Do you think movies should be remade?

1. 65

   Zaiden Jaceposted 11 years ago

   Do you think movies should be remade?

   replyreport
2. 72

   Oswalda Purcellposted 11 years ago

   Only if the remake is better -- tighter and more imaginative story, better atmosphere, better use of CGI... Some movies that come to mind, in no particular order...
   
   1. The Thing
   2. Scarface
   3. War of Worlds
   4. Ocean 11
   5. Freaky Friday
   6. The Fly
   7. True Grit
   8. The Crazies
   9. The Ring

   replyreport
3. 63

   snapbackbettyposted 11 years ago

   I think it depends on the movie... There are quite a few movies that I've seen that the remake is not as good as the original.

   replyreport
   1. 92

      IslandBitesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I agree.

      replyreport
4. 73

   lone77starposted 11 years ago

   It all depends on the skill put into it.
   
   Some bad movies might work with a better team.
   
   Some good movies might become better.
   
   One of my all-time favorite movies I only recently discovered had been made before in the late 60s -- "The Italian Job." Oh, great, I thought. I'll check it out. The original was awful! I'm thrilled the remake was so much better.

   replyreport
5. 52

   Luna B.posted 11 years ago

   Honestly, I think movies should only be remade if there really is room for improvement with the original. There should be an actual point to remaking it (i.e. a better reason then, "we have better CGI" or "newer is better"). If a movie is considered a classic, there's no point in remaking it because you have nowhere to go. Remakes work the best when the original movie is not particularly well known, (ex."Angels in the Outfield") or when the original concept is used but the actual story is taken in a completely different direction (ex. the original "Ocean's II" and its remake share a similar concept but, have radically different plots).
   
   Remakes of foreign movies that have been adapted for American audiences I barely consider to be remakes since they have, actually, had to adapt the story for a different culture, making it more of an adaptation of a story than a straight-up "remake" (the best example is "The Magnificent Seven" based on the Japanese classic, "Seven Samurai"). That somewhat goes for musical remakes, as well, because the actual genre of the movie changes, taking the movie in a different direction right from the get-go (ex: "High Society" & "The Philadelphia Story"; both considered classics when one is simply the musical adaptation of the other). It can, also, make a difference if a movie is based on something of greater importance than the film itself, for example, there have been many movie versions of "Little Women" but, they are rarely considered to be remakes of each other since the source material carries more weight/importance than the previous films do.
   
   But, in actuality, the very best remakes are remakes in the truest sense of the word: when a director, literally, decides to remake one of their previous films. Obviously, a director only does this when they feel they can do better now that they have more experience and they are, virtually, always right (see Cecil B. DeMille's 2 versions of "The Ten Commandments", Alfred Hitchcock's 2 versions of  "The Man Who Knew Too Much" and Leo McCarey's original "Love Affair" vs. his remake "An Affair to Remember".)
   
   Basically, it all comes down to what I said before: there has to be a real reason for remaking the movie other than the studio wanting to make money or a filmmaker really wishing that they had made the original. Creatively, someone has to be able to bring something new to the movie to make it worth seeing/making even when the original movie is already out there.

   replyreport
6. 80

   PoeticPhilosophyposted 11 years ago

   If they make a REALLY good remake why not. Some remakes.. Are terrible. Karate kid sucked! they ruined that remake, it was suppose to be karate and they used Kung Fu... lol

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Oswalda Purcellposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Whether it was karate or kung fu does not matter.  That's personal.  Objectively, did the movie work?

      replyreport
   2. 80

      PoeticPhilosophyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It matters cause they called it "Karate". That makes no sense haha

      replyreport
   3. 72

      Oswalda Purcellposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Well, you got me there

      replyreport
7. 70

   Thief12posted 11 years ago

   It all depends on what's the motivation of the filmmaker and/or the studio. If the motivation is to present a different take on a familiar story, or to present an updated version of it, then why not? Unfortunately, nowadays the motivations are often economical and not artistic.
   
   Anyway, there have been some worthy remakes along the way, most of which Oswalda mentioned. I would actually add Dawn of the Dead which I thought was a pretty good remake, even if it wasn't better than the original.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Oswalda Purcellposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for the mention, Thief12.  I thought about adding Dawn of the Dead to the list just because it's such a good remake, but I agree, not better than the original.

      replyreport
8. 0

   sheilamyersposted 11 years ago

   Some of the comments make a lot of sense. My opinion is no. I think a lot of movies are remade only for the money. If Movie1 made a million dollars and was popular, now it appears as Movie2 and might make 2 or 3 million. I won't pay to go see a a remake. I want to see something which is original and creative.

   replyreport
9. 67

   connorjposted 11 years ago

   
   
   I literally beg to differ from this crowd of opinion. Absolutely; I would not hav discovered The original Bishop's Wife with Cary Grant, David Niven and one of my favorites, Loretta Young if it was not for viewing the re-make (which I considered not to be as well produced as the original). Re-makes of excellent movies expose new crowds to the universal messages and also can enhance the viewing of the orignals. Even if the re-make isn't as good it serves a significant purpose.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Oswalda Purcellposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      As long as you are okay with your favorite songs being remade badly I'll go along with this theory

      replyreport
   2. 67

      connorjposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Valid point indeed; however, if you had ever heard me sing one of my favorite songs it would drive you away, far, far away, yet I would have enjoyed singing it off-key, out of sinc, and not unlike a screaming banshee...

      replyreport
   3. 72

      Oswalda Purcellposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Lol!  Point taken

      replyreport
10. 69

    Chris Quposted 11 years ago

    It depends on the movie, and on the reason, and on how it's done. One common reason we see for a movie getting a remake, is that the original was in a language other than English, and the actors were not white. If this is ever the reason for a movie being remade, then the remake shouldn't happen. An absolutely frightening number of classics are given the Hollywood treatment and ruined this way.
    
    Other times, a movie is remade simply for cash-in. A studio wants to pump out a movie quickly, and a remake seems like an easy path to this ends. This isn't much better than the first thing.
    
    If, on the other hand, a director respects a source material and wants to try something new with it, then I think that's okay. I thought Zack Snyder did very good things with his 2004 Dawn of the Dead remake, for example.

    replyreport