All of these remakes of movies… Bewitched, The Honeymooners, Dukes of Hazzard, Charlie & the Chocolate Factory, Bad News Bears… aren’t exactly screaming, “I need a makeover!” (if, of course,metiphorically, movies/shows can talk)
Granted, I haven’t seen all of these movies yet, but the recent trend is too simply recreate the essence of the previous show/movie rather than create a new experience for the viewer. (Even Bewitched: the movie, with its lukewarm romantic comedy concept, seemed to attempt to create the same sitcomy lameness of the show)
Can anyone please name a movie/TV show (yes even spin-offs) that actually IMPROVED compared to its inspiration?
I thought The Brady Bunch Movie was a vast improvement over the original TV series, mostly because it poked fun mercilessly at the lamer aspects of the show.
That’s about all I can think of, tho. For the most part, I think that since films are a permanent product, unlike a performance in the theatre, if they were done right, future director’s should just leave them alone and get their own damn stories.
Uhhhh not exactly, Doc. Return to Oz wasn’t a remake. The source material was a different L. Frank Baum novel. (Sorry, but I can’t remember exactly which one was adapted for this film.)
At 10 minutes long, this can hardly be counted as the original film. The first time any of Baum’s work had been set on celluloid, sure, but not even close to a feature film, IMO.
Er, I was mostly joking, but if you want to throw down on the topic, if it’s the first time Baum’s work was set on celluloid, how is it not the original film? If you don’t like considering the 1910 version the “original,” there’s still a 1921 version that pre-dates the 1925 film.
For that matter, where does the OP restrict the subject matter to “feature” films?
IMO, Star Trek IV was a sequel, not a remake. Ditto for Bride of Frankenstein.
Tim Burton’s Batman was not a remake either, just a continuation of the franchise.
From Wikipedia:
In film, a remake may refer to a newer version of a previously released film, or a newer version of the source (play, novel, story, etc.) of a previously made film.Cite
I guess the OP doesn’t. I was only stating my opinion.
And I’ve never seen the silent 1921 version. My guess, judging by a lack of information on IMDB, is no one alive has ever seen it. Thus, I have no way of knowing if it was poorly made or terrifically executed. Thus, I have no opinion about it.
Not IMO. It’s about the story. The source material isn’t “the comics” it’s a particular issue or set of issues of the comic. Otherwise Spiderman 2 is a remake of Spiderman, and I doubt anyone will try and make that argument.
The Burton movie features a plot that is unlike anything from the original movie or TV series. The characters are there, the city of Gotham is there, but the things that happen are all new to that movie. If you can find an episode of the series that had the same plot, then yeah, I’ll be happy to slap the word “remake” on yet another of Mr. Burton’s movies.
Similiarly, Batman Begins features a story unlike anything else in the Batman cavalcade, and thus is just a new movie within that franchise.
That was the original episode that featured Khan, wasn’t it? It’s been more than 20 years since I saw it, IIRC, but I thought that the movie was far and away the best Star Trek ever filmed for either medium. Nothing I saw after it ever made me change that opinion.