Movies and TV Shows that should NEVER be Remade

[DrCorby]

What about DRACULA? Lugosi's performance is timeless, but the movie itself had aged badly. And Christopher Lee proved there was always room for another take on the the Count.

I suppose that Dracula, being an adaptation of the original book (and not the first; that was Nosferatu in 1922) has a get-out-of-jail-free card, as does the Charlton Heston Ben-Hur (, which was the third screen adaptation of the source novel). Great novels and plays can often be re-interpreted quite successfully.

(Edit: Blade Runner still doesn't need a remake,though.)

I don't know. I've always found the distinction between adaptations and non-adaptations to be kind of arbitrary. Most movies are based on something after all. I'm not sure why it would be okay to remake, say, LOGAN'S RUN, because that was based on a book, but not okay to remake FANTASTIC VOYAGE, which wasn't.

Matthew Broderick remade THE MUSIC MAN a few years ago. It wasn't bad, quite competent, actually. But it proved the point -- if you're going to re-make something basically the same as the previous version, what's the point? Broderick is a good actor, but c'mon -- this was Robert Preston's signature role. Make it your own, or don't re-make it at all. A lot of (good) musical theatre is probably like this.

 

[Greg Cox]

Then again, there are lots of classic Broadway musicals that got messed up on their way to the big screen. I would love a decent film version of A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC or MAN OF LA MANCHA.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Movies they should NEVER remake: Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Chinatown, The Godfather, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Adventures of Robin Hood, Back to the Future, Jaws, The Third Man, Touch of Evil, Animal House, Ghostbusters, Some Like It Hot, A Hard Day's Night.

Movies where they should have known better than to attempt a remake: King Kong, Psycho, Planet of the Apes.

Movies where a remake wasn't (or wouldn't be) a bad idea: 12 Angry Men, Forbidden Planet, The Odd Couple (with the right casting).

 

[Greylock Crescent]

With it being the 25th anniversary of the first Back to the Future movie I really would hate to see that movie remade. I am generally alright with remakes and try to give them a fair shot but I don't think I would like to see that franchise redone because it was so dependent on the actors that played the roles.

Actually, I think a "remake" of BTTF that began in 2015 and went back thirty years to 1985 is an amusing concept. I'm not saying it should be a sequel or that it'd actually work as a film, but there's a nice symmetry to the notion. Enough to make me wonder if they could actually pull it off.

 

[Owain Taggart]

With it being the 25th anniversary of the first Back to the Future movie I really would hate to see that movie remade. I am generally alright with remakes and try to give them a fair shot but I don't think I would like to see that franchise redone because it was so dependent on the actors that played the roles.

Actually, I think a "remake" of BTTF that began in 2015 and went back thirty years to 1985 is an amusing concept. I'm not saying it should be a sequel or that it'd actually work as a film, but there's a nice symmetry to the notion. Enough to make me wonder if they could actually pull it off.

I think it would work better as a new trilogy continuing on from the timeline rather than a remake. Your idea of future Marty going back to 1985 is a good one. It could serve to reintroduce the world to people, and then you could have the rest of it go beyond 2015, or even better, have his oldest kid at the age Marty was when he started going on his adventures go back to 1985 to try to stop Marty, his father, from doing something stupid... or to make sure he marries his girlfriend, as in 2015, they could be going through divorce. Oh shoot, more paradoxes, right? lol.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

If they ever attempt to remake Back to the Future or Ghostbusters, I will get violent!

Lately I've heard rumors that some people that want to remake The Terminator. Why? That movie is pure perfection in its original form?

On the other hand, whatever happened to that Highlander remake that I heard about a while back? While the original was good, I can see a souped up version ironing out the obvious kinks from the original.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I don't know. I've always found the distinction between adaptations and non-adaptations to be kind of arbitrary. Most movies are based on something after all. I'm not sure why it would be okay to remake, say, LOGAN'S RUN, because that was based on a book, but not okay to remake FANTASTIC VOYAGE, which wasn't.

Yeah, I've always thought it was a bit questionable but as time goes on I'm finding the distinction increasingly empty. The one thing it does is provide a layer of abstraction, it's once removed from the movie that informed it, whereas a remake of a movie only has that other movie to reference.

As I get older, I've had to come to grips with the fact that the movies I watched growing up as an are 20-30 years old. I know in 1986 what I would have thought of 1961 so I can understand why they want to remake so many of these films.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

On the other side of the coin, list your remakes that surpass the originals @ http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=130449 .

 

[Gojira]

With it being the 25th anniversary of the first Back to the Future movie I really would hate to see that movie remade. I am generally alright with remakes and try to give them a fair shot but I don't think I would like to see that franchise redone because it was so dependent on the actors that played the roles.

Actually, I think a "remake" of BTTF that began in 2015 and went back thirty years to 1985 is an amusing concept. I'm not saying it should be a sequel or that it'd actually work as a film, but there's a nice symmetry to the notion. Enough to make me wonder if they could actually pull it off.

I think it would work better as a new trilogy continuing on from the timeline rather than a remake. Your idea of future Marty going back to 1985 is a good one. It could serve to reintroduce the world to people, and then you could have the rest of it go beyond 2015, or even better, have his oldest kid at the age Marty was when he started going on his adventures go back to 1985 to try to stop Marty, his father, from doing something stupid... or to make sure he marries his girlfriend, as in 2015, they could be going through divorce. Oh shoot, more paradoxes, right? lol.

I wouldn't mind some type of continuation of the original trilogy such as three more movies that continue the story, I just don't want a total reboot.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Actually, I think a "remake" of BTTF that began in 2015 and went back thirty years to 1985 is an amusing concept. I'm not saying it should be a sequel or that it'd actually work as a film, but there's a nice symmetry to the notion. Enough to make me wonder if they could actually pull it off.

I think it would work better as a new trilogy continuing on from the timeline rather than a remake. Your idea of future Marty going back to 1985 is a good one. It could serve to reintroduce the world to people, and then you could have the rest of it go beyond 2015, or even better, have his oldest kid at the age Marty was when he started going on his adventures go back to 1985 to try to stop Marty, his father, from doing something stupid... or to make sure he marries his girlfriend, as in 2015, they could be going through divorce. Oh shoot, more paradoxes, right? lol.

I wouldn't mind some type of continuation of the original trilogy such as three more movies that continue the story, I just don't want a total reboot.

Yeah, I agree with you. Rebooting often shows a lack of respect the material that was set before it.

Btw, your avatar is creepy yet brilliant. Not sure how you managed to make Mr Bean an Avatar.

 

[Jack Bauer]

I would really not want to see a remake of Lost. it would be hard to beat it.

 

[eklypse]

With it being the 25th anniversary of the first Back to the Future movie I really would hate to see that movie remade. I am generally alright with remakes and try to give them a fair shot but I don't think I would like to see that franchise redone because it was so dependent on the actors that played the roles.

Back to the Future should never be touched. I couldn't imagine anyone performing the characters as well as michael J. Fox, Chris LLoyd and tom Wilson did.

Yeah, exactly. That means, stay away from the franchise, Bieber! Keep your stupid hair away from it!

PLEASE, don't give them any ideas.

 

[eklypse]

If they ever attempt to remake Back to the Future or Ghostbusters, I will get violent!

Lately I've heard rumors that some people that want to remake The Terminator. Why? That movie is pure perfection in its original form?

On the other hand, whatever happened to that Highlander remake that I heard about a while back? While the original was good, I can see a souped up version ironing out the obvious kinks from the original.

I'm actually all for a Highlander remake or new movie series that actually has continuity. Maybe start the first film during some centuries old historic event and progress to Connor winning the prize by the last film.

 

[I am not Spock]

Movies that shouldn't be remade: Citizen Kane, Forbidden Planet, 2001, The Matrix, Star Wars Episode IV, The Godfather, The Terminator. You do not tamper with the classics. End of.

Movies that shouldn't have been remade: King Kong, Planet of the Apes, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Day The Earth Stood Still

Shows that should never be remade: LOST, TNG, Buffy (I won't ever support any non-Joss Whedon remake), Angel, Firefly, Blakes 7, Babylon 5

 

[Owain Taggart]

Back to the Future should never be touched. I couldn't imagine anyone performing the characters as well as michael J. Fox, Chris LLoyd and tom Wilson did.

Yeah, exactly. That means, stay away from the franchise, Bieber! Keep your stupid hair away from it!

PLEASE, don't give them any ideas.

Oh, don't give me any credit. It's been a rumour for awhile now, hence my comment.

 

[Greg Cox]

I don't know. I've always found the distinction between adaptations and non-adaptations to be kind of arbitrary. Most movies are based on something after all. I'm not sure why it would be okay to remake, say, LOGAN'S RUN, because that was based on a book, but not okay to remake FANTASTIC VOYAGE, which wasn't.

Yeah, I've always thought it was a bit questionable but as time goes on I'm finding the distinction increasingly empty. The one thing it does is provide a layer of abstraction, it's once removed from the movie that informed it, whereas a remake of a movie only has that other movie to reference.

.

Exactly. Note how people keep citing PLANET OF THE APES, INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, and THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL as films that should not have been remade--even though those were all based on novels or short stories.