What are your thoughts on "remakes" or "re-imaginings"?

[Bob The Skutter]

I have no problem with remakes and re-imaginings. Of course I prefer if they're a fresh take on the source material, or at least done well, but if it's just a lack of imagination, or cashing in on the name or done badly. It's not like I have to watch it.

 

[God Magnus]

Under Certain ConditionsKnight Rider, the jury is still out. The TV pilot had glimmers of hope but needs to show me a lot more in the 6-8 episodes I'm going to allow it to win me over.

I would say KR is excluded from this discussion. It's not a reimagining, it's a sequel to the original series. Reimaginings, as I understand the definition, are usually new takes on an existing concept that are only connected to the originals by name and some elements (such as Galactica's ship designs) but otherwise are in their own "universe".

I voted "Under certain circumstances" since I'm very open to reimaginings of all kinds. Being a Transformers fan, I've seen the franchise reimagined almost every year since the 90's. The current "Transformers Animated" is a reimagining that works on many levels IMO because it doesn't forget where it came from, but isn't afraid to take new directions in its storyline.

 

[LizFL]

Halloween was a reimaginging that need not happen. The original is a classic and a perfect example of suspense and horror all in the same movie. Zombies Halloween was just a stylistic cash grab by whoreing out the name. Shameful. The original still could stand toe-to-toe with anything out there in a pure horror film.

I didn't care for Zombie's Halloween.

While I liked how he delved into Michael Myer's origins, I thought the gore was too much (Less is more, Rob.)

 

[Captain Craig]

Under Certain ConditionsKnight Rider, the jury is still out. The TV pilot had glimmers of hope but needs to show me a lot more in the 6-8 episodes I'm going to allow it to win me over.

I would say KR is excluded from this discussion. It's not a reimagining, it's a sequel to the original series. Reimaginings, as I understand the definition, are usually new takes on an existing concept that are only connected to the originals by name and some elements (such as Galactica's ship designs) but otherwise are in their own "universe".

I agree it is a sequel but in doing it are they not also reimaging certain aspects. I guess we could call them "updates" but its still a reimagining of certain elements. Is it not?

 

[Mistral]

I think that if someone loved a flawed piece of work and wants to do it better-more power to them. nBSG was a prime example-I LIVED for TOS when I was a kid but I think the new one is spectacular. I mean, a bad(!) episode of nBSG is better than 90% of whats on TV today. If you can do justice to the property then go for it but I also think the only way to do that is to have the creative control in the hands of someone who cares about the original.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Under Certain ConditionsKnight Rider, the jury is still out. The TV pilot had glimmers of hope but needs to show me a lot more in the 6-8 episodes I'm going to allow it to win me over.

I would say KR is excluded from this discussion. It's not a reimagining, it's a sequel to the original series. Reimaginings, as I understand the definition, are usually new takes on an existing concept that are only connected to the originals by name and some elements (such as Galactica's ship designs) but otherwise are in their own "universe".

I agree it is a sequel but in doing it are they not also reimaging certain aspects. I guess we could call them "updates" but its still a reimagining of certain elements. Is it not?

Technically, no, because it takes place in the same 'universe' as does the original. Most of the time, the word 'reimagining' implies a reboot, a different continuity.

The KR sequel is an update (and a sequel); Star Trek XI is an update (and a prequel); nuBSG is a reimagining. IMHO.

 

[doubleohfive]

But I think that a remake or reimaging that doesn't strive to somehow do something new or original, or to find a new way to connect an old work to the modern age, is kinda pointless, and that some works are so solidly universal and timeless in their appeal that a remake would be self-defeating;

What's your take on Star Trek: Remastered?

 

[doubleohfive]

Star Trek XI is an update (and a prequel); nuBSG is a reimagining. IMHO.

Your HO is wrong.

http://trekmovie.com/2007/03/08/orci-kurtzman-open-up-trek-xi-to-be-reimagined-starship-adventure/

 

[Captain Craig]

^^^
That interview is a year old and they have indicated since then that its not a total reboot. Plus they could rewrite things that make it more or a prequel/update.

I mean really, it has to fall into the established Trek canon it has our SPOCK in it for crying out loud. It will be as fringe canon as some see ENTERPRISE...but canon nonetheless.

 

[archeryguy1701]

I went with "under certain circumstances." I'm pretty simple to please. They have to do a good job at it and it has to bear at least some similarity to the original. I like what someone said up-thread: It can't be a entirely new show/ movie with an old name for the purpose of filling seats.

 

[God Magnus]

I agree it is a sequel but in doing it are they not also reimaging certain aspects. I guess we could call them "updates" but its still a reimagining of certain elements. Is it not?

I guess it doesn't fit my definition (seem my post above). It's set in the same universe as the original series. To me, it's no more of a reimagining than the third season of "Transformers" G1 was to the first season.

 

[ktanner3]

Halloween was a reimaginging that need not happen. The original is a classic and a perfect example of suspense and horror all in the same movie. Zombies Halloween was just a stylistic cash grab by whoreing out the name. Shameful. The original still could stand toe-to-toe with anything out there in a pure horror film.

I'll be honest. The original Halloween has never scared me. I think it's okay and I respect it for being a classic and helping spawn a whole generation of imitators, but I don't think it has aged well.

Didn't see the remake/reimagines of Night/Dawn Living dead but they are in my Netflix queue about 20 titles down. I'll have opinions on those at some point.

Night of the Living dead has been REMADE TWICE. There was one in 1990 with the guy who played worf's brother(worth watching for that reason alone) and Night of the living dead 3d. Haven't seen that last one and only knew about it's existence by coming across it in the bargain bin.

I've seen both of the I AM LEGEND remakes since the orginal one with Vincent Price called Last Man on Earth and I enjoyed both of those, Will Smiths version more so with regret to the late Mr.Heston.

It was cool, but I really wish they had stayed more true to the book, like the disease turning everyone into vampires and the ending of the hero coming to the realization that a new society has taken hold and that he is now a seen as a myth.

In regards to the OP's favorite The Wolfman I'm optimistic about this. The Wolfman hasn't been done to death and they appear in the two publicity stills released to be updating it visually with respect to the original. Hollywood tends to focus more on vampires and I think Underworld might have sparked something in somebody that there are other terrors of the night to re-explore.

Yeah, the Wolfman came out in the 1940s. It's not like more recent flicks from the 70s where there's a much bigger population of folks who remember seeing the original in theaters. With the casting and recent photos, I can't wait.

 

[ktanner3]

^^^
That interview is a year old and they have indicated since then that its not a total reboot. Plus they could rewrite things that make it more or a prequel/update.

I mean really, it has to fall into the established Trek canon it has our SPOCK in it for crying out loud. It will be as fringe canon as some see ENTERPRISE...but canon nonetheless.

I'll reserve judgment when I see it. The comments to me were vague...

We’re not going to start totally from scratch…We want it to feel like it’s updated and of the now. That’s actually the discussions we’re having now: how to keep the look of the universe yet have it not look like nothing’s new. It’s tricky

To me, that means playing around with the look of the movie. Not changing any established rules.

 

[doubleohfive]

^^^
That interview is a year old and they have indicated since then that its not a total reboot.

Care to provide a source for that?

I mean really, it has to fall into the established Trek canon it has our SPOCK in it for crying out loud. It will be as fringe canon as some see ENTERPRISE...but canon nonetheless.

Enterprise is canon. The new Star Trek will be canon. They may not exist in the same continuity, but the new film is undoubtedly a reimagining.

 

[Trek Boy]

Yes, whenever. It is about making money and about entertaining the audience and while I may be tougher on a remake, given that it's chosen to step into big, good shoes, there certainly are different ways to tell a story. I like the more juvenile, (somewhat) crude humor of today (combining it with good stories, characters or concepts has made some winners IMO), and styles change so much that even if not as good, a film'll probably be unique and worth something.

 

[Sci]

But I think that a remake or reimaging that doesn't strive to somehow do something new or original, or to find a new way to connect an old work to the modern age, is kinda pointless, and that some works are so solidly universal and timeless in their appeal that a remake would be self-defeating;

What's your take on Star Trek: Remastered?

I don't have much of a take on TOSR, honestly. It's neither a remake nor a reimagining, so I don't know that it's even applicable to this discussion. Certainly I appreciate the fact that they went and remastered the negatives of the original episodes before ever adding new visual effects -- which is good, since film always decays, of course. I enjoy most of the new visual effects, and understand their purpose -- to make sure that the show will still be watchable on HD for a general audience. As long as versions of the original show with the original visual effects are available alongside versions with the new effects, I don't have a strong reaction to TOSR at all.

 

[archeryguy1701]

^^^
That interview is a year old and they have indicated since then that its not a total reboot.

Care to provide a source for that?

Here you go: http://trekmovie.com/2008/02/06/orci-chats-with-fans-on-canon-marketing-and-more/

It's a little ways down the page, so here's the interview Q&A on the subject:

Gene: Curious……Did you think the Star Trek “canon” issue would be such a bone of contention for so many fans when you took on this project? What is your view on the importance or lack of importance of canon?

Roberto Orci: I had no idea — was completely surprised….
Just kidding. I was 147 percent sure it was going to be a MASSIVE deal. As i’ve said before, Trek fans are among the most savvy in the world, and since Damon and I humbly consider ourselves fans as well, all we had to do was look at each other to know that it was going to matter A LOT.

Canon is part of the DNA of our story. If you know your Trek, your knowledge will not be wasted. If you don’t, if won’t prevent you from entering this amazing world that’s been taken care of for over forty years by the fans. What other franchise has as distinct and established phenomenon as to have a name (Trekkie, Trekker). Even mainstream media covers the Star Trek fan base. There are no SPIDERMANNERS or PIRATERS, or SUPERMANNIES.

Trek belongs to all of us. I see canon much like the constitution. It is living document, but it has some principles that are inviolable.

There is another interview out somewhere where they came right out and said, "Not complete reboot," but this is what the one I had handy.

 

[kalysto]

I said no way, perhaps a little harsh but....

Two of my most favourite movies (Dawn of the Dead and Infernal Affairs) have recently been 'remade'. While I can understand in some way bringing back an old idea such as Dawn, I'm absolutely floored by the idea of a remake of a movie less than a decade old (The Departed). Seriously, if he loved the story so much, Scorsese should of seen to a wider release in the States or whatever. Never have I hated a film so much without even seeing it in its entirety.

If it aint broke, why fix it? Unless of course, they think they can do it better.... <inserts a gazillion *rolleyes* smileys here>

 

[TheMasterOfOrion]

As it is I think we see far too many of them already

It shocked me that even somebody as talented as Scorsese is now looking to the HongKong, European and Japanese markets to rip off other material. Hollywood studios have lost their backbone today, with all these scifi remakes or remakes of Japanese horror it looks as if they don't want to take a risk with new story lines and new material anymore.

 

[Sci]

I said no way, perhaps a little harsh but....

Two of my most favourite movies (Dawn of the Dead and Infernal Affairs) have recently been 'remade'. While I can understand in some way bringing back an old idea such as Dawn, I'm absolutely floored by the idea of a remake of a movie less than a decade old (The Departed). Seriously, if he loved the story so much, Scorsese should of seen to a wider release in the States or whatever. Never have I hated a film so much without even seeing it in its entirety.

If it aint broke, why fix it? Unless of course, they think they can do it better.... <inserts a gazillion *rolleyes* smileys here>

Are you seriously going to roll your eyes at the idea that Martin Scorese thinks he can do it better? I mean, it's Martin frickin' Scorese. He probably can.