Remakes- they are usually awful

[JoeB131]

One of the things Hollywood does that really annoys me are remakes.

If the movie was good enough to start with, there's no reason to make it again. If it wasn't, the idea probably sucked and no amount of tinkering will fix it.

One that really annoyed me was the remake of "The Stepford Wives". Great little horror movie from the 1970's. Men are having their feminist wives replaced by compliant robots. Tapped into two great fears of the time- Feminism was destroying the traditional family and we can all be replaced by machines.

Fears we've gotten over by 2005, so no reason to remake this movie. but they did anyway, and made it with characters so unlikable you'd want them to be replaced by machines. But the machine versions were really annoying, too.

Planet of the Apes- Sucked. The Day the Earth Stood Still- Sucks on toast. Halloween- Let's totally destroy the initial concept by giving Michael Meyers a backstory.

 

[Sarah G]

One of the things Hollywood does that really annoys me are remakes.

If the movie was good enough to start with, there's no reason to make it again. If it wasn't, the idea probably sucked and no amount of tinkering will fix it.

One that really annoyed me was the remake of "The Stepford Wives". Great little horror movie from the 1970's. Men are having their feminist wives replaced by compliant robots. Tapped into two great fears of the time- Feminism was destroying the traditional family and we can all be replaced by machines.

Fears we've gotten over by 2005, so no reason to remake this movie. but they did anyway, and made it with characters so unlikable you'd want them to be replaced by machines. But the machine versions were really annoying, too.

Planet of the Apes- Sucked. The Day the Earth Stood Still- Sucks on toast. Halloween- Let's totally destroy the initial concept by giving Michael Meyers a backstory.

There was one I saw and hated, two hours I'll never get back. Straw dogs.

 

[Gagafritz]

Actually, i rarely go to the movies anymore. I am sooo SICK of stupid remakes. No. I don't want to see "Alice in WOnderland" remade and reinterpreted for the umpteenth time. Are there no original stories and story writers left? Everything at the movies lately is a remake. Mission Impossible , Sherlock Holmes and on and on. How about something fresh and new?

 

[percysunshine]

Actually, i rarely go to the movies anymore. I am sooo SICK of stupid remakes. No. I don't want to see "Alice in WOnderland" remade and reinterpreted for the umpteenth time. Are there no original stories and story writers left? Everything at the movies lately is a remake. Mission Impossible , Sherlock Holmes and on and on. How about something fresh and new?

Mission Impossible 3 wasn't that bad. Of course, it took Hollywood three attempts just to break even.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, i rarely go to the movies anymore. I am sooo SICK of stupid remakes. No. I don't want to see "Alice in WOnderland" remade and reinterpreted for the umpteenth time. Are there no original stories and story writers left? Everything at the movies lately is a remake. Mission Impossible , Sherlock Holmes and on and on. How about something fresh and new?

I think part of the problem is that if you make something new, you run the chance no one will go out and see it.

A remake means you already have fans that will come out and take a look, even if it's to see the wreck at the side of the road.

 

[Gagafritz]

Some of the remakes aren't that bad. But for me to go to the movies with my kids costs at least 50+ with popcorn. It has to be worth the time and expense for me to go or i can find other ways to spend money. Actually, we really enjoyed Puss N Boots 3D. Thought that was pretty good. And, Harry Potter movies were made for the big screen as well.

 

[Ringel05]

Actually, i rarely go to the movies anymore. I am sooo SICK of stupid remakes. No. I don't want to see "Alice in WOnderland" remade and reinterpreted for the umpteenth time. Are there no original stories and story writers left? Everything at the movies lately is a remake. Mission Impossible , Sherlock Holmes and on and on. How about something fresh and new?

I think part of the problem is that if you make something new, you run the chance no one will go out and see it.

A remake means you already have fans that will come out and take a look, even if it's to see the wreck at the side of the road.

A remake means the copyrights are renewed or transferred while they try to make money off of it, same as in the music business, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[MikeK]

One of my favorite movies of all time is, The Thing -- From Another World. That movie was made in 1951 and I don't know how many times I've seen it since then. It's a low-budget, unspectacular, black & white science fiction effort which I find so appealing mainly because it's based on a credible premise rather than some of the fantastic and revolting contemporary contrivances such as Aliens and Predators, etc.

The 1981 remake of The Thing From Another World is titled simply, The Thing. It stars Kurt Russell and is a feeble technicolor attempt to emulate the appeal of the original's remote Alaskan atmosphere but they've imposed an absurd werewolf type alien creature. It fails totally and the result conforms 's with the OP's complaint: It's a boring disappointment.

 

[hortysir]

I just saw Fright Night.

Pretty good job, actually.


Not that it was a great movie to begin with, so......

 

[Montrovant]

One of my favorite movies of all time is, The Thing -- From Another World. That movie was made in 1951 and I don't know how many times I've seen it since then. It's a low-budget, unspectacular, black & white science fiction effort which I find so appealing mainly because it's based on a credible premise rather than some of the fantastic and revolting contemporary contrivances such as Aliens and Predators, etc.

The 1981 remake of The Thing From Another World is titled simply, The Thing. It stars Kurt Russell and is a feeble technicolor attempt to emulate the appeal of the original's remote Alaskan atmosphere but they've imposed an absurd werewolf type alien creature. It fails totally and the result conforms 's with the OP's complaint: It's a boring disappointment.

Almost everything in your post is wrong.

The Kurt Russell remake of the Thing is an excellent sci-fi/horror movie. The first 2 Alien movies are both extremely good, some of the best sci fi movies ever in fact. Now, if what you meant was the more recent Aliens vs Predators movies, yes, those were garbage.

I'm not sure why the shapeshifting alien is so absurd, but the humanoid plant of the original Thing is reasonable.

 

[Sallow]

One of my favorite movies of all time is, The Thing -- From Another World. That movie was made in 1951 and I don't know how many times I've seen it since then. It's a low-budget, unspectacular, black & white science fiction effort which I find so appealing mainly because it's based on a credible premise rather than some of the fantastic and revolting contemporary contrivances such as Aliens and Predators, etc.

The 1981 remake of The Thing From Another World is titled simply, The Thing. It stars Kurt Russell and is a feeble technicolor attempt to emulate the appeal of the original's remote Alaskan atmosphere but they've imposed an absurd werewolf type alien creature. It fails totally and the result conforms 's with the OP's complaint: It's a boring disappointment.

Did we watch the same film? John Carpenter's "Thing" was no "werewolf". It initially replicated a dog..but then went on to do humans. It was a great film.

Another great remake was "Heaven Can Wait" with Warren Beatty and James Mason. However, I agree somewhat with the OP. Mining great films for an update generally falls flat. But there are some "little" films..particularly from other countries..that do well with a remake. I loved "The Departed" and I went on to check out the original chinese film..which was also great.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

How about the Hollywood movie versions of TV SHOWS! How LAZY is that?

Why bother putting together an original plot that has substance. Just take the easy way out, take a 1970s or 80s TV show and remake it into a MOVIE!

Add that to the aforementioned movie remakes, the "Part 2, Part 3, etc." movies, the "pre-qual" movies (like the newer Star Wars movies), the politically charged anti-war and documentary movies, etc., and it has to make you wonder if there is ANYBODY in Hollywood who has the intelligence and the ability to make an ORIGINAL movie that is worth watching.

 

[JoeB131]

How about the Hollywood movie versions of TV SHOWS! How LAZY is that?

Why bother putting together an original plot that has substance. Just take the easy way out, take a 1970s or 80s TV show and remake it into a MOVIE!

Add that to the aforementioned movie remakes, the "Part 2, Part 3, etc." movies, the "pre-qual" movies (like the newer Star Wars movies), the politically charged anti-war and documentary movies, etc., and it has to make you wonder if there is ANYBODY in Hollywood who has the intelligence and the ability to make an ORIGINAL movie that is worth watching.

That's kind of a good point. That is laziness. But the folks who started it all?

Star Trek.

This barely viable TV show from the sixties spawned 11 movies and five spinoff series (if you count the Animated Series of the 1970's). Everyone would love to hit that mother lode again!

But the movie industry has never been original. Before they were ripping off older movies, TV Shows and video games, they were making movies based on books. If it has an audience, it's worth making.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

How about the Hollywood movie versions of TV SHOWS! How LAZY is that?

Why bother putting together an original plot that has substance. Just take the easy way out, take a 1970s or 80s TV show and remake it into a MOVIE!

Add that to the aforementioned movie remakes, the "Part 2, Part 3, etc." movies, the "pre-qual" movies (like the newer Star Wars movies), the politically charged anti-war and documentary movies, etc., and it has to make you wonder if there is ANYBODY in Hollywood who has the intelligence and the ability to make an ORIGINAL movie that is worth watching.

That's kind of a good point. That is laziness. But the folks who started it all?

Star Trek.

This barely viable TV show from the sixties spawned 11 movies and five spinoff series (if you count the Animated Series of the 1970's). Everyone would love to hit that mother lode again!

But the movie industry has never been original. Before they were ripping off older movies, TV Shows and video games, they were making movies based on books. If it has an audience, it's worth making.

You made some good points. Many movies are based on novels or other works from the literary world.

GREAT writers should have movies made from their literary works. People like Steinbeck and Hemingway and Miller and Michener and many more.

Then we have Stephen King, perhaps the most overrated writer in history. How many of HIS books have been made into movies, most of which were even poorer than whatever Stephen King "dime novel" it was based on? I've lost count...........probably a couple of dozen?

There is little, if any, original creativity in Hollywood. It's all comic books, TV shows, and dime novels adapted to the big screen. Laziness and mediocrity is good enough, as long as it makes millions for the studios and directors and producers and actors.

 

[Montrovant]

How about the Hollywood movie versions of TV SHOWS! How LAZY is that?

Why bother putting together an original plot that has substance. Just take the easy way out, take a 1970s or 80s TV show and remake it into a MOVIE!

Add that to the aforementioned movie remakes, the "Part 2, Part 3, etc." movies, the "pre-qual" movies (like the newer Star Wars movies), the politically charged anti-war and documentary movies, etc., and it has to make you wonder if there is ANYBODY in Hollywood who has the intelligence and the ability to make an ORIGINAL movie that is worth watching.

That's kind of a good point. That is laziness. But the folks who started it all?

Star Trek.

This barely viable TV show from the sixties spawned 11 movies and five spinoff series (if you count the Animated Series of the 1970's). Everyone would love to hit that mother lode again!

But the movie industry has never been original. Before they were ripping off older movies, TV Shows and video games, they were making movies based on books. If it has an audience, it's worth making.

You made some good points. Many movies are based on novels or other works from the literary world.

GREAT writers should have movies made from their literary works. People like Steinbeck and Hemingway and Miller and Michener and many more.

Then we have Stephen King, perhaps the most overrated writer in history. How many of HIS books have been made into movies, most of which were even poorer than whatever Stephen King "dime novel" it was based on? I've lost count...........probably a couple of dozen?

There is little, if any, original creativity in Hollywood. It's all comic books, TV shows, and dime novels adapted to the big screen. Laziness and mediocrity is good enough, as long as it makes millions for the studios and directors and producers and actors.

You're way off with this.

First, what makes a great author is entirely subjective. Second, even if an author writes a great book, it may not translate well into a movie. Even if you break a book up into multiple movies, you're probably going to have to leave a lot out. There's also the inability to effectively project the thoughts of characters in a movie as you can in a book. It sounds to me more that you think the authors YOU like should be made into movies.

One last thing is that not all the movies made based on King books have been bad. In fact, a few have been excellent. The real problem is that his horror hasn't translated well to movies. Stand By Me, The Green Mile, and most definitely The Shawshank Redemption were all very good movies based on King books.

Oh, and I don't know how overrated King is; he's been lambasted by many a critic. I've enjoyed reading a number of his books, which is the only standard by which I judge an author, and based on his sales apparently quite a few others have as well, so I guess he's not all THAT bad.

 

[JoeB131]

You made some good points. Many movies are based on novels or other works from the literary world.

GREAT writers should have movies made from their literary works. People like Steinbeck and Hemingway and Miller and Michener and many more.

Then we have Stephen King, perhaps the most overrated writer in history. How many of HIS books have been made into movies, most of which were even poorer than whatever Stephen King "dime novel" it was based on? I've lost count...........probably a couple of dozen?

There is little, if any, original creativity in Hollywood. It's all comic books, TV shows, and dime novels adapted to the big screen. Laziness and mediocrity is good enough, as long as it makes millions for the studios and directors and producers and actors.

You're way off with this.

First, what makes a great author is entirely subjective. Second, even if an author writes a great book, it may not translate well into a movie. Even if you break a book up into multiple movies, you're probably going to have to leave a lot out. There's also the inability to effectively project the thoughts of characters in a movie as you can in a book. It sounds to me more that you think the authors YOU like should be made into movies.

One last thing is that not all the movies made based on King books have been bad. In fact, a few have been excellent. The real problem is that his horror hasn't translated well to movies. Stand By Me, The Green Mile, and most definitely The Shawshank Redemption were all very good movies based on King books.

Oh, and I don't know how overrated King is; he's been lambasted by many a critic. I've enjoyed reading a number of his books, which is the only standard by which I judge an author, and based on his sales apparently quite a few others have as well, so I guess he's not all THAT bad.

I have to agree with TS that King is a mediocre writer who just finds new ways to insult his audeince. Sometimes you can make a good movie out of his book, but you can make a good movie out a mediocre book in general. A good example is Jaws. A mediocre potboiler about suburban soap that happened to have a shark in it. Speilberg decided to make the movie about the shark.

Of course, the problem is good books almost always make disappointing movies. You go into the movie with an image in your head what the character look likes. Movies based on stories by Philip K. Dick are like this. His protagonists were usually middle aged schlubs, but they cast people like Harrison Ford, Tom Cruise and Schwarzenneger in films based on his stories.

 

[strollingbones]

the evolution of 'virgin spring' has been interesting to follow...

none of the remakes...has come close to the orginal

 

[mudwhistle]

One of the things Hollywood does that really annoys me are remakes.

If the movie was good enough to start with, there's no reason to make it again. If it wasn't, the idea probably sucked and no amount of tinkering will fix it.

One that really annoyed me was the remake of "The Stepford Wives". Great little horror movie from the 1970's. Men are having their feminist wives replaced by compliant robots. Tapped into two great fears of the time- Feminism was destroying the traditional family and we can all be replaced by machines.

Fears we've gotten over by 2005, so no reason to remake this movie. but they did anyway, and made it with characters so unlikable you'd want them to be replaced by machines. But the machine versions were really annoying, too.

Planet of the Apes- Sucked. The Day the Earth Stood Still- Sucks on toast. Halloween- Let's totally destroy the initial concept by giving Michael Meyers a backstory.

Well, we don't fear technology anymore. Technology is harmless. It means kids will be walking into more fountains while texting.

The first Planet of the Apes remake did suck. The second, not so much.

The Day the Earth Stood Still was doomed from the start because it was simply an ecological protest movie.

However Batman was a good remake, but lately it's started sucking because there's not enough cool gadgets and cars. It was getting ridiculous by the time Arnold played Mr Freeze, but now it's just become dreary and negative. Seems Christian Bale is claustrophobic and wearing that suit 6 hours a day drives him up the wall, so the next Batman will be his last. Great. GD Hollywood actors.

The Karate Kid remake was actually good. At least the new kid was more believable than Ralph Machio acting like he knows Karate.

The Arthur remake was terrible. That one was better off not being done.

Clash of the Titans was an upgrade and now it's into the sequel stage. The original's special affects were terrible.

Hands down the best movie remake "Casino Royale" was the first of the new Bond movies.



55 movie remakes currently in the works - Den of Geek

Upcoming Movie Remakes 2011, 2012 - List | Movie Moron

 

[JoeB131]

55 movie remakes currently in the works - Den of Geek

 

[JoeB131]

I also wouldn't call the Batman movies "remakes". The Batman movies ignored the 1960's film/TV series and really took more from the comics.

I thought the first one was okay, the second one sucked, the third one was tolerable, and the fourth one was horrid. "Gay Capades on Ice". The Nolan movies were pretty good, except Batman killing the villians. Batman doesn't kill the villians.

Didn't watch the new Karate kid with the spawn of Will Smith. I'm still annoyed with that kid from the "Day the Earth Stood Still" remake.