Hollywood remakes: just how far will they go?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2009 10:30 PM GMT
    So as a big movie buff and a gm of a movie theater, I've been getting a lot of news about upcoming movies. So far the list includes big hits that are considered classics.

    Hellraser.

    Clash of the Titans.

    The Birds.

    Suspiria.

    Child's Play

    Creature From the Black Lagoon

    Wolfman.

    Children of the Corn

    Near Dark

    A Nightmare on Elm Street

    Poltergeist

    Predator

    Conan

    Red Sonja

    In regards to Red Sonja, the original was so bad that I think Robert Rodriguez directing Rose McGowan would be awesome, but the rest I just wanna slap my head and ask "Why?" Is Hollywood that strapped for screenplays that they are resorting to this?

    UPDATE:

    Oh not only did Burton/Depp (who I still maintain just need to come out and admit that they're attached at the groin) redo Chocolate Factory, but Depp's film company, Infinitum-Nihil, has announced that Burton and Depp are doing a remake of Alice in Wonderland ANd Dark Shadows the movie!

    Seriously, will these two just get over their emo selves and go away?!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2009 11:26 PM GMT
    1. Trying to redo any Hitchcock classic (The Birds) should be made a felony.

    2. The Creature From the Black Lagoon was so "B" movie campy (I'm old enough to have seen it in a theatre) that a remake might actually be an improvement.

    3. I thought the next Conan movie in the series was going to be titled Conan the Inarticulate, but not until Ahnold left office so he could reprise his role as the diction-challenged hero.

    Hollywood has been doing remakes since the 1920s; even Cecil B. DeMille recycled his old movies, and Hitchcock, too. It only really becomes silly or offensive when they overreach, and always when they fail.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2009 11:33 PM GMT
    Hollywood does remakes because it is cheaper. They already have a screenplay, and a lot of the young people today (big movie goers) don't remember the original movie.

    I agree with Red Vespa, Congress should outlaw the re-making of a Hitchcock movie. Some things in society should be sacred.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2009 11:51 PM GMT
    Hollywood is all about minimizing risk, so doing a movie with a known title has some recognition and audience awareness built right in. Besides the title and a story, studios can give the original cast members walk-on parts to draw the original fans. Don't forget the vocal fanboys who will tear up the www over the sacrilege, which will also raise awareness.

    Remaking Hitchcock is very tricky. Didn't the studios learn anything from that disastrous, unsuccessful remake of Psycho?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2009 12:03 AM GMT

    Just let me know when they do Hell Comes To Frogtown.
    That's the one I've been waiting for all this time. It's an 80's B movie masterpiece, but no worse than the likes of Friday the 13th.

    In the near future, nuclear warfare has drastically reduced the female population of Earth and rendered most men sterile. An elite government agency, Spangle, has found that a ruffian bounty hunter named Hell, is not only fertile but very horny too. He has been leaving offspring all over the place. Spangle finds him and to gain his allegiance, outfit him with an explosively charged chastity belt. They promise the belt's removal if Hell goes to a stronghold inhabited by mutant frogs. The frogs are near human and have a penchant for human women. Along with two android hard bodies supplied by Spangle, Hell is sent to rescue the women and inpregnate them. It's hardly a task he objects to except that damn chastity belt itches!

    The movie has some novel qualities like Hell, is not traditionally hot, but still manages to be anyway and key high ranking members of the military and society are women. The frogs are something to, managing to be gross and quite menacing given the make up isn't the best. On second thought, I hope they leave this one alone.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2009 12:21 AM GMT
    bernd saidRemaking Hitchcock is very tricky. Didn't the studios learn anything from that disastrous, unsuccessful remake of Psycho?

    An essential part of Hitchcock was originality. How can you later come along and be original when you're copying something that most people already know? Of course the Psycho remake failed -- we all knew the shocker of what was going to happen! DUH!!!

    Plus it lacked the mastery of a Hitchcock's direction, and a wonderful cast. It was Tony Perkins' defining role, not to mention Janet Leigh brilliantly playing against type, and allowing her character to be killed off in the middle of the movie, rare for a major star in that period. The producers of the remake should have been ashamed of themselves, just before they were taken out and shot. icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2009 12:27 AM GMT
    Red_Vespa said
    bernd saidRemaking Hitchcock is very tricky. Didn't the studios learn anything from that disastrous, unsuccessful remake of Psycho?

    An essential part of Hitchcock was originality. How can you later come along and be original when you're copying something that most people already know? Of course the Psycho remake failed -- we all knew the shocker of what was going to happen! DUH!!!

    Plus it lacked the mastery of a Hitchcock's direction, and a wonderful cast. It was Tony Perkins' defining role, not to mention Janet Leigh brilliantly playing against type, and allowing her character to be killed off in the middle of the movie, rare for a major star in that period. The producers of the remake should have been ashamed of themselves, just before they were taken out and shot. icon_razz.gif



    Well what's the point in remaking a movie if they do it literally the same way scene by scene. A movie remake should be someone's interpretation of someone else's work. The remake of Psycho was just a copy-paste job of a pretentious director.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2009 12:34 AM GMT
    luvjunkie saidThe remake of Psycho was just a copy-paste job of a pretentious director.

    Pretentious director... you might have had an argument, but that invalidated it. Hitchcock was certainly a celebrity director and a bit of a personal showman, but his reputation is indisputable by anyone who knows film. Go back and try again.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2009 12:36 AM GMT
    the point is VFXs - for one ) to try new vision and blow movie-goers minds

    And all Hitchcock is b/w - it's apriopi much more hypnotizing and it thickens SUSPENCE. )

    trying to make it in colour - would never be near

    I expect Transformers, Avatar, Half-Blood prince, and.. Pitt, Depp, Stalone & friends own productions - they bought loads of good literary property
  • DanielQQ

    Posts: 365

    Mar 20, 2009 12:46 AM GMT
    The one movie on that list I would LOVE to see a remake is Clash of the Titans. I wish I could direct it. That was my favorite movie as a kid but viewing it as an adult left something to be desired. It's a little dated. I can imagine how cool it could be with modern technology if it was in the hands of the right people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2009 1:03 AM GMT
    Red_Vespa said
    luvjunkie saidThe remake of Psycho was just a copy-paste job of a pretentious director.

    Pretentious director... you might have had an argument, but that invalidated it. Hitchcock was certainly a celebrity director and a bit of a personal showman, but his reputation is indisputable by anyone who knows film. Go back and try again.


    I think he meant Gus Van Sant. As a moneymaker that re-make clearly didn't work. But I really think the re-make was a really interesting work of art. There is something quite clever and interesting about taking a work of art and re-creating it exactly, but changing the context in which it is experienced. It brings attention to all of the pieces outside of a final product that go into it's success.

    It was a good impetus for discussion for me. It reminded me of a story by Borges called "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote."

    Gus Van Sant has tried so many different things with the work that he has done, I have to admire him for the experiment. It is kind of like asking the question, if the Mona Lisa had been painted today would it be famous.

    Having said that, Hollywood is doing a re-make of CLUE and that just fucking pisses me off.
  • EricLA

    Posts: 3461

    Mar 20, 2009 1:04 AM GMT
    I heard from Ain't It Cool News, I think, that they're already looking to do a reboot of Fantastic Four, with a new cast and a new take, etc.
  • GoodPup

    Posts: 752

    Mar 20, 2009 1:08 AM GMT
    I like the remakes... there are some movies that were good, but I think how much more awesome it could be with newer technology and graphics and stuff.
    Obviously not every movie deserves a makeover... but with current actors and actresses that I like, and more realistic scenes and stuff.... I think its kind of fun as long as its done well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2009 2:24 AM GMT
    EricLA saidI heard from Ain't It Cool News, I think, that they're already looking to do a reboot of Fantastic Four, with a new cast and a new take, etc.


    Oh they need too. They definitely need too. If they made it like the regular comic and not like the Ultimate Fantastic Four comic it could be awesome. So much potential was wasted. Why they decided to switch Reed and Sue's personalities was beyond me but at least Johnny and the Thing was close enough. The unreleased movie that was made a while back was way better though it came across like a TV pilot and was closer to the comic book.

    Clash of the Titans could be cool but depending on who made it could be very very bad.

    The Birds, which I did like, I could live without. The sequel was bad enough. You didn't know about the TV sequel made in the 80's? I'm not surprised. You didn't miss anything.

    Johnny Quest is supposed to be made into a live action film. I'll definitely see it if it is not geared toward little kids which I'm sure it will be. They need to have just the original four and stay away from Bannon's daughter that they introduced. Her mother looks like a Drag Queen in the original series anyway which I thought was great. It could be cool to keep her and the homosexual overtones. I know I'm hoping for too much though.

    As far as Wolfman I am always interested in werewolf movies if they are done right. Just as long as they don't do it with vampires. Vampires are sooo completely boring.

    Conan needs to be done like the way Robert E. Howard wrote him. A film adaption of any of his stories would work.

    Spider-man 4, Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America, and The Avengers is what I'm really interested in right now. Those are supposed to be coming out over the next several years.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2009 2:27 AM GMT
    chet_desmond said
    Red_Vespa said
    luvjunkie saidThe remake of Psycho was just a copy-paste job of a pretentious director.

    Pretentious director... you might have had an argument, but that invalidated it. Hitchcock was certainly a celebrity director and a bit of a personal showman, but his reputation is indisputable by anyone who knows film. Go back and try again.


    I think he meant Gus Van Sant.

    Ah, then I misread that, my bad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2009 2:31 AM GMT
    The remakes usualliy stink. Especially of "classics" that were either distinguished by their campiness, or classic approach, or innovation.

    So....a remake of "The Birds" is unthinkable, even though Tippi Hedron had to have been the worst actress in the history of movies.... :-) The movie was still excellent.

    As an example of a remake that should never have been made....the recent "The Day The Earth Stood Still". To say that it suffered by comparison to the original is such a gross understatement.

    The original had a plot that had internal logic. The original had characters that you cared about. The original had no non sequiturs....everything followed as it should from previous scenes.

    Apart from the fact that Keanau Reeves is gorgeous to look at, the new version was so awful, it defied description.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2009 2:33 AM GMT
    kreawiz5 saidthe point is VFXs - for one ) to try new vision and blow movie-goers minds

    And all Hitchcock is b/w - it's apriopi much more hypnotizing and it thickens SUSPENCE. )

    trying to make it in colour - would never be near

    Well not ALL Hitchcock: Dial M for Murder (also in a 3-D version), North by Northwest, Vertigo, Rear Window, The Man Who Knew Too Much (remake), The Birds, are all in color. Psycho is the most notable late Hitchcock movie made in B&W.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2009 2:33 AM GMT
    Red_Vespa said
    chet_desmond said
    Red_Vespa said
    luvjunkie saidThe remake of Psycho was just a copy-paste job of a pretentious director.

    Pretentious director... you might have had an argument, but that invalidated it. Hitchcock was certainly a celebrity director and a bit of a personal showman, but his reputation is indisputable by anyone who knows film. Go back and try again.


    I think he meant Gus Van Sant.

    Ah, then I misread that, my bad.


    Or rather I should say... Good lord I HOPE he meant Gus Van Sant and not Hitchcock.icon_biggrin.gif

    I actually wouldn't mind seeing someone re-do Rope and allow the homosexuality to exist a little more strongly. But of course it would have to be the right director.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2009 2:34 AM GMT
    You can add Karate Kid to the list. I think Goonies also. And The Green Hornet is being made into a movie.

    Also, Hollywood has been remaking foreign movies. Particularly from Korea and Japan. And I'm not talking really old movies. Stuff that was released 2 or 3 years ago in their home markets have been adapted into an American movies. Kinda sad.. Hollywood lost its magic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2009 2:36 AM GMT
    Apparently, on average, the studio saves $40 mil in marketing costs by putting out a remake/or sequel with well-known characters. Also, it takes about 10 years from "conception" to editing of a brand new film, whereas a sequel takes only 2. So, Rambo 314, Indiana Jones 4, and Piece Of Shit 14 are good deals for the Wall Street types who finance this stuff now.

    They better not fuck up Clue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2009 2:47 AM GMT
    xrichx saidYou can add Karate Kid to the list. I think Goonies also. And The Green Hornet is being made into a movie.

    Also, Hollywood has been remaking foreign movies. Particularly from Korea and Japan. And I'm not talking really old movies. Stuff that was released 2 or 3 years ago in their home markets have been adapted into an American movies. Kinda sad.. Hollywood lost its magic.


    I think The Green Hornet moive was been in development long before it was originally created.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2009 2:54 AM GMT
    xrichx saidAlso, Hollywood has been remaking foreign movies. Particularly from Korea and Japan...

    True, and perhaps now more than ever. But as I noted about Hollywood remakes going back to the days of the early talkies, so too has Hollywood borrowed from the rest of the world for many decades.

    Among the better known adaptations is the 1960 Hollywood Western The Magnificent Seven, taken from Japanese director Akira Kurosawa's earlier The Seven Samurai. And the more recent Victor/Victoria was a German film in the 1930s.
  • dannyboy1101

    Posts: 977

    Mar 20, 2009 2:55 AM GMT
    I want more new scary movies. Stealing from our past and Japan's present is just getting old. I can't believe that nobody has good original ideas. Saw has really been the only new and quite original horror flick that's come out for a long time and that has actually delivered. I love Julia Styles but the Omen remake was quite blah. However, I am actually interested in seeing the Nightmare on Elm Street because with the graphics we have now, it may feel totally different - depends on how it's approached.

    On the other side, the remake of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre was sooo much better than the original. In the original, I was ready to become Leatherface just to shut that bitch up.

    Child's Play needs to wait at least 15 more years before a remake in my opinion and they better keep it in Chicago. I live down the street from that apartment building and the police station is in Boystown.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2009 2:58 AM GMT
    Please don't remake Yentil, starring that kid from Blossom.

    Watching it once with my mother was painful enough.icon_rolleyes.gif
  • silverfox

    Posts: 3178

    Mar 20, 2009 3:13 AM GMT
    I liked Yentl because in one scene you could actually see Mandy Patamkin flopping about under his britches...