The people who remake HongKong or Japanese movies are smart business people, they know most people won't bother watching the originals even if they are superior because the sad fact is most Americans are too damn lazy to read a film with subtitles
From my point of view, they can remake all they want. I apply the same criterea to ANY new movie or TV show anyway. As Kegek said, it simply has to work or work for me, that is.
If I were to personally oversee a remake or re-imagining I'd need reasons and the feeling I can add something new. Otherwise it just wouldn't feel like it's worth doing (unless I was getting paid a fortune, maybe
).
For me, the best example of how well a remake or better re-imagining can work is nuBSG. They took the good elements from the original show but expanded it incredibly and took it to an artistic level I have yet to see anywhere else on TV. I'll admit that it has certainly made me a lot more open to remakes and the likes.
If I were to personally oversee a remake or re-imagining I'd need reasons and the feeling I can add something new. Otherwise it just wouldn't feel like it's worth doing (unless I was getting paid a fortune, maybe
).For me, the best example of how well a remake or better re-imagining can work is nuBSG. They took the good elements from the original show but expanded it incredibly and took it to an artistic level I have yet to see anywhere else on TV. I'll admit that it has certainly made me a lot more open to remakes and the likes.
As a writer, I frequently think that remakes and re-imaginings are just lazy cashing in on existing franchises brought to the "reimaginators" attention by someone else's imagination and hard work.
But under various circumstances (such as an original creator's wish that they could have a bigger budget, or better effects, etc.) I think it can be a good thing -- but only with the original creator's approval and blessing.
--Ted
But under various circumstances (such as an original creator's wish that they could have a bigger budget, or better effects, etc.) I think it can be a good thing -- but only with the original creator's approval and blessing.
--Ted
K
ktanner3
Guest
For the most part you are correct. Psycho 1998 is definetly a good example of that as is pretty much every remake or re-imagining of this decade. It seems hollywood has run out of ideas for making good original horror movies and feels the need to raid the vault. (28 days/weeks later would be the exeption here of course,but then again it is very similiar to the book "I am Legend," which has been copied by hollywood for over 50 years.)
I agree for the most part. But here's where you come into a pickle. The studios own the rights to the movie, so technically they don't have to ask permission from the original director or writer. Thou it should be pointed out that Rob Zombie did talk to John carpenter before doing halloween.And I think any movie such as "The Wolfman" that was made over 60 years ago deserves a pass on that requirment. But it's pretty obvious that George Romero wasn't too happy with the "Dawn of the Dead" re-do.
My mistake. Probably got addled because I tend to associate Hermann with Hitchcock.
K
ktanner3
Guest
That seems to be the trend with the polling as well.
Toxic Avenger remake deal as PG13 action comedy
http://www.deadline.com/2010/04/the-toxic-avenger-mops-up-in-redo-deal/#more-30807
4 sequels !?!
under no circumstances!
http://www.deadline.com/2010/04/the-toxic-avenger-mops-up-in-redo-deal/#more-30807
4 sequels !?!
under no circumstances!