The unnecessary reboot/remake of the week thread

[Aragorn]

Budgets are out of control and they don't make mid-budget movies anymore, so they think making movies out of something you already know (a novel, a video game, a comic book, a TV series, a remake, a sequel, a spinoff, a prequel) will make it less of a risk even though they still make more bombs than hits. But anyone could've told them spending $200 million to remake Highlander is a stupid idea.

 

[Oddish]

Their raison d'etre for many of the live action remakes seems to be to allow Disney to maximize diversity and women's empowerment while demonstrating general contempt for their male heroes in general. Example, with their live action "Pinocchio",

Spoiler

I guess they decided that being a real boy is so overrated, the titular character should remain a puppet.

 

[CorporalClegg]

 

[Owain Taggart]

I think it's a way to keep their IPs alive and possibly create memories for a new generation of people. But the problem most of them have is that they tend to feel too clinical and lack the heart of the original productions.

 

[Aragorn]

These remakes aren't coming from an individual with a passionate idea for a remake. They're coming from the corporate office of "we already own these so which ones can we remake?"

It's "How can I make a better Transformers movie?" vs. "How can I make money off of Lion King for a third time?"

 

[Oddish]

You're not the only one who thinks that. This reviewer brings the hammer.

Face it — Disney’s live-action remakes are worthless abominations

For more than a decade, the House of Mouse has been addicted to these robotic abominations. It’s a sickness.

nypost.com

 

[Jayson1]

Other than a cash grab, I can't see any reason for all these live action remakes. They seem to have no creative reason to exist.

A common refrain, sadly these days with modern tv shows and movies.

 

[Aragorn]

They haven't milked them as much as they can though. Hand-drawn animated movie, computer-animated movie, live action movie, Disney+ series, Broadway musical.

Remember when movie studios could release the same movie on disc over and over again with only minor additions or enhancements (or in different packaging with no updates)? How many different editions of Princess Bride are there?

 

[Marc]

I think it's a way to keep their IPs alive and possibly create memories for a new generation of people. But the problem most of them have is that they tend to feel too clinical and lack the heart of the original productions.

or are pretty much scene for scene remakes that don't bring enough new to the table to entice people to go see them.

and it's not just the recent snow white release but you also had the remake of psycho a some years back that had the same flaw though now does that's just an inconvenient point went certain elements can claim it's due to the film being "woke" and other such dribble.

 

[Jayson1]

They always seem to also remake stuff I have zero interest in while ignoring things that would be great. It's crime we never got to see Sam and AL one time at least in a "Quantum Leap" revival and now we never will. Where is me some more Stargate? Give us a new show in the same tv continuity

 

[Oddish]

How many different editions of Princess Bride are there?

I haven't seen the Inconceivable Edition yet.

 

[Starkers]

or are pretty much scene for scene remakes that don't bring enough new to the table to entice people to go see them.

and it's not just the recent snow white release but you also had the remake of psycho a some years back that had the same flaw though now does that's just an inconvenient point went certain elements can claim it's due to the film being "woke" and other such dribble.

Kinda scary to realise that Psycho remake was in 1998! That was such a weird idea.

Remakes aren't entirely a new phenomena though. The 39 Steps was made in 1935, 1959 and 1978 (and if you count the BBC TV movie also 2008). A Star Is Born has been made four times since '37

Of course Hitchcock famously remade one of his own films!

 

[Jayson1]

The weirdest part might have been casting Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates. What were they thinking!

 

[Owain Taggart]

or are pretty much scene for scene remakes that don't bring enough new to the table to entice people to go see them.

That too. While the original productions are obviously labors of love, the remakes are often rather soul-less.

It reminds me of a French-Canadian movie that had been quite popular, that 10 years later ended up getting an english language remake. While it was directed by the original director, and had a higher budget for more well-known actors, and while it was a fine movie in itself, it just could not capture what had made the original so charming. You could see the director had made an effort, along with the actors themselves, but the spark just wasn't there.

 

[DarrenTR1970]

The Spanish language version of 'Dracula' was filmed simultaneously on the same sets as Lugosi's 'Dracula'. The Spanish cast and crew would shoot at night, while the American cast and crew would film during the day.​

 

[DarrenTR1970]

Remakes aren't entirely a new phenomena though. The 39 Steps was made in 1935, 1959 and 1978 (and if you count the BBC TV movie also 2008). A Star Is Born has been made four times since '37

We can add 'Nosferatu' to the list. 1922, 1979 and 2024.

 

[DarrenTR1970]

The weirdest part might have been casting Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates. What were they thinking!

It still would have flopped, but it would have been interesting if Gus Van Sant had cast someone who actually fit the description of Norman Bates in the novel - mid to late-forties, short, balding, overweight and nearsighted. Jason Alexander would have fit the bill.

 

[Kraig]

It still would have flopped, but it would have been interesting if Gus Van Sant had cast someone who actually fit the description of Norman Bates in the novel - mid to late-forties, short, balding, overweight and nearsighted. Jason Alexander would have fit the bill.

Or Newman.

 

[Aragorn]

She caught me eating a doughnut from the garbage can. I had to kill her!

 

[Marc]

Kinda scary to realise that Psycho remake was in 1998! That was such a weird idea.

Remakes aren't entirely a new phenomena though. The 39 Steps was made in 1935, 1959 and 1978 (and if you count the BBC TV movie also 2008). A Star Is Born has been made four times since '37

Of course Hitchcock famously remade one of his own films!

Not family enough with any ore those films to know - was the enough to differentiate or where they pretty much scene for scene?