Total Recall remake

[Greg Cox]

Honestly, I don't think they were more "discreet' in the old days. I think it's more that, thanks to the home video revolution, people have more access to the older versions than they did before so they don't see the need for a new one. But, even back in the old days, I think most people knew that there had been umpteen previous versions of THE THREE MUSKETEERS or THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA or THE WIZARD OF OZ or whatever . . . especially since the older versions were often still playing on the late show.

Lord knows I grew up watching multiple versions of DRACULA or TARZAN. So two versions of TOTAL RECALL in twenty years doesn't strike me as excessive . . .

 

[JarodRussell]

Honestly, I don't think they were more "discreet' in the old days. I think it's more that, thanks to the home video revolution, people have more access to the older versions than they did before so they don't see the need for a new one. But, even back in the old days, I think most people knew that there had been umpteen previous versions of THE THREE MUSKETEERS or THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA or THE WIZARD OF OZ or whatever . . . especially since the older versions were often still playing on the late show.

Lord knows I grew up watching multiple versions of DRACULA or TARZAN. So two versions of TOTAL RECALL in twenty years doesn't strike me as excessive . . .

What makes it excessive is the amount of remakes and reboots and late sequels in total in the last couple of years.

Seriously, the 80s are not that far back. As you said, people today have more access to the movies. Everyone born in the 90s knows the major movies from the 80s.

Originality went down the toilet.

 

[Teelie]

The problem I see is you reference movies that are based on public domain works; you didn't see too many based on copryrighted works, even by their own studio. Now we're up to a fourth reboot of the Punisher movie (three within a 6 year period) and we've had reboots of countless other movies, mostly in comic books but branching out into other genres as well.

 

[Greg Cox]

Seriously, the 80s are not that far back.
.

I think that's a matter of perspective. Again, that was practically a generation ago. Time enough for a whole new audience to grow up. To my nieces and nephews, the 80's are way before their time.

Again, Hollywood has always been in the remake business. Think of all the classic movies that were remakes: BEN-HUR, THE WIZARD OF OZ, THE MALTESE FALCON, THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES with Basil Rathbone, THE MARK OF ZORRO with Tyrone Power, THE HORROR OF DRACULA, the Richard Lester version of THE THREE MUSKETEERS, SUPERMAN: THE MOTION PICTURE, BATMAN, BATMAN BEGINS, THE FLY. . . and that's not counting movies based on old tv shows like THE FUGITIVE or THE ADDAMS FAMILY. Even James Bond had already appeared on tv before Sean Connery came around.

Complaining about remakes is like complaining that the sun rises in the east.

Teelie: Technically, TARZAN and ZORRO and THE MALTESE FALCON were not p.d. back in the old days, but that's beside the point. Most movies are based on something: a book, a play, a comic book, an earlier movie, whatever. How does a story's copyright status determine whether it's legitimate to remake it? To my mind, that's a legal issue, not an artistic one.

 

[Christopher]

It doesn't matter where a story comes from, only where you take it. Most "original" stories are just rehashes of familiar plots with the names changed; whereas a good remake can take the same basic premise and character names and create something wildly original with them. (Indeed, even a bad remake can do that. The Michelle Ryan Bionic Woman had the title and the main character's name in common with the original but that was about it.) So it doesn't really matter that much whether the basic concept is something that already exists in some prior form. Ultimately all stories are built on pre-existing tropes and cultural vocabulary, and the thing that matters is how well those elements are presented and handled.

 

[Teelie]

That's true but also a simplified answer. Most original stories, even those who take their premise off a story used for other movies or stories, don't reuse the same names, exact themes, "universe," or tie in so directly to the stuff like the latest trend of remakes/reboots has done. Yes, there are only seven original stories to be told supposedly but you can't say a remake of The Thing (itself a remake of a adaptation of a story that itself was an adaptation of) is the just like another movie dealing with encountering the unknown.

 

[Christopher]

^Of course not, but that's splitting hairs. The point is that every story reuses elements from earlier stories; it's just a matter of which elements you're using. A remake that takes the same names, concept, and themes and does something wildly new with it, like Moore's Battlestar Galactica, is more original and more worthwhile than a "new" story that just recycles a trite formula, like any of the cheesy monster movies that SyFy churns out on a monthly basis. Every story reuses something; some stories reuse familiar character names, settings, and premises, while others reuse familiar plot cliches, character tropes, action beats, etc.

So it's just a question of which aspects of a story you reuse, and its just isn't valid to say that reusing the same character names and situation is intrinsically worse than reusing the same story beats with different names. Remakes can be great, original stories can be crap. The source doesn't determine the quality, only the approach and the outcome do.

And as we've been saying, there is no such thing as "the latest trend of remakes." Remakes have always been around.

 

[Greg Cox]

That's true but also a simplified answer. Most original stories, even those who take their premise off a story used for other movies or stories, don't reuse the same names, exact themes, "universe," or tie in so directly to the stuff like the latest trend of remakes/reboots has done. .

I agree that there's a difference between an actual remake and a new story that reworks old themes. But my point is, and I see that Christopher has already beaten me to the punch, this isn't a "recent trend," nor is it a particularly bad one. Indeed, John Carpenter's THE THING is more proof that remakes are not necessarily inferior to the originals, and that copyright status doesn't really determine whether a remake is worth doing. We've already had two first-rate adaptations of Campbell's original story. Why not a third?

And, c'mon, you just know that, if this message board had been around in the eighties, people would have been horrified and indignant at the prospect of remaking THE THING:

"Who does this Carpenter jerk think he is! Jame Arness as the Thing is iconic! You can't replace him! Another version of THE THING? Hollywood has run out of ideas!"

 

[Christopher]

Actually my point is that, yes, obviously there's a difference, but it's not a difference that has any real bearing on the originality or quality of a work. On a superficial examination, it may look like a new movie reusing a familiar title, premise, and set of character names is less original than a new movie with a new title, premise, and character names; but depending on execution, the former can be wildly original while the latter can be wholly cliched and imitative. (Look at Eragon. The title, character names, and nominal situation are new, but it's practically a beat-for-beat retelling of Star Wars.) So it's a mistake to assume that a remake is automatically going to be less original or less worthwhile than a technically new story.

 

[JarodRussell]

The other thing is - but that might be solely subjective - that remakes these days simply friggin suck. The Fugitive was an awesome movie. Would the TV show be remade today, it would friggin' suck. Based on my experience. And yes, nowadays I am condemning a reboot before I see it, simply because EVERY single reboot, remake or late sequel in the last ten years has simply sucked. The only exception is Batman Begins, which managed to hit all my nerves (well, except for the music).

I welcome change. What I don't welcome are suckfests.

 

[wildstar]

Vanilla Sky seemed like a remake of Total Recall to me.

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

Vanilla Sky seemed like a remake of Total Recall to me.

Well, "Vanilla Sky" was at least a remake...


(Btw, I guess I'm one of the few people who have seen "Abre los ojos", but not "Vanilla Sky". Anyone else?)

 

[backstept]

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej3Szj6WcCY[/yt]

 

[JWD75]

What the heck is Hollywood going to do when they run out of movies to remake? Start making remakes of the remakes? I don't mind an occasional remake, but this is getting out of hand.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I like the idea of a remake. It's been long enough and the world can always use some more PKD.

But I hope they actually cast a lead actor who seems like a PKD hero. Paul Giametti springs immediately to mind. If he's too un-heroic, they could compromise with Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

I'm hoping that this isn't so much a "Total Recall remake" as a new adaptation of Philip K. Dick's "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale."

Same here. At the very least, they shouldn't feel constrained by Arnie's version of the story.

The other thing is - but that might be solely subjective - that remakes these days simply friggin suck.

Most things friggin suck. Compare movies that are remakes to those that are non-remakes. I doubt the remakes group would be worse overall than the non-remakes.

 

[Christopher]

What the heck is Hollywood going to do when they run out of movies to remake? Start making remakes of the remakes?

That's what they've always done, since the very beginning. Remember back a few posts ago when we were talking about how Hollywood in the '20s and '30s remade the same films several times per decade? We have got to abandon this nonsensical myth that remakes are somehow a bad thing or a temporary fad. Neither of those is remotely true. Retelling stories has always been part of human culture and always will be.

 

[FormerLurker]

The Fugitive was an awesome movie. Would the TV show be remade today, it would friggin' suck.

They did a new Fugitive series, about eight/ten years ago, starring Tim Daly. It did in fact suck, but that was the network forgetting what the premise of the show was supposed to be. Remember, the Incredible Hulk TV show was the Fugitive with gamma rays.

 

[Forbin]

I hope they get Lycia Naff back, and graduate her from three-breasted hooker to three-breasted madame.

 

[Goliath]

(Btw, I guess I'm one of the few people who have seen "Abre los ojos", but not "Vanilla Sky". Anyone else?)

Not me--but while we're on the subject of remakes of Spanish movies, I did prefer Rec to its Hollywood remake, Quarantine.

There's nothing inherently wrong with remakes. The problem in my experience is just that, for whatever reason--and with a few notable exceptions, like The Maltese Falcon or Ben-Hur--most remakes seem to be inferior to the originals.

Which suggests to me that the artistic success or failure of a movie is independent of its source material. What matters is not the story, but the storytellers, and how they tell it--not the fabula, but the sujet.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Total Recall won't be a remake, it's a new adaptation.

Sorry, I always think it's funny when people make that distinction.

When we grew up watching Total Recall half the fun was the excess of the movie (incl. Arnie), I can't imagine any nu adaptation bringing much to the table in the fun department. So that being the case, maybe it would make sense to go back to the original story (which I haven't read) to mine some material though that might confuse people expecting more of a remake.