Hollyweird strikes again.

[Bugman]

Now before anyone gets their shorts in a wad, lets be clear on something-this is my opinion. Take it for what its worth. Or not. 😛 Taste in anything, be it books, music or food for example, is subjective.

With that out of the way, the subject is remaking classic films. Someone thought remaking Ben Hur was a good idea. From everything I've read its a giant stink bomb. Why am I not surprised? Now, I've just seen a trailer for a remake of The Magnificent Seven. I'll withhold judgment on it for now, but if its equal to or better than the original, I'll be stunned. Some things should be left alone.

What say you TMF?

 

[Wolf]

Pretty much agree. I don't think remakes are always a bad thing (after all, it was a remake of The Seven Samurai) but this is just a symptom of Hollywood's lack of originality.

 

[Bugman]

Pretty much agree. I don't think remakes are always a bad thing (after all, it was a remake of The Seven Samurai) but this is just a symptom of Hollywood's lack of originality.

Have you seen the True Grit remake? I understand its closer to the book than the 1969 film but I don't know, anyone other than John Wayne as Rooster Cogburn just seems..wrong to me.

 

[TheGerbilSystem]

Eh, I'm cool with it. I mean, sure, the remake is generally worse, but I don't think there's any harm in that. Or, put it another way, it's not like the remake is any reflection on the original (or vice versa).

I'd also say I don't necessarily think a lack of originality in film is a bad thing, if that's what's making people happy.

 

[Bugman]

Eh, I'm cool with it. I mean, sure, the remake is generally worse, but I don't think there's any harm in that. Or, put it another way, it's not like the remake is any reflection on the original (or vice versa).

I'd also say I don't necessarily think a lack of originality in film is a bad thing, if that's what's making people happy.

I see where you're coming from. Like I told another member, when it comes to this subject I'm a snob. 😛

 

[rdhd]

I have to agree that remakes are a waste.....

 

[Wolf]

I have to agree that remakes are a waste.....

The Wizard of Oz (the 1939 version) was a remake.

 

[Bugman]

The Wizard of Oz (the 1939 version) was a remake.

True, but the first two were silent films. This is a case where I'd make an exception. Same thing with Ben Hur. The first version dates to 1925 or so.

 

[Wolf]

True, but the first two were silent films. This is a case where I'd make an exception. Same thing with Ben Hur. The first version dates to 1925 or so.

Okay, how about Ocean's Eleven, Little Shop of Horrors, The Fly...?
some remakes are better, but they're few and far between.

 

[Cosmo_ac]

Okay, how about Ocean's Eleven, Little Shop of Horrors, The Fly...?
some remakes are better, but they're few and far between.

I'll throw "Scarface" into that list as well. To be honest, I didn't even know it was a remake till I was one day walking around and saw a DVD of the old one.

 

[The Internet]

the problem isn't the existence of remakes....they've always existed....its that between Remakes, sequels and adaptions of old TV shows, comic books, etc......that's just about ALL they do anymore in Hollywood.

It's one thing to remake a movie that was made in the 40s, let's say. Or, ok, adapt a foreign film to your own language. But to remake movies that were in the 70s, 80s or even 90s (as they do now) is pretty ridiculous since nothing much has changed since they were made to warrant a remake.

They also do remakes that they just remade! That horrible "King Kong" came out, what, less than ten years ago, right? They've gone ahead and made another one. But even if it was twenty years ago that the other remake was put out -the difference between 1996 movies and now is practically nil! Didn't they just remake "Clueless"?

They used to say that film is the intersection where art and commerce meets. But the commerce part has always resented the creative part (this is why Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks, Charlie Chaplin, and DW Griffith formed United Artists in 1919). Like the music industry, it is no longer run by maverics who green light a project, who go on instinct or passion for a project - it's all done by committee, always with the eye on the bottom line.....basically laywers and accountants. Once "Star Wars" was the blockbuster it became (and stuff like "Heaven's Gate" tanked - killing United Artists, ironically enough!), the movie business changed and its gradually gone downhill from there.

There's also not much money floating around in the movie industry for new, untried ideas. About a year ago I met with some agents and the word is: all the money right now is in series, stuff that can be binge-watched. That's where they're looking for ideas. In movies, they are looking for something they can market and parlay into tie-ins with Burger King kid's meals and stuff like that.

The good news is most of these movies suck and tank.

 

[TMF Jeff]

There aren't that many original ideas, and this is something that always happens. Things get adapted for a new generation, or a new audience. Even Shakespeare was remaking and re-adaping stories half the time.

The original Magnificent Seven was a remake of the Akira Kurosawa movie Seven Samurai, and Ben Hur had already been a movie twice when the 1959 version finally came along. The movie Down To Earth was a remake of Heaven Can Wait, which was a remake of Here Comes Mr. Jordan, which was an adaption of a play.

It's just a question of whether they make a good movie or not. If it's good, like True Grit, then that's justification for remaking it, and if not then it was a waste of time. But there's nothing sacred about these things, they're just stories that have been being retold pretty much forever in one form or another.

 

[The Internet]

There aren't that many original ideas, and this is something that always happens. Things get adapted for a new generation, or a new audience. Even Shakespeare was remaking and re-adaping stories half the time.

The original Magnificent Seven was a remake of the Akira Kurosawa movie Seven Samurai, and Ben Hur had already been a movie twice when the 1959 version finally came along. The movie Down To Earth was a remake of Heaven Can Wait, which was a remake of Here Comes Mr. Jordan, which was an adaption of a play.

It's just a question of whether they make a good movie or not. If it's good, like True Grit, then that's justification for remaking it, and if not then it was a waste of time. But there's nothing sacred about these things, they're just stories that have been being retold pretty much forever in one form or another.

I must respectfully disagree (to a point). I hear this in terms of music as well. "Oh, well, theres just so many ideas out there". Well then I guess it's just coincidence then that quality control went downhill when those two industries shifted in the 70s. There's plenty of ideas out there....but they're too lazy to make them and most of all, to market them. They don't know how to market something that didn't exist already.

As I said: there's a difference between adapting a foreign film for your own language, or remaking a story that was made during the era of the Hayes code when you couldn't show a drop of blood or two couples laying in the same bed together

But remaking "Clueless"?

If you make 50 remakes, a few are bound to be good. That's not the point. Remakes have always existed. But now that's practically ALL they make. Remakes and sequels (and adaptations of TV shows) dominate the industry. And we're not talking a considered remake of an old movie (say, the 1979 version of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", or even the 90s version)...these are usually paint-by-numbers cash-ins and star vehicles. You have a big opening weekend, and that's it. Most of these movies have no shelf life. If it wasn't for cable? Most of these movies would never been seen again.

Hey....how many times have you flipped the channels, and you see on the menu the title of a great movie, like "Psycho"....and you click on it....only to find that it's the shitty remake? C'mon...you know its true! lol

 

[The Internet]

PS: It's not just remaking a movie....it's that they remake movies that don't need to remade. Picking an old movie that maybe had a great idea for a plot, but wasn't executed very well.....by all means remake it! There's a ton of silent films, for instance, with great stories could be remade. Tons! I just posted two in another thread: "His Picture's In The Papers" and "Hell's Hinges". You could make a great comedy vehicle with "His Picture is in the Papers" and an amazing, riveting western-action film with "Hell's Hinges".

But how would they market it? They wouldn't have a clue.

But remaking "Willy Wonka", that they can market! And with all due respect to Johnny Depp....Gene Wilder IS Willy Wonka. It's always been shown on TV, it's never gone out of circulation...... easy to market a remake of it, though! More difficult to best it.

 

[Cosmo_ac]

But remaking "Willy Wonka", that they can market! And with all due respect to Johnny Depp....Gene Wilder IS Willy Wonka. It's always been shown on TV, it's never gone out of circulation...... easy to market a remake of it, though! More difficult to best it.

This is a big part of it as well. Keep in mind, these companies are throwing tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions into this things. Hell, some have even been half a billion after marketing, I'm sure. Every movie they make is a gamble, so when they have the choice between an original idea, something which might sound good, but isn't tested, they tend to be a little cautious. However, if they see a movie has done well in the past, it seems like a safer gamble for them. Not guaranteed money, but they can at least say, "This has been done before, and it made money. This formula worked." Tried and tested is almost always preferred to new and original.

 

[The Internet]

This is a big part of it as well. Keep in mind, these companies are throwing tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions into this things. Hell, some have even been half a billion after marketing, I'm sure. Every movie they make is a gamble, so when they have the choice between an original idea, something which might sound good, but isn't tested, they tend to be a little cautious. However, if they see a movie has done well in the past, it seems like a safer gamble for them. Not guaranteed money, but they can at least say, "This has been done before, and it made money. This formula worked." Tried and tested is almost always preferred to new and original.

...and so the audience suffers, and so does the history of cinema. I'm part of the audience. I shouldn't have to "keep it in mind"....oh, this movies sucks because the nice men who put up the money wanted to take all the risk out of it. Pffft. That's not the attitude the built the business, sorry. I have no sympathy with their plight.

Movies have always been expensive. Always. Since day one. So, they're doing what all big business has tried to do: take away the financial risk, maximize product....and quality control be damned. They're not being cautious, they're being cowardly.

It's fine with me! I don't have a prejudice against old movies, foreign movies or any type of genre of film (ditto music); I can spend the rest of my life watching great film after great film that I've never seen before from the 20th century. Just watched two Claude Chabrol movies this week that were wild, watching a hilarious Claudia Cardinale movie right now..... they can have their remakes and sequels and dopey comic book movies... leave it to the poor slobs who are allergic to anything pre-1985, lol.

(speaking of which: do we really need a new origin-of-Batman/Superman/Spiderman movie every few years? Don't they have tons of arch-villians you can pit them against?)

 

[chicago]

Meh at the end of the day, it's entertainment and you can't argue likes and dislikes. To each their own. I'd be OK with them remaking more movies if they stop doing shit like Sharknado. But bug did warn us about snobs lol 😛

 

[The Internet]

Meh at the end of the day, it's entertainment and you can't argue likes and dislikes. To each their own. I'd be OK with them remaking more movies if they stop doing shit like Sharknado. But bug did warn us about snobs lol 😛

Always been proud to be a movie snob and a music snob.......and last I checked, so are you!

Also Bugman didn't warn about snobs....he said he was one.....nice try, though kid!

 

[Cosmo_ac]

...and so the audience suffers, and so does the history of cinema. I'm part of the audience. I shouldn't have to "keep it in mind"....oh, this movies sucks because the nice men who put up the money wanted to take all the risk out of it. Pffft. That's not the attitude the built the business, sorry. I have no sympathy with their plight.

Movies have always been expensive. Always. Since day one. So, they're doing what all big business has tried to do: take away the financial risk, maximize product....and quality control be damned. They're not being cautious, they're being cowardly.

The audience doesn't suffer. They choose to go see a movie or not. Look, I'm sorry that it bothers you a little that some companies decide to play it safe, that they choose to do movies that are more likely to put them in the black, and make sure they can continue to pay the thousands of people that need their jobs to put food on their table, and continue to do well financially so they can put other movies out, and continue to keep those thousands of people from losing their jobs and . I am sorry this bothers you, but me, I simply decide that if a movie looks good, I go and see it, and if not, I don't. I don't begrudge companies for wanting to continue to be in business. If they don't want to take risks, that's their call, and if that hurts them, they only have themselves to blame.

 

[Wolf]

There's a lot of original ideas out there, and decent movies being made.
But the major studios are like fast food chains, giving the lowest common denominator stuff they can recognize.
Don't get me wrong, I still love a good popcorn movie; Hell, I like really bad movies, too. (All about SciFi orginals...except Sharknado..fuck those guys.)
I just stopped expecting anything really original to come out of major U.S. studios.
Look to foreign and independent flicks if you want to be surprised.

 

[TMF Jeff]

I must respectfully disagree (to a point). I hear this in terms of music as well. "Oh, well, theres just so many ideas out there". Well then I guess it's just coincidence then that quality control went downhill when those two industries shifted in the 70s. There's plenty of ideas out there....but they're too lazy to make them and most of all, to market them. They don't know how to market something that didn't exist already.

As I said: there's a difference between adapting a foreign film for your own language, or remaking a story that was made during the era of the Hayes code when you couldn't show a drop of blood or two couples laying in the same bed together

But remaking "Clueless"?

If you make 50 remakes, a few are bound to be good. That's not the point. Remakes have always existed. But now that's practically ALL they make. Remakes and sequels (and adaptations of TV shows) dominate the industry. And we're not talking a considered remake of an old movie (say, the 1979 version of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", or even the 90s version)...these are usually paint-by-numbers cash-ins and star vehicles. You have a big opening weekend, and that's it. Most of these movies have no shelf life. If it wasn't for cable? Most of these movies would never been seen again.

Hey....how many times have you flipped the channels, and you see on the menu the title of a great movie, like "Psycho"....and you click on it....only to find that it's the shitty remake? C'mon...you know its true! lol

Whether or not they're good is the only point. Who cares what people make? Nobody is going to force you to watch it if it's shitty, but if they make something good, that's another good movie successfully made and shown to people. Like the Magnificent Seven - why shouldn't audiences of young people today know that story? Or do you think people should just watch a 50 year old movie? I mean, I don't know if you've watched many 50 year old movies, but I personally find them unbearably slow and plodding. They take ten minutes to set something up that I understood as soon as the scene started, because they were made for very different audiences than the audience today, which is very familiar with the language of film and doesn't have to have its hand held through every scene.

And I see a ton of non-remakes constantly being released, and a relative few remakes. I mean, I hate to start just listing movies, but in the last year we had The Lobster, Revanent, The Hateful 8, , Room, Sausage Party, Wardogs, Me Before you, 10 Cloverfield Lane... and I'm not even a big movie buff. Someone who pays attention to this stuff could probably name a hundred lesser-known original movies that just don't get any attention, but they're certainly out there if you're concerned about avoiding remakes.

And frankly, a lot of the movies that they remake could stand a reboot. I just read that they're remaking Time Bandits... now I love Time Bandits, it has a warm place in my heart. But I doubt if you showed it to a 12 year old today, it would be very accessible to them. It's a 30 year-old movie now and the pacing, even to me, is unbearably slow. If the remake sucks, that doesn't mean remakes suck, it means studios suck. They take a lot of original ideas and turn them into shit too.

 

[The Internet]

The audience doesn't suffer. They choose to go see a movie or not. Look, I'm sorry that it bothers you a little that some companies decide to play it safe, that they choose to do movies that are more likely to put them in the black, and make sure they can continue to pay the thousands of people that need their jobs to put food on their table, and continue to do well financially so they can put other movies out, and continue to keep those thousands of people from losing their jobs and . I am sorry this bothers you, but me, I simply decide that if a movie looks good, I go and see it, and if not, I don't. I don't begrudge companies for wanting to continue to be in business. If they don't want to take risks, that's their call, and if that hurts them, they only have themselves to blame.

-The audience suffers if they pay for a movie and it sucks! The audience suffers even if they DON'T pay for the movie and it sucks. They've just invested at least an hour (or three) of their time!

-Their strategy of "playing it safe" has really paid off for them! Movie attendance has been going down for a years, for a variety of reasons, and quality of product is one. Last year it was down to a 19-year low.

-They just market things for a big opening weekend: dupe as many people as you can before the word gets out "don't go see it, it sucks". I understand that's their business model....so sorry that it bothers you that I don't dutifully buy a ticket for the remake of "Arthur".

-Buying a movie ticket doesn't mean the person liked the movie. Did you ever notice how most movies that are number one now only stay there for a week or a two? Why do you think that is? Guess what, buddy, that wasn't always the case!

And so...because THEY don't want to take the gamble, I'M not taking the gamble. Tell me, what's different now from the previous hundred years about risk and the cost of production in the movie business? The only difference between now and then is who's greenlighting the movies, that's it.

When you go to a restaurant, do you want the food to be good? If you go to the restaurant, and it takes an hour and ten minutes for them to bring you a drink, do you say "oh well, they had a busy night, it's tough being a restaurant!" I'm sorry it bothers YOU that I don't settle for dogshit. It's my time and money and guess what: I hardly ever have that familiar-sensation that prompts one to say: "that movie sucked, what a waste of my time and money".

 

[The Internet]

Whether or not they're good is the only point. Who cares what people make? Nobody is going to force you to watch it if it's shitty,

I care. So that's who. That's the first thing. And a movie unfolds, you don't instantly look at it and say "i like it" or "I don't like it". I've walked out of movies, but usually people stay till the end, even if it sucks. So "no one's forcing you" that really doesn't apply here.

but if they make something good, that's another good movie successfully made and shown to people.

Right, and the topic of the discussion is how so often these remakes suck.

Like the Magnificent Seven - why shouldn't audiences of young people today know that story? Or do you think people should just watch a 50 year old movie? I mean, I don't know if you've watched many 50 year old movies, but I personally find them unbearably slow and plodding.


Well, I don't find them slow and plooding, I think that's a completely ridiculous statement about a movie from the mid-60s, sorry. I mean....I don't even know how to respond to such a statement! Off the top of my head, "Bonnie & Clyde", um...."Alfie" is fantastic (which they remade horribly)...."Dr. Strangelove"....

And I see a ton of non-remakes constantly being released, and a relative few remakes. I mean, I hate to start just listing movies, but in the last year we had The Lobster, Revanent, The Hateful 8, , Room, Sausage Party, Wardogs, Me Before you, 10 Cloverfield Lane... and I'm not even a big movie buff.

Never said non-remakes were not being made, Jeff. And by the way, marketing "the new movie from Quentin Tarantino"....that's as easy as saying "and now, in September, comes the new movie from Quentin Tarantino".

I just read that they're remaking Time Bandits... now I love Time Bandits, it has a warm place in my heart. But I doubt if you showed it to a 12 year old today, it would be very accessible to them. It's a 30 year-old movie now and the pacing, even to me, is unbearably slow. If the remake sucks, that doesn't mean remakes suck, it means studios suck. They take a lot of original ideas and turn them into shit too.

My nephew and nieces just watched "Time Bandits" actually and liked it! (I actually didn't like it when I saw it, when it came out!)

 

[TMF Jeff]

Who's forcing you to see these movies blind like that? Personally, I generally know about a movie before I go and see it. If you spend your money without first investigating what you're spending it on, I don't think it's fair for you to claim to have been ripped off. Stop spending money on things you don't know anything about and you'll experience a lot less disappointment. I haven't spent money on a movie that I didn't like in years... probably since the invention of the internet.

And what I think is a ridiculous statement is to say that somehow whether or not a movie is a remake has anything to do with how good it is. Maybe you can find exceptions, although all three you named are actually examples of what I'm talking about - movies that seemed fast paced fifty years ago but now seem slow and obvious and dumb, but generally speaking even without those specific examples, old movies are slow and take time to establish things that don't need to be established, and modern movies understand that if someone pulls up in front of a house, and the next scene is that person in a house, they probably walked into it from their car - you don't have to show them opening their car door, getting out, closing the door, putting their keys in their pocket, walking up the stairs, opening the door to the house, and entering the house. Which is something old movies typically do.

Plenty of original movies suck, and plenty of remakes suck, and some movies are easy to market because they come with an audience, and some don't. Whether or not a movie is an "original idea" has literally nothing to do with anything, except for whether or not it was original. It could be good or bad, necessary or pointless, fast or slow, and none of those things can be for any reason connected to whether or not the movie started from an original idea or not. It just has nothing to do with it.

It's just something people like to bitch about as they get set in their ways and start hating all forms of change and newness. Remakes are nothing new, they've existed since before the medium was even invented, with people remaking and reinterpreting older plays. So acting like this is something new, or a sign of something especially wrong about this generation of studios is a little naive, and it comes across like you think Hollywood has only existed during your lifetime - anything you saw when it was new and you were young is good, and anything they're doing now that you're not is bad. That's what it sounds like.

And really, try investigating movies before you fork over your money, if spending your money and being disappointed is that big of a deal to you, rather than blaming the studio for having the audacity to create something and then charge money for it.

 

[Sodahead]

I agree with Bugman's general sentiment. I am not usually a big fan of remakes, but it's not something I lose sleep over. I simply choose not to watch TV shows and movies I do not wish to see. But yeah, do they really need to remake every single classic? In my opinion....no

Thankfully, there is a vast array of great, new, original entertainment available as well. Especially when it comes to TV. FX, Netflix, HBO and AMC all have some pretty awesome series out right now.