[horatio]

Don't know if I can comment on this topic, being still in my twenties and having seen only a few remaked movies: Psycho is horrible; Jackson's King Kong is great (never saw the original but fail to see why it could be as good as PJ's); The Ring and other Hollywood remakes of J-horror are a bit better than the original. Star Trek prequel/reboot/remake/whatever: not clear yet

I see only one pattern, that a remake might work if the general idea is to retell an old story or a story told somewhere else to a new audience. Yet some old stories are timeless classics and better left untouched.
I think that the general tendency in art is to work on a theme until someone has refined it perfectly. The Bard did not invent any story, he took legends and actual history. It's not about originality, but finding the best version.

[thypentacle]

Well from my experience, movie remakes are about as good as video games based on movies... almost always bad. It's just when they redo a movie, and one has seen the original version, it seems to taint the idea of the new one for reasons of being used to the original and how it is and what made it good enough in the first place for someone to come along later and say, "Hey we should remake that." The remakes almost never carry over those things that made the original good enough for someone to want to remake it to begin with.

Not always though, some remakes are better than the original... but this is RARE unless the first version you saw was the remake and you didn't know any better, these people are also the ones that usually say, "the original one is too old and the F/X suck" friggin morons.. they seem to think million dollar state of the art CGI was around in the early 70s in some cases... LOL

One thing that is ALWAYS worse though, I must say, is when some other country makes a movie, like Japan or Korea, some great movies come out of there... we get them and redo them... and rape the hell out of them and in the case of the horror ones.. make them a big huge cheese fest that isn't even slightly scary. Originals though, creep the hell outta me. It's not even a case of american horror not being scary cause I'm so used to them, cause I watch almost as many movies not made here... most of them still creep me out. Here we tend to go for the 'startle' kinda scare using extremely loud sound F/X at just the right moment. That's just lame kid level stuff. ..... BOO! haha gotchya! lol, lame. Those other movies not tainted by the 'small minds' of Hollywood, actually depend on good writing, acting, and execution.... NOT special F/X or money.

Even when remakes work I don't agree with the idea behind having to redo stuff... most of the time... though I don't mind the many Dracula movies.. that's the one idea, the one movie, that can always have a new interesting spin... with the exception of the lame teen slasher style ones... oi



Someone from long ago said of Hollywood, that's it's 10 percent typewriters and 90 percent copy machines... they were right!!!

[MigueldaRican]

Originally Posted by jerhanner

As I've asked before, were I to rewrite Gone with the Wind, and the only change I made was to rename the characters, how could I claim to be an author? I would be a grave robber. Same thing with movies!

And you are absolutely right! If, however that was the only thing you did.

But if you started out writing your own material, got successful and famous with it, then decided somewhere down the line, "Hey, I'd like to put a different take on this story I read one time (e.g. "Wicked")", as my opinion, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

I won't argue that there are people in Hollywood exactly like this, but for those that are, yeah, as you put it: "grave robbers".

[MigueldaRican]

Originally Posted by thypentacle

One thing that is ALWAYS worse though, I must say, is when some other country makes a movie, like Japan or Korea, some great movies come out of there... we get them and redo them... and rape the hell out of them and in the case of the horror ones.. make them a big huge cheese fest that isn't even slightly scary. Originals though, creep the hell outta me. It's not even a case of american horror not being scary cause I'm so used to them, cause I watch almost as many movies not made here... most of them still creep me out. Here we tend to go for the 'startle' kinda scare using extremely loud sound F/X at just the right moment. That's just lame kid level stuff. ..... BOO! haha gotchya! lol, lame.

I'd have to disagree with the "always" thing.

"The Ring" was actually better than "Ringu".

"The Grudge" was actually better than "Ju-on". In this case, since it was actually the same director, actually it seemed like "Ju-on" was the equivalent of a rough draft, and "The Grudge" was the final draft. I liked 'em both don't get me wrong. But "The Grudge" actually

Originally Posted by thypentacle

Those other movies not tainted by the 'small minds' of Hollywood, actually depend on good writing, acting, and execution.... NOT special F/X or money.

I'd have to disagree. sfx is still a big part. It's the approach to sfx that I'd have a problem with. A lot of slasher films do stuff that make me go, "Why in God's name did that happen?" But with a more artistic approach to sfx, there's a lot of really good horror movies that depend pretty heavily on the sfx.

A lot of people praise "The Matrix" for having good writing. But the movie still depended heavily on the sfx and the money to fund it. The fx was there to show how things worked in "dreamland" and how the rules could be bent. You couldn't do that without special effects. In many cases it's needed.

[thypentacle]

Yeah 'The Ring' was OK, remake that is... still though, original wins slightly in my case... and 'The Grudge'... I didn't like either version for that one.

As for special F/X, sure you need some, but it should only be used to help the story not support it.

[Zardoz]

Originally Posted by jerhanner

As I've asked before, were I to rewrite Gone with the Wind, and the only change I made was to rename the characters, how could I claim to be an author? I would be a grave robber. Same thing with movies!

Well said Jer!

[Gunny1]

Originally Posted by thypentacle

Well from my experience, movie remakes are about as good as video games based on movies... almost always bad.

Thank you for the 'almost'.

Though I agree in general with your assessment, the exceptions stand out all the better for it. Ever seen the movie 'Always'? There's a remake-done-right for you. Not quite a 'remake', but the screen version of 'Stalag 17' as opposed to the play - fantastic!

For that matter, ever read 'Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption'? Great novella... didn't sell worth beans, though, because it wasn't 'real' Stephan King - i.e., what people expected Stephan King to be. Even see the movie...? Great film of a great story; merits of each aside, COMMERCIALLY it did so well becuase people didn't have the King expectation attached to it. (Same with 'The Body'/'Stand By Me')

once again, it is a situation where perception can trump reality - the best answer? Don't carry preconceptions in with you, and judge on it's own merits...

[MigueldaRican]

Exceptions means there's a possibility. The existence of these "exceptions" means that there really isn't anything wrong with remakes just the people making them.

[MigueldaRican]

Originally Posted by jerhanner

As I've asked before, were I to rewrite Gone with the Wind, and the only change I made was to rename the characters, how could I claim to be an author? I would be a grave robber. Same thing with movies!

Oh, you mean like "West Side Story" did? West Side Story did it and it's listed as one of the great classics.

[MissionTrek08]

Originally Posted by Zardoz

But the problem I have is that these remakes are not well done scriptwise. It seems Hollywood is concerned with "Brand Recignition" more than attemping to make a good film.

The thing is, Z, that fact has NOTHING to do with remakes specifically. It's not like every original screenplay is gold-standard literature, and every remake script is crap. Hollywood product suffers from weaker screenwriting in general, compared to its past history. I'll hasten to add, American society suffers from weaker literacy as well, as so few people actually read today. Coincidence? I think not. Plenty of original scripts are also crap, but no one holds the same grudge against them because they are not remakes. It's a false standard for comparison. Hollywood needs to make less crappy films and more good films, period -- and as soon as people stop funding crap films at the box office by buying tickets, I'm sure Hollywood will follow the market. Until then...

Originally Posted by jerhanner

As I've asked before, were I to rewrite Gone with the Wind, and the only change I made was to rename the characters, how could I claim to be an author? I would be a grave robber. Same thing with movies!

I'm not sure I understand this question, as ANY adaptation of previously written material is clearly marked and credited as such. An adaptation cannot be an originally authored story, by definition. That's why the Academy has separate categories for the distinction. Adaptation is not plagiarism, also by definition. People want to see literature and plays and graphic novels turned into film, there's nothing new about that at all (well, graphic novels are fairly new, sure LOL).

Originally Posted by horatio

Don't know if I can comment on this topic, being still in my twenties and having seen only a few remaked movies: Psycho is horrible; Jackson's King Kong is great (never saw the original but fail to see why it could be as good as PJ's); The Ring and other Hollywood remakes of J-horror are a bit better than the original. Star Trek prequel/reboot/remake/whatever: not clear yet

I see only one pattern, that a remake might work if the general idea is to retell an old story or a story told somewhere else to a new audience. Yet some old stories are timeless classics and better left untouched.
I think that the general tendency in art is to work on a theme until someone has refined it perfectly. The Bard did not invent any story, he took legends and actual history. It's not about originality, but finding the best version.

Horatio, if you liked PJ's KONG at all, you really should see the original 1933 classic. You'll have to discount the world of difference in visual effects, but then again I bet you'll be might impressed at the effects demonstrated in the original considering it was over 70 years ago. I find the original's story much more involving than the remake, but then again KONG is one of the very first films I have memory of watching, and it got me interested in movies as a kid. Personal impressions aside, it's still a great film -- just be sure to see a good (recent) restoration of it.