Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jimor]

There's so many remakes that are at least at the rumor stage, and many of them are too minor for their own threads, but it still might be fun to express the occasional "WTF???" or "Hmmm, interesting" on some of them.

So here's a place to subject Hollywood to a healthy dose of cynicism, to express hope or despair, to rage or sigh about lack of creativity, and on rare occasions even praise new insights into old material.

If it's big enough news, or close enough to release to warrant a full blown discussion, don't let this thread stop you from starting a more focused topic, this is just to collect our miscellaneous thoughts until those occasions come around.

I'll start things off by swiping this list. It's a couple months old now, and there are more detailed descriptions at the site.

Videodrome
Barbarella
Guys And Dolls
Highlander
Mona Lisa
Alien
Fletch
Flight Of The Navigator
Cliffhanger
Judge Dredd
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Daredevil
Tomb Raider
Predators
True Grit
The Party
X: The Man With X-Ray Eyes
Lady Vengeance
The Crazies
Creature From The Black Lagoon
Total Recall
And Soon The Darkness
The Thing
The Shadow
The Phantom
Romancing The Stone
The Crow
Masters Of The Universe
Fantastic Four
Slap Shot
Evil Dead
A Nightmare On Elm Street
Clash Of The Titans
Tell No One
Drop Dead Fred
Arthur
Girls Just Want To Have Fun
Piranha 3-D
Buffy The Vampire Slayer
Footloose
Conan
Straw Dogs
Red Dawn
Fright Night
Mother’s Day
The Mechanic

[elizaknowswhatshesfor]

I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really want them to leave Flight Of the Navigator alone.

I would happily see Daredevil & Judge Dred re-done if they get someone good who actually has an understanding of comics at all to do them. It might wipe my memory of the previous travesties.

Baberella seems pointless to me as that film is so much of it's time.

Honestly are there no good stories left in the world? Really?

Most remakes are just awful. (I'm really trying to rack my brain to think of a good remake, urgh!)

[Border Reiver]

Some of those titles would make for interesting remakes in my opinion since filmaking has advanced considerably even for schlock movies (Creature from the Black Lagoon), or at least wouldn't suck nearly as much as the original (I'm looking at you Daredevil).

Others, such as Red Dawn wouldn't make any sense if remade.  Without the USSR/USA tension the movie wouldn't make any sense, and lets face it there really is no other nation that you could drop in the Soviet Union's place.

[a pack of wolves]

Most remakes are just awful. (I'm really trying to rack my brain to think of a good remake, urgh!)

A Fistful of Dollars? The Magnificent Seven? Evil Dead 2? The Thing? Invasion of The Bodysnatchers? If you try telling me you don't like a single one of those films I will be highly disappointed in you. I'm with you on them not touching Barbarella though, since it's one of the greatest films of all time (seriously) and there's no way they'd get the tone right. I also stand by my desire to kill anyone who attempts a remake of Kind Hearts And Coronets. In neither case would it harm my enjoyment of the original but I hate to see bad films being made, particularly when the starting point is from something so good.

I'm actually surprised by how few films on that list are out-and-out remakes. Films like Predator and Highlander have already been franchised so much it's hard to see them as sacred cows, and with the likes of Judge Dredd, The Crow, Conan, The Shadow and even Total Recall they were adaptations in the first place. There's nothing wrong with going back to the same source material someone else once used and seeing what you can make of it. Others come from a tradition where remakes and sequels were fine like Creature From The Black Lagoon or Piranha. I mean come on, you can't start getting precious about Roger Corman productions.

Basically, I like remakes. I actually think it's a really interesting way of making films. They only annoy me if they're bad or if they've obviously been made so that a film will be in English and feature white people.

[Border Reiver]

I don't know - some of Corman's work with Vincent Price and AIP to adapt Poe to the screen are very good, and are as close as I'd come to saying we shouldn't interfere with Corman's work....

Going back to the source and trying to retell the story isn't a bad idea, but if they execute it as badly as House of Wax I'm out of there.

[elizaknowswhatshesfor]

A Fistful of Dollars? The Magnificent Seven? Evil Dead 2? The Thing? Invasion of The Bodysnatchers?

I did say I was trying to rack my brain to think of some, I knew they were there.....

If they do touch Kind Hearts.... I will storm the studio. That film is so perfect.

I find the whole, remaking Asian horror films so there are no subtiltles & white folk in them to be fairly aborhant, not because I'm a purist particularly, it just seems somehow unfair to the people who made the originally, like Hollywood is saying "Well done for making an awesome movie, but we can do it better" WHich they can't IMO.

It's all a bit Mad Max with American accents for me.

[Will]

Honestly are there no good stories left in the world? Really?

There are plenty of good stories left in the world. Unfortunately, most of them happen to exist in books...books that require a modicum of reasoning, thought, and intelligence to follow. This works not at all with the current climate of dumbed-down, explain-everything-even-the-obvious Hollywood money-whoring that drives people to theaters.

[JD]

Get the fuck away from Footloose you cunts!

[a pack of wolves]

There are plenty of good stories left in the world. Unfortunately, most of them happen to exist in books...books that require a modicum of reasoning, thought, and intelligence to follow. This works not at all with the current climate of dumbed-down, explain-everything-even-the-obvious Hollywood money-whoring that drives people to theaters.

There's a heavily large amount of awful storytelling in books too, I'm not at all sure the ratio is any better there. The consistent hack Martin Amis has written short stories about terrorism and I can't imagine they'd be able to get near the sophistication of a film like Paradise Now. And Moon is a much better film about loss and identity than anything I've seen Don Delillo come out with, who seems to have written one interesting book ever (unsurprisingly it's also by far his shortest) and I'm not at all convinced he meant it to be ineteresting in the way it is.

I don't know - some of Corman's work with Vincent Price and AIP to adapt Poe to the screen are very good, and are as close as I'd come to saying we shouldn't interfere with Corman's work....

Don't get me wrong, I really like an awful lot of films Corman had a hand in. The Masque of the Red Death is superb and Price is at his best, but it's still an adaptation and not the first of Poe's story. In any case the man was hardly a purist, he'd steal and rework things all over the shop. To balk at the idea of remaking something he produced or directed doesn't seem true to what he did in his own practice.

It's all a bit Mad Max with American accents for me.

But with far fewer opportunities for hilarity, sadly. And it is a shame that so many remakes have followed the line of sanitising things for Western audiences by big budget Hollywood films that whiten it all up it makes it harder to remember all those great remakes that were about taking liberties and playing around with existing stories. We think of the terrible Day Of The Dead or buggered up versions of The Ring or Godzilla instead of the inventive back and forth between noir and westerns in the US and Japanese samurai films, or Bollywood stealing from a whole bunch of spaghetti westerns to make Sholay.

[Faker]

Get the fuck away from Footloose you cunts!

I'm guessing if they did a Footloose remake, Zac Efron would be first choice to star... you know this to be true.

[Will]

Get the fuck away from Footloose you cunts!

I'm guessing if they did a Footloose remake, Zac Efron would be first choice to star... you know this to be true.

Because Shia LeBeeeeeeef couldn't clear time from his schedule?

[Joseph]

The consistent hack Martin Amis...

He's definitely written some poor things, but 'Money' and 'Time's Arrow' are quite excellent.  He doesn't attempt to play around with grand ideas, but his style definitely works wonders in a few cases.

...better film about loss and identity than anything I've seen Don Delillo come out with, who seems to have written one interesting book ever (unsurprisingly it's also by far his shortest) and I'm not at all convinced he meant it to be ineteresting in the way it is.

Which book do you think is his best?  I can't recall which is his shortest, but I'll guess at 'Cosmopolis', which I haven't read.  But you really don't think that 'White Noise' offers anything of value?  And though 'Underworld' is something of an overwhelming mess at times, there are passages which are engulfing and rather incredible.  Certainly though, he tends towards being a tad overobvious with his ideas, especially in his plays.

[JD]

[Jimor]

Highlander is one as a franchise reboot I'm not sure about. When it was good, it kept to the basic premise and tried to tell interesting character stories around the concept, often using historical flashbacks to good effect. When it was "re-imagined" it completely fell off the rails and produced 2 of the worst movies ever made.

Total Recall would work if they just made the conspiracy make sense. But I have the feeling a writing upgrade isn't part of the budget.

Fletch has potential just as a generic fun detective/thriller series, it's a matter of getting a good balance of tone. The laconic Chevy Chase style would work as a TV series, but you do need a bit more oomph to a movie franchise.

[a pack of wolves]

Oh come on, Highlander did not have interesting character stories. It had people getting their heads chopped off and the only Scottish guy in the film unaccountably playing a Spaniard. It then had a sequel that got even more stupid by abandoning the events of the first film and going into the future so Lambert can could chop off some more heads and a resurrected Connery could die for not much reason at all, and then a bunch of subsequent films I never managed to get all the way through. So long as they remember to include some dodgy accents, make sure nothing makes sense and have good amounts of decapitations then the new one will be thoroughly within the spirit of the first film, and quite possibly a good laugh.

[Be My Head]

TOMB RAIDER?

That movie isn't even that old! Not that I care anyway.

Are they still going to remake Akira? Anyone know?

[a pack of wolves]

The Hollywood live action version? Rumour is it's dead, but I guess DiCaprio's still got the rights to it so it could still happen at some point.

Joseph, my reply to your questions got so out of hand I had to give it its own thread: http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,23614.0.html

[Border Reiver]

Honestly are there no good stories left in the world? Really?

There are plenty of good stories left in the world. Unfortunately, most of them happen to exist in books...books that require a modicum of reasoning, thought, and intelligence to follow. This works not at all with the current climate of dumbed-down, explain-everything-even-the-obvious Hollywood money-whoring that drives people to theaters.

So what people actually find entertaining?

Remember that Shakespeare was considered to be pandering to the lowest common denominator to put bums in the theatre to make money.  I'm not saying that people like Uwe Boll will be considered to be this period's Shakespeare (my money would be that in 400 years they'll be looking at Mr. G. Lucas and S, Spielberg's works), but that if no one goes to see what you make, or that it is unreachable to the public you've failed as an entertainer.

[elizaknowswhatshesfor]

I'm guessing if they did a Footloose remake, Zac Efron would be first choice to star... you know this to be true.

This my basic problem with remakes, the people you know they will get to play Characters you may well have grown to love like they are your own little children.

Ps. That shakesphere argument is old. If you follow that logic, Jeremy Kyle is this century's version of the Globe.

Also: Most of Shakephere's greatest and most re-told stories are based on Greek tragedies/comedies & those in turn can be traced back to pagan myths and stories told and retold the world over. They wren't new stories, they were just told in a new & interesting way.

There will always be the classic themes of love, loss, triumph etc.

[Surgoshan]

Man, I love me a good tale of etc.  I always get a bit weepy when the etc finally unfolds.

[Jimor]

Another rumor I saw elsewhere is Spielberg remaking Harvey. Somebody suggested Tom Hanks for the Jimmy Stewart role, and I then replied with something like:

Spielberg: "On the technical side, we had to do a lot to make this work. After the actor in the bunny suit performed his part opposite Tom, we had to go frame by frame with powerful CGI to digitally erase him from the scene. The SFX budget will easily top $100 million, but I think it's worth every penny to help achieve the quiet personal feel of the original film."

[Ikrik]

A remake of Harvey would be absolutely horrible.  I saw the original when I was like 13 and it's been one of my favourite films ever since.  I don't think there is ANY actor who could do what James Stewart did with that role.  The thought of Tom Hanks as Edward P Dowd bothers me so much, he doesn't have that niceness that James Stewart exemplified with the film.  Watch the film, I swear to god the dude is just like a little kitten. 

[Kugai]

Videodrome  - OK, I have never seen this, so I have no opinion
Barbarella - Replace Jane with who??!!!!
Guys And Dolls -  Hmmmmmm  A possibility
Highlander - There can be only one!
Mona Lisa - *Shrugs*
Alien - Somebody send these idiots to LV426
Fletch - Could be a winner, then again ..........
Flight Of The Navigator - *Shakes head*
Cliffhanger - Possible
Judge Dredd - Sly didn't do too bad, but it stopped being Ol' Stone Face the moment he took the Helmet off
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - That would make it remake numberrrrrrr ............ ?
Daredevil - Might be worth it
Tomb Raider - Angeline was fairly good in this - But who would you get?
Predators - .............
True Grit - Fill yer hands you sonavabitch!!
The Party -  No
X: The Man With X-Ray Eyes - Back to the fifties we go!
Lady Vengeance - See first comment
The Crazies - As above
Creature From The Black Lagoon - Might work
Total Recall - There's room for improvement - especially when you've read the novel
And Soon The Darkness - Never seen it
The Thing - The remake they made was definitive
The Shadow - A possibility it might work
The Phantom - DEFINATELY tonnes of room for improvement over that dog they made
Romancing The Stone  No!!!
The Crow - May the ghost of Brandon Lee haunt them if they do
Masters Of The Universe - Oh GOD no!!!!
Fantastic Four - Ummm ....... What???!!!
Slap Shot - Maybe
Evil Dead - Where's Ash when you need him!
A Nightmare On Elm Street - Oh PLEASE no!!!!!!
Clash Of The Titans - OK, I'm in two minds over that
Drop Dead Fred - And stay that way!
Arthur - SCOTCH!!!
Girls Just Want To Have Fun - Never saw it
Piranha 3-D - Can you go any lower than a grade z shclocker?!
Buffy The Vampire Slayer - *Shakes head*   Willow, Willow!  I have a job for you!    
Footloose - EN OH!
Conan - WithoutArnie?!!?
Straw Dogs - Never saw it
Red Dawn - Sorry, won't work
Fright Night - Possible
Mother’s Day - Hmmmmmmmmm
The Mechanic - Plausable

[FIXDIX]

Is there a reason why you decided that your font colour should make me not want to read your post?

[De_El]

So what people actually find entertaining?

Remember that Shakespeare was considered to be pandering to the lowest common denominator to put bums in the theatre to make money.  I'm not saying that people like Uwe Boll will be considered to be this period's Shakespeare (my money would be that in 400 years they'll be looking at Mr. G. Lucas and S, Spielberg's works), but that if no one goes to see what you make, or that it is unreachable to the public you've failed as an entertainer.

I'm sure quite a lot of worthwhile authors and film auteurs are perfectly fine with failing as entertainers! That's where the art part comes in. Which is not to say that things that are thoroughly entertaining, and are very successful entertainment, cannot be artful, but it is not the inherent point of art to be entertaining.

[Kugai]

Is there a reason why you decided that your font colour should make me not want to read your post?

Damn!  It was originally blue, but I thought red would be better when I saw it.  OK, will change it again

[Tom]

I don't care so long as Marvel are the ones who get to remake Daredevil and the FF.

[Kugai]

OK, after playing with another couple of colours, I decided to toss the whole colour change and go with basic white with a - in between

God I hate grey backgrounds!!!!

[Inlander]

For future reference, if you absolutely positively must use coloured text, orange and yellow work best against the dark grey background.

[Kugai]

Thanks Inlander, I'll remember that for the future

[Surgoshan]

They're remaking Barbarella.

[Inlander]

Which means in the future we can look forward to some band being the reincarnation of Duran Duran.

[Border Reiver]

So what people actually find entertaining?

Remember that Shakespeare was considered to be pandering to the lowest common denominator to put bums in the theatre to make money.  I'm not saying that people like Uwe Boll will be considered to be this period's Shakespeare (my money would be that in 400 years they'll be looking at Mr. G. Lucas and S, Spielberg's works), but that if no one goes to see what you make, or that it is unreachable to the public you've failed as an entertainer.

I'm sure quite a lot of worthwhile authors and film auteurs are perfectly fine with failing as entertainers! That's where the art part comes in. Which is not to say that things that are thoroughly entertaining, and are very successful entertainment, cannot be artful, but it is not the inherent point of art to be entertaining.

Perhaps not, but to be successful at getting your artistic vision across you have to be accessible to your audience.  If nobody wants to watch your work, look at your paintings, listen to your music - does your vision really matter? 

[a pack of wolves]

I don't really believe in inaccessible art. Or rather, that the only thing I've ever seen that could be described in that way was absolutely fascinating because of its inaccessible nature so it doesn't make sense as a description of art nobody can get anything from. Similarly, it's hard to think of art nobody at all likes. Even the worst regarded films have their supporters (my Mum and I will go to bat for the worth of Barb Wire any day). There's also a large disparity between what people find entertaining and what they think is interesting and worthwhile. Francis Bacon is an immensely popular painter but can you imagine anyone calling Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion entertaining?

[De_El]

Well, of course it matters. It may not matter on a broad-based cultural level, but taking the idea to its logical extreme, some art is made by an artist simply because the artist feels compelled to make it.  In this case, it matters to the artist and it might not, even probably does not matter to anyone else. But who cares? Who says art has to be made with an audience in mind? Art doesn't need an audience.

[Scandanavian War Machine]

i find Francis Bacon's paintings to be very entertaining! he's one of my favorite painters, actually.

then again, i am using "entertaining" pretty loosely here in that if i get joy out of looking at them, then i am not bored, therefore i am being entertained, at least in some small way. does that make sense? (logically, not grammatically; i know there are far too many commas in that sentence for it's own good)

[a pack of wolves]

I do got what you mean. I could never use the word joy about his paintings though, he normally just gives me abject terror. Brilliant, but so utterly crushing.

[Jimor]

Robert Zemeckis and Disney are looking at remaking Yellow Submarine using 3D motion capture CGI.

Does this really need to be done? It's such a product of its time, and the art style, the weirdness, is all a part of that package. I know Beatles tribute projects have been insanely popular the last few years, but I don't see what new vision can possibly be brought to the table here.

[De_El]

Yeah, the very idea of a Yellow Submarine remake is basically the height of unfathomable stupidity. There is no point. Would be shitty, would not make its money back. Lose lose.

[variable_star]

Yeah, the very idea of a Yellow Submarine remake is basically the height of unfathomable stupidity. There is no point.

I don't even see how it's possible to pull this off. I'm actually curious to see just what angle they'd take with it.

I feel the same way about the "Battlestar Galactica" feature film that Bryan Singer is supposed to helm. It seems completely unnecessary and almost destined to suck, but if they're going to make it anyway, I'll probably see it out of sheer curiosity.

[Border Reiver]

If they do, that's what rentals are for.