror ones tend to do well at the box office and have the added benefit of being fairly cheap to make.

It does tend to be quite mixed. Remakes of Footloose and Arthur came out this year – the first cost $25 million and grossed $61 million so wasn't a complete flop, whereas Arthur cost $40 million and grossed under $46 million.

Quote from: ersatz99 on December 09, 2011, 12:58:05 PM
Let The Right One In(2008) and Let Me In(2010). The latter was supposed to be a remake of the novel for a wider audience i.e English speaking. i dont think it adds anything more that the original missed by virtue of being almost identical to it

Although I had heard good things about the latter, I wasn't that keen on watching it when trying to work out what to film to select with a couple of friends but got outvoted. I was very pleasantly surprised by what I got out of the second adaptation and there was an enjoyable discussion about the two afterwards.

However, as the first adaptation wasn't English-language, another version was bound to be on the cards – it's like the Dragon Tattoo films. Subtitles will put some off.

Quote from: Zetetic on December 09, 2011, 01:00:15 PM
On a vaguely similar note, Insomnia and Insomnia. I didn't really see the point in the remake, although it's alright as a film I suppose, as it's got none of the special bright lights and disconcerting unpleasantness of the original...

With that remake, I think people were especially disappointed as people expected Nolan to follow-up with Memento with something a bit more original.

Brundle-Fly

I'm quite surprised they still haven't remade Frank Capra's It's A Wonderful Life (or at least a stage musical). It was mooted years ago with Tom Hanks up for the lead but he declined and it was shelved.

Obel

Quote from: Brundle-Fly on December 09, 2011, 06:53:46 PM
I'm quite surprised they still haven't remade Frank Capra's It's A Wonderful Life (or at least a stage musical). It was mooted years ago with Tom Hanks up for the lead but he declined and it was shelved.
Surprised and glad. It's a glorious film and it would be a travesty to remake it.

Quote from: Ignatius_S on December 09, 2011, 12:24:34 PM
As others have said, The Thing film that came out this year is a prequel to Carpenter's, rather than a remake.

Well yes, I know the makers claimed it's a prequel but, having sat through it at the cinema last weekend, and as pretty much everyone else who's seen it would I'm sure agree, it IS essentially a remake. A dog gets killed first, a man turns into a spider, etc.

EDIT: See, even Asparagus Trevor agreed a few posts back! 
Quote from: AsparagusTrevor on December 09, 2011, 10:53:36 AM
'The Thing' is supposedly a prequel, albeit one with the same title and very similar scenes and shots.

Saucer51

The Cape Fear remake in the 90's was dreadful, despite starring Robert De Niro. The original, made in 1960 was more scary and atmospheric because it was set in an era when films did not generally feature nice families being stalked by murdering maniacs, so the shock value was greater. It was proof too that there explicit images were not necessarily needed on screen to frighten the viewer.

The same can be said for The Producers. The original was filmed just 20 years after the Holocaust, so the comic shock of two Jewish actors, portraying Jewish impressarios worried about not upsetting a Nazi playwright was high. A remake in 2005 was rather diluted.

El Unicornio, mang

Quote from: Saucer51 on December 09, 2011, 08:09:57 PM
The Cape Fear remake in the 90's was dreadful, despite starring Robert De Niro.

I thought it was a great piece of popcorn entertainment, albeit slightly miscast as I don't think Nick Nolte or Juliette Lewis really worked in their respective roles.

I've heard that the remake of Girl With a Dragon Tattoo is better than the original. Anyone seen both? (I haven't seen either)

Rev

Quote from: ersatz99 on December 09, 2011, 12:58:05 PM
Let The Right One In(2008) and Let Me In(2010). The latter was supposed to be a remake of the novel for a wider audience i.e English speaking.

That's what it was sold as, and there were a couple of good tweaks, but it was heavily influenced by the original filmed version of the novel.  Taking another pass is fine, but that one was a remake.

As for American Psycho, I really don't mind the idea of a remake in the sense of another stab at the book, because the original version was so terribly light.  A literal adaptation wouldn't make it past the censors, but a fluffy comedy with occasional bits of obscured violence isn't what that book should look like on screen.  Dragging it into the 21st century, though?  Aw, fuck off.






Noodle Lizard

Quote from: Rev on December 10, 2011, 12:56:15 AM
As for American Psycho, I really don't mind the idea of a remake in the sense of another stab at the book, because the original version was so terribly light.  A literal adaptation wouldn't make it past the censors, but a fluffy comedy with occasional bits of obscured violence isn't what that book should look like on screen.  Dragging it into the 21st century, though?  Aw, fuck off.

I kind of agree (although I do like the 2000 version on its own merits).  But like you said, a literal adaptation would be impossible and I just don't have enough faith in the studios to think there's any possibility of this being more faithful than the 2000 version.  I think even that version would be considered a bit "risky" nowadays - not so much for content, but for the "mixed messages it sends".  Because y'know, we're all drooling, incompetent numbwits in our cinema seats with our popcorn and that, aren't we?