Yet even more usless 80's remakes...Ughh

[Gov Kodos]

A day ending in "y"? Must be time for another thread lamenting the death of originality and griping about remakes!

Remakes have been happening for about as long as Hollywood's been around. Deal with it. Don't want to see remakes? Don't go see them! It's that easy.

usually it was several decades if not many of them, that they happen though. I tseems now that wait about ten years we TPTB say wow the movie goers are so fucking gullible...it's only been 5-10 years ..we can get money saying it's better!....

It looks like they're remaking all those 80's dancing movies. They already remade Fame. I don't see what's stopping them from remaking those other ones listed.

And look how that one turned out! What is next "GHOST" or "Titannic"?....

Er, you do realize that there were at least three previous movies about the Titanic? And a tv mini-series?

And Hollywood never waited "several decades" before remaking classics. Just one example: the John Barrymore version of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde was in the twenties, the Oscar-winning Fredric March version was in thirties, the Spencer Tracy version was in the forties, the Hammer Films version was in the sixties, the Jack Palance version was in the seventies . . . and so on.

Heck, there was only nine years between Nosferatu (1922) and Dracula (1931)

Not to mention that 1931 enjoyed 2 Dracula films, some would argue that the Spanish production was superior in Direction.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnEqJrX-yr4&feature=related[/yt]

 

[Greg Cox]

The Spanish version certainly had a hotter heroine, and skimpier nightgowns. Alas, the guy playing Dracula was no Lugosi . . ..

 

[JarodRussell]

First Blood - Stallone has already talked about it!

First Blood, my ass. How would that work? A sheriff trying to terrorize an Iraq or Afghanistan veteran? In this day and age? Seriously?

 

[Gov Kodos]

The Spanish version certainly had a hotter heroine, and skimpier nightgowns. Alas, the guy playing Dracula was no Lugosi . . ..

True, but the film moves along faster. I need to rewatch Legosi's Dracula to make a better comparison. But off the top of my head the Spanish version feels better directed. I do wish that Legosi could have had Melford in charge.

 

[Gov Kodos]

First Blood - Stallone has already talked about it!

First Blood, my ass. How would that work? A sheriff trying to terrorize an Iraq or Afghanistan veteran? In this day and age? Seriously?

Sure, in the first he looks like a hippie drifter which gets him in trouble not his being a vet, which is only found out after the trouble starts. The same could work still, or make him Muslim or just not white.

 

[Greg Cox]

The Spanish version certainly had a hotter heroine, and skimpier nightgowns. Alas, the guy playing Dracula was no Lugosi . . ..

True, but the film moves along faster. I need to rewatch Legosi's Dracula to make a better comparison. But off the top of my head the Spanish version feels better directed. I do wish that Legosi could have had Melford in charge.

Oh, I agree. Once Dracula gets to London, the Lugosi version is very much a filmed stageplay. The cast is great, but the movie itself has not aged well. It's very creaky and static.

 

[Gov Kodos]

The Spanish version certainly had a hotter heroine, and skimpier nightgowns. Alas, the guy playing Dracula was no Lugosi . . ..

True, but the film moves along faster. I need to rewatch Legosi's Dracula to make a better comparison. But off the top of my head the Spanish version feels better directed. I do wish that Legosi could have had Melford in charge.

Oh, I agree. Once Dracula gets to London, the Lugosi version is very much a filmed stageplay. The cast is great, but the movie itself has not aged well. It's very creaky and static.

That's how I remember the Legosi version, I haven't seen it in years. The first time I saw the Spanish version was the youtube upload though I'd heard of the film. I enjoyed the movie despite not knowing a word of Spanish. I don't think I could sit through Browning's in an unknown language.

 

[Goliath]

Heck, there was only nine years between Nosferatu (1922) and Dracula (1931)

There were three adaptations of Dashiell Hammett's The Maltese Falcon released within eleven years: The Maltese Falcon (1931), Satan Met a Lady (1936), and The Maltese Falcon (1941). People nowadays only remember the third one.

I think people have very little conception these days of just how many films Hollywood churned out between the 20s and the 50s. Even relatively obscure novels were adapted for the screen more than once. Steve Fisher's novel I Wake Up Screaming was filmed twice, as I Wake Up Screaming in 1941 and Vicki in 1953. Graham Greene's A Gun for Sale was filmed twice, as This Gun for Hire in 1942 and Short Cut to Hell in 1957.

In addition, popular feature films were adapted as radio plays, which often featured the very same actors in the same roles. I only recently discovered that my favourite film, Double Indemnity, was adapted for radio no less than four times. Three of these broadcasts featured the film's lead actress, Barbara Stanwyck, and two of them featured its lead actor, Fred MacMurray.

 

[Holdfast]

And also, if you're old enough to complain about them remaking these movies, then, and this is what it all boils down to, you're too old...

You know what made me feel old recently? I watched the Katy Perry music video for TGIF on youtube. It's the one with the 80s theme, and cameos from Kenny G, Corey Feldman and Debbie Gibson. I glanced at the comments while listening, and of the tiny minority of comments mentioning them (and not Rebecca Black's appearance), 95+% of them had NO idea who they were and didn't get any of the inside jokes/self-referential parodying they were doing in the video.

 

[Idran]

Everything old is new again. As for Star Wars, it will never EVER happen. Unless it's done by Lucas' company or by The Maker himself. Lucas has all sequel/prequel/remake rights to Star Wars which he got when the original came out.

Like was said earlier, eventually Lucas will be dead. Probably within the next 30 years (he's 67 right now). And if there's one thing estate holders of major creative forces tend to do, it's capitalize on the intellectual property of those creative forces. Look at Dune.

Or for a sillier but more comparative example, Dr. Seuss. Ted Geisel specifically refused to do any sorts of adaptations of any of his works while he was alive, because he wanted to make sure only the most quality of adaptations would result; it was a huge struggle just to convince him to allow the animated Grinch adaptation, but he eventually relented because he could see it was such a great version. Then he died, and, well...Jim Carrey's Grinch and Mike Myers' Cat in the Hat?

 

[Gov Kodos]

Everything old is new again. As for Star Wars, it will never EVER happen. Unless it's done by Lucas' company or by The Maker himself. Lucas has all sequel/prequel/remake rights to Star Wars which he got when the original came out.

Like was said earlier, eventually Lucas will be dead. Probably within the next 30 years (he's 67 right now). And if there's one thing estate holders of major creative forces tend to do, it's capitalize on the intellectual property of those creative forces. Look at Dune.

Or for a sillier but more comparative example, Dr. Seuss. Ted Geisel specifically refused to do any sorts of adaptations of any of his works while he was alive, because he wanted to make sure only the most quality of adaptations would result; it was a huge struggle just to convince him to allow the animated Grinch adaptation, but he eventually relented because he could see it was such a great version. Then he died, and, well...Jim Carrey's Grinch and Mike Myers' Cat in the Hat?

Those were two unfortunate films. I've only seen bits and pieces on TV but they seemed awful. They really seemed more interested in being vehicles for their respective stars than telling the stories of the source material. That would doom just about any story. As for a Star Wars remake, so long as it does away with the Greedo shooting first nonsense I'll consider it.

 

[Saxman1]

And also, if you're old enough to complain about them remaking these movies, then, and this is what it all boils down to, you're too old...

You know what made me feel old recently? I watched the Katy Perry music video for TGIF on youtube. It's the one with the 80s theme, and cameos from Kenny G, Corey Feldman and Debbie Gibson. I glanced at the comments while listening, and of the tiny minority of comments mentioning them (and not Rebecca Black's appearance), 95+% of them had NO idea who they were and didn't get any of the inside jokes/self-referential parodying they were doing in the video.

Interesting. I read the reviews of both of Perry's studio albums in the All-Music Guide (two 1/2 stars for each) and the reviewer said that Perry is the ultimate commercial artist who will do anything to sell records and as a result really has no style or personality of her own. It's all geared toward making her as big a star as possible, whatever she thinks will sell the most records.

Look at the videos: her breasts shooting wipped cream, she likes to make out with girls....or does she, singing a sultry ballad while stripping down to bra, panties and garter belt, etc. Jumping on the 80s bandwagon is more of the same.

One thing you can say for her: the formula is working. She's moving past Gaga in terms of sales. I guess having her butt naked except for a wisp of cotton candy or smoke over it on her latest album cover doesn't hurt, huh?

 

[Cmndr J Crichton]

First Blood - Stallone has already talked about it!

First Blood, my ass. How would that work? A sheriff trying to terrorize an Iraq or Afghanistan veteran? In this day and age? Seriously?

Stallone said in an interview during the Expendables press releases that he would love to direct a remake, well it would be more of a prequel really, of Rambo in Vietnam. He said it would come full circle if you will, to direct a younger version of his character, sort of tying everything up in this series. It would be great if adult Rambo is remembering his past, and there you go.

Actually, the more I think about it how cool would that be? We'd see a young Col Trautman mentoring a naive boysout named John Rambo into the ultimate killer we know today! I know some people are tired of Prequels, but with how well Rise of the Apes was made there's no reason a Young Rambo movie couldn't be made with equal or greater quality!

 

[Greg Cox]

You know, as dismaying as it may be to realize, it's probably worth remembering that the 80's are going on thirty years ago.

A whole new generation has grown up since we watched the original versions of these movies.

(FYI: there's an article about 80's nostalgia in USA TODAY this morning.)

 

[JarodRussell]

You know, as dismaying as it may be to realize, it's probably worth remembering that the 80's are going on thirty years ago.

A whole new generation has grown up since we watched the original versions of these movies.

(FYI: there's an article about 80's nostagia in USA TODAY this morning.)

You know what the actual problem is? Writers, producers and directors who grew up in the 80s trying to have their cake and eat it. That's their nostalgia. The "new generation" couldn't care less. Why can't they have original stuff? Why do we need to feed them with recycled schmonz?

 

[Greg Cox]

You know, as dismaying as it may be to realize, it's probably worth remembering that the 80's are going on thirty years ago.

A whole new generation has grown up since we watched the original versions of these movies.

(FYI: there's an article about 80's nostagia in USA TODAY this morning.)

You know what the actual problem is? Writers, producers and directors who grew up in the 80s trying to have their cake and eat it. That's their nostalgia. The "new generation" couldn't care less. Why can't they have original stuff? Why do we need to feed them with recycled schmonz?

If the new versions are good, who cares if they were done before? Audiences in the sixties enjoyed the Hammer Films versions of Dracula and Frankenstein, regardless of the fact that Universal had done them a few decades earlier. The old monsters found a whole new audience.

I enjoyed FRIGHT NIGHT in the eighties. Why shouldn't today's kids enjoy their own version?

Heck, every generation gets their own version of Sherlock Holmes or Bond or whomever. Why shouldn't this apply to CONAN or DIRTY DANCING as well?

I mean, nobody complains when the Met stages a new version of "Carmen" for the umpteeth time . . . .

Old stories get retold. That's how it works.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

You know, as dismaying as it may be to realize, it's probably worth remembering that the 80's are going on thirty years ago.

Nooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Greg Cox]

Oh, some more fun proof that Hollywood has never been shy about remaking things:

Back in 1962, there were two remakes, from two different studios, of Dr. Syn, which had previously been filmed in 1936. Think about that for a second. The movie was remade twice in one year. Makes the thirty-year gap between now and the eighties seem like an eternity, doesn't it?

And THE LAST MAN ON EARTH with Vincent Price was remade as THE OMEGA MAN only about seven years later, and, of course, was later remade with Will Smith . . . .

 

[Goliath]

I mean, nobody complains when the Met stages a new version of "Carmen" for the umpteeth time . . .

I do.

But no one listens.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Public companies have a responsibility to their shareholders to capitalize mercilessly on their intellectual property. So far, George has been pussyfooting around compared with what a real company would be doing.

WTF

Yeah, I don't buy that one either. As of a few years ago, Star Wars had grossed over $13 billion in sales. He's merchandised it to death over the years, as well as doing seven movies (counting the animated film) and a bunch of animated shows. Seeing as George is the lone "stockholder" of the SW francise, he owes it to no one what he does with his intellectual property.

By "real company," I mean a public company (and I did mean it a bit facetiously.) Lucas has done a great job capitalizing on the merchandise aspect of his empire, but a public company would have pushed for more movies as well. Lucas doesn't owe any other stockholders anything of course, but my point is if there were other stockholders, they would expect even more aggressive moves. Why make $13 billion when you can make $30 billion? Greed has no limit.

You know I'm theorectically fine with a Star Wars remake, but I see no reason for it to be something like Gus van Sant's Psycho. Do what other remakes do: Take the concept, update where relevant, and make a solid film out of it. Princess Leia is captured by the evil Empire, a scrappy farmboy from a desert planet, a space pirate, and an old mystical knight guy go off to save her from a fellow with evidently serious repistory issues. We don't need to follow the original beat for beat for beat, although I'm sure we'd see a fair few visual cues and lines sprinkled throughout (the opening shot of the Star Destroyer looming overhead seems hypothetically inevitable).

Okay, I'll bite: how would you rewrite ANH and ESB to "improve" them?

For that matter, should Gus van Sant have rewritten Psycho instead of reshooting it?

First off, the original movies weren't that great, sorry to burst anybody's bubble. Remaking them isn't killing any sacred cows.

I happen to think the first two are pretty "great" at least in the sense of not needing rewriting. But that doesn't preclude remakes, even if they follow the same script (they don't need to be shot-for-shot remakes - I've already suggested ways in which they could be tweaked beyond the script level and of course different actors would be a huge change.)

Remaking the movies and re-releasing them should do very well in global box office regardless of whether it's "needed." I wouldn't assume that the potential audience is even very familiar with the OT. Remember, we're talking global audience, a totally different situation from the 70s and 80s.