| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| TitanPa |
Posted - 06/12/2007 : 19:15:58
Why do they feel the need to remake movies? Have they actually run out of ideas???
I heard about the remake of Porkys
But do they actually now need a remake of Halloween? Are they serious? Does Michael Meyers need a face lift??? Can anyone think of remakes that were better than the original? Can ya also think of remakes that were never needed??
Freaky Friday (remake) better than the orig
King Kong (remake) never needed
Parent Trap (remake) better than the orig (do I see a Lohan connection?)
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 12:55:18
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
quote:
Originally posted by TitanPa
Why do they feel the need to remake movies? Have they actually run out of ideas???
for the most part I agree though I am looking forward to Steve Carrell's Get Smart!!
Sigh...
(De gustibus...)
|
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 10:37:20
quote:
Originally posted by TitanPa
Why do they feel the need to remake movies? Have they actually run out of ideas???
for the most part I agree though I am looking forward to Steve Carrell's Get Smart!! |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 09:40:33
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
quote:
Charlie is actually a more vivid, fully-dimensional character in the original film.
Charlie isn't at all admirable in the remake, he's visionless and dull.
Very true, on both counts. The book is about Charlie, and although I enjoy watching Depp in anything, I'm not sure that the movie benefitted from all that back-story about Wonka's childhood.
|
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 09:37:23
The whole thing about Wonka's father seems like a weird addition in the second film. However, I liked it and maybe preferred it. Although the location is ambiguous in the book and both films, the more British connotations of the second film are somewhat closer to the book, I would say. |
| silly |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 20:55:32
Movies are odd, sometimes.
The first Terminator, if I remember correctly, was a low-budget affair with some former bodybuilder as the villain. Then look what they turned it into.
To chime in on Wonka, I liked Gene Wilder's movie better, but I enjoyed the new one, too. As for which is more true to the book, the second one (IIRC) actually used the oompa loompa songs (lyrics) originally in the book.
When published, the book caused ripples because the Oompa Loompas were originally black pygmies, and (in the mid sixties) having them happily working in a factory for a strange white guy for no wages and singing songs the whole while was pretty much politically incorrect, so the book was changed for American release, the movies made the Oompas strange colored creatures in 1971 as well.
Dahl |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 19:57:43
quote:
There's a great essay in the book Cult Movies 2 about how the little changes in the original actually strengthen the story: elminating the weak and undeveloped character of Mr. Bucket intensifies the relationship between Wonka and Charlie, and the Everlasting Gobstopper "test" (combined with the "fizzy lifting drink" scene) provides a crucial demonstration of Charlie's moral integrity. He doesn't win simply by outlasting the others. Charlie is actually a more vivid, fully-dimensional character in the original film
Absolutely true. In fact, it was kind of surprising to me at the time how "Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory" was all about Charlie, but "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" was all about Wonka. Charlie isn't at all admirable in the remake, he's visionless and dull. The songs aren't very good either. But still, it's a very respectably weird movie. |
| Joe Blevins |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 19:48:17
One thing that puzzled me when Charlie & The Chocolate Factory came out was that several critics praised it for being truer to Roald Dahl's original book than the Gene Wilder film. This is simply and demonstrably not true. After I saw Charlie, I re-read the book and re-watched the Wilder version. The earlier film sticks very closely to the book and is actually much more in the Dahl spirit than the remake. (I actually liked the remake, mostly because of Johnny Depp's bizarre performance. Depp's Wonka is not Dahl's Wonka, that's for sure, but he's a fascinating character nevertheless. Depp is responsible for roughly 90% of the remake's energy and humor.)
The remake deviates quite a bit from Dahl's book -- especially in the third act, which I thought was near-blasphemous. (Wonka needs the Buckets more than they need him? In fact, they don't need him at all? Oh, puh-lease!) The original only deviates a little. There's a great essay in the book Cult Movies 2 about how the little changes in the original actually strengthen the story: elminating the weak and undeveloped character of Mr. Bucket intensifies the relationship between Wonka and Charlie, and the Everlasting Gobstopper "test" (combined with the "fizzy lifting drink" scene) provides a crucial demonstration of Charlie's moral integrity. He doesn't win simply by outlasting the others. Charlie is actually a more vivid, fully-dimensional character in the original film. |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 15:39:13
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
I was also disappointed by Charlie, but I can't say that its actually a remake of Willy Wonka. Technically, it is a second version of the book, and not a remake of the first
Not just technically, but actually - although I am sure that the first film had some influence. Once a film has been made of a certain book, that film doesn't gain magical rights over the book. So Titanpa, this is not a good example of what you mean. |
| TitanPa |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 15:31:59
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by TitanPa
I guess you can group me in "those people" group. I felt 'Charlie and the Cocolate Factory' actually ruined the Willy Wonka film. It didnt actually make it original and fresh anymore. Its like they put it in a blender, hit the button and came out with whatever it became. I feel Willy Wonka will always be linked with that bad remake. THey will make boxed sets. WHo really wants to buy the original when it comes along with the remake? If its a classic and audiences loved it the first time...why the need to revamp it?????
I was also disappointed by Charlie, but I can't say that its actually a remake of Willy Wonka. Technically, it is a second version of the book, and not a remake of the first - because Gene Wilder's version was a musical, and Johnny Depp's version was NOT a musical.
As for remakes, I agree with Freaky Friday, didn't see Parent Trap but I have to say that The Italian Job is one of those remakes that certainly was equal too, if not better than the original. Also, Brosnan's Thomas Crowne Affair was better than MacQueens.
The Oompa Loompa did sind, different genres in fact. Bowing to the original of course. So it was somewhat of a musical. I however did like Bad Nuts instead of Bad eggs |
| Downtown |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 14:36:39
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
A Halloween remake is completely superfluous at this point, of course, but I'm going to see the remake anyway. Why? Because I'm interested to see what Rob Zombie's going to bring to it. Zombie's love of classic horror (from the Universal films to the 1970s heyday) is well-documented -- and evident in every frame of his previous films.
But this topic of remakes has been much-discussed on the Fourum. Long ago, I posted my theory of "CTRL+ALT+DELETE movies," i.e. movies that were meant to restart a series that had gotten "stuck." One way to restart a movie series was simply to deviate from the standard naming/numbering protocol of the previous sequels (Rocky Balboa, Jason X). Another way was to pair up two ailing franchises (Freddy Vs. Jason) or do a prequel (Exorcist: The Beginning). But the most common, most logical way was simply to remake the original and hope to start the series all over again.
What you're describing is called a "reboot," the best recent examples of which are probably Casino Royale, Batman Begins, The Pink Panther, and next year's Star Trek. Some people call Superman Returns a reboot, but I think it's a true sequel, not even a retcon. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 06:23:41
quote:
Originally posted by TitanPa
I guess you can group me in "those people" group. I felt 'Charlie and the Cocolate Factory' actually ruined the Willy Wonka film. It didnt actually make it original and fresh anymore. Its like they put it in a blender, hit the button and came out with whatever it became. I feel Willy Wonka will always be linked with that bad remake. THey will make boxed sets. WHo really wants to buy the original when it comes along with the remake? If its a classic and audiences loved it the first time...why the need to revamp it?????
I was also disappointed by Charlie, but I can't say that its actually a remake of Willy Wonka. Technically, it is a second version of the book, and not a remake of the first - because Gene Wilder's version was a musical, and Johnny Depp's version was NOT a musical.
As for remakes, I agree with Freaky Friday, didn't see Parent Trap but I have to say that The Italian Job is one of those remakes that certainly was equal too, if not better than the original. Also, Brosnan's Thomas Crowne Affair was better than MacQueens.
|
| Joe Blevins |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 01:41:14
A Halloween remake is completely superfluous at this point, of course, but I'm going to see the remake anyway. Why? Because I'm interested to see what Rob Zombie's going to bring to it. Zombie's love of classic horror (from the Universal films to the 1970s heyday) is well-documented -- and evident in every frame of his previous films.
But this topic of remakes has been much-discussed on the Fourum. Long ago, I posted my theory of "CTRL+ALT+DELETE movies," i.e. movies that were meant to restart a series that had gotten "stuck." One way to restart a movie series was simply to deviate from the standard naming/numbering protocol of the previous sequels (Rocky Balboa, Jason X). Another way was to pair up two ailing franchises (Freddy Vs. Jason) or do a prequel (Exorcist: The Beginning). But the most common, most logical way was simply to remake the original and hope to start the series all over again. Movies are a risky investment, and it helps to have a little "brand-name" familiarity. And not just for the moneymen, either! It provides some degree of familiarity for the viewer as well, a little reassurance when you plunk down your money for a ticket because you know in advance what you're getting. Is McDonald's #1 because they make the very best hamburgers you've ever tasted? I doubt it. I think they're #1 because they're reliable and predictable. You know in advance what you're going to get when you order. A McDonald's or other familiar fast food chain can be a godsend to the traveler. If you only have $5 cash on you for lunch, do you really want to gamble on some restaurant you've never seen before in your life when you can get a Big Mac and a Coke? I think the same basic principle applies to motion pictures and a whole range of products and services lately. Taken a good look at Broadway lately? The list of hit musicals and plays resembles a Netflix queue! Again, the idea is some degree of certainty -- both for the backers and for the ticket-buyers.
|
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 06/12/2007 : 21:12:23
RED DRAGON better than MANHUNTER?? Unforgivable. |
| Rovark |
Posted - 06/12/2007 : 20:50:52
Having re-made 'Get Carter', 'The Italian Job', 'The Wicker Man' - and all being transplanted to the US, they're now going to do 'The Long Good Friday', set in Miami.
|
| Downtown |
Posted - 06/12/2007 : 20:40:54
Why cover a popular rock song? Why put on a Shakespeare production instead of writing your own play?
It's about how different artists interpret the same idea and make it their own. Many remakes are done very poorly, perhaps even most of them. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad thing to remake a film, it just means many filmmakers don't put enough effort into it. But it would be unfair to say it's wrong to remake movies just because most of them turned out lousy, because I think of all the films ever made in the history of cinema, most of them were pretty lousy...statistically, I think the number of remakes that turned out badly is very much in proportion with the entire industry.
The only time I can say it's definitely a bad idea to remake a film is if your NOT planning to interprete the story in your own way. "Point of No Return" is almost scene-by-scene a clone of "La Femme Nikita," all they did was translate it into English. Now THAT is a waste of cellulose. Likewise, I've always hated Faith No More's cover of Black Sabbath's "War Pigs," because it's note-for-note the same song, even the guitar solo is nearly identical.
You want to try your hand at that movie you grew up loving? Go for it...but bring me something new, don't just rehash what your idol did. |
|
|
