Martin considers it to be one. Simply because the time period and settings have been changed, doesn’t change if its a remake or not. Should we consider The Magnificent Seven to not be a remake of Seven Samurai simply because it doesn’t take place in feudal Japan? That Roxanne is not a remake in the same manner as Psycho (i.e. shot by shot) doesn’t change the fact that its a reworking of previous material. Martin explicitedly pointed out in interviews around the time the film was released that he was doing a remake and updating of Cyrano, because he thought the original was horribly dated. (There’s even a “swordfight” in Martin’s version, only they use tennis rackets.)
Which puts you in the minority. Most people say that Reeves was born to play Gort.
That was a send-up, not a remake. I thought it was funny as hell, anyway.
'Lost In Space" went the opposite direction - the TV show was fun because it *was *a satire. The serious-minded movie was misbegotten.
“I Am Legend”, “Omega Man”, and a few others that all had the same damn story were all unnecessary.
And then there’s the entire range of interchangeable Sci Fi Channel monster movies. Is there a species left they haven’t yet mutated into some human-hunting leviathan attacking some small town?
It sounds awful, but the sort of awful that I’d kinda like to see for myself. And how have I never heard of this movie before?
I remember an earlier thread on remakes that got a bit trainwrecky before we could get a good discussion about The Wages of Fear/Sorceror. I seem to be one of the few to like the remake better, but it took me a while to figure out why; the shift in filmmaking styles between 1953 France and 1977 America. In the original, you have to read the tension on the actor’s faces. By the time of the remake, stunts and suspense had evolved to the point where we could better see the situations that were confronting the characters, not just their reactions. And that style is just a bit more gripping to me. Both movies end on a downer, but the original seems to come out of nowhere (tres existential). The end of the remake is sad, but unavoidable.
No matter who they cast in Cary Grant’s role, this movie is going to be a horrible, horrible travesty. The only person who could pull off Grant’s role is George Clooney, and he’s got better things to do with his life than this.
Clooney maybe (though he’s getting a bit old for the part). But just about any current actor would be wrong for the part.
It would be like (picking a ridiculous example that couldn’t possibly happen) casting Adam Sandler in a remake of Mr. Deeds Goes to Town. Not even Hollywood would be that stupid.
The original Land of the Lost saturday morning show (NOT the revamped second series) may have had cheesy Sid & Marty Croft production values, but it was played straight, to the point that episodes were scripted by serious science fiction writers.
Regarding Jackson’s King Kong, I think I’ve figured out the basic premise of the movie. The conceit is that the original King Kong was Hollywood’s sanitized romanticized version of events, and that what we’re seeing in Jackson’s remake is what “really” happened. Which is a shame because it makes the movie a metaphor for itself: how something fantastic and mythical was brought down to the level of the mundane world.
I’ve seen both movies. Believe me, it’s a remake, and a particularly dire one at that. As the IMDB page you link says, Bedtime Story was *Remade in 1988 as “Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.”
*
A couple of Steve Martin’s remakes were awful, but Little Shop of Horrors (in which he had a relatively small role), Roxanne, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels and Pennies from Heaven were wonderful. If he could make more of those and less dreck like Cheaper By The Dozen (not really a remake as the only thing it seemed to have in common witht he original was the number of kids involved), he would be revered, at least by me.
I am morally certain (i.e., I believe without a scintilla of verifiable evidence) that Steve Martin does the crap movies only so he can have the money & clout to do the stuff he actually can be proud of.
The real problems weren’t with the acting; they were with the brain-dead script. Nice happy ending, until ninety-nine percent of humanity starves now that every technology more complex than a Veg-o-Matic has been disabled… :rolleyes:
Agreed. There aren’t too many Saturday morning shows which detail a universe which is finite and bounded in both time *and *space. The upcoming Will Ferrel version is just going to piss me off, because a completely serious remake of the original series would freakin’ rock, and now it’ll never be made.
I did have an issue with a now-ex friend of mine over that movie. She smiled at the sight of the aliens obliterating all tech and said it would be nice if that could actually happen, in all seriousness. I then pointed out all the different ways people were going to die as a result–everyone on life support died right away, people with pace-makers died later that day, diabetics later that month–but, being touched, she refused to see it.
Under Skald’s perfectly reasonably definition of moral certitude, I am morally certain that the 2003 version of the In-Laws pails before the 1979 original, in that the 2003 version should be put into the nearest garbage pail.
Since I dearly loved the original The Ladykillers and I dearly love Coen Brothers movies, I was sure that the CBs’ remake was a match made in heaven.
I was oh, so wrong. It just plain old didn’t work. And Tom Hanks was the worst thing about it. The best thing about it was the Vietnamese ex-general and how he defended his doughnut shop.
Whenever the original is shown, I have to watch it so that I continue to eradicate the memory of the second one.
It’s not a remake, and if they shell out the dough for good writers it could be reasonable. Unfortunately, I don’t think they have a chance in hell of touching Bill Murray, and without him, it will be an extreme disappointment. Just imagine trying to get the gang back together after years of being in other stuff. Egon is off at some university doing professor stuff, Venkeman is doing a Billy Mays deal, Raymond Stantz is milking his career as a fortune teller, and Winstons an ex fire dept hero working as a desk jockey. There is all sorts of stuff you could do with that.
Without Bill Murray though, the best they can hope for is mediocre. They also need real writers. It would be tough, but not undoable.
Unfortunately, as with the Pink Panther, hope is not high.
