In another thread we discussed The Secret Life of Walter Mitty- the rather meh remake in 2013? with Ben Stiller, vs of course the 1947 version with the Great Danny Kaye. The two films were not even similar, despite the title.
But then I thought about The Producers-
!967 with Zero Mostel- which can do more with facial expressions alone than most actors with dialog and props, and of course Gene Wilder who- of course- is great.
But then we have
2005 with Nathan Lane (not half as good as Mostel, but doing a decent job here) and Matthew Broderick- who can almost fill Wilder’s shoes. BUT- then there is also the magnificent Uma Thurman, and the wonderful musical numbers.
On the one hand, the remakes of Rollerball, Death Race 2000 and The Andromeda Strain should have caused all involved to have been permanently banned from making films ever again, Yes, the camera operator and the focus puller, too.
On the other hand, 1939’s Wizard of Oz was a remake, and no one but film buffs remember the original.
For the record, I think there’s a difference between a remake (in which the first film was an original screenplay), and a new adaptation of an existing work. Both Wizard of Oz and Walter Mitty were books first, before they were movies. A new adaptation of a book is not a remake of a previous adaptation, any more than a production of King Lear is a remake of any previous productions of the play.
Nitpick: “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” was a short story, not a book.
But yes, that’s an important point. And I could be wrong, but I never thought the Ben Stiller Walter Mitty was even trying to be a remake of the Danny Kaye film; it was just inspired (however loosely) by the story.
And the Nathan Lane The Producers is yet another category: not a remake, but a film version of the Broadway musical based on the earlier movie.
Point taken, but in the case of Walter Mitty, it was a very short story. Nothing happens, Walter just has several daydreams. The part where he gets involved in a real adventure was invented for the Danny Kaye film. So the later film where he gets involved in a real adventure could be fairly said to be a remake. It’s closer to the Kaye film than the original story.
I believe The Maltese Falcon with Bogart was the THIRD movie with that story.
There are certainly remakes that are better than the original (Ten Commandments, Wizard of Oz), but the originals were arguably not good. Is there a remake of a good movie that is also at least good?
The tag is “movies”, and one can argue whether the original was good, but I think most would say the new Battlestar Galactica is better (even including the later seasons)
Western remakes of Akira Kurosawa’s Yojimbo run the gamut from very good (A Fistful of Dollars) to OK (Last Man Standing) to godawful (The Warrior and the Sorceress).
I personally liked aspects of Rob Zombie’s versions of Hallowe’en – different from and in some ways better than the original, but without Jamie Lee Curtis, you can only be second-best.
The Thomas Crown Affair. The original is probably a better Work of Art, but I think the remake is more entertaining.
In the original, the crime is a bank heist. I have been on the receiving end of workplace robbery, so when one of the henchmen shoots a bank guard, my sympathy for Steve McQueen’s character ends abruptly. In the remake, the crime is an art heist, and nobody gets hurt, so I find it easier to cheer for Pierce Brosnan’s character.
Also, I find Rene Russo more appealing than Faye Dunaway.
Bedazzled. The original is far more intellectual in concept, and more intelligent in execution. But I laughed more at the remake. And Elizabeth Hurley is easier on the eyes than Peter Cook.
One for the “deep cut” file: the 1979 remake of Eric Sykes’ The Plank is a taut, expertly timed physical-comedy romp that puts the baggy, rambling 1967 original to shame.
At first I mildy disliked it but after repeated watchings I’ve come not only to like it, but to really like it; as much as the original 1957 version. It just depends on my mood/whimsy of which one I feel like watching at the moment. ( I own both on DVD )
The 1976 version of King Kong was better than the original 1933 Fay Wray, if only for the better special effects. I haven’t seen Peter Jackson’s remake.