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

[ktanner3]

I just recently discovered that one of my favorite monster classics of all time is being remade for the first time...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wolf_Man_(2009_film)

The Wolf Man

Starring Benicio Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins, it sounds like it would be a killer movie if done right. This got me thinking about the recent craze of horror remakes...

What is an acceptable circumnstance to redo or re-imagine a movie? Are you totally against it or are there exeptions?

For me it boils down to simple criteria...

What is the point of redoing or changing it? Yes I know that it's all about money as far as the studio is concerned. But is it a straight rip off ala Psycho 1998 or is it a total change of everything like Dawn of the Dead 2004?

1.) If all you're doing is retelling the exact same story then don't do it. We all have it on DVD.Psycho 1998 was the almost the exact same script and style as in 1960 except played by inferior actors.A better approach would have been to follow more closely the robert bloch book which was much more violent than the original movie.
2.) If you're going to change everything including the basic rules set forth(Zombies now run and only bite to increase their numbers) then change the title and call it something new, because it is so far off the landscape that no one will trace a connection. Dawn of the Dead isn't Dawn of the Dead when Zombies act like infected rage victims from "28 days later".
3.) Good examples of remakes (for me anyway) are "The Fly" 1986,"Halloween" 2007 and "Oceans Elevan" in 2001. They kept the core elemants of their respective stories while bringing something fresh and new to the table.

Your thoughts?

 

[doubleohfive]

Psycho 1998 was more an experiment to see what would happen if you remade the film exactly the same way. Note that it has not been repeated, because the big thing Gus Van Sant and everyone else learned from it was --shock-- it didn't work.

As for remakes, I say do whatever the hell you want. Its no skin off my nose. If it sucks (i.e. Bionic Woman, Knight Rider), I don't have to watch it. If its spectacular (i.e. nuBSG) then that's great.

 

[Kegek]

I have no criteria; except one so vague it scarcely counts: It has to work. Be it a faithful recreation of the original film; a film which so radically alters the components it only has the name and a few trace elements in common with the original (and sometimes not even the name); it has to be a film which is a good film in its own right.

And since it's brought up, a thought about Psycho '98, from one of the handful of people on the planet who actually liked this film. The cast isn't uniformly worse (William H. Macy was better than Martian Balsam, IMHO); and was mainly typefied by taking a somewhat more modern acting approach to the material. What shot the film right to hell was Vince Vaughn as the titular psycho; I can commend them for not trying to recreate Anthony Perkins' role; but what they did have doesn't work at all (and the now infamous overt masturbation doesn't help matters). As a whole; watching van Sant's Psycho was a bit like watching those film adaptions of Shakespeare plays which keep the text intact but film it in a modern setting... it was a strange marriage between modern filmmaking and the 1960s; a rather intriguing experiment at that.

 

[ktanner3]

I have no criteria; except one so vague it scarcely counts: It has to work. Be it a faithful recreation of the original film; a film which so radically alters the components it only has the name and a few trace elements in common with the original (and sometimes not even the name); it has to be a film which is a good film in its own right.

And since it's brought up, a thought about Psycho '98, from one of the handful of people on the planet who actually liked this film. The cast isn't uniformly worse (William H. Macy was better than Martian Balsam, IMHO); and was mainly typefied by taking a somewhat more modern acting approach to the material. What shot the film right to hell was Vince Vaughn as the titular psycho; I can commend them for not trying to recreate Anthony Perkins' role; but what they did have doesn't work at all (and the now infamous overt masturbation doesn't help matters).

Ann Hece and Vigo Mortensen didn't work either. Ann Hece is hardly a sex symbol and Vigo Mortensen's take on it was to make the boyfriend as unsympathetic as Anne Hece. After the disapearance of his girlfriend he's already hitting on the sister.Hardly someone I'm worried about getting the axe.

As a whole; watching van Sant's Psycho was a bit like watching those film adaptions of Shakespeare plays which keep the text intact but film it in a modern setting... it was a strange marriage between modern filmmaking and the 1960s; a rather intriguing experiment at that.

To each his own. I didn't think it worked and it wasn't even scary to me.

 

[Kegek]

Ann Hece and Vigo Mortensen didn't work either. Ann Hece is hardly a sex symbol and Vigo Mortensen's take on it was to make the boyfriend as unsympathetic as Anne Hece. After the disapearance of his girlfriend he's already hitting on the sister.Hardly someone I'm worried about getting the axe.

Mortensen is unsympathetic and a little weird but interesting. Heche was fine in the role.

 

[Small White Car]

Re-imaged movies are exactly the same as re-made songs. It has to be GOOD and it has to be DIFFERENT.

Songs are easy. Change the gender of the singer and the tempo and you're almost there. Lots of cover songs are totally worth it just because they're so different from the original.

Movies are more challenging, but it can be done. As long as it seems like there's some point to doing it then I'm fine with it.

 

[Cutter John]

I went with 'under certain conditions'. If the filmaker is an actual fan of the original, and simply wants to see it told with a more modern look, or wants to honestly take a fresh look at it, like say the Dawn of the Dead or King Kong remakes, I don't have a problem. But if you're just using a familiar name in order to get more butts in seats. Or just seem like you're taking 'this crappy old movie and doing it right' like Sci-Fi's Flash Gordon or the Day of the Dead remake, then the filmakers need to just DIAF.

I would express my disdane for the new BSG, but I don't want you guys to kick my ass.

 

[nx1701g]

I don't have any real problem with them. Just keep the original at least partially in mind while you're making the remake.

 

[MattJC]

Never under any circumstances, especially when it comes to Star Trek.

 

[LizFL]

I've nothing against remakes or "re-imaginings".



At the same time, don't render the original completely unrecognizable (I'm looking at you, "Bewitched" and "Catwoman"! )

 

[Messianni]

Never under any circumstances, especially when it comes to Star Trek.

Hooray for close-minded thought!

I voted "under certain cirucumstances". It would be nice if a person who was doing a remake or reimagining did have some familiarity or affection for the original material. Often times when this happens we get ourselves a wonderful product.

However, when you get the ones where the execs just went, "oh, Bionic Woman! Yeah, that 70's show with the woman pretending to be Steve Austin with the "chchchch" sound effect! Great, I want a pilot by Monday! Oh, and make it EDGY", it's obvious to both non-fans and the devoted, thus why such shows/movies fail.

Of course there are some franchises that are bound to get remade time and time again... Invasion of the Body Snatchers, anyone?

 

[MattJC]

Hooray for close-minded thought!
QUOTE]

I'm open to new ideas, not the raping of someone else's hard work.
Chris Pine and the rest are a bunch of frauds.

 

[Jack Bauer]

My only real criteria is that it be good.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I like some reimaginings, not others.

(I am definitely not a fan of nuBSG, for example, since I prefer the original.)

The general concept? I'm okay with it. Shit, it's not like I'm being FORCED to watch any remakes that might arise. If you don't like it, don't watch - you don't have to. Ignore them as if they don't exist. That's what I usually do with nuBSG.

 

[Sci]

Remakes and reimaginings can be a wonderful thing. In a way, they're like Broadway revivals -- they give us the opportunity to see a new and original way to interpret a pre-existing work. That's why even though I'm, for instance, a huge fan of Firefly, I wouldn't mind it if someone came along in five or ten years with a completely new re-imagining of the Fireflyverse -- it'd just be a new way of looking that that 'verse.

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; The Wizard of Oz, for instance, is such an appealing movie that all the remakes in the world won't match its magic, at least not if they're straight remakes. A re-imagining of The Wizard of Oz designed for a new audience -- say, all adults -- or to reverse our traditional preconceptions about the Land of Oz -- say, "What if the Wicked Witch of the West actually good?" -- could be wonderful. Hence the beauty of the novel Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West, a re-imagining for adults predicated on the idea that the Witch is a freedom fighter, or of the musical which is based upon that novel, which takes the same premise but re-orients it for a family audience.

 

[captcalhoun]

this is the thing some people don't get with adaptations, they're 'reimagining' the concept. like X-Men and Spider-Man or Transformers.

but when they make a big deal out of adapting a book and then completely fuck it over, like Harry Potter or The Sum of All Fears, that pisses me off.

i usually just want things to be entertaining and not piss me off...

 

[Navaros]

Never seen a good "re-imagining". Remakes are okay sometimes, but more often they are terrible. Since the two terms are lumped together in the thread title, I vote never under any circumstances. Don't need any more re-imaginings bastardizing the good name of classic TV shows.

 

[Brikar99]

If it's good, it's good. That's all I care about. And some things probably should be remade because they didn't realize their potential the first time around.

And some things just didn't get to tell all the stories they could have. There's plenty of solid reasons to go back to something and do it again. But whatever the reason behind it, all that truly matters is the quality of the final product.

It's easy to say "remakes suck, man" because the majority of them tend not to be that good... but at the same time, the majority of "original" movies aren't that good, either. I think remakes just tend to be a convenient target for peoples' ire.

 

[Captain Craig]

Under Certain Conditions

Psycho was a failed experiment for a reason. It was a remake that need not be remade. As stated up thread if you shoot it shot-by-shot what is the point(artistically) we all have it on DVD.

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.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre while not being a great remake wasn't bad. Unlike Halloween the original here is very dated and while good and still a horror classic did need a face lift.

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.

I've never seen the original but two movies down in my queue is 3:10 to Yuma and I'm looking forward to that.

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.

As for TV its obvious that Battlestar Galactica as a property has been served well with its reimagining. Its done something that is rare in genre sci-fi and crossed over into more mainstream appeal with fans and good press in TVGuide and Entertainment Weekly.

Bionic Woman suffered from a lack of a good vision and thus its reimaging failed. I still hold that had Sarah Corvus been the lead the show would have survived(even though its yet to be officially dead).

Knight 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.

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.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Well, given as how remakes have been around since the earliest days of film, I'm okay with them.

Rarely is a remake better than the original...but sometimes they can surprise you and be quite good.

One good example of a remake being better than the original is the 1940/1944 film Gaslight. The original (with Anton Walbrook and Diane Wynyard) was decent...but the remake with Ingrid Bergman, Charles Boyer, Joseph Cotten and Angela Lansbury (in her first screen role, I believe) was superior. In fact, I think Ingrid Bergman and Angela Lansbury both won Oscars for their performances in the remake...and Charles Boyer was nominated for his performance as well.