With my thoughts on remakes today -- I wonder what the general consensus is. Are they worth while?
Here are some remakes I hated:
- Amityville Horror. Oh yeah, they said they were going back to the book. They didn't. But the book is pretty awesomely stupid. It's like kids telling a story; ". . . and then she was levitating off the bed, and then we saw a ghost, but the ghost was a pig, and then there was black goop, and then the pig left tracks in the snow, and then we found a secret red room, and then. . . "
- Psycho. Using the same script as Hitchcock used, and the same pacing -- the only thing different was that it was in color. And something just didn't feel right.
- Annie. Did we need to remake that? No.
- Miracle on 34th Street. The remake is sweet, but the magic couldn't be reproduced.
- Mr. Deeds was petty good for its time in 1936. It wasn't so good for its time in 2002.
- Freaky Friday. Did it need an update? Maybe, but it had already been redone in so many ways.
- The Parent Trap. Disney does this to get new viewers, but I think they had a strong story the first time.
- The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. In the first one leatherface runs around with a chainsaw, as opposed to the new one where leatherface runs around with a chainsaw.
- I Spit On Your Grave. Roger Ebert refused to give it any stars the first time around. Why remake it? I don't know. Might as well remake Plan 9 From outerspace.
- The Man who Knew Too Much. Did you know Hitch made this film twice? Of course, I think we are more patient when the director himself is remaking his own work.
- Carrie. This was a solid film that brought Carrie into the modern age. And it deserves to be moved up, since the story itself is pretty ageless.
- The Shining miniseries. Not a Kubrick remake at all, it actually went back to the book. I liked it.
- The Ten Commandments. It was a silent film first. Now I understand remaking films so they have sound! And why doesn't someone put the words at the bottom of the screen on silent films instead of blacking out the entire screen? We can do it with subtitles now.
- Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Which was also a silent film first.
- Superman. I like them all. Really. Even Superman Returns, which had lots of openings for sequels.
- Spiderman. I think the term is "reboot" these days, but it sure feels like a remake. Anyway, I like it each time it comes around.
- Cheaper by the Dozen was a lot more fun than the first go-round. Though, it was far from the book the second time!
- King Kong remake was fun in 2005. Long, but I liked it that they went back to the 30's. The 1976 version was just boring. In that version, Kong climbed the world trade tower.
- Red Dragon was originally put to screen in the form of "Manhunter." Then when Harris got super famous, they remade it -- and this time it was scary!
- Father of the Bride. I like the remake with Steve Martin better.
- The Time Machine. Two very different movies, as the updated version made some pretty radical new turns. Our family likes both incarnations.
By the way, I didn't know until today that Don Knotts The Shakiest Gun In The West was a remake of Paleface.
What remakes do you like, and which ones do you hate?
Here's a list: wikipedia.org
I thought the Thing was a really good remake (and actually closer to the book than The Thing From Another World). I also liked the True Grit remake.
ReplyDeleteThere were parts of The Shining remake that I liked, but I still prefer the Kubrick version.
I kind of liked the 2002 Carrie remake. There were some scenes that I thought were done really well (and a few that were down right adorable - Carrie drawing Tommy). There were pretty awful parts too (the ending and some of the dialogue).
I thought that there were parts that the 2013 remake improved upon (ie showing Chris and Sue as actual friends and Chris actually being angry at her). I would have liked to have seen Pierce take more chances on it, though rather than play it safe.
I didn't like the remake of Salem's Lot from 2002 (or 2004 - I forget). I won't spoil it, but some of the changes they made to certain characters seemed, well, just wrong.
I forgot Salem's Lot, but must agree with you, Jill. I liked the original minisries just fine.
ReplyDeleteI think the general audience consensus for remakes is, "If you make it, we will watch."
ReplyDeleteI think most audiences today are in search of an escape valve with movies. You go to them to take a load off living for a while. So I'm not sure whether the majority is concerned about remakes, reboots or not.
I think the question you raise is something only the die-hard cinema-goers or book and comic readers would bring up amongst themselves (which technically is what we're all doing at the moment).
From story devotees perspective, I think the only excuse for a remake would be to see if they can get the entire fossil out of the ground (to borrow King's words from On Writing).
As for reboots of comic superhero franchises, well, I'm still an outsider in that whole scene, so I can't say I know what to think there.
I do know that I wondered if maybe the comic book movie adapts would soon start to wane in popularity when I first heard they were going to cast Ben Affleck as Batman.
Seriously, I wish I could say I was making that up, but here's an article on Affleck the pretty much confirms it:
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/ReynoldsRave/news/?a=89551
I don't know, except that it strikes me as, well, kinda goofy; and therefore I wonder, if a film with Affleck as Batman were, whether it might wind up being the straw that broke the camels back (or ended the goose that lay the golden egg).
ChrisC