Re:
Last year it was sequels, this year it is remakes… perhaps next year they’ll just start re-releasing all the films from the year before, but with a subtly different title.
I say ‘remakes’, but they have a whole bunch of new words for them now… all of them can be identified by the ‘re’.
I can understand the thinking though – it made money last time, why not do it again… but this time we’ll tell everyone it’s even better… the punters liked it last time, so they’re bound to come and see an even better version.
I think the worst offenders are when they try to remake a truly great film. Psycho, for example, is about as good as it gets, yet someone thought, ‘We can’t just re-release it, the kids don’t want black and white films, we’ll have to remake it’. At least they realised that they wouldn’t be able to make a technically better film. They duplicated each of Hitchcock’s shots almost exactly, but even so the film was terrible, a pale,technicolor imitation.
I can’t really think of one remake that I would watch over the original – argh, just remembered the remake ofThe Ladykillers, a bit of me just died – seriously, none at all. Even films that were terrible the first time around don’t generally fare much better.
Take, The Hulk… in 2003 we were subjected to a film that was less than incredible (they even dropped that word from the title) and so in new Hollywood style, it was ‘re-imagined’ and another film called The Hulk was released in 2008 to rather lukewarm reviews. That’s a gap of just five years.
I hear that they started ‘re-visioning’ Ironman before filming wrapped on the first one… it’s due out next month.
Obviously (you know how it goes), I’m interested in which remakes have offended you, but I’m also keen to find out what the worst conceivable remake is.
I’m about to expose my bad taste in movies but they never should have done the remake of The Poseidon Adventure. Granted, the original is very anachronistic looking at this point but that’s part of the charm. And Poseidon (the newer one) was a bad movie by any measuring criteria.
I rented the new version of Black Christmas with somewhat decent expectations. I liked the 1970s one and some of the actresses in the new one are good. But the writing was so bad I wanted to track the screenwriter down and hold him accountable. I wanted him to pay a penance of some sort. Then I realized how much he got paid to write something that made people writhe in agony at its lack of merit. And I wept.
Oh, Poseidon… I’ve heard some terrible things about that film.
Any film containing Gene Hackman should not be tampered with. It says so on the packaging.
I think part of the charm of certain films, Poseidon Adventure included, is the film quality and stock as well as the production budget and technical limitations… I’m thinking of films like anything Ray Harryhausen was involved with… as I’ve mentioned, I’m a real sucker for stopframe animation and by replacing that with CG they’ve taken away my main reason for wanting to see the film.
“I wanted him to pay a penance of some sort”
There really should be some sort of standardised punishment list for these sort of crimes. I think being forced to eat your own script would at least result in shorter bad films.
I suppose it’s not technically a remake, but I Am Legend is a particularly offensive revival of a classic story. Maybe it was Matheson’s influence on the first adaptation that made it so good, but neither of the later films–The Omega Man incites a lot less disgust than the 2007 trainwreck–ever reached the same level of greatness.
Hmm, maybe a rant on terrible Hollywood adaptations of great sci-fi is in order?
That’s always in order
I watched 28 Days Later again recently, which is, in my opinion, a far better telling of the ‘possibly the last man alive in a zombie ridden world’ story. They’re obviously both based on the same source material, yet where IAL manages to get the message wrong and muddies the themes, 28DL keeps some of the integrity, and grittiness.
My only problem with the Heston ‘Omega Man’ is just that, Charlton Heston… from his cold dead hands… I’m sorry, I just find him slightly offensive on all levels, and since seeing the interview in Bowling for Columbine I have vowed to insult his memory at every turn.
On a slightly sci-fi related note, I’m interested to see what they do with one of my favourite short stories – Harrison Bergeron, by Kurt Vonnegut – remade as ’2081′. There was another film version (1995) too, made for television, which I hear is pretty good.
Batman makes this tricky. The original was, of course, incredibly campy. Good for that sort of thing. Then Burton reimagined it and made, in my opinion, an adequate film and then a pretty kickass sequel. Then, in its infinite wisdom, Hollywood handed the reigns to Schumacher and several atrocities were released upon us.
The franchise slunk away in shame for many years, got kicked around a bit with some talent being mentioned (Aronofsky as director) before landing in the hands of Christopher Nolan who made a pretty kickass “first” film in Batman Begins and then the jaw-dropping Dark Knight.
Obviously this is an exception to the way things usually go (I’m still waiting for someone to remake Citizen Kane as an action or “indie” comedy film) but Batman is a series that went through three reimaginings and as many sequels to produce one of the finer films I’ve ever seen.
Interesting in that comic book adaptations usually eviscerate their source material and end up as horrible films (V for Vendetta, Constantine, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen…. poor Alan Moore) that completely miss the point of their subject matter. I would say that Sin City was a success, but it was practically a “shot for shot” remake of the comic.
You know what was a GREAT comic to film (animated) adaptation? Tekonkinkreet. Although, it was also a very faithful adaptation.
Still, I kinda liked V for Vendetta…
I liked V too, though I did miss that speech from the comic that was addressed to humanity and read like a sleazy ‘we’re letting you go’ speech.
Stephen Fry was in V for Vendetta, and honestly it was a great adaptation. Film and page are not the same thing, so it’s impossible to expect them to be the same.
I keep thinking of adaptations…Dick Tracy was an amazing film. I know no one else thinks so, but it was the first comic book movie, and it was great.
*quest initiated*
Tekonkinkreet – thanks Roo, I’d never heard of it and now I must find it.
Oooh, I spelt it wrong: Tekkonkinkreet. Sorry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tekkon_Kinkreet
Way ahead of you… I can’t believe i missed this one, it looks ace, and it’s not as if I’ve been over-dosing on anime recently either.
I always have to say this when someone brings up ‘poor’ Alan Moore…
LXG the comic and LXG the film were begun, from the same concept, at the same time. So, by logic, the movie cannot be an adaptation. Comics do not take as much production time as a full-length film, however flawed, which is why the film was released after the comic, making it seem like it was an adaptation.
And as a side note, I have no idea why people worship Alan Moore. I suppose it is similar to my lack of ability to ‘understand’ the ‘genius’ of Joss Whedon.
Comics are closer, genetically, to plays than novels.
It’s like hippos and horses.
Being a visual media, essentially they can be used as a fully rendered storyboard. I think Sin City was a pretty good example of this. All they needed to do is not add anything new.
Oddly, I quite like V too. I think it got a panning as the result of so many disappointments in the comic–film arena. That, and as Melanthios points out, they cut some of the juicy bits out of it.
nothing poor about Alan Moore, he has flatly stated that he never wants his comics turned into movies, but he accepts the option money anyway. this is what is causing the trouble with Watchmen, he sold the option on it to FOX and Warner Bros. he’s rolling in money, and a conceited prick.
The Pink Panther. Need I say more?
Arrrrrg.
On a slight tangent, isn’t it funny how remaking films hardly ever works, but if done with care songs can be re-made almost infinitely to great success? And I’m not talking about things like the Lemonhead’s “Ms. Robinson,” I mean thing’s like Cake’s “Perhaps, Perhaps, Perhaps,” or Rasputina’s “Wish You Were Here,” Songs that if you’d never heard the original, you’d think were written by the band covering them.
There are a lot of BAD covers out there too… in fact, they probably outweigh the good ones. Maybe the problem with movies is that they’re not remade enough. If it was done so often that you had to actually RE-MAKE it to have it stand out, wouldn’t it be better?
No, no more is needed. Again, I forgot that film even existed. It’s like being a trauma victim with amnesia.
Seriously, Steve Martin, what happened?
…hope no one tries to remake The Jerk… especially if they are going to get modern Steve Martin to be in it.
It just feels a bit defeatist, to recylcle ideas from mere decades ago rather than creating new and exciting ones.
The problem is that Hollywood just hasn’t remade the right film yet, if they keep remaking films over and over again eventually they’ll come along with a formula that works and then we’ll be subjected to that for the next decade.
So I’m holding out for a recamping of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, and a redefecating of the Titanic.
(Note: Sarcasm was heavily deployed in this comment, Rocky Horror was a great movie and should never be remade, while Titanic was a great bane of the 90′s and should also never be remade)
I’m not sure if you were aware of this, but there is a remake of The Rocky Horror Picture Show planned. It is supposed to come out Halloween of 2009, and Marilyn Manson is supposedly playing Frank N Furter.
It makes me very sad.
I wonder if you can count Rocky as an adaptation, though. It was a stage show, after all.
True.
That made me think of Phantom of the Opera, and how the more recent adaption is more true to the original stage show than the original. (I’m only aware of two, but there may be more.)
Regardless, the original film version of RHPS, I’m fairly convinced, cannot be touched by the new, MTV one. Especially with Manson trying to play Frank…no one can out-do Curry on that one.
Sarcasm noted.
I do hope that doesn’t happen, the discovery of any ‘formula’ can only be bad news for those of us that find the word ‘formulaic’ an insult.
And as is rightly pointed out below, TRHPS is indeed being remade – against the wishes of Richard O’Brien, the creator of the original. I hear they’ve even writeen ‘new songs’ too. Joy.
No I missed that lovely piece of news. Seriously Marilyn Manson, seriously…
I’m rather glad he couldn’t be Burton’s Wonka. That would have f*****d everything up. So, so glad for small miracles.
Nevermind the movies that could actually do with some remaking… even if it was just to update the effects a little bit… Labyrinth, Never Ending Story, Willow….
I feel that way about the R.O.U.S.es in Princess Bride.
I agree with you about Willow, I haven’t seen Neverending Story, and I think Labyrinth should only be messed about with in regard to the opening titles…I don’t think the Fiery sequence can be messed with, it was just filmed before the advent of blue/greenscreen.
I thought that Pan’s Labyrinth was the dark re-visioning of The Labyrinth. Although I’m not sure that recasting Hitler in the role of David Bowie was a good idea…
The only thing that is dated in labyrinth is the soundtrack, and even that is near perfect anyway…
Narf, just read Roo’s comment above.
Yah, fix up the soundtrack, and in Willow, really just the Hydra monster thing. Certainly leave Jennifer in Labryinth… ah, my heart.
Ew, ew ew.
The only thing about Labyrinth that was badly written was Sarah’s character. Gods, how I hated her. She wasn’t really written all that realistically–as a teenager, she felt like she was written by the adult that just throws up their hands and says, ‘I don’t understand you kids! What’s the matter with kids these days??’
She had a character?
It isn’t really remakes that I remember, it’s more adaptations. There are good adaptations (Holes, for example, was absolutely true to the book. Absolutely. Fantastic), and there are bad adaptations (Spiderwick, I heard from my sister, was pretty awful). Of course, my mother was a film student, and I took some book-into-film type classes in school, myself–so I know how difficult it is to make an adaptation.
And then there is research. Research made the unlikely film ‘Stay Alive’ really amazing, and research is what made Francis Ford Coppola’s Dracula so incredible. Research makes or breaks an historical setting.
There are so many aspects of a film that need to all be done well, but the key thing, the thing that literally makes the film horrible or watchable-despite-flaws, is the writing. Yes, the acting can make something pretty bad (The character of DG in Sci-Fi’s Tin Man could have been cast so much better), but the writing can shine through even that. Then there’s editing…editing is what makes a horror movie so scary, among other things.
I’ll stop now, though, because I could go on for days.
Holes was good, wasn’t it? Both as an adaptation and a film in its own right.
I think you’ve mentioned something important here, that a film isn’t the work of a single person, rather a series of processes run by many different people, all of whom can really screw a film up.
It makes me wonder if they know when they are working on a turkey or not…
You know what does offend me, though? People who think the first adaptation of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is better than the second adaptation. Especially if they say Burton’s was a ‘remake’ of the ‘original’.
News flash: It wasn’t based on the Gene Wilder film; it, like the Gene Wilder film, was based on the book.
Roald Dahl hated the Gene Wilder adaptation of his film. Even though they asked him to write the screenplay, they threw it completely out because it was ‘too dark’.
Having grown up with the twisted darkness that is Dahl fiction, I was incredibly pleased to see the team assembled for the second adaptation of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Thus far it has been the only Dahl story adapted for screen or stage that has remained true to the twisted darkness one reads in Dahl’s books. Burton may have his flaws (casting his girlfriend all the time, for example, and sticking to his clique rather than casting for talent), but he did well with this source material.
I have a soft spot for the Gene Wilder version. It’s the first film I can remember watching… the first film I actually watched was Snow White, but I think I may have been a little too young for the cinema.
But I agree, I certainly saw more of the book in the Burton version. The Squirrels rather than the geese being the stand-out point.
I was always a big fan of The Twits myself… the idea of convincing someone they are going insane by gradually adding bits of wood to all the chairs, tables and walking sticks to make them think they are shrinking. Genius.
I do seem to remember finding The Witches film passable, but from memory I can’t figure out if it was close enough to the book to compete here… and wasn’t there an adaptation of James and the Giant Peach?
I recall the James and the Giant Peach adaptation being quite good… surreal clay stop-motion animation. But it’s been since I was a child, so it’s hard to say. Some times things we love in childhood and don’t hold up to the light of adulthood.
James was also done by Burton. He, I think, is the best director working today for Dahl’s work. He gets it, I think.
Also, the puppetry in James was armature covered by latex foam, just like the puppetry in Nightmare Before Christmas.
I love the other animation in James as well, though. That movie scared me to death, as a kid–but I knew it was supposed to, because it was a Dahl. I think people who complain about this need to go back and read some Dahl, for serious.
Yeah, funny thing about songs – hardly anyone in the UK realises that “Tainted Love” wasn’t written by Soft Cell, or “Without You” wasn’t *originally* by Harry Nilsen.
I live in fear of the day they remake Casablanca (relocated to Afghanistan? And yes, I have seen “Barb Wire”, but I try to forget…) or Blade Runner. Once I was quite relaxed, thinking nobody would ever try – then the remakes of Psycho and Planet of the Apes happened. When those two can get financed, anything can happen.
Seriously – in 11 years time, is any studio with the rights and some cash going to be able to resist “reimagining” Blade Runner and releasing it in the year the original was set?
Then again, they resisted remaking 2001, I guess. I think we can agree that that one, at least, is safe.
Then again, what about movies that *should* be remade? Ones that had potential that went unrealised, or flaws that could be corrected? … Can’t think of any off the top of my head, but then kind of by definition the movies that should be remade are the ones that DIDN’T make a big impression first time around.
Johnny Mnemonic could probably have been made into a good movie if they’d stripped it to the bone instead of trying to do too much.
I know the Gloria Gaynor version… but I’m pretty sure she didn’t write it – answers on a postcard kids.
I hadn’t even considered that someone would try to remake Bladerunner, but now that you mention it… it should be placed on a protected species register.
It’s a creepy fact that is, that we are only 11 years off living in the era of Bladerunner.
I’d remake ‘Be Kind Rewind’ – a film with a decent idea at its core, but unfortunately not a very good film.
johnny Mnemonic could probably have been made into a good film if it had a lower Keanu Reeves content.
the film adaptation of ‘i, robot’ completely missed the point of why Asimov wrote the way he did, it became yet another of those “there are some things man shouldn’t do” stories, exactly the opposite of what he intended
Too true, too true… that movie made me sad. And I had thought better of Will Smith.
The adaptation of Bicentennial Man was passable though. Robin Williams helped.
Remakes aren’t always terrible, just usually. I’m a big fan of the remake of The Fly, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, and Invasion of the Body Snatchers (the 1978 one, not the more recent re-remake), Little Shop of Horrors (going from straight horror to campy musical was genius), and I may be alone in this but I much preferred the remake of Night of the Living Dead to the black & white original. Actually… now that I think about it, remakes made these days seem much less interesting and satisfatory than remakes made ten or twenty years ago…
I completely agree how out of steam Hollywood seems to be these days. Every year you hear that they’re out of ideas, but it’s really really becoming hard to ignore the lack of anything new – it’s sequel, remake, or tv/game/book/comic as the source.
Aha! you’ve done it, two remakes there that I would consider as better than the original… The Fly (definitely) and Invasion of the body snatchers (only just, I like the original too).
We don’t remake films like we used to do… (nostalgic nostalgic comment of the year)
There are people out there, making the original films, it’s just that the conservative nature of finance means that they are very much marginalised whilst the generic remakes get all of the money… I suppose it is the same in every creative industry.
How’s that for the sad truth. I was tooling around town a couple weeks ago and ended up in a local brew-pub where a cover band was playing. They were obviously skilled musicians, but the songs they were playing lacked any really creative content. I asked the lead man, on the break, if they could play some original songs in the next set. Get this: he told me the he wasn’t allowed. The pub only wants covers, they’re afraid original music would drive people away!
I asked my muso friends and here’s what they tell me… average payment for a band playing their own material in local pubs £0–100 (depending upon attendance). Average payment for a cover band £200–400 (regardless of attendance as they are paid when ‘booked’ and depending upon whether it is a formal function such as a wedding).
People want to hear songs they know, and that’s it. It’s a little sad.
Of course, there’s playing a mix. That’s a fair comprimise.
My spouse was allowed to collect donations when playing original stuff at Starbucks, though he wasn’t paid.
Busking is more fun than gigging, anyway.
[...] Flowfield Unity: 8th September, 10th September, 12th [...]
There’s going to be a remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still, with Keanu Reeves as Klaatu.