There’s been lots of re-makes of original films recently.

What makes a good film re-make? 

Which ones were well done in your opinion, and which ones should never been made?

In an ideal world, which films would you like to be re-made?

Remakes are never as good as the originals. It shows a lack of creativity and inspirartion on the part of directors that they have to keep going back to the same old formats. There are plenty of novels and stories that deserve a look-in that could be developed for film.  Many classic books could be adapted for our times.

Very few have been worthwhile. In fact I’m struggling badly to think of one.

Leave well alone. And the minute somebody starts tinkering with the films that made my childhood & youth then there’ll be trouble

Most re-makes do not work.

Alice in Wonderland is probably a bad example though.  A lot of people have tried to make an Alice film or drama with varying levels of success.  Most people know the Disney cartoon, which was confused and lost a lot of the depth of the book, but had a memorable cat, caterpillar and so on.  The latest Alice messes up, but it’s not really a re-make, because there wasn’t a really solid original film to make a mess of!

But, off the top of my head… The A-Team, Arthur, The Karate Kid probably won’t work.  I have even less hope for The Birds and Rosemary’s baby.  Nightmare on Elm Street, The Ladykillers, Flash Gordon, and so on are so bad, I’m partly longing for an earthquake to tip most of Hollywood into the Pacific, just so it stops making such drek.

But, sometimes, it works.  The Grudge moved from Japan to Hollywood without being ruined, And even if you aren’t into SF, try the new Battlestar Galactica…

The Italian Job didnt work, nor did Alfie, as both movies are iconic.

WaltersL - 19 July 2010 03:49 PM

The Italian Job didnt work, nor did Alfie, as both movies are iconic.

This is a little odd - I think you’re right, but for the wrong reasons.  I don’t think the remakes failed because the originals were iconic.  I think the remakes failed because the originals were simply better.  The fact that they are fantastic films has a huge effect on them being iconic, but the iconic thing on it’s own doesn’t excuse the remakes being, well, not that good.

Think of it this way - if the originals had been made, but not shown, and the re-makes come out first, which would you prefer?  (Allow for improvements in eye-candy, and aging of course)

Some remakes work very well but most don’t. One of the few remakes to have worked well was Dawn of the Dead. It used teh synopsis of people battling the living dead, to hole up in a shopping mall and made it an action movie. I like both versions for very different reasons.

BroughN - 19 July 2010 03:25 PM

Most re-makes do not work.

Alice in Wonderland is probably a bad example though.  A lot of people have tried to make an Alice film or drama with varying levels of success.  Most people know the Disney cartoon, which was confused and lost a lot of the depth of the book, but had a memorable cat, caterpillar and so on.  The latest Alice messes up, but it’s not really a re-make, because there wasn’t a really solid original film to make a mess of!

But, off the top of my head… The A-Team, Arthur, The Karate Kid probably won’t work.  I have even less hope for The Birds and Rosemary’s baby.  Nightmare on Elm Street, The Ladykillers, Flash Gordon, and so on are so bad, I’m partly longing for an earthquake to tip most of Hollywood into the Pacific, just so it stops making such drek.

But, sometimes, it works.  The Grudge moved from Japan to Hollywood without being ruined, And even if you aren’t into SF, try the new Battlestar Galactica…

I agree with this synopsis. I did enjoy the new Battlestar Galactica but rarely do I enjoy a remade film more than the original. I can see why Hollywood does it though - producers are too scared of trying something new just in case it flops and makes the shareholders unhappy, and to guarantee their next gig etc. As a result we get regurgitated pap as it is ‘guaranteed’ to at least make money by living off the name/success of its predecessor. I must admit I get lured into watching the remakes and always (except BG, see above, but that was a free to air TV series rather than a pay for at the cinema event) come away disappointed and skint.

As mentioned by others above, there are plenty of other books/myths/stories etc that can be made into films and I am sure there are plenty of budding script writers out there that would love their work to feature on the silver screen. By using ‘lesser’ talents and ditching the ‘old boys’ network of directors and actors (who are always roped in to ‘save’ ventures purely because of their name) Hollywood would save a lot more money and thus lessen the risks involved. Also, if we weren’t so stuck on the cult of celebrity we’d see new talent gracing our screens rather than just the established ones (it worked for Star Wars to some extent). It may even make the older generation of actors actually work for their money (and demand less) if they were constantly looking over their shoulders at the new talent coming through.

I agree with the majority on this thread: remakes very rarely work…originals are best left alone!

I hate it the most when Hollywood remakes perfectly good horror films from abroad, especially when the remake is literally shot for shot, with the odd tiny tweak or embellishment - a massive case in point was the remake of [REC]. This was a brilliant film to start with and whilst the remake was a good film, it didn’t bring anything new to film goers. The original was far more edgy, the characters better played, the cinematography was better etc etc! The slightly changed the premise for the remake and added the odd extra shot but otherwise it was exactly the same, just not as good.

I can only assume, as with all of these types of remake (The Ring / Ringu, Dark Water, and the hideousness that was The Grudge remake), that Hollywood remakes them because it thinks the general public can’t be bothered to read subtitles….

My Urban Life Team - 15 July 2010 03:17 PM

There’s been lots of re-makes of original films recently.

What makes a good film re-make? 

Which ones were well done in your opinion, and which ones should never been made?

In an ideal world, which films would you like to be re-made?

I’ve yet to see a good / worthwhile remake of any film.

Just a comment on the lead picture - Why Karate Kid when he is doing Kung Fu (or something similar, but not Karate) in the film?

Nowadays remake film are just mixture of added stunts and special effect with a lack of good script. That cost a fortune for those who made it and take the risk to have bad critic and low level of entries. I am agree with one of a previous comment that some novels could be adapted into film. Doing remake is just a lazy way of being creative. There is no invention in making a remake…except promoting those that create special effects. But nobody bothered looking at their name in the generic…what’s the point. And the stunts? who care, they are not celebrity, they act in shadows. And anyway, making a remake is insulting for the one who has made an original story, is belittling the creativity of a mankind for the promotion of special effect and new stunts. Public need to have emotion from acting , they don’t have it from special effect. It is killing the art of comedy.

Most remakes fail to leave up to the to the original but its always worth a try.

My Urban Life Team - 15 July 2010 03:17 PM

There’s been lots of re-makes of original films recently.

What makes a good film re-make? 

Which ones were well done in your opinion, and which ones should never been made?

In an ideal world, which films would you like to be re-made?

As long as there is sympathy for the original when making a new film, then i am fine with film makers exploring the same storyline once again. There have been re-makes that depart significantly from the original and those conversely that have just been updated. The quality of the re-make is sometimes dilluted if the watcher has some attachment to the original, those people should consider if there is anything to be gained in the newer version, if not, don’t watch it. For those wo haven’t formed an attachment to the first, or not seen it at all, they can view with abandon as it’s for their benefit the re-make was made anyway.

An example of a good re-make was last years ‘Let me in’, which retold the foreign flick ‘Let the right one in’. Here, the director didn’t take the viewer far from the version that had made such a stir originally, but the addition of Chloe Moretz and a more graphic violence for the western audience, has only served to improve the formula for me. Like many who see re-makes before the original, I saught out the foreign version, as I am a Lovefilm customer and always feel I owe it to myself to enjoy the original.

Of the re-makes I have seen, I would say that ‘The Hitcher’ is a film that should never have been re-made. Here you lose Rutger Haur and a simply told story of terror with few special effects and seem only to gain some eye candy in the form of Jessica Beil and some typical ‘Fast and the furious’ style tweaks. Therefore you gain nothing and lose everything when the two stand side by side. However, owing to the fact that teenage audiences are not likely to trawl the archives for a dvd copy of the original 80’s flick, the re-make may at least alert them to the possibility of a better first run, which is good.

If I were to desire a film re-make at all, it would have to be one where I felt the original flopped despite having great expectations of when I opted to see it in the first place. The one film that comes to mind is ‘Mr Nice’. Having read the book and loved following the massively detailed account of Howard’s rollercoaster life in print, I felt the recently released filmic version lost much that made the book great. And so a re-make an extra hour or so in length, adhering much more closely to the original material, would be most welcome.

I’m not against remakes but wish that rather than it be a ‘remake’ it be someone elses interpretation of the original story (if it is a novel etc). I agree with many on here, why remake something in the original vein? It just makes the origianl seem cheaper and ruins good memories and favourite films!

A good film is a good film regardless of wether it is a remake. There is a direct analogy to music here as well…it’s not often it happens but sometimes when it does it can be pretty good placebo- running up that hill, lemonheads- Mrs Robinson but granted they don’t come along too often. I find it hard to think of a good remake of a film but there must be 1 or 2.

I thought 3:10 to Yuma was a fantastic remake of the original. In most cases remakes are not as good as the originals but in some cases they can be better, more so with films that were made before the 60’s.

A successful remake has to be better than the original for it to work because if a remake is on par with the original then there is just no point.

Better not to remake an already classic film. You are setting yourself up to fail. Better to find a film which was a good idea but didn’t really work and try to remake that.

If the movie is remade due to advances in technology, then I do think its worthwile. Planet of the Apes being a good example of these. But most are unneeded. I guess it would also keep a good story in the new generations, I doubt that young kids would be very impressed with the old Karate kid, even if digitly remastered!

Remaking the same film work for word is just stupid. Things don’t simply need to be updated. Remakes need to take a new angle or twist on the old story. Keep the generals but the character dynamics can be a little different. Take a look at True Grit - A cool remake