Movie Remakes: Good or Bad???

[BatKid]

There have been hundreds of remakes of films, and Hollywood is still doing remakes of old classics to this day. I think the recent remake right now is the film, "Time Machine". Another pretty recent one that just came out last year was "Planet of the Apes".

So, are these remakes necessary, that you can do things you couldn't do before with CGI, or do you think the classics are best left alone and not tampred with?

I'll base my answer off the moie Planet of the Apes. I've seen some parts of the original, not all of it, and I've seen the whole remake by Tim Burton. From what I've seen, he originalclassic seeems to have the edge if you want to consier which film i better overall. But there are soe advantages with this new remake. It seemed more real because of the AMAZING make-up artist, Rick Baker. You gotta admit, the make-up was top-notch. The apes characteristics in general were better in this remake i my opinion. They had down the walk, reactions, talking, etc. Also, the remake had a better advantage with all the special effects. But, as most of the fans will say, no remake will ever top any classic film. I believe that the acting was better in the classic film, beter dialogue, and a defiitely much beter endng than the remake:

In the original film, the main character finds out that the planet of the apes that he was on, was not a foreign planet, but the future Earth! He sees the Statue of Liberty halfway down in the ocean, and the movie ends. In the remake, when the astronaut tries to go back home, he lands on what seems to be Earth. But when he gets out, he sees the former Abe Lincoln statue now has a face of...you guessed it, an ape. He's shocked and when he gets out of the building he was just in, he finds cop cars coming in. But, another "shocker", instead of human cops coming out, they are ape-cops. It all ends with the ape-cops telling the astronaut to put his hands up, then the movie ends.

Hopefully, there will be a sequel to the remake, since I enjoyed it as it's own film, not comparing it to the original film. If the sequel does come out, I hope it explains the strange ending, that even right now, no one can figure out. All in all, I think the only reason a classic film should be remade is if it is necesarry. And if it is, than the movie has to be accompanied with a good cast, director and producers, and workers. If not, then they will be asking for a bad movie.

So, that's my 2 cents on the topic. Please post your thoughts on this, as I would like to see what you think about remakes of old, classic films.

[cjshoup]

That's depends on how the movie is done and if the remake tells the story better than the original movie

Planet of the Apes is an example of a good remake. It didn't stray far from the original.

A bad example of a movie remake is Rollerball. The original has reasoning to the game of Rollerball, as the new version made no sense.

some classics (Gone with the wind, Godfather etc.) shouldn't be remade

[Mattashell]

Classic films like The Bat, Dracula (Nospheratu, The Horror Of Dracula etc.), Phantom of the Opera etc. Are repeatedly remade with new mediums; sound, color etc. (wow thats a lot of etc.s)

I don't know if it's good but if someone made one of those films I bet there would be less backlash than some remakes get.

I think the real problem is that Hollywood is making a lot of bad movies and some of them are remakes, the public associates bad movies with remakes. But with movies that have been traditionally remade again and again the new versions don't really take away from the originals. I guess history will tell which Planet of the Apes will be remembered.

[Savage Dragon]

I don't see "Planet" or "Time" as remakes. They are simply adaptions of novels or classical literature. What needs to happen is that these films need to be complete adaptions of the book. We can't blame the older flicks because the technology simply did not exist. But Planet of the Apes and Time Machine should be responsible, especially since Time is going to be directed by a direct descendant of HG Wells for crying out loud. Planet took liberties and I didn't like that, but Burton has an overwhelming vision.

[RogueMartian]

I personally think that films shouldn't be remade unless the original was really bad. For example, the movie "Psycho" shouldn't have been remade unless the director thought he had something new to offer to the story. Which he didn't, he used the same plot, the same scenes, the same music that they used in the 60s version. Planet of the Apes could have been a good remake, but the Burton brought nothing interesting to the movie. Fantasy or Sci-fi movies are good for re-makes because new technology can sometimes make them better (an overdependence on technology can make them worse though).
Period pieces should NEVER be re-made. They do it anyway, I know, but if I ever see a remake of casablanca I will hunt down the people responsible and pick them off one by one.

[The Guard]

Some things need to be remade. Like HARVEY. Jim Carrey and a giant rabbit. You can't lose! And MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON. With Mel Gibson and a shifty eyed dog!

Seriously though. The classics are classics, but some of them need to be remade so newer generations will WATCH them.

I'd like to see CITIZEN KANE redone.

[RogueMartian]

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

If the newer generation is so stupid that they won't watch classics like "manchurian candidate", "harvey", "arsenic and old lace", "citizen kane", "mr. smith goes to washington" etc. etc. etc.

THEN THEY DON'T DESERVE THEM!!!!

Seriously, some movies were incredibly well done and don't need color, which would destroy the art of the original black and white, or swearing and a sex scene to grab a couple of teenagers who think Josh Hartnett should get an oscar for looking so damn good. I have watched old movies since I was little and loved them, I would hate to see some modern day hack pump out a crappy remake "just so the younger generation will watch them".

[mbaker]

I agree. The only time you do a remake is if the original was bad from the start. I also like that reference someone made on that Simpsons episode where Homer, and Mel Gibson do that "Mr.Smith Goes to Washington" remake. Great episode, and it teaches you how doing remakes isn't always a good idea. Oh, and one more thing. Beware of the shifty eyed dog. In closing, I would like to make another Simpson reference.

"I hate every ape I see. From Chimpan A to Chimpan Z.
No You'll never make a monkey out of me.
Oh my go, I was wrong. It was earth all along.
You've finally made a monkey.
Yes we've finally made a monkey.
Yes you've finally made a monkey out of me!"

[Salvor]

Originally posted by mbaker
I agree. The only time you do a remake is if the original was bad from the start. I also like that reference someone made on that Simpsons episode where Homer, and Mel Gibson do that "Mr.Smith Goes to Washington" remake. Great episode, and it teaches you how doing remakes isn't always a good idea. Oh, and one more thing. Beware of the shifty eyed dog.
haha that episode was sooo hilarious :D

[RogueMartian]

Yes, the simpsons does good parodies. :)

[ccffan01]

Movie remakes usually leave a bad taste in my mouth.

[Mattashell]

Originally posted by RogueMartian
They do it anyway, I know, but if I ever see a remake of casablanca I will hunt down the people responsible and pick them off one by one.

Sorry, but it already happened. In the 70's there was a remake of Cassablanca called Cabo Blanco and it starred Charles Bronson.
I wish I was joking but I'm not.

Here's the imdb info
http://us.imdb.com/Details?0080485

[Pilmedium]

I think all movie remakes would be bad. There is no excuse for joking off an older movie. If you want an old movie, get it. Don't depend on remakes. (People probably do depend on remakes because there are so many of them. :rolleyes: )

[DR. BELCH]

--adaptations (e.g. Let the Devil Wear Black/Shakespeare's Hamlet)? Is the principle the same here? Is it better to play it straight or rewrite/update the script/setting/characters?

[The Mad Hatter]

Personally, I feel that a movie shouldn't be remade unless the movie maker has something new and unique to add to the formula. Too often, remakes are done just for the sake of a quick buck. City of Angels is a cheap knock-off of Wings of Desire, a movie that was barely a decade younger!

But let's look at a movie like Bram Stoker's Dracula. Sure, Dracula had been done before, but Coppola decided to stay closer to the original source material and create a Dracula that was more threatening and sensual than before.

Still, remakes that actually add their own flavor to something are few and far between.

[atf487]

I think it depends if the movie wasn't used to its potential originally. I think BS and JT (i hate them) are going to remake some movie that was actually great in the first place.

[Nightflower]

Originally posted by The Mad Hatter
Personally, I feel that a movie shouldn't be remade unless the movie maker has something new and unique to add to the formula. Too often, remakes are done just for the sake of a quick buck. City of Angels is a cheap knock-off of Wings of Desire, a movie that was barely a decade younger!

But let's look at a movie like Bram Stoker's Dracula. Sure, Dracula had been done before, but Coppola decided to stay closer to the original source material and create a Dracula that was more threatening and sensual than before.

Still, remakes that actually add their own flavor to something are few and far between.

Don't forget Dracula 2000! Terrible movie... Dracula was not bad looking though. ;)

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Generally, I find most movie remakes are bad, since they try to one up the original movies with all these new plot points and flashy effects.

It usually doesn't work. ;)

What Hatter said is what I wanted to say, pretty much, and another good point: let the movie CREATOR remake the movie. He's the one with the vision in the first place, he's usually the only one who can pull off the new plot points and intergrate it with the magic. It's like Watterson said in his Tenth Annivesary book...only people haven't realized that it applies to movie too.

The only 'remake' I liked was the updated "RETURN OF THE JEDI", which kept to the original souce and only brung in new stuff to make the old effects look non-tacky...that's the kind of thing a remake should be.