Clones or Clowns?

[RobertScorpio]

There have been a rash of SCIFI remakes in the past several years. And for the life of me, I can't think of any of these remakes that were actually better than the original;

War of the Worlds..Speilberg's was okay, I liked Tom Cruise, but I just didn't care about what was going on in that movie. Never grabbed me...

The Day the Earth Stood Still..I know many BBS folks like it. But I thought it was a good attempt that fell short...

Planet of the Apes...I had high hopes for this, but it just didn't understand the source material I think...Was great seeing Chuck Heston though...

those are a few. The only recent remake I have actually liked is the one with a very low ROTTENTOMATOES score; Journey to The Center of The Earth. Not as good as the original, but I took my kids and we all had fun watching it...

So....should Hollywood even bother remaking movies if they can't even match the first? Or do I read this wrong. Have they been better and I'm just to nostalgic to let go of my high memories of those older movies...

Rob
Scorpio

 

[Servo]

The thing that wound me up about Spielberg's War of the Worlds the most, is that Spielberg is a director with enough talent and resources to have pulled off an amazing recreation of the book; a proper period piece that stayed true to Wells' novel. Instead, he opted to bring us yet another modern day alien invasion of America, complete with annoying screaming/whining kid, and dysfunctional father/son relationship.
Sure, some of the action was decent, and the design of the aliens and their machines was ok, but it really brought nothing new to the table. There was no soul to the film, and all the "emotion" between the characters seemed forced and obvious.

Planet of The Apes was decent enough as a standalone movie, until the forced "WTF?" ending that Burton threw in there, which made no real sense. The original PotA is light years ahead of Burton's reimagining on every level; the way the story builds, the parallells to our own society, the score, the atmosphere...etc.

I enjoyed The Day the Earth Stood Still quite a bit, and thought it was a nice contrast to the "friendly warning" of the original. However, the ending again left me cold...

Spoiler: just in case

It didn't seem like anything was learned. What it really needed was Klaatu's voice booming out across the now still Earth, telling everyone on the planet that they just got off lightly, but next time would be different if they didn't change their ways. Instead, he just stopped the "attack", and most people (knowing Humanity) would probably have just thought "Well, that sorted itself out pretty easily. Let's get back to screwing the planet over with no consequences". It wasn't enough of a lesson.
And I also thought that Gort and John Cleese were criminally underused.

So, having written all that, I'd say I'm struggling to thing of a Sci-Fi remake that surpassed the original... with the exception of John Carpenter's The Thing, but even that was 27 years ago.

 

[Christopher]

It's fallacious logic to say that just because most remakes are bad, remaking films is therefore wrong. Because most films in every category are bad. Most comic-book movies are bad, but if nobody ever made comic-book movies, there never would've been The Dark Knight. Most horror movies are bad, but then there's Alien. It's not the category that makes a film good or bad, it's the execution.

Most stories ever told throughout human history have been "remakes." Before writing, before film, retelling an old story was the only way to keep it alive. And it's part of the nature of creativity to look at a story someone else has told and to wonder, "How would I have done that differently?" To see new possibilities that weren't fulfilled the first time and try to bring them out, to create a fresh take on the concept.

Naturally, a lot of such efforts turn out poorly -- especially in Hollywood where the system tends to homogenize and dumb down films of any category. All too often, remakes fail to capture the spirit of the originals because the studio executives demand changes to make them more similar to recent box-office successes and familiar formulas. Executives generally don't care about the earlier works their films are based on. A lot of the time, the executives won't even know the films are based on earlier works. So achieving authenticity is an uphill struggle, whether it's a remake or a novel adaptation or a sequel. Just as achieving quality and fidelity to the core of an original story is an uphill struggle against executive meddling.

But as with any genre, sometimes you get a gem in spite of all the factors stacked against you. Some remakes do prove worthwhile. It's never right to say that any category of storytelling should not be tried. Anything can be done badly or done well. And we'd all be a lot better off if everyone, including Hollywood execs, would stop trying to define the quality of stories based on their category and just focus on the execution.

 

[RobertScorpio]

It's fallacious logic to say that just because most remakes are bad, remaking films is therefore wrong. Because most films in every category are bad. Most comic-book movies are bad, but if nobody ever made comic-book movies, there never would've been The Dark Knight. Most horror movies are bad, but then there's Alien. It's not the category that makes a film good or bad, it's the execution.

Most stories ever told throughout human history have been "remakes." Before writing, before film, retelling an old story was the only way to keep it alive. And it's part of the nature of creativity to look at a story someone else has told and to wonder, "How would I have done that differently?" To see new possibilities that weren't fulfilled the first time and try to bring them out, to create a fresh take on the concept.

Naturally, a lot of such efforts turn out poorly -- especially in Hollywood where the system tends to homogenize and dumb down films of any category. All too often, remakes fail to capture the spirit of the originals because the studio executives demand changes to make them more similar to recent box-office successes and familiar formulas. Executives generally don't care about the earlier works their films are based on. A lot of the time, the executives won't even know the films are based on earlier works. So achieving authenticity is an uphill struggle, whether it's a remake or a novel adaptation or a sequel. Just as achieving quality and fidelity to the core of an original story is an uphill struggle against executive meddling.

But as with any genre, sometimes you get a gem in spite of all the factors stacked against you. Some remakes do prove worthwhile. It's never right to say that any category of storytelling should not be tried. Anything can be done badly or done well. And we'd all be a lot better off if everyone, including Hollywood execs, would stop trying to define the quality of stories based on their category and just focus on the execution.

So was that...a no?

Rob

 

[Christopher]

It was rejecting the premise of the question. "So....should Hollywood even bother remaking movies if they can't even match the first?" Sometimes they can match the first, or even exceed it. It's a mistake to generalize. It isn't the type of thing they try to do that determines its results; it's the care and quality they put into the effort, plus a lot of luck.

So should they keep trying remakes even though most remakes are bad? Of course. Because most of everything is bad. Most original movies are bad, but that doesn't mean nobody should try making movies at all. The reason most remakes are bad isn't because they're remakes, it's because they're badly made or subject to too much executive meddling -- the same reasons why most original movies are bad. It isn't where the story comes from that matters, it's what gets done with it. Ninety percent of everything is crud, but it's that other ten percent that makes it all worthwhile.

 

[RobertScorpio]

It was rejecting the premise of the question. "So....should Hollywood even bother remaking movies if they can't even match the first?" Sometimes they can match the first, or even exceed it. It's a mistake to generalize. It isn't the type of thing they try to do that determines its results; it's the care and quality they put into the effort, plus a lot of luck.

So should they keep trying remakes even though most remakes are bad? Of course. Because most of everything is bad. Most original movies are bad, but that doesn't mean nobody should try making movies at all. The reason most remakes are bad isn't because they're remakes, it's because they're badly made or subject to too much executive meddling -- the same reasons why most original movies are bad. It isn't where the story comes from that matters, it's what gets done with it. Ninety percent of everything is crud, but it's that other ten percent that makes it all worthwhile.

Okay..I see what you're saying. You know I love you Chris so i wasn't trying to be a smart ass. But I agree with what you're saying.

Rob

 

[OsmiumJohnnycake]

Carpenter's The Thing is a good example, and I also like Cronenberg's The Fly. And while they aren't better than the originals, I enjoyed the American takes on The Ring, The Grudge and The Vanishing.

And while one could argue that this isn't quite the same thing, I enjoyed both La Jetee and 12 Monkeys.

And for that matter, I love Lynch's Dune but I also liked the sci-fi miniseries.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Carpenter's The Thing is a good example, and I also like Cronenberg's The Fly. And while they aren't better than the originals, I enjoyed the American takes on The Ring, The Grudge and The Vanishing.

And while one could argue that this isn't quite the same thing, I enjoyed both La Jetee and 12 Monkeys.

And for that matter, I love Lynch's Dune but I also liked the sci-fi miniseries.

I totally forgot about THE FLY. It is better than the original, IMO, and Jeff Goldblum should have been at least nominated for the role...

Rob

 

[Sephiroth]

I don't see why they HAD to re-make the ring, the grudge, ect. the original versions were not only recently made, but the "re-makes" were practically scene-for-scene

 

[RobertScorpio]

I don't see why they HAD to re-make the ring, the grudge, ect. the original versions were not only recently made, but the "re-makes" were practically scene-for-scene

I agree Sephiroth..and I love your avatar!!!

Rob

 

[Sephiroth]

^thank you

and for what I can tell, the movies were "re made" because aparently american audiences will only watch movies with white people in them

 

[RobertScorpio]

^thank you

and for what I can tell, the movies were "re made" because aparently american audiences will only watch movies with white people in them

Umm..yeah. But I also don't care for subtitled movies, so I could see that as a reason to remake a foreign film...

Rob

 

[OsmiumJohnnycake]

That may be the reason they were remade, but there are enough tonal differences between the Japanese films and the American remakes to make both interesting.

I don't think too many people would disagree that there was more artistic intent in the Ring remake than there is in the endless remakes of 70s/80s horror like Amityville Horror, Prom Night, When a Stranger Calls, April Fool's Day, etc.