Shouldn't remakes be better?? and why aren't they!!

Fright night, Total recall, The Fog, Halloween, Black christmas etc etc etc etc...........

Should be better........not worse.......

Filmmakers should be learning and with higher budgets these days improving on originals...........Are filmmakers getting lazy or are we in an dumb down cheap thrill age where characterization and atmosphere are a thing of the past...........

Spielberg, Depalma, Stone etc all learned from the Hawks and Hustons............Carpenter learned from Argento and romero...........

F**k sake....Why don't current Directors get it..........

All the above films should be better.................Learn from the past..Expel the negative and accentuate the positive...

I will give an exception to the rule here that will get me pelters but the remake of Dawn of the Dead is superior in my opinion

Adam D wrote:I will give an exception to the rule here that will get me pelters but the remake of Dawn of the Dead is superior in my opinion

My opinion of your opinion has just decreased.

give me 80's/90's films every day of the week. CGI to blame for me and just dire, dire storylines. They think throw in some exploding computer animated garbage and there onto a winner, ridiculous.

Adam D wrote:I will give an exception to the rule here that will get me pelters but the remake of Dawn of the Dead is superior in my opinion

If this wasn't your forum Adam I would suggest a life ban. There is just about the tiniest argument to be made that the opening 15 - 20 minutes is superior to the original but that is it. After that it slowly degenerates into hammy acting and typical Hollywood formula before meandering to a truly abysmal ending.

There is none of the wit, charm and social comment of the original and its only a couple of vaguely acceptable performances by Jake Weber and Ving Rhames that make it watchable.

Shame on you. But, for someone who not only managed to sit through Moulin Rouge but actually enjoyed it, your opinion has to be disregarded instantly.

Oceans 11 is better than the original, just to show there is an exception that proves the rule.

My exceptions to the rules, true grit. 2 very different films but the coens remake is superior in every department in my opinion. Oceans 11, whilst the original gad the cooler cast with Frank, Sammy and Dean the remake is much better, a very enjoyable movie with twists upto the last. One of my favourite films is the departed, I think this is also better than the Chinese original infernal afairs, although this is debatable both are excellent movies.

I watched the dawn of the dead remake about a week ago, and it is nowhere near the standard of the original. Although solid enough it is just a big standard z movie and doesn't deserve to be linked with the Romero films.

Right - here is my reasoning about the Dawn remake.

Firstly, the original is a defining film, no doubt about that. Its most probably the most defining and iconic zombie film ever (although I prefer Fulcis Zombie Flesh Eaters).

However, there are a few things that annoy me about the original.

Firstly and most importantly is the "social commentary" crap that gets brandished. This is subtext that Romero claimed after he had filmed it. HE didnt write it with that in mind. In fact, I read somewhere once that someone mentioned it to him in an interview and he then adopted it as his intention all along.

Dont get me wrong, I love Romero and zombie films. But the subtext was coincidental.

Secondly, it has aged very badly. The effects are still incredible (although the blood is too red) but it is quite a slow meandering story (quite apt really).

The zombies are far scarier as slow shufflers - the sheer mass of them and inevitability is what makes it scary.

However, and this is where my defence starts, the opening 10 minutes of the remake are the most terrifying piece of cinema I have witnessed on the big screen. Notice I didnt say horrific but terrifying.

I knew nothing about the film when I went to watch the remake and the foreboding at the beginning was incredible. Even when Sarah Polley leaves the hospital and sees the legs hanging out of the back of the ambulance, I truly didnt know if it was going to be a zombie. I didnt know if they were shufflers or fast running zombies.

And when it finally does kick off, its incredible. The little girl in the room. The boyfriend going wild. The sheer panic of not knowing what was happening. Zach Snyder might be a charlatan that will get shown up eventually, but this opener is absolutely a masterpiece in shock.

I agree the rest of the film fails to live up to the opening but its still very good, with some great touches. Its not the same film bar in name and shopping mall setting but it also gets hammered for two very important reasons:

1. no social commentary (which is BS for the reasons above)
2. The original is revered.

The soundtrack is great (Johnny Cash used brilliantly) and the ending is also very, very good (the credits sequence).

Although I dont think that its the case with DotD but some older films are held with such reverance, they cant be criticised. And sometimes (not this time) these classics are just not very good (for example Blade runner, The Shining and the Exorcist spring to mind)

So there you have it!

I think Tinos said that I should get a ban - hopefully the one thing I have shown is that I love my films (especially horror films) and that this opinion has its reasons for me.

Here is a clip for zombie fans that you might not have seen (and dont worry its not Rick Astley!) - its from a computer game called Dead Island. Once again, absolutely stunning - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZqrG1bdGtg

Adam D wrote:

Firstly and most importantly is the "social commentary" crap that gets brandished. This is subtext that Romero claimed after he had filmed it. HE didnt write it with that in mind. In fact, I read somewhere once that someone mentioned it to him in an interview and he then adopted it as his intention all along.

Dont get me wrong, I love Romero and zombie films. But the subtext was coincidental.

You were doing alright up to this point. Perhaps you need to be spoonfed your interpretations of films but some of us don't. I am not really interested in what Romero said about it. Surely watching a fiction movie is all about your individual interpretation of what you're seeing. If not, we may as well get the director to commentate over the film and tell us what to think and when to think it. The social commentary is so bleeding obvious, you can't just disregard it. Whether Romero meant it or not is incidental, it is the single thing that seperates it from a standard zombie gore-fest into something a little more substantial, meaningful and special. Something the remake completely failed to do.

Of course it has aged a touch. Do you look as fresh faced as you did in 1978? You have to suspend your disbelief and look beyond the colour of the blood. If it is all about effects then Avatar is the greatest film of all time.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Adam D wrote:

Firstly and most importantly is the "social commentary" crap that gets brandished. This is subtext that Romero claimed after he had filmed it. HE didnt write it with that in mind. In fact, I read somewhere once that someone mentioned it to him in an interview and he then adopted it as his intention all along.

Dont get me wrong, I love Romero and zombie films. But the subtext was coincidental.

You were doing alright up to this point. Perhaps you need to be spoonfed your interpretations of films but some of us don't. I am not really interested in what Romero said about it. Surely watching a fiction movie is all about your individual interpretation of what you're seeing. If not, we may as well get the director to commentate over the film and tell us what to think and when to think it. The social commentary is so bleeding obvious, you can't just disregard it. Whether Romero meant it or not is incidental, it is the single thing that seperates it from a standard zombie gore-fest into something a little more substantial, meaningful and special. Something the remake completely failed to do.

Of course it has aged a touch. Do you look as fresh faced as you did in 1978? You have to suspend your disbelief and look beyond the colour of the blood. If it is all about effects then Avatar is the greatest film of all time.

The subtext comment though is so synominous with this film though. Its always mentioned in every review and its just not intentional. Its not about being spoon fed at all. I can make up my own subtext on films but I am not going to see things that are not there because the director stumbles across them and thinks its a good selling point.

I take it the social commentary of this film is that we are all brainwashed consumers who even in death go to the mall? Balls to that. Romero thought it was a cool setting to base the film. Nothing more, nothing less. There are plenty of films with great subtext, I just dont believe that the one film whose reputation is often based on subtext has any. As I said, I love the film and think its the best example of how a zombie film should be made but as an overall experience, I enjoyed the remake for the reasons I stated - basically low expectations and an absolute stunning opening.

Whilst I am on about Romero, Day of the Dead is also a fantastic zombie film but once again terribly paced. And no, I dont have a low boredom threshold - I just think its too slow (most probably down to budget).

For me, the remake of Dawn suffers unfairly due to the reverance that the original has. If it had been called Zombies a go go, it would have been better appreciated.

Incidentally, the remake of Day of the Dead is possibly the worst film of all time!

The reason the original is better for me is the characters. The original had 4 main characters to propel the story, the remake just seems full of stereotypes, tough cop, strong woman, the one you hate who redeems himself, yuppie. And the girl who goes after the dog! Seriously??? Do mall guards have weapons in the us? How come everybody is such a good shot? I have fired numerous weapons from rifles to pistols and from 20 metres I struggle hit a wall with a pistol yet in this every shot is a head shot from these civilians.

I think they generally are better, to be honest. Its just that once you watch movie you really like, it will need to absolutely murder the orignal for you to appreciate it.

I call it the double-half theory. Re-makes have to work twice as hard to be half as liked. That said, there are some re-makes that should never have left the cutting room

kingraf wrote:...
I call it the double-half theory. Re-makes have to work twice as hard to be half as liked. That said, there are some re-makes that should never have left the cutting room

Reference to 'The Italian Job' maybe?

Your theory probably has some merit, as attempting to remake a well-loved film will almost inevitably end up with fans of the original saying 'not as good as...' even if you make an excellent version (The Thomas Crown Affair would be one example of this - the remake stands well as a film on its own, but Brosnan is not Steve McQueen, so some of the cool character of the original is absent).

Agree about Oceans 11 - the Rat Pack one could have been a great film but wasn't because the Director wasn't strong enough to keep his stars in line, while the Clooney/Pitt version is a good fun movie (although the sequels less so...).

Of course the major downside of remakes is simply that you know the story before it happens, so there's a lack of surprises for the audience. Then again, since most blockbuster films have fundamentally the same story, you can argue the same for a lot of supposedly original works.

Agree about Day of the dead.........just way too slow and full of boring characters..

Big disappointment..

Oceans XI is my favourite movie. Brad Pitt pretty much owns Rusty, while Clooney's Danny Ocean was very well portrayed. But where it beats the original, is that the supporting cast.can actually act.

Clooney always plays the same part.............That little head flick appears twenty times a film..

Nice guy though.

I preferd the Total Recall remake.

Liked the cast more.

Kate Beckinsale is a lot hotter than Sharon Stone was.

Stone was hot in that one.....pain in the butt on set though..apparently

Stone was hot in the original but the thought of being kicked about an apartment by Kate Beckinsale makes w***ing obsolete.

Meg Ryan can kick me anytime..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Meg Ryan can kick me anytime..

She's got more of a cute factor for me, want to tuck her into bed & read her a story then get attacked by Kate Beckinsale when I leave the room (she could be my version of Cato Fong).

I like tomboys................Didn't marry one though..

But what she doesn't know won't hurt her!!

What she doesn't know won't hurt you you mean.

I think The Last House On The Left remake was better and so was the Texas Chainsaw Massacre with Jessica Biel better then the original.

I thought the original Chainsaw massacre was a piece of old crud........

Lord of the Rings.

Hero wrote:Lord of the Rings.

Had forgotten about that. Saw it in a cr@ppy little cinema, remember the collective WTF? from the audience when it ended someway through the 2nd book.

It's a similar situation to Total Recall though, the later films weren't really remakes of the originals, just a film version of literature which had previously been made into a film.

The Thing is a fantastic remake.

But then again, its by John Carpenter, one of the great directors of his generation.

The Thing isn't really a remake..........Borrowed the premise but everything else is different..

Great film..you're right............Flopped at the box office because of ET they reckon.......

Remakes tend to be worse because they're not made with the intention of improving the original film, they're not made with the intention of doing a film that had flaws properly. They're made because it's a more secure way of making money from film than producing an original film.

Even if the film is panned and critically torn apart it's got a very good chance of making money because people pay to see it because of the original film, because of the name value, something original films don't have the benefit of.

absolutely....................

and made by Directors with little experience in the genre too.........

Romero once bemoaned the fact that he couldn't raise money for movies and yet the studios give money for wallies to produce crap...........

Answer employ Romero types to remake these movies.........because they will want to produce good ones.

Perhaps an obvious point to make is that a movie is likely to be good/successful in the first place for someone to consider re-making and financing, so a high-ish bar to start with. I suppose the main exception is when the film is based on other material to begin with (e.g. book), although I'm not sure if that's the sort of remake we're talking about here.

There's also a series of difficult decisions to make in terms of bringing a different slant to a story or characters versus retaining essential ideas. Really hard to do well, I'd say.

They always remake films that are near enough spot on though. Wouldn't it be better to remake films that had a lot of potential but just weren't done right?

I see they've remade Carrie again. Yes, I say "again" because they did a remake in 2002.

One of the most iconic moments the hand up through the soil at the end of Carrie...

Much copied........

TinRibs wrote:They always remake films that are near enough spot on though. Wouldn't it be better to remake films that had a lot of potential but just weren't done right?

That is actually a very good point, on paper. Thing is though, there would be no interest in watching a remake of a poor film.

Which films would you have in mind though?

If it's a poor film...chances are the critics panned it leading to not many people watching it.......No ??

So If it is good material why not bang it in again....and improve it.

Hancock would be a good film to try and remake, had a lot of good ideas with a superhero who didn't really care but the film took good ideas and turned them into a pretty shoddy film, with the unneeded story about angels.

One of my fave remakes was Battle Beyond the Stars which was a remake of The Magnificent Seven which itself was a remake of 7 Samurai.

Sybyll Danning in that film is a hottie!

Absolutely fair point, Truss.

And Crimey, I've not seen Hancock but I'll join you on the Will Smith train and say a remake of I Am Legend, being true to the book, could be great.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:If it's a poor film...chances are the critics panned it leading to not many people watching it.......No ??

So If it is good material why not bang it in again....and improve it.

Sound thinking, but movies cost a lot of money to make - the producers need to find a financial backer for a project that has already failed, on a theory of a good concept let down by execution. Not an easy sell.

There are a few examples of this happening, but still no guarantee of success. Dredd is an interesting example - recently remade, much closer to the original concept and even blessed by the character's creator. Completely bombed. Reasons as to why could be debated (e.g. too similar to The Raid, overshadowed by Looper on release), but not because it's unfaithful to the source material.

Timing is a big factor................

Il Gialloblu wrote:

TinRibs wrote:They always remake films that are near enough spot on though. Wouldn't it be better to remake films that had a lot of potential but just weren't done right?

That is actually a very good point, on paper. Thing is though, there would be no interest in watching a remake of a poor film.

Which films would you have in mind though?

That's the thing though, I don't necessarily mean poor films.

The Krays -

Good film, fairly enjoyable but it could have been a lot better. The idea of making a film about those two is great, and the film wasn't poor, but it could have been better.

The Beach -

Not bad, not one of Boyle's best though. It was only after reading the book that I realised what that film could have been.

I'm sure I could think of others, but I'm only working off the top of my head.

Someone mentioned I Am Legend as it completely misses the point of the source material. I'd agree, but only because I'm aware of how much they changed in order to please genre lovers, as I've never seen the film or read the book. It's also worth bearing in mind that there have been 4 films now based on that same book. Every single one of them has missed the point so it's about time someone got it right.

A good example of what I mean is Scarface. I've never seen the 1932 version, so I can only go on what I've read over t'net. It's evident though that a lot of people seem to be of the opinion that whilst the '32 version is good, it's a little dated now and there's much that could have been improved, something that they did in the '84 version with Pacino.

Grapes of Wrath is a screaming example of a classic that is dated. Should be turned into a miniseries.

One poor remake that I recently learned about that again, I haven't seen either of, is The Haunting.

As far as I'm aware, the original was a horror masterpiece and it scared the **** out of a lot of people. The remake took most of the things that made the original great and threw them out of the window.

I suppose that's one of the biggest risks to remaking good films. In order for them to be different, the new director changes things and drops a nad every time because they can only change good things. If a film is that good, there's nothing bad to improve on and you can't get better than perfection.

Take Tim Burton. He should be given some constraints like in Danish cinema to stop him from making soulless tripe like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory or Alice in Wonderland. He should only be allowed to make films in 2D, original scripts, no Johnny Depp or his wife in the cast and a budget of under 10 million. Gene Wilder did an amazing Willy Wonka. Johnny Depp did a Michael Jackson impersonation. Horrific stuff!

Take the latest film by Oz. You have a great director who's capable of shaking things up from a visual point of view but has to operate within this world where nothing much happens and you can't sing because the original still has the rights to many things. WTF? You're never going to compete with Dorothy or the wicked witch. You're dealing with cinema folklore but worst of all you're really dealing with an original film made in a sound stage that has very little action and a wafer thin narrative and you're trying to replicate that story because you have better visual technology. STORY drives a film with the possible exception of horror. So many remakes are chosen that have rubbish stories. Therein lies the problem.

The Maltese Falcon was a second remake within ten years from the original. Given how the first two flopped, it's rather amazing that John Huston's classic version was made at all.

Casablanca was too.........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Casablanca was too.........

A remake? I don't think it was. It was based on an unpublished play.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Take Tim Burton. He should be given some constraints like in Danish cinema to stop him from making soulless tripe like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory or Alice in Wonderland. He should only be allowed to make films in 2D, original scripts, no Johnny Depp or his wife in the cast and a budget of under 10 million. Gene Wilder did an amazing Willy Wonka. Johnny Depp did a Michael Jackson impersonation. Horrific stuff!

Take the latest film by Oz. You have a great director who's capable of shaking things up from a visual point of view but has to operate within this world where nothing much happens and you can't sing because the original still has the rights to many things. WTF? You're never going to compete with Dorothy or the wicked witch. You're dealing with cinema folklore but worst of all you're really dealing with an original film made in a sound stage that has very little action and a wafer thin narrative and you're trying to replicate that story because you have better visual technology. STORY drives a film with the possible exception of horror. So many remakes are chosen that have rubbish stories. Therein lies the problem.

The Wizard of Oz was made several times (including one with Oliver Hardy) before the Judy Garland film, which was effectively a remake (although a musical version had not been done iirc)