Fucking Pointless Re-Makes

[Noodle Lizard]

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.

Yep.  Unfortunately very few people are taking similar attitudes.  The amount of times I hear people say, "Yeah, I'm gonna see this, it'll be shite but I have nothing better to do" or "it'll just be a laugh".  If only box office revenue could actually indicate whether the film was any good ...

[Tiny Poster]

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.

But that was an adaptation of the wildly successful musical remake.

[Natnar]

Gus Van Saint's remake of Psycho must win some sort of pointless remake award. At least most remakes try and do something slightly different with the story.

[SavageHedgehog]

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.

I don't know how outspoken he was about it, but, for some reason (I'm actually not that fond of the film), I do own the tie-in Making of Book for Starship Troopers, and at the end there's an interview with Verhoven where he's very clear about his interntions for the film, what he wants it to say about war, representations of the military etc.

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. 

I agree, but it does seem like there were more directors and writers making remakes in the early 80s because they were excited about what they could do with the material and the subject matter than there are today. John Carpenter was genuinely very passionate about the 1951 Thing and the short story Who Goes There? for example. With the forthcoming Total Recall for example it seems the studio have realised there's some brand value there, and gone "let's get...oh, Len Wiseman". There are obvious exceptions, King Kong for example (which some would say justifies the studios' preference for the later approach, but there you go).

[AsparagusTrevor]

Gus Van Saint's remake of Psycho must win some sort of pointless remake award. At least most remakes try and do something slightly different with the story.

It was basically a very expensive colourisation.

[Pepotamo1985]

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. 

Samesies. Like an earlier poster said, I can get past the fact that it doesn't even get near doing the book justice and just enjoy the thing on its own merits. It's fun, fairly light and still makes me laugh about things I shouldn't be laughing about (which is actually a fairly perfect evocation of the book's tone itself)...but it's also pretty thin, was clearly hacked to shit at the last minute (or maybe the script writer just doesn't understand pacing) and often comes across as cheaply made. So yeah, not a patch on the book, but I think it's a very well done adaptation none the less.

This said, above all other things, Christian Bale is amazing as Patrick Bateman. Bateman's dichotomous arrogance and self-loathing insecurity is written in his every facial expression and drips from his every utterance. Can't imagine anyone else playing him - which is one factor, amongst many, which will mean this utterly needless remake is almost undoubtedly going to be a total fucking waste of time piece of shit. Which I'll still watch, because boy am I still obsessed with the novel.

I still stand by Fight Club as the best book adaptation ever, largely because I think the book is fairly dire and it deviates from the source material with unthinking abandon. But I digress.

RE: RE: REMAKES

Hasn't it been the norm over the past decade that entirely original films actually form quite a pitifully puny fraction of overall cinematic output? It's all remakes, book adaptations, TV show adaptations and sequels largely, innit? It just seems to have gotten particularly hyperactive recently because Hollywood have finally and actually run out of ideas. There's obviously no cosmic law that says you must wait at least 30 years before having a crack at remaking a film, but come the fuck on.

From a strictly artistic standpoint, I really do not understand the logic of remaking a classic, or remaking something that was generally regarded as excellent. Why not remake something that could've potentially been good that was awful? Why not remake a flawed adaptation to make it more faithful to the source material? Why not remake something that was really bad and make it a stunner, just because? As has undoubtedly already been discussed, remakes are rendered all the more pointless when they're pretty much a shot-for-shot reconstruction of

[Santa's Boyfriend]

I just love the fact that there are 2 threads covering this topic.  :-)

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

The newer one isn't a patch on the original.

From a strictly artistic standpoint, I really do not understand the logic of remaking a classic, or remaking something that was generally regarded as excellent. Why not remake something that could've potentially been good that was awful? Why not remake a flawed adaptation to make it more faithful to the source material? Why not remake something that was really bad and make it a stunner, just because?

I quite agree. I guess the studios' reasoning would be that a remake of something shit would be tainted by the original film's shitness. Or that a remake of a flop movie wouldn't have strong enough 'name franchise brand recognition' or somesuch.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Brewster's Millions has been made into a film NINE times. And A Christmas Carol probably about the same. Some stories can withstand endless remakes though, it seems.

[AsparagusTrevor]

I quite agree. I guess the studios' reasoning would be that a remake of something shit would be tainted by the original film's shitness. Or that a remake of a flop movie wouldn't have strong enough 'name franchise brand recognition' or somesuch.

That must be what it's about, brand recognition. The acclaimed, popular and cult movies are 99% of the targets for these remakes, and it can feel quite condescending that the studios feel these popular films need updating every few decades or so to still be relevant to modern audiences. Why not periodically show the originals at the cinema, it's a great way for new audiences to catch great films they might've missed on a big screen, then buy the already available DVD. How has that marketing angle not been exploited yet?

Also, it makes me wonder why, when 99% of modern remakes are reviled by fans and critics alike, these movies keep getting the green light. Are they really that profitable? Plus, what is the audience for these moves? Fans of the original will automatically resent the existence and new viewers will recognise the shit quality, who's the winner exactly?

[Noodle Lizard]

I do think some people underestimate the effect the WGA strike had on Hollywood.  Even though it looked like a failure, it caused a lot of studios to bring in teams of completely useless writers (some of whom probably weren't actually writers) and focus more on "the pitch" than the stories/characters etc.  So in many ways, it was an even bigger failure.

I used to think I was being a bit immature when I'd say things like "movies have gone to hell, I remember the days when ...", but now I think you could actually definitively prove that Hollywood films are generally worse than ever and show no sign of improvement.  When Inception is considered a revolutionary masterpiece, something's very, very wrong.

[Noodle Lizard]

Also, it makes me wonder why, when 99% of modern remakes are reviled by fans and critics alike, these movies keep getting the green light. Are they really that profitable? Plus, what is the audience for these moves? Fans of the original will automatically resent the existence and new viewers will recognise the shit quality, who's the winner exactly?

I'm not sure about that.  From what I understand, most remakes do fairly well in the box office, and you have to remember that most young moviegoers probably aren't even aware when something's a remake unless it's of a very famous film (or a very recent film, which appears to be an increasing trend).

Especially when remaking foreign films, they've started changing the title from the original, which a cynical part of me thinks is at least partially designed to help disguise the fact that it's a remake.  And it's rarely (if ever) mentioned in the promotion.  But even without that, you'd be surprised how many people are ... er ... surprised when you tell them a film is a remake.  I had to explain to someone a few weeks ago that not only is the 2003 Texas Chainsaw Massacre complete shite, but it's also not an original film.

[Famous Mortimer]

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.

I think the two films are so different that it's not really fair to call the later one a remake. It's been way too many years since I saw the original so I won't debate your reading of it, but the musical version is joyous and funny as hell.

[Noodle Lizard]

I think the two films are so different that it's not really fair to call the later one a remake. It's been way too many years since I saw the original so I won't debate your reading of it, but the musical version is joyous and funny as hell.

The musical version was great in the theatre (I saw it with Nathan Lane and Lee Evans), but completely failed as a film.  I know Inspector Gadget was in the original Broadway production, but he's dreadful as Leo Bloom - and Will Ferrel should self-flagellate and repent for the rest of his days.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Also, it makes me wonder why, when 99% of modern remakes are reviled by fans and critics alike, these movies keep getting the green light. Are they really that profitable? Plus, what is the audience for these moves? Fans of the original will automatically resent the existence and new viewers will recognise the shit quality, who's the winner exactly?

They still make money. It's all marketing really. If the studio pumps enough money into marketing a film, it will generally make money, even if it's utter shit. Pretty sad state of affairs really but they're a money-making business, creativity and quality definitely aren't a priority for them.

[Brundle-Fly]

Frankenstein surely must be the most remade story?

[El Unicornio, mang]

Frankenstein is up there, although apparently Cinderella, Zorro and Dracula have been made the most times.

[mycroft]

Nah, it's A Christmas Carol. Over 200 versions at the last counting.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Cinderella has been made into a film hundreds of times also. Not sure of the exact number but the Guinness Book of Records has it as the most filmed story.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

Starship Troopers and the state of Hollywood sci-fi remakes Ryan Lambie
   
Is there any reason to remain optimistic about the proposed Starship Troopers remake, Ryan wonders, and what does it say about Hollywood sci-fi movies...? Published on Dec  5, 2011   

Last Friday, news emerged that Hollywood producer Neal Moritz is planning to create a new version of Starship Troopers, Robert Heinlein's sci-fi novel originally published in 1959.
Starship Troopers was, of course, first brought to cinemas in 1997, courtesy of director Paul Verhoeven's characteristically violent and witty adaptation of the same name. Retaining certain plot elements and character names, Verhoeven's film turned the subtext of the book on its head. Where Heinlein's novel was relatively light on action, Verhoeven's film was extraordinarily savage. Where the source was unabashedly pro-military, the 1997 movie appeared to parody the book's right-wing views.
Scriptwriter Ed Neumeier had previously co-written RoboCop, and that earlier film's sly humour's equally in evidence in Starship Troopers. Like RoboCop, Starship Troopers reads as a dark satire, this time about media manipulation and military power ("War makes fascists of us all," was how Verhoeven succinctly described it).
Depicting a spectacular war against humans and giant bugs on the planet Klendathu, the film cost more than $105 million to make, a sum it only just managed to recoup at the box-office. The sly tone and gore of Starship Troopers, it seemed, were a little too slippery for a mass audience to embrace.
Ironically, some critics appeared to take Starship Troopers at face value. "By the end of the film, arachnid butt has been duly kicked  and back-patting is in order," a writer for the New York Times wrote.  "We won't have to worry about marauding bugs until, thanks to Hollywood,  the next batch comes along."
Box-office receipts aside, Starship Troopers instantly attained a cult status for some. For its admirers, those aspects that critics moaned about were its finest attributes. Its trashy dialogue, sensationalistic violence and plastic-looking actors, with their whitened teeth and clear skin, were all part of its pitch-black, intergalactic comedy.
Like all of Verhoeven's Hollywood movies, from RoboCop to Hollow Man, Starship Troopers has a ferocious, almost insane air to it, as though the director's reflecting the excess of Hollywood back on itself. (Verhoeven's films of this period remind me of the oft-quoted line in Ridley Scott's Gladiator, where, having butchered a bunch of foes in combat, Russell Crowe barks, "Are you not entertained?")
Given just how admired Starship Troopers is by some movie fans (including your humble writer), it's unsurprising that reports of a remake have been met with a groan of exasperation. Surely, with Verhoeven's film only released 14 years ago, it's far too soon to be making another one, isn't it?
To play devil's advocate for a moment, perhaps we should think of the news from the perspective of someone who didn't like the 1997 film – and looking around the various comments sections on the Internet, it's surprising just how vocal those who don't like Verhoeven's Starship Troopers are. For those who dislike the tone of the 97 movie, or are hoping for an adaptation more true to Heinlein's novel, a new version may provide what they're looking for.
One of the most celebrated aspects of the book - its power armour, which gave its future soldiers almost superhuman powers - was missing from Verhoeven's film. This is something that, if reintroduced in the new Starship Troopers, could automatically make for an entirely different story. New screenwriters Edward Miller and Zack Stentz may also choose to adhere more closely to the gung-ho, pro-military underpinnings of the novel, rather than invert them, as Neumeier's script did.
Fans hoping for a more accurate adaptation of Heinlein's novel should be careful what they wish for, however. As I mentioned earlier, the book's far less action-packed than Verhoeven's film, and anyone hoping for the same level of violence may be surprised to learn that its pages are filled with philosophising rather than gore. With producer Neal Moritz behind such films as Battle: Los Angeles, Fast Five and the forthcoming Total Recall remake, it's unlikely that the proposed Starship Troopers reboot will have much time for moral debate.
While it's rather disquieting to learn that yet another Verhoeven classic's about to be retooled for a post-millennial audience, we can at least hope that the new Starship Troopers will provide its own spin on the premise, just as next year's Total Recall will, I hope, give us another interpretation of Philip K Dick's short story rather than the 1990 Schwarzenegger vehicle.
At the same time, it's difficult to scare up much enthusiasm for Hollywood's continued appetite for remakes. The financial crises of recent years, it seems, have made the film producers of Tinseltown increasingly fearful of taking risks, to the point where it's far safer to trade on old names than hunt around for the new. For the sci-fi genre, this means that some well-known stories and properties, including Starship Troopers, are repeatedly brought back from the vault, while other worthwhile novels lie undiscovered.
I'm sure we can all name at least half a dozen sci-fi stories that, so far, have never been adapted for the big-screen. And what of all those original genre scripts no doubt languishing in drawers everywhere, which will never be made because nobody's willing to risk making them? If a respected filmmaker like David Cronenberg can't get Fox to stump up the cash to make his script for The Fly 2, what chance does a lesser-known writer have?
Of course, remakes aren't always a bad thing. Scarface and John Carpenter's The Thing were remakes of earlier films. Breck Eisner's The Crazies was unexpectedly good. For writers and filmmakers with talent and imagination, remakes, reboots and re-imaginings can result in decent films – it's only when such a film's lacking in ideas of its own that it becomes a mere regurgitation.
Depressing though it is, there's the chance, then, that the next Starship Troopers movie may have something to offer, and not become just another pale imitation.
To paraphrase Hudson from Aliens (a film that freely referenced Heinlein's novel), I hope this Starship Troopers reboot is a stand-up film, and not just another bug hunt.

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/1157184/starship_troopers_and_the_state_of_hollyood_scifi_remakes.html

[HappyTree]

Starship Troopers was a masterpiece because of the dark satire and Denise Richards's nose. But I would quite enjoy seeing a version that is closer to the Heinlein original.

[momatt]

Frankenstein surely must be the most remade story?

I'ven read there's been 1306 Romeo & Juliet films.  Don't know if this includes things like Westside story or not.

[VegaLA]

I guess the studios' reasoning would be that a remake of something shit would be tainted by the original film's shitness. Or that a remake of a flop movie wouldn't have strong enough 'name franchise brand recognition' or somesuch.

There were a few raised eyebrows when it was announced that Romero's 'The crazies' would be remade. Now George can do no wrong in my eyes, but it has dated so a remake wouldn't have upset me in any way. I'm not sure how well the film did financially but it was soon forgotten about after viewing. Whenever someone mentions 'The Crazies', the old biddy with the knitting needles spring to mind, the remake lost a trick there, no standout scene, and they could have taken the easy route and remade that scene shot for shot and it would have imprinted on the minds of the current gen of horror fans.

Whats the score with Carpenter and Romero anyway?
Romero 3, Carpenter 3, off the top of my head.

[Ignatius_S]

There were a few raised eyebrows when it was announced that Romero's 'The crazies' would be remade. Now George can do no wrong in my eyes, but it has dated so a remake wouldn't have upset me in any way. I'm not sure how well the film did financially but it was soon forgotten about after viewing...

Using the rough rule of thumb that a film needs to make double its production budget before making a profit, it did pretty well - $19-20 million production budget and grossed about $55 million at the box office. I had read it did pretty well in terms of home media sales and after a quick check, one site reckons it made over $11 million in US DVD/blu-ray sales.

[Famous Mortimer]

I enjoyed the remake a lot, possibly because it didn't try to be the same film, and made some improvements on the original - pitiful acting, for one.

[Santa's Boyfriend]

There are a few remakes I'd dearly like to see.  The Dambusters is one I'll be first in line to see, even though I love the original it is definitely one that would benefit from a remake.  There are loads of things that have since come out about the raid that were still classified at the time the film was made (apparently, I haven't read up on it), so they could certainly add a lot to the original - not to mention some strong special effects work.

Another, perhaps controversially, is The Longest Day.  It's a great movie, but I do feel that an HBO miniseries would be able to expand on it much more - and again the sheer scale of it could not be put on screen at the time the movie was made (even though they did a damn good job), which could be done today.  The only thing with this is that of course the movie was shot in many of the real locations, and even featured some actors who were really there at the time.

I'd also like to see a few new stabs at comic book characters that were originally done in a time where they couldn't fully realise the concept - or perhaps didn't want to.  First on that list would be Swamp Thing.  A truly awful concept of a man becoming a swamp creature (Described by Alan Moore as "Hamlet covered in snot") became an extraordinary eco fable about a sentient vegetable that had dreamed it was once a man.  That could make a really strong series of eco horror movies, and by making Swamp Thing entirely CG they could easily realise many of the concepts in the book that they couldn't before.  I think the problem is whether they would want to, or whether they'd want to go for the in-search-of-his-lost-humanity version.

I'm glad Dredd is being remade, I still hope it can capture something of the comics (Robocop did, after all).

[El Unicornio, mang]

On the subject of comics, a version of Hellblazer that stars someone better than Keanu Reeves (so anyone, basically) and has a better understanding of the source material, would be nice. A TV series would be better though.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Fucking pointless remakes are my favourite- they seem to pass by with so little fanfare you can pretend they never existed.

[mobias]

I've read rumors that a remake of American Werewolf in London is on the cards. If ever there was a pointless remake there it is. It's basically inviting itself to be shit.

[alan nagsworth]

There were a few raised eyebrows when it was announced that Romero's 'The crazies' would be remade. Now George can do no wrong in my eyes, but it has dated so a remake wouldn't have upset me in any way.

You are joking, right? I mean, you've seen 'Diary' and 'Survival', haven't you? The latter being the kind of film over which most directors are discreetly taken out behind the barn and shot in the head? George has done plenty wrong, and 'Land Of The Dead' was the first step.

Also, what the hell guys? 'The Crazies' remake was utterly dreadful stuff and I'll be the first to admit I've never seen the original, but bloody hell.

As for remakes in general, I can't really accurately criticise the direct motives behind them as I hero worship the Sutherland version of 'Invasion Of The Body Snatchers', as well as Carpenter's 'The Thing', rather I would simply hope that whatever remake is made, no matter how soon after the original was released, at least attempted to take the film in a new direction stylistically. Obviously, the line gets blurry there and you get cunts like Tim burton thinking they're doing the world a favour by making 'LOL DARK' remakes of 'Charlie And The Chocolate Factory' and 'Alice In Wonderland' when their sinister undertones were always best left with at least some degree of subtlety, as opposed to his high-contrast wacky fucking bullshit. Besides, Gene Wilder is infinitely more terrifying than Johnny Depp cavorting about the place, so... y'know. It will always boil down to artistic integrity and whether or not a remake is justified in its fresh perspectives.

The worst possible offenders are, of course, films that get sub-par remakes from foreign lands to English-speaking audiences and are then praised above the superior original which is doomed to obscurity because the vast majority of people can't be arsed to read subtitles. Then again, it's arguable that I'm just being an art snob, and perhaps I am, but I don't care. Sarah Michelle Gellar in 'The Grudge' is where I draw the line. I actually laughed a lot during that film while my mate cowered behind his jumper sleeves the whole time.