Giving Remakes a Second Chance

[Reverenddave]

I know everyone hates remakes. But sometimes, I think the remake isn't so bad if you don't compare it to the original.

For example, I just watched the remake of Black Christmas. That film is a horrible remake of a classic. The original was one of the greatest slashers ever. Everything that the original did right, the remake did wrong.

But when I don't compare the remake to the original, it wasn't a bad movie. It won't make my yearly Top 10 list, but I've seen hundreds of worse slasher movies. I think that standing on it's own, this film probably would have been annual Xmas viewing for many horror fans.

So, does anyone have some other remakes that would be considered good movies if they weren't compared to the originals?

[dwatts]

"everyone" hates remakes? :(

I've been speaking up for the much maligned remakes for quite some time, as have a handful of others. You've simply got to take them as individual movies as see if they entertain. Many of them do.

I'm sure it won't be long before someone comes along and mentions Hills Have Eyes as a worthy remake - and even TCM, although I though that was a weak one.

[othervoice1]

you can put me on the I Hate Remakes list <: Once in a great while one gets done right- but very very few IMO - Course one I do like a lot but so does most everyone else is "The Thing"

[indiephantom]

fuck the remake love, fuckers...remake this BUTT CHEESES.

[JW77]

"The Thing" was good. As was the 197x "Invasion of the Body Snatchers."

[wago70]

That was pretty much it. Not many original stories given the greenlight in Hollywood these days. It's time they stopped this remaking expensive Drive-In movies.
...and for GOD'S SAKE I wish they'd get rid of that same flickering font used on every single title, commercial, trailer, website...from SE7EN to SAW to Fearnet Cable I'm sick of the faux snuff film/projector-damaged gimmick!

[dirkwu]

How soon before we get a "House of a 1000 Corpses" remake?

[Hellbilly]

One of my favorite movies is a remake: The Fly (1986) :)

[Criswell]

Invasion of the Body Snatchers remake was shit. But i guess i am the only one on earth who FEELS this way.

[Alan Smithee]

I didn't mind the Dawn of the Dead remake, but then it wasn't really much of a remake.

[DrHerbertWest]

Invasion of the Body Snatchers remake was shit. But i guess i am the only one on earth who FEELS this way.

I didn't care for it much.

[Anaestheus]

I'd say that some great films have been made of remakes. The Fly, Body Snatchers (both Kaufman's and Farrera's), The Thing. Even outside of the horror genre, you've got Fistful of Dollars, Rio Bravo, The Magnificent Seven, Fists of Legend, The Vanishing, Insomnia, Baron Munchausen and 12 Monkeys. Hell, how many times has Nosferatu/Dracula been made now? But, what I am tired of is lazy film making. All the examples that I list above are cases where film makers take the time to actually try to elevate the source material in some way. There is so much more to a remake than just adding fresh, young actors and capitalizing on the recognition of the title. So, I am fine with the idea of remakes. But, I am really tired of film makers, thinking that an old title and a young star is enough to make a good movie. It doesn't matter to me if the source material is a book, a short story, a poem, or another movie. I just want people to start to putting more thought into a film than box office receipts.

[Kolpitz]

I'd say that some great films have been made of remakes. The Fly, Body Snatchers (both Kaufman's and Farrera's), The Thing. Even outside of the horror genre, you've got Fistful of Dollars, Rio Bravo, The Magnificent Seven, Fists of Legend, The Vanishing, Insomnia, Baron Munchausen and 12 Monkeys. Hell, how many times has Nosferatu/Dracula been made now? But, what I am tired of is lazy film making. All the examples that I list above are cases where film makers take the time to actually try to elevate the source material in some way. There is so much more to a remake than just adding fresh, young actors and capitalizing on the recognition of the title. So, I am fine with the idea of remakes. But, I am really tired of film makers, thinking that an old title and a young star is enough to make a good movie. It doesn't matter to me if the source material is a book, a short story, a poem, or another movie. I just want people to start to putting more thought into a film than box office receipts.

I think The Hitcher remake epitomizes the type of lazy filmmaking you're talking about. I am a big fan, however, of the Dawn of the Dead and The Hills Have Eyes remakes. I think they're both excellent examples of recent remakes done right.

[BloodMan]

The Hills Have Eyes

[dwatts]

-The Vanishing, Insomnia--

Wow - the originals of these were soooo much better than the remakes. Just proves that at the end of the day it's all just an opinion.

Where's the evidence that "original" films arn't getting made because Hollywood is busy with remakes?

[Anaestheus]

[QUOTE=dwatts;500690]-The Vanishing, Insomnia--

Wow - the originals of these were soooo much better than the remakes. Just proves that at the end of the day it's all just an opinion.
[QUOTE]

OK, I'll concede that those two are kinda weak examples and I'm not saying that they are any better than their originals. Just like I wouldn't say that Fistful of Dollars is any better than Yojimbo. I was using them more as examples that, at least, were good films by themselves and that tried to somehow enhance or deviate from the original works. Maybe not to the extent of the other films I mentioned, but, at least they tried.

[Kolpitz]

I think Insomnia is a terrific remake, thanks to Christopher Nolan's assured direction. Is it better than the original? Nope, but that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to exist.

[Reverenddave]

I guess I didn't phrase my first post too well. Imagine the original movie never existed. That the remake was actually an original story being told for the first time.

Sure there are a bunch of remakes that improved, or paid proper tribute, or expanded the original. But there are some remakes that crapped on the original film, yet they weren't totally bad movies in their own right.

What movies that were a bad "remake" would be considered good if they stood totally on their own?

[spawningblue]

I have enjoyed or found something to like in every remake. I think a lot of them don't even compare to the originals, but like you said, are fun for their own reasons.

I think horror fans are just like the music snobs in High Fidelity. Because the movies are remakes they get judged pretty strongly. I think in 20 years people will appreciate a lot of the movies a lot more, like how we can find just about anything to like in horror movies from the 70s and 80s. We judge and nit pick every little nuance in remakes, but can forget the same mistakes made in films made earlier. I guess its becasue they are being a lazy, and if there going to do a remake, we should expect soemthign different, and I agree with that, but I still think there are some fun in them as well.

Oh, and when I said I liked every remake, that was a lie, as The Fog remake was a steaming pile of shit!

[spawningblue]

Actually I think horror films in general, remake or not, get judged pretty harsh these days, and movies from the 80s and under get off pretty easily.

[X-human]

It may just be the simple fact that original films have more creative people working on them because they're attracted to fresh projects over rehashes. Then all the guns for hire are used on remakes which are simply producers exercising their properties, so everyone just goes through the motions on remakes.

Is it all that surprising that people are attracted to an original film because of its potential to break new ground are more creative, talented and interested in putting their skills to the test? That rubs off on audiences too. You think anyone would work on a 4th or 5th Invasion of the Body Snatchers remake for anything besides a paycheck? Any audience member sitting in their living room, cash in hand, hoping they remake it?

No one really had a burning desire to make The Invasion. The producers jumped on the remake bandwagon, hired the first screen writer who said he'd do it, and went on down the line the same way with the rest of the crew.

Then you'll have original projects that excites crew members, who are willing to take pay reductions and pass on more lucrative projects just to work on what they think will be a great film. The crew mind set is a huge difference maker on how a film will turn out, and when you're doing a remake you may just be getting it off on the wrong foot.

I've already given remakes a second chance, hell I've given them more chances than that. There's no spark. So I've stopped going.

[dwatts]

Actually I think horror films in general, remake or not, get judged pretty harsh these days, and movies from the 80s and under get off pretty easily.

Ths is an exellent point. I tend to favor movies I grew up with. Many people online in forums such as this seem to be 80's child - hence 80's movies are remembered with a nostalgic tinge, rather than a true critical eye.

[Chunkblower]

Then you'll have original projects that excites crew members, who are willing to take pay reductions and pass on more lucrative projects just to work on what they think will be a great film. The crew mind set is a huge difference maker on how a film will turn out, and when you're doing a remake you may just be getting it off on the wrong foot.



I highly doubt you scenario accurately depicts people who aren't above-the-line talent. I don't think a PA really really gives a shit how "creative" a project is when he or she is directing traffic in the pouring rain at three a.m.

[rhett]

I highly doubt you scenario accurately depicts people who aren't above-the-line talent. I don't think a PA really really gives a shit how "creative" a project is when he or she is directing traffic in the pouring rain at three a.m.
How dare you share my experience on RESURRECTING THE CHAMP with the rest of the board members!

[Chunkblower]

How dare you share my experience on RESURRECTING THE CHAMP with the rest of the board members!


A: It wasn't pouring rain. Stop being a drama queen.

B: Nobody knew I was referring to you until you told them, dumbass.

[Mark Relford]

What about The Blob '88 remake? It blows away the cheesy 50's one. At least this Blob was more threatening and the melting victims were impressive.
Never cared for Savini's NOTLD. It's a "lifeless" remake that offers nothing new. The original is a classic and I never get tired of it. Heck, it even manages to still creep me out a little bit. Savini's bored me beyond tears.

[X-human]

I highly doubt you scenario accurately depicts people who aren't above-the-line talent. I don't think a PA really really gives a shit how "creative" a project is when he or she is directing traffic in the pouring rain at three a.m.

Probably not. What's your point?

[spawningblue]

As much as I love horror movies from the 80s, original, are you kidding me!? Slasher films were popular so they came out with hundreds of them, they all weren't original. Then there was the other movies that copied whatever was popular at the time, sometimes even combining two franchises, ie. Zombie Holocasut

The franchises that didn't succeed came out with a sequel almost every year, most of them not even comparing to the originals. When recent movies like Saw do the same things, people complain that they aren't original and are just trying to milk the franchise. Doesn't every franchise do that. At least Saw hasn't gone to space yet, although I'm sure in a few more sequals he just might...

Anyways, don't take this as me bashing movies from the 80s. I love all the cheesiness that oozes from them, but i also am a lot more lenient towards present day horror, where as most people aren't. I am just happy to keep getting horror movies period. between every remake there are a few gems, and some of the remakes are fun for what they are, with a few, like Hills Have Eyes being classics that can sit next to The Fly, The Thing, and Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

[fceurich39]

i like some remakes
night of the living dead
dawn of the dead
the blob
the fly
the thing
texas chainsaw massacre
and i am pretty sure the upcoming halloween remake i will like that as well
hills have eyes and black christmas and the hitcher were okay
but remakes like
when a stranger calls
psycho
the fog are abominations of cinema

[Buddusky]

I liked The Texas Chainsaw remake and also The Beggining, really liked the Dawn Of The Dead remake and loved Hills Have Eyes remake. I think it's the best remake to come along in years, shame about the follow up. Looking forward to seeing the remake of Day Of The Dead.

[dwatts]

--What about The Blob '88 remake? It blows away the cheesy 50's one.--

You said that just because you knew it would upset me. :(

[Chunkblower]

Probably not. What's your point?

That 99% of people who work on a movie don't really give a shit how "creative" it is, and unless it's a director, producer or above-the-line star's pet project, nobody's taking a pay cut to work on it.

[MorallySound]

That 99% of people who work on a movie don't really give a shit how "creative" it is, and unless it's a director, producer or above-the-line star's pet project, nobody's taking a pay cut to work on it.

I work in film, and I am not yet a director/producer/higher-up person, I'm just your lowly production assistant/grip/electric at this time and I put all my creative effort into my job to make the best possible product I can in regards to my job. So that 99% number is definitely not correct by my count. I've worked with a lot of people who are passionate about there job, and are out there to create something. And these are those 99% you are referring to.

[Chunkblower]

I've worked with a lot of people who are passionate about there job, and are out there to create something.


I don't doubt that's true. However, the real question is are they more passionate about one project over another because of its inherent creativity, or are they conscientious people who always try to do a good job? I’m taking issue with the idea that people who work on film crews will do a better job on, say, an original project as opposed to a remake. I’m not disparaging anybody’s quality of work.

[MorallySound]

True.

[Mark Relford]

--What about The Blob '88 remake? It blows away the cheesy 50's one.--

You said that just because you knew it would upset me. :(


I'm gunning for you, bud! ;) Should I say something about your other fave- Beware! The Blob? :D Maybe they'll remake that one too...

What are your thoughts on the '88 remake?

[Korngold]

Some very valid points have been made here. Anaestheus was very eloquent in what I also feel is the problem. The hollywood formula of old title + young star=new movie. Let's be realistic in saying of the current crop of remakes 80 percent of it doesn't hold a candle to the original.

So to go back to the original post...some of them may have been better if it hadn't tried to be a remake. Sure these films would have been derivative, but hell what isn't today? We could look at these films as seperate and distinct. Would Halloween III done better if it hadn't had to deal with the Halloween moniker?

Not a great example but, as a matter of principal I refuse to see the remake of Dawn of the Dead. Being a hardcore Romero fan I was against the project from the very beginning and I refuse to see anything James Gunn or Zack Synder do as a result of their connection to the film (so I never saw Slither or 300 for example. I may have to break that rule for Watchmen, however).

[dwatts]

You're missing a hell of a fun movie by boycotting Slither mate. ;)

[Ash28M]

For example, I just watched the remake of Black Christmas. That film is a horrible remake of a classic. The original was one of the greatest slashers ever. Everything that the original did right, the remake did wrong.

But when I don't compare the remake to the original, it wasn't a bad movie. It won't make my yearly Top 10 list, but I've seen hundreds of worse slasher movies. I think that standing on it's own, this film probably would have been annual Xmas viewing for many horror fans.


I can't say that I "Hate" remakes but Black Christmas may have been the worst of the lot. I wouldn't even say I have seen may worse slashers. There have been some good remakes latley though, IMO.

Very Good..
The Hills have Eyes
Dawn of the Dead
The Ring
Red Dragon

Good.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Assault on Precinct 13

OK
The Amityville Horror
Dark Water
The Grudge
The Hitcher
The Toolbox Murders

[DVD-fanatic-9]

I still think Cronenberg's The Fly was the only good remake. If you're going to remake something that's been made into a good film before, it better have been a book first.

[wago70]

All the recent remakes are pretty forgettable. I was just reminded there was, in fact, a WICKER MAN remake sometime last year. Boy, that didn't make much impression considering I'm sure they spent a fortune making it.
As for HALLOWEEN, I really could have taken another sequel - really, I could have understood that. I won't be seeing it - I have so many other films I want to see first. Including some classics on DVD.
If they MUST remake films, I wish they would choose films that were not good the first time around, but had possibilities like LASERBLAST, INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN, OCTAMAN, SLITHIS...I think films like that could use a fresh updating. I wouldn't mind a DAY TIME ENDED remake, either.
The studios are so shallow - only the tried and true get vomited up over and over, I suppose.

[HAEMORRHAGE]

I'm an avid hater of remakes. There's only one movie that I want to see a remake of and that's Pieces cause it was done so horribly the first time.

[Ptflea2]

I'm an avid hater of remakes. There's only one movie that I want to see a remake of and that's Pieces cause it was done so horribly the first time.

You only want one movie to be remade, one film in the history of film and you pick PIECES?! WOW!!!! Sorry, but I couldn't help but laugh when I read this. In my opinion, the only reason Pieces "works" is because it was done so horribly the first time. I also don't think there are many producers out there willing to back a project like that.

[baggio]

One of the better remakes out there IMO. Not the best but pretty dam good.

Cape Fear

[Anaestheus]

I think another good analogy I would make is Cover Bands. I don't mind cover bands. And, I can understand that many people like them as a way to get some of the rush of seeing a "Major Artist" with more frequency and lower ticket prices. However, I highly doubt I would want to buy an album from a band who simply performed songs by Led Zeppelin, but with newer equipment and fresher clothes. But I would, and have, bought an album by a band that did Led Zeppelin songs as if they were sung Elvis leading a reggae band. They added something else. And, while it certainly didn't surpass Zeppelin in terms of creativity, they at least gave me something that was fresh and fun for a while.

I don't look at any film as an untouchable classic and find that busting the sacrilage of "classics" can be quite fun. That's the main reason why Barb Wire is in my DVD collection. Really, it is.

But, if you are going to remake a film, you have to give it something new. It's not just a matter of trying to judge the film as a stand alone. Due to the the way the human brain functions, I will judge all films by my past experiences, be it a remake, a sequel, or a brand new film. So, when I watch a slasher film, regardless of what it's title or source material is, I am going to reference it to the slashers I've seen in the past and ask if the new film adds anything. How does this new film justify its existence?

So, overall, when I dismiss remakes, I really only do it because they are dull movies compared to other movies. There are some nice touches to the recent Dawn of the Dead. But, overall, I found it uninvolving and outisde of some "jump" moments it really didn't scare me. So, it doesn't hold up when compared to the original, but it also doesn't hold up when compared "28 Days Later" or "Land of the Dead." It ballances out evenly with "Resident Evil" only because it has a more intelligent script but no Milla.

[Luna]

But I would, and have, bought an album by a band that did Led Zeppelin songs as if they were sung Elvis leading a reggae band. They added something else. And, while it certainly didn't surpass Zeppelin in terms of creativity, they at least gave me something that was fresh and fun for a while.Dread Zeppelin! I have that CD somewhere... :D

[Criswell]

Well i guess Frankenstein (31) was also a remake too...........

[wago70]

Okay, fine...so what if THE THING was a remake (as well as other classics from yore). The truth REMAINS that remakes that are being made NOW are out-of-control. They're inferior films lacking anything remarkable. Some may have been entertaining - but they're still the lesser of the films. Everything from HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL, (yes) THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, (yes, I will add:) THE HILLS HAVE EYES, 13 GHOSTS, THE WICKER MAN...complete the list.
What irritates me the most is they had some nice budgets and talents...to create something spirited, original and entertaining to the masses (lord knows they're edited for short attention spans). Instead we got some people who walked through the video store, saw all the Anchor Bay releases and nice remastering of those older films and thought of a nice way to make money. Too bad they couldn't at least make their own film and homage the originals...NO they have to go in as if they can make a better film.
Maybe it's because so many original films from the '90's failed (add titles yourself).