Movie Remakes

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

The made for tv remake was actually pretty good and faithful to the original EXCEPT that Carrie lived. lol

Details, details.

I've been trying to remember all day what movie it was that came out a few years back that was a remake, and that I liked better than the original because it was more faithful to the book, but it just won't come to me. Probably at 2:30 tonight it will hit me.

[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.

[FHwku]

the remake of Death at a Funeral was funny. of course, it was full of talented comedic actors (and comedians) and almost an identical version of a hilarious movie.
the primary differences being that the second one was black and American.

i found it distasteful and unnecessary to remake a British movie 3 years after the original. it was interesting to see comedic actors in the remake, although i preferred the predominantly dramatic cast of the first. it's weird seeing Matthew Macfadyen and Chris Rock play the same character.

[Shellfish]

So you won't lose any sleep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_remakes_A-M

It's not comprehensive, though.

[33girl]

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?

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?

I think anything from Shakespeare can't really be considered a "remake." Those stories have been around for hundreds of years. It's not the same as redoing, say, Breakfast Club.

[Cheerio]

Enjoyed both versions of Dangerous Liaisons in late 1980's (which I believe came out during same year). Does anyone know whether there is a third version of that film (which was originally a book)?

[Tulip86]

Originally Posted by Cheerio

Enjoyed both versions of Dangerous Liaisons in late 1980's (which I believe came out during same year). Does anyone know whether there is a third version of that film (which was originally a book)?

Well there's Cruel Intentions, which is an adaptation of the book, but not a remake per se.

[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.