Fucking Pointless Re-Makes

[Noodle Lizard]

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.

QFE.

With Charlie, everyone says "Well it's actually closer to the book so ..." - maybe so, but the Gene Wilder version took it in a direction which made the film stand out on its own merits.  That's what remakes and adaptations should do.

Having said that, there are times where the remake or adaptation is so far removed from the source material that you wonder why they even bothered calling it a remake or adaptation at all.  Or times where it's just such an awful idea (like this American Psycho Post-9/11 idea that's appeared or the upcoming Paradise Lost film) that "working on its own merits" is more of a burden than a blessing.

[Nik Drou]

With Charlie, everyone says "Well it's actually closer to the book so ..." - maybe so, but the Gene Wilder version took it in a direction which made the film stand out on its own merits.  That's what remakes and adaptations should do.

I would argue that the Mel Stuart movie, whilst something of a departure in places, is far closer in spirit and story to the book. Gene Wilder's Wonka isn't a pale, germophobic creep with daddy issues, and neither is Dahl's. For all his faux-darkness and lapses into psychedelia, Burton has proven himself a rather conservative filmmaker, making appeals to the kind of familial unit that is early work seemed to react against. The book ends with

Spoiler alert

the great glass elevator taking Charlie and his whole family into space for further magical and exciting adventures.

[close]

The Burton one ends with

Spoiler alert

them all at home, still in their shitty little house (lovingly created by the production team as a whimsical version of the kind of place poor people must live in), having a cosy dinner, not in space.

[close]

Reminds me of this T-Shirt design:


It's a nice sentiment, despite the image coming from a remake (of sorts) of Frankenstein. I think a remake veers toward redundancy when the original appeal lies more in the actual production than the central premise. A lot of John Carpenter movies fall into this category for me, though they often have brilliant high concepts that are vulnerable to revision. There's nothing inherently wrong with remakes, it's just that there are too many of them and a lot have been empty exercises on cashing in on existing franchises. Another thing that irks me is everyone herding into the latest Predator or Terminator movies out of wholly misguided obligation, even when there's no sign of the original creative team. As though they're mates with the actual terminator and are there for laddish support.

[spock rogers]

Trailer for remake of Nicolas Winding Refn's Pusher. Looks like every other shit Brit gangster film from the past 15 years (Cockneys, henchmen sitting on couches with their arms resting along back of couch, a bloke smoking a snout in a "hard" fashion, a sexy stripper, a nightclub scene, kerr-azy drug cam, etc):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ywxrqt7so9s

[thenoise]

Best thing about remakes = a swanky new special edition DVD of the original released in time to cash in.

_{Where's my Nigel Kneale's Woman in Black dvd?}

[Hank Venture]

Trailer for remake of Nicolas Winding Refn's Pusher. Looks like every other shit Brit gangster film from the past 15 years (Cockneys, henchmen sitting on couches with their arms resting along back of couch, a bloke smoking a snout in a "hard" fashion, a sexy stripper, a nightclub scene, kerr-azy drug cam, etc):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ywxrqt7so9s

Yeah, it looks... not good. Both Frank and Tonny look wrong.

I'm not really a fan in general of remakes and it especially annoys me when they're made seemingly just because the audience doesn't want to deal with subtitles. I don't understand that. Subs aren't really a hassle. 90%+ of the movies I watch are subtitled, it isn't a problem given that they've done a proper job at it. I even prefer it to be that way, as American-made remakes often change the whole environment to America from what might've been Japanese or Swedish or whatever. I've watched American films before, that's nothing new, I'd rather have movies from a culture I don't know as much about. I'd rather have movies that are set in the environments they're supposed to.

[AsparagusTrevor]

Best thing about remakes = a swanky new special edition DVD of the original released in time to cash in.
_{Where's my Nigel Kneale's Woman in Black dvd?}

Or a shit, rushed-out, bare-bones DVD re-release with a cover with similar artwork to the new movie's poster.

_{But still, I'll settle for any Nigel Kneale's Woman in Black R2 dvd}

[Puffin Chunks]

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.

I can kind of understand these types of remakes. Some audiences just will not watch foreign films with subtitles, plus it's an easy cash-in on an already succesfull formula.

This, however, boggles my mind (surprised it hasn't been mentioned). The Death At A Funeral re-make. Now, I'm no real fan of the original, but this is an English language film which has a couple of American actors associated with it (Alan Tudyk and Peter Dinklage). It was made in 2007.... so WHY the need to remake it in 2010 as a Chris Rock/Martin Lawrence vehicle for an American audience?

I'm not sure if there is a more fucking pointless remake out there.

2007 trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neCY4hh1wJg

2010 trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5jjbQuv2h4

[Famous Mortimer]

I choose to ignore Andy Nyman's stint on that godawful "Campus" and remember him from the excellent "Severance", so I liked the 2007 trailer a hell of a lot. Without having seen the 2010 version, if someone doesn't go "ah hell naw!" at some point, I'll be upset.

EDIT: Peter Dinklage plays the same part in both films, I see. The remake looks...well, the beats they stole wholesale from the first one are good, but it just seems so pointless.

[Hank Venture]

Trailer for remake of Nicolas Winding Refn's Pusher. Looks like every other shit Brit gangster film from the past 15 years (Cockneys, henchmen sitting on couches with their arms resting along back of couch, a bloke smoking a snout in a "hard" fashion, a sexy stripper, a nightclub scene, kerr-azy drug cam, etc):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ywxrqt7so9s

Actually, it looks alright. The stripper girl is smoking. Only thing is Frank should have been a bit more intimidating and Tonny shouldnt be Shaggy from Scooby Doo on smack.

[Replies From View]

Sister Act 2 which was an utterly unnecessary remake of Anal Acrobats 6.

[VegaLA]

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

Update: Romero ahead at 4, possibly 5 now, Carpenter 3.

Looks like they same producers of the Day of the Dead remake from 2008 are going to give it another go, except this time stay closer to Romero's story.

http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/15232-wait-another-day-of-the-dead-remake

http://www.inquisitr.com/846608/day-of-the-dead-remake-in-the-works/

The 'possibly 5' is for KnightRiders, which is a great film but was sadly underrated. Maybe a remake will give the original a new lease of life.

[Famous Mortimer]

I never really cared for the original "Day of the Dead", so a decent remake with better acting and script would suit me.

[Obel]

I never really cared for the original "Day of the Dead", so a decent remake with better acting and script would suit me.

Is this a good enough reason to remake a film though? "That wasn't good, let's just keep remaking it until we get it right"?

I don't think there are many instances where giving a film a remake was an attempt to get the source material 'right'. They're mostly just cash grabs in the same way most sequels or reboots are.

It's better I think to just have someone essentially rip off the concept if they like it, then write a movie they feel is better and attach their own name to it. Sort of like how Chronicle may as well be the film version of Akira, but it was just the director doing his own thing with that basic idea of troubled kid getting out of control with his new found powers. Obviously I know it's the studios who want to make the money and they'll decide what name to use, but I can dream.

Loads of expensive films seem to be flopping at the moment so hopefully it won't be long before Hollywood starts changing up. (Yeah, right)

[phantom_power]

Is this a good enough reason to remake a film though? "That wasn't good, let's just keep remaking it until we get it right"?

I think it is, if the original film had a good premise that it failed to live up to. The Thing and Ocean's 11 are good examples of this. I doubt that Day of the Dead will be one of them though

[Famous Mortimer]

Is this a good enough reason to remake a film though? "That wasn't good, let's just keep remaking it until we get it right"?

You're right, mostly, but I think there are instances where an alright film from the olden days has been remade and improved upon. The vast majority are just cash-ins on the name, though.

[lazarou]

Day of the Dead must be close to cashed out at this point. There's been two recent attempts (the in-name-only remake and the unofficial sequel Day of the Dead 2: Contagium, the former being among the worst genre efforts I've ever seen), three if you count the chancers who re-released Evilution as Days of the Dead 3: Evilution (spoiler:

Spoiler alert

there's no "Days" 1 or 2

[close]

).

Though the closest it got to an actual remake so far was Paul Anderson lifting the Bub storyline wholesale for the third Resident Evil film.

[Obel]

You're right, mostly, but I think there are instances where an alright film from the olden days has been remade and improved upon. The vast majority are just cash-ins on the name, though.

Oh totally. The Fly for example is a fantastic and warranted remake.

[Noodle Lizard]

Oh totally. The Fly for example is a fantastic and warranted remake.

'The Thing' too.  Thing is, these are 80s remakes of films which could really benefit from new technology, not to mention in the hands of good directors.  The remake culture that became so prevalent in the 2000s isn't comparable - with those films it was a case of a creative director finding a film interesting and believing they can improve on it, whereas recently it's mostly a case of producers going "the original has fans, so that's more or less a guaranteed audience regardless of how shite our version will be".

And then, before you know it ...

[Steven]

AAAAAARGH!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT_TZYb61Wk

Wasn't the point in the original that she was a bit of a weird minger but actually cleaned up well for the prom, meaning the plan backfired and the jock actually did start to fall for her, until Trovalta and his evil bird ruined the apparent acceptance she was getting? She's a model in the new one, also she's floating shit round all over the place like she's in the Matrix, it's meant to be 'implied' she has powers up until the end, the light breaking or ashtrays knocking over could easily be coincidences until the shocking reveal. Yuck.

I do hope they keep the 'I can see your dirty pillows' line at least!

[Bad Ambassador]

It looks like a more faithful adaptation of the book, which states flatly at the start that something terrible happened in Castle Rock due to Carrie and her mind thoughts.

Regarding the score, surely it's Carpenter 4, Romero 4, not counting films that haven't been made yet, sequels to remakes, or remakes the original director worked on.

[Steven]

It does seem 'faithful adaptation' of Stephen King's books is not necessarily always a good thing.

But film-wise she's too much of a looker in the remake to be castigated by the girls and ignored by the boys, and the psychic powers are way overdone, this may as well be a remake of Roald Dahl's Matilda!

[Noodle Lizard]

It does seem 'faithful adaptation' of Stephen King's books is not necessarily always a good thing.

More often than not, it's a bad thing.  Well, I only say that because 'Carrie', 'Misery', 'Stand By Me', 'The Shawshank Redemption' and, of course, 'The Shining' were all admired and more successful than the novels, despite their deviation (though not necessarily because of it).

[MojoJojo]

The Shawshank Redemption is a pretty faithful adaptation - and apart from the Shining I don't remember the others deviating that much. But I guess they were made before the current fad for slavish faithfulness (e.g. LOTR, Harry Potter), so maybe having a black man in Shawshank is seen as a horrible corruption of the original novella.

[Noodle Lizard]

The Shawshank Redemption is a pretty faithful adaptation - and apart from the Shining I don't remember the others deviating that much. But I guess they were made before the current fad for slavish faithfulness (e.g. LOTR, Harry Potter), so maybe having a black man in Shawshank is seen as a horrible corruption of the original novella.

It's more to do with the film being three hours long compared to the book's 100 or so pages.  May have been a bad example though since Frank Darabont seems to think Stephen King can do no wrong.

[Famous Mortimer]

This is the way I occupy my mind when I'm in meetings - how would I remake those flawed films?

Take Watchmen, for example, I'd keep Zack Snyder but keep a tighter rein on him. I'd recast Ozymandias and Silk Thingummy (Malin Akerman), sort the awful makeup on Carla Gugino, that lesbian kiss in the opening montage (or her murdered self later in the film), I'd put more New Frontiersman throughout the film and cut out the people flying through the air after a punch...

Actually, it's more difficult than I thought. I'm not sure if I'd been standing over his shoulder while he was making it, going "hold on mate" it would have turned out that much better. Maybe a bit.

Talking of Dawn of the Dead, I'd have to watch it again to remember why I didn't like it, and there's too many Asylum Entertainment films coming out to give me the time to do so :)

[MojoJojo]

It's more to do with the film being three hours long compared to the book's 100 or so pages.  May have been a bad example though since Frank Darabont seems to think Stephen King can do no wrong.

Well, that's just because it's quicker to write something than to show it - I don't think the film added a lot of padding. Although can't remember if the Brooks on parole bit is in the book. The main changes are there were several different wardens in the novella, and Andy doesn't steal his money from the warden, his post escape fortune is just what he managed to invest before he was convicted. And Tommy gets bribed with a cushy prison place instead of shot. Oh, and Red and Andy don't actually meet up at the end of the novella.

I know no one cares.

[HappyTree]

The remake of Carrie was only done because a producer said Julianne Moore simply had to be in it but was too old now to play the lead.

[Custard]

Here's a great big, annoying, list of films currently being remade

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/remakes-and-reboots/26435/57-movie-remakes-and-reboots-currently-in-development

[VegaLA]

Here's a great big, annoying, list of films currently being remade

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/remakes-and-reboots/26435/57-movie-remakes-and-reboots-currently-in-development

My life there a few shocks in there.

Simply cannot imagine a Vacation film without Chevy as the lead, Police academy bleeds 80s blood but I can see an updated version of Wargames working. Weird science with Hughes does not feel right. Some are justified some not, but I see JC has one of his finest films on the list.

[Default to the negative]

The only one that niggles me is Gremlins. We've all seen the first two films, even children are familiar with them. Why not make Gremlins 3 instead of a reboot?