Are movie remakes any good?

[Elton_Bush 0]

I have noticed that they have made alot of movie remakes from the classics and yet they don't seem to work alot of the time  

War of the Worlds was closer to the book but was still missing important parts and the ending was very sudden

The Italian Job was not as good as the 1960's version and was nothing like the older one

I don't know about King Kong because i haven't seen it but it looks good

does anyone else believe that they are any good and they should be continued to be made?

[MrCinatit 30]

it really depends on the movie - and the viewer, actually.

i thought the new King Kong was rather good.

i really liked the new War of the Worlds compared to the '50s version (the ending in the book is rather abrupt, as well).

Mark Walburg couldn't hold a script to Michael Caine, so needless to say the '60s version of the Italian Job is better.

the newer versions of Psycho and Carrie should have never even been considered.

Batman Begins makes any of the previous versions of the franchise look so campy, it isn't funny (though i do realize they were SUPPOSED to be campy - the new version was much better).

the older version of the Planet of the Apes was much better.

i like the Clooney version of Ocean's Eleven much better than the Sinatra version.

i like the older version of The Manchurian Candidate a lot. it is a classic. however, you get Streep and Denzil on the screen together and you have one heck of a screen presence. i think it is a drawl.

while the Clooney version of Solaris is pretty good, no one can outdo Andre Tarkovsky's original - no one. 

[Mantis747 1]

I think a lot of the remakes aren't very good, but King Kong is a different story.

King Kong was just amazing, I thought it was a really good film with most of the original stuff in it.

[Duke87 1,070]

Most of the time, remakes suck. Most of the time. You really can't make a remake that's better than the original unles the original either wasn't that great or has gotten completely dated.

A prime example is the recent The Lion , the Witch, and the Wardrobe movie. It's actually the third movie to be made out of this book. The oldest of them dates back to the 1960's, and was done as a cartoon. They also made cartoon versions of most (if not all) of the other six books in the series, but those have become impossible to find. A bit later on, an attempt was made to do it in live action. The trouble was, it was made before CG effects were really ever used. As such, the beavers are human size and quite obviously guys in costumes, Aslan is a giant puppet (as are the wolves), and all the other fantastical creatures are actually drawn as cartoons and pasted into the live action footage. It's the last part there that makes that movie really painful to watch. The latest attempt was actually very well done, though the classic cartoon still surpasses it IMO. Of course, then there's the trouble that plagues all movies which are based on books: Lots of people who have never read the book go and see the movie anyway, and thus never get the full story. In addition, there's always the few idiots who don't even realize that the movie was based on a book, no matter how popular the book in question is (the Harry Potter movies may be the only real exception, since even if you never read anything, you've heard of them).

Actually, a much better thing to do with old movies is to simply remaster them rather than remsaking them entirely. The classic Star Wars trilogy is a great example here. Tron also benefited greatly from remastering, brinnging all the old computer graphics up to spiff.

The real trouble is that the movies hollywood chooses to remake are all classics, which often just aren't the same if you take them and remake them, no matter how good a job you do of it.

If however, hollywood chose to remake some crappy old movie no one's ever heard of, It might actually go over better with me. Of course, the movie you choose has to have been crappy due to poor directing, poor acting, cheap special efffects, etc., and not due to having a horrible storyline to begin with. I say this because there is but one movie that comes to mind when "old crappy movie no one's ever heard of getting remade" is mentioned: Titanic. I bet you probably didn't know that was a remake of an old black and white movie form 1955, now did you?

So old movies are generally best just left well alone. Exceptions to this rule exist, but they're few and far between.

[MrCinatit 30]

Originally posted by: Duke87

If however, hollywood chose to remake some crappy old movie no one's ever heard of, It might actually go over better with me. Of course, the movie you choose has to have been crappy due to poor directing, poor acting, cheap special efffects, etc., and not due to having a horrible storyline to begin with. I say this because there is but one movie that comes to mind when "old crappy movie no one's ever heard of getting remade" is mentioned: Titanic.I bet you probably didn't know that was a remake of an old black and white movie form 1955, now did you?

So old movies are generally best just left well alone. Exceptions to this rule exist, but they're few and far between.quote>

 

could you be referring to 1953's Titanic, or 1958's A Night To Remember. 

both served as inspiration for Cameron's award winning flick. 

the '53 movie focused more on characters, including Barbara Stanwyck attempting to escape her upper class lifestyle, as well as an unloving husband (sound familiar) doing so with a young Robert Wagner.

A Night To Remember followed the events of the sinking of the Titanic on a more factual (at the time) level - including the band which played on deck to the very end.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Most of them Are crappy beyond belife. if we can include remade TV shows Il throw the new Batlestar Galactica in a being 100x better thenthe orginal.

Batman Begins and SciFi Channels remake of Dune is about the only ones i thought were better then the original.

I realy thought with modern effects that planet of the apes would be better, man was I wrong.

Its only going to get worse when theystart remaking more and more older movies rather then the risky venuture or something original.

They seem to be now concetrating on redoing spare slasher moives, anyone realy want to see them remake Friday The13th #1? orA Nightmare on elm street?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Generally speaking, remakes don't much matter except when someone does a poor job of messing with a great work of art.  By the time the great classical movies that I enjoyed when I was young get remade, not many people remember the original.

Now, if some idiot were to try to remake Gone With the Wind, somebody should arrange for a black hole to fall on Hollywood.

[hamsterTK 93]

I wonder if they will remake the original star trek movies? those movies were terrible, but modern computer graphics could really bring them to life.

Of course, the feel may not be captured correctly, and foaming rabid Trekkies would be so outraged they would start bombing movie theaters

[Micah 16]

My grandpa & I went to go see King Kong (with a few other people), and he said that has to be the best remake of a film he had ever seen. He said the worst King Kong remake was the one where King Kong climbs the Twin Towers (WTC). He said the storyline and graphics were terrible.

[beebs 129]

I loved King Kong... just bought it on DVD the other day, actually. Narnia was very good as well. I really hope they make more. I see the kids as becoming actors rather like those in Harry Potter. Average in the first movie, but quickly getting better and better. I was actually really impressed by the Goblet of Fire. But that's another topic altogether.

[Elton_Bush 0]

Originally posted by: Micah My grandpa & I went to go see King Kong (with a few other people), and he said that has to be the best remake of a film he had ever seen. He said the worst King Kong remake was the one where King Kong climbs the Twin Towers (WTC). He said the storyline and graphics were terrible.quote>

 

I saw that version too it was terrible that was one remake that never should have been made but I have not seen the latest version i must see it!

[Duke87 1,070]

MrCinatit: The movie I'm referring to was actually called "Titanic". So I was off by two years. Meh. My point is still valid, the exact year isn't important.

And anyone who is impressed by the Harry Potter movies obviousy hasn't read the books. Can you say "butcher"?

Seroiusly, the movies woud be great movies if it weren't for the fact that they were based on books. The trouble is that the books get really long. A decent Goblet of Fire movie would have to be five hours long at least, and no one would watch that. So Warner Brothers is stuck with leaving a lot of crucial plot out.

The first movie was okay, the second was kinda eh, and the third one really sucked. I've yet to see the fourth movie, and I don't really care to. I know it's going to suck ass horribly.

Bottom line: Read the books. Due to their length, making decent movies out of them is impossible.

[Elton_Bush 0]

Originally posted by: Duke87 MrCinatit:

Seroiusly, the movies woud be great movies if it weren't for the fact that they were based on books. The trouble is that the books get really long. A decent Goblet of Fire movie would have to be five hours long at least, and no one would watch that. So Warner Brothers is stuck with leaving a lot of crucial plot out.

The first movie was okay, the second was kinda eh, and the third one really sucked. I've yet to see the fourth movie, and I don't really care to. I know it's going to suck ass horribly.

Bottom line: Read the books. Due to their length, making decent movies out of them is impossible.quote>

 

The Lord of the rings Trilogy was very good even though parts of the books were taken out so that is not true you can still make good movies from books but you will only see the directors perspective of the book so it is still best that you read the book before you see the movie version of the story

[eedoon 0]

Duke87, I enjoyed Harry Potter both on movies and books. As a movie enthusiast I understand that filmmaker must change something due to duration limitation and more importantly, books and movies work differently.

Before I watch Goblet of Fire, I was under an impression that its going to be suck, but I see it anyway. How I couldn't be more wrong about my presentiment. It was trimmed, of course, but it was tight, entertaining and fun. I still loved the book better, but the movie are also good in my opinion.

And now that someone mentions The Lord of the Ring, I really loved the book, and the movie shows that although Tolkien was a great storyteller, LOTR can never be made to a movie as well as how Peter Jackson and his writer wrote it - simply because it would be confusing to move back and forth in time in the book's fashion. The movie has some technical problem, but from narrative standpoint, I couldn't imagine something better than a combination of the Extended Edition of FOTR and Two Towers with the theatrical version of ROTK.

[White_Stripes_200 0]

Some remakes are okay. I thought that the best remake was The Texas Chainsaw Massacre with Jessica Beil in it. It was a pretty sweet movie.

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: Duke87 MrCinatit: The movie I'm referring to was actually called "Titanic". So I was off by two years. Meh. My point is still valid, the exact year isn't important.

And anyone who is impressed by the Harry Potter movies obviousy hasn't read the books. Can you say "butcher"?

Seroiusly, the movies woud be great movies if it weren't for the fact that they were based on books. The trouble is that the books get really long. A decent Goblet of Fire movie would have to be five hours long at least, and no one would watch that. So Warner Brothers is stuck with leaving a lot of crucial plot out.

The first movie was okay, the second was kinda eh, and the third one really sucked. I've yet to see the fourth movie, and I don't really care to. I know it's going to suck ass horribly.

Bottom line: Read the books. Due to their length, making decent movies out of them is impossible.quote>

LotR had to cut out lots in order to keep each movie from being 5+ hours. We see how that turned out... what, 20 oscars or something later between all 3? You just need a good script and actors. It seems to me that HP is getting better each time. I hated the books, to be honest, but the movies interest me. I really can't wait for the next one, Order of the Phoenix is it?

[eedoon 0]

Yeah Order of Phoenix. But it was the worst book of the lot, so people wasn't expecting it much. Let's hope the movie turns out good.

[Duke87 1,070]

Oh don't even get me started on Lord of the Rings. The only reason the movies met any success at all was becuase there were so many geeks out there that loved the bboks and woud drool over any movie of them no matter how bad it was. It's the same reason I dislike Star Trek, mostly. Meets tons of success due to a huge cult following, but in actuallity is utter crap.

Lord of the Rings really just isn't my kind of thing. Four exceedingly long books about mostly crap by some hack of an author that appeal to your typical parents' basement-dwelling human male. Three movies based on the second, third, and fourth of said books which fit  the same description. Sorry, just no.

The trouble with Star Trek is that  they've always made a ton of effort to pass it off as realistic. But it isn't.  First off, it's placed in the future of our own timeline, applying actual dates to events important to it. That's a big no-no. Because then when said dates come to pass and the important events don't occur, there goes your plot. Did the 1990's give us a huge Eugenics program that resulted in a whole slew of genetically superior humans getting left in some sort of hypersleep on some sort of interstellar starship? No. Plot is wrecked, sorry.

Now, Star Wars is everything Star Trek wanted to be but isn't. The key thing that prevents it from getting thrown into the junk pile is that it's "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away", not this galaxy in the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th centuries, or some other stupid idea. Since now you're working with an alternate universe, it's okay to bend the laws of physics a bit to suit your storyline. It's okay that there's really no such thing as "The Force". It's okay that a lightsaber violates the laws of physics. It's okay that weapons based on light travel at a visible speed. Even the "sound in space" issue is excusable like this. You get the idea.

I have little tolerance for storylines that are completely unplausable in their setting.

[eedoon 0]

okay!

[RiverCocytus 0]

Movie remakes are often a sign of Hollywood being unable to find, create or hire good writers. Then some of their poor directors/producers succeed in messing up a movie. I think the best guide to whether a remake will be good or bad is who the director/producer/writers are. For instance, the Coen Brothers remade 'The Ladykillers', which I found immensely entertaining. It is MUCH different than the original. I would go so far as to not call it a remake even, but a new movie made on the same ideas.

King Kong was astounding; I loved LOTR, and Narnia was quite good too. All I can think of now, unforunately is, SNL : "The Chronic - What - cles of Narnia..."

Too many movie remakes is a bad sign for the art form I think.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Duke87 

Did the 1990's give us a huge Eugenics program that resulted in a whole slew of genetically superior humans getting left in some sort of hypersleep on some sort of interstellar starship? No. Plot is wrecked, sorry.

quote>

Dont you think thats We are coming to that now  with the  "advances" in genitics?

Cureing dieases and what not, cloning ect... take it a step forward with steriods and you have your supermen. They just got that dates wrong.

As for the getinging into space thats probably not going t o happen for a long time.

[thatmonkeysim 8]

it really depends on the script, directors, editing, etc.