Movie remakes that make you ask "Why?!"

[Hampshire]

@BrotherCadfael

I really doubt this. I 1962, there is no way that Hitch could even HINT at that activity, even in an “adult” (in the non-pornographic sense) movie, and he absolutely would have known that. It would even be too raw to be included as censor bait (the bit they put in the film for the censors to cut, leaving behind the stuff he really wanted).

You’re right. There never was a deleted scene that Hitch had filmed.
VanSant shot the additional scene because it was part ot the original 1959 novel the movie was based on. (Also in the novel Marion was beheaded in the shower rather than just stabbed to death.)

[fusoya]

I just heard that Flight of the Navigator is going to be remade. One of my favorite childhood movies!!! WTF???

The Taking of Pelham 123 remake actually worked, because NYC itself, and particularly the subways, have changed so much since the 70s. The acting and script weren’t as tight as the original, but they did a great job with the scenery (and had complete cooperation from the MTA).

[Evil_Captor]

Another pointless shot for shot remake, “Funny Games.” It was a nasty, mean-spirited film in the original, I have no idea why Naomi Watts threw her weight behind allowing the director of the film, Michael Haneke, to make a shot-for-shot remake only using American dialog. Both films sucked IMHO.

[Quint]

They remade The Manchurian Candidate. Why?

[Bryan_Ekers]

Heck, Body Double baffles me. So Brian de Palma wats to remake Vertigo, except the main character is claustrophobic… fine. And there’s a lot of nudity, cursing and graphic violence… also fine. But why tack on a happy ending? Are the audiences of 1984 stupider than the ones of 1958?

[JoelUpchurch]

I wouldn’t be unhappy if they remade Starship Troopers as a straight drama/action instead of a satire. Just a movie about Juan Rico in training could be a pretty good movie. I have some fond memories of watching Tribes with Darrin McGavin and Jan Michael Vincent.

[Boyo_Jim]

@JoelUpchurch

I wouldn’t be unhappy if they remade Starship Troopers as a straight drama/action instead of a satire…

I wonder… I did hear about ST being a satire, and I can kind of see it. But I heard this after it was released, and I wonder it this interpretation was spin to make it not seem so sucky. Reminiscent of Mommie Dearest, which was re-spun to a comedy because it worked so badly as a drama.

[TriPolar]

@FairyChatMom

My possibly cynical thinking is that most of the remakes are done because the originals made money once and it’s easier and less risky than coming up with an original idea for a movie.

This is a a lot of it. It’s hard to sell an original idea in Hollywood. But you can sell a movie that’s just like some other blockbuster, but a little different.

Too be fair, there are a lot of bad movies that are remade also. There aren’t very many original stories anyway, and many of ‘new’ movies are remakes of very old films, foriegn films, or low budget productions.

Frank Capra remade one of his own films. The last film he directed, ‘A Pocketful of Miracles’ in 1961, was a remake of his own ‘Lady for a Day’ from 1933. He had a bigger cast and budget, but the end result was only a small improvement over the original.

Anyway, when I saw the thread title I thought it must be about ‘Straw Dogs’.

[Justin_Bailey]

[QUOTE=Boyo Jim]
I wonder… I did hear about ST being a satire, and I can kind of see it. But I heard this after it was released, and I wonder it this interpretation was spin to make it not seem so sucky. Reminiscent of Mommie Dearest, which was re-spun to a comedy because it worked so badly as a drama.
[/QUOTE]

The satire angle was always there. Verhoeven talked about it months before the film was ever released: The A.V. Club — Pop culture obsessives writing for the pop culture obsessed.

That said, you can see the satire angle up on screen clear as day. I mean, Doogie Howser plays a bloodthirsty Nazi, it was pretty obvious.

@CalMeacham

I suspect on reason for the “remake” of The Thing (rightly identified as a prequel) was inspired by the availability of CGI. Carpenter’s 1982 version used Bob Bottin’s very inspired and clever mechanical devices (along with a very[ little dimensional animation – Carpenter discarded most of that because its look wasn’t the same as Bottin’s mechanical work, although I’d have liked to have it included, myself.)

But CGI lets you do incredible stuff with movies, so I can understand the draw. Nowadays you really could put up on the scren those outrageous visions of The Thing that Mike Ploog sketched in pre-production visualization.

The producers of The Thing (2011) claim that they’re using mostly practical effects to create their monster. CGI is said to be kept to a minimum.

[Namkcalb]

@JoelUpchurch

I wouldn’t be unhappy if they remade Starship Troopers as a straight drama/action instead of a satire.

I loved Verhoeven’s Starship Troopers, but I really think Heinlein’s book deserves a direct adaption.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Justin_Bailey

The satire angle was always there. Verhoeven talked about it months before the film was ever released: The A.V. Club — Pop culture obsessives writing for the pop culture obsessed.

That said, you can see the satire angle up on screen clear as day. I mean, Doogie Howser plays a bloodthirsty Nazi, it was pretty obvious…

Like I said, I don’t really know the facts, so I won’t argue it further, but that interview was done years after the movie. It doesn’t speak to whether or not he talked about it before the release, though he claimed he had. And even considering that, Verhoven notes that he thought some of the studio execs and some of the press thought it was straight.

[Hogfather65]

Sorry did I miss something - was Starship Troopers a remake / was remade? That was the other one and when was it made?

[Boyo_Jim]

@Hogfather65

Sorry did I miss something - was Starship Troopers a remake / was remade? That was the other one and when was it made?

Excellent point. No. Let’s just drop the whole thing.

[CalMeacham]

@Justin_Bailey

The satire angle was always there. Verhoeven talked about it months before the film was ever released: The A.V. Club — Pop culture obsessives writing for the pop culture obsessed.

That said, you can see the satire angle up on screen clear as day. I mean, Doogie Howser plays a bloodthirsty Nazi, it was pretty obvious.

The producers of The Thing (2011) claim that they’re using mostly practical effects to create their monster. CGI is said to be kept to a minimum.

If that’s the case, they’re giving precisely the opposite impression with their TV ads, which appear to show most;ly CGI.
But I’d have to ask why?. If ever a movie cried out for CGI, this is it.

[CalMeacham]

@Hogfather65

Sorry did I miss something - was Starship Troopers a remake / was remade? That was the other one and when was it made?

It wasn’t, but Cameron’s Aliens was arguably a better adaptation of Starship Troopers than Verhoeven’s film. Cameron reportedly gave his actors copies of the book to read. There wasn’t anything like the power suits (unless you count Ripley in the Loader at the end), but at least most of the military personnel weren’t as dumb as the ones in Verhoeven’s film.

[Hogfather65]

Thanks - a bit clearer now

[Justin_Bailey]

@Boyo_Jim

Like I said, I don’t really know the facts, so I won’t argue it further, but that interview was done years after the movie. It doesn’t speak to whether or not he talked about it before the release, though he claimed he had. And even considering that, Verhoven notes that he thought some of the studio execs and some of the press thought it was straight.

:smack: My brain saw “2007” and somehow translated that into “1997.” OK, I feel stupid now. But still, I thought the satire angle was pretty obvious.

[The_Master]

@minlokwat

Right.

Also in the remake, Norman/Vince Vaughn is waxing his carrot, so to speak, as he’s peeping through the peephole. I don’t remember that happening in the Hitchcock original.

I noticed that, as well, when I saw it many years ago…