Movie Remakes

[ASUADPi]

So I was reading in Entertainment Weekly on Sunday that some studio is doing another remake of Romeo & Juliet and I got to thinking "why?" It's not like the story changes. 2 teenagers fall in love, their families hate each other, they marry, they die (via suicide), the end. The story isn't going to change, so why are you remaking it?

I've noticed that studios are into "remaking" movies nowadays. So my question for y'all have you seen any remakes and liked the remake better than the original or did they butcher it? What are your thoughts on remakes anyways? Any remakes you are actually looking forward to seeing?

[Senusret I]

I have to admit that I need Wikipedia to remind of which films are remakes.

That said, I truly did enjoy Clash of the Titans, both of them. For films like that, you almost have to remake them to truly exemplify the original vision. You know, with advancements in special effects and all.

The Day the Earth Stood Still is another good remake.

[KSig RC]

There's an easy answer:

Hollywood executives (those in charge of green-lighting production) know that they can make more money, on a per-dollar basis, in a safer fashion using tried-and-true genre movies, sequels, and remakes.

Seriously - it sounds facile, but it's the truth.

Is this even a bad thing, though? First, people vote with their wallets, and "shitty" popcorn or genre movies consistently outsell movies with far more artistic merit. Second, the studio is in business to make a profit, and there's a good chance those (supposed) art-house movies I prefer never get made without Michael Bay ejaculating onto a screen and calling it Transformers. Don't want remakes or sequels? Stop going to see them.

Finally, part of creating is integrating, reinterpreting, or even outright stealing from what already exists. Think of how there are "movements" or "periods" in art - nothing exists in a pure vacuum. A reinterpretation isn't, by rote, a bad thing - the story may not change (or it may - see the movie version of "The Natural" versus its source material), but the story telling surely will.

[Shellfish]

I'm curious about the upcoming remake of Sparkle. When I heard that Whitney Houston was in it, at first I thought she'd be playing Sister, but then she was too old--she is playing the singers' mother. However, her character has a backstory as a former singer who didn't reach the big time, unlike Effie, who seemed a bit skeptical (but not unsupportive) about their singing aspirations.

The important thing: Will it use the Curtis Mayfield music from the original?

[AlphaFrog]

I'm a fan of repackaging rather than remakes. For instance, Cars and Here on Earth were both a repackaging of a 1950's movie (name escapes me), but were different enough that they had their own merit. Same idea with 10 Things I Hate About You being a repack of The Taming of the Shrew.

Baz Luherman really did a good job transforming R&J into something different, and had he changed the character names and altered the dialogue just a bit, it would have almost fallen into this same category. As it is, I don't know that another remake can stack up to this. Either they do a (yawn) classic take, or they're going to end up going so far out there to compete it will reach the point of ridiculum.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

So I was reading in Entertainment Weekly on Sunday that some studio is doing another remake of Romeo & Juliet and I got to thinking "why?" It's not like the story changes. 2 teenagers fall in love, their families hate each other, they marry, they die (via suicide), the end. The story isn't going to change, so why are you remaking it?

By that theory, though, why should any theater ever do a new production of Romeo and Juliet? Presumably, they're remaking it because they think that can tell the story in a way that will appeal to comtemporary audiences. And they think it will make money.

Besides, they don't have to pay Shakespeare anything for the script.

I've noticed that studios are into "remaking" movies nowadays.

Studios have always been into remaking; it's nothing new. Sometimes they're remaking old movies, sometimes they're remaking foreign movies, sometimes they're adapting plays or stage musicals to screen. I can think of at about 10 film versions of The Three Musketeers, at that's just the English versions. And I love both versions of The Scarlet Pimpernel; each has its own plusses.

I think there may be a better argument about not remaking a film when the film in question isn't itself derived from another source, like a play or book.

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

I'm a fan of repackaging rather than remakes. For instance, Cars and Here on Earth were both a repackaging of a 1950's movie (name escapes me), but were different enough that they had their own merit. Same idea with 10 Things I Hate About You being a repack of The Taming of the Shrew.

Romeo and Juliet --> West Side Story?

[AlphaFrog]

^^^Yep. There have been about 8012 different variations on this theme. For R&J I was thinking specific to remakes that called themselves R&J.

[Iota Man]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

There's an easy answer:

Hollywood executives (those in charge of green-lighting production) know that they can make more money, on a per-dollar basis, in a safer fashion using tried-and-true genre movies, sequels, and remakes.

Seriously - it sounds facile, but it's the truth.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

And they think it will make money.

This is on point, and pretty much the bottom line why there are remakes. It's all about those dead presidents.

The thing with me and remakes, I won't know it's a remake until after I've seen the movie. I generally won't go see a remake, at least not on the big screen, if I know it's a remake. It has to be something I'm really feeling in order for me to go check it out. Otherwise, I'll wait for DVD or Netflix. If I do see a remake, I won't like it if it's an "exact" remake of the original. Usually, they'll flip the script on some of them to make it more interesting. Karate Kid for example with Will Smith's kid was sorry as hell. I didn't like it because there wasn't much that was done differently than what was in the first one. A few different travelling places, but mostly the same shit, with a different time period, different actors and directors.

[DubaiSis]

I just saw a version of the Three Musketeers the other night, called Musketeer. This movie was COMPLETELY retarded. I actually enjoyed the Charlie Sheen version from 1993, but this one is more recent, and sort of follows the Dumas story, but not really. The age of the king is WAY off, and there's no lady in red. If they didn't want to do the actual story, why not do a serialized version? The 3 musketeers was a tv show once, wasn't it? If they didn't want to tell the original story, make another "episode." But this was sort of the same story AND a different episode. I found it quite disturbing and absolutely unpleasant. Plus, they found a guy who looks JUST like Chris O'Donnell to play D'Artagnan, so it felt like it was supposed to be a sequel, but wasn't.

The 3 Musketeers is such a great story that I'm ok with updating it every generation or so, but honor the original story or change it completely (West Side Story).

[KKGCaroline]

I read recently that MGM were going to remake Carrie, starring Chloe Grace Moretz, I agree that she was amazing as hit girl in Kick Ass, but shes no Sissey Spacek

[honeychile]

Bottom Line: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by KKGCaroline

I read recently that MGM were going to remake Carrie, starring Chloe Grace Moretz, I agree that she was amazing as hit girl in Kick Ass, but shes no Sissey Spacek

BOOOOO!!!! Carrie doesn't need to be remade!!!

















unless they bring the original musical to the big screen

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

BOOOOO!!!! Carrie doesn't need to be remade!!!

I guess you missed the 2002 made-for-tv remake.

[DubaiSis]

The one that really confused me was the remake of The Shining. I recall hearing that King hated the Kubrick version, but I think the movie was really about as close to the book as could have been, at the time at least and without it being 4 hours long. I remember seeing about 1 second of the ad/trailer on tv and knowing immediately that it was The Shining.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I guess you missed the 2002 made-for-tv remake.

And the "sequel"