I’m reminded of Roger Ebert’s comment about remakes, which I will paraphrase since I can’t remember his exact words:
“They shouldn’t remake those old good movies. Instead, they should remake bad movies, and this time make them good.”
This is the biggest reason I find a remake makes sense. Two other related examples come to mind as well. First, when the ‘original’ is an adaptation of an existing work (novel normally) but only lifted the name and one or two other elements of said work, it’s fully justified to do a remake that actually adheres to the source.
A second is when the first version of a story is a made-for-tv version, where despite all good intents, it’s crippled by budget or other issues. Not that such things can’t be great, but sometimes you want to see those versions redone with a full budget.
My favorite example of these issues was prior to the release of the new Dune movie. I have a sneaking fondness for the 1984 version of Dune (lush costuming, great actors) but admit it’s a batshit crazy adaptation. I found the Scyfy mini-series of Dune to be a much better adaptation of the source than the prior movie, but would have LOVED to see THAT treatment with the 1984 version’s budget (adjusted for inflation of course).
Suffice to say I was quite happy with our newest iteration and look forward to the sequel.
My favorite excuse is when a remake claims that It’s going to be “more faithful to the source material” to justify it’s existence, but then the remake still includes numerous scenes not in the original source but were in the original adaptation.
This happens all the time but I can’t remember a specific example of the top of my head.
Same as any how any other movie gets made, when you convince the people with money that they can make more money.
Ever read Remake by Connie Willis? Set in a future where films could be edited and updated with digital “actors”. It is supposed to be a dystopia, but I’ve very much wanted that future ever since I read about it. I want to be able to wonder, for example, what the original True Grit would be like cast with Jene Reno and Natalie Portman circa Leon, click a few buttons in an app, and create it. That we are currently rapidly barreling towards that future as we speak is honkey dorey with me.
I have much more relaxed standards for Light, Mindless Comedies. I just now checked the trailers for these, and they look like fun, but with NO chance of soiling the reputation of (or even making me think about!) the originals.
But wouldn’t that be “remakes which are not remakes” as per the OP?
I’m thinking Highlander is a perfect candidate for a remake. The original is a fun movie in that it has a great premise, the plot is interesting, and there’s some good old fashioned cheesy fun to be had in the performances of Sean Connery and Clancy Brown, but if you go back and watch it, well, some parts aren’t very good at all. Oh, I shouldn’t forget the killer soundtrack.
Agreed, though I would say “flawed” rather than bad.
I mean Dune is a good example I wouldn’t say Lynch version is a “bad movie” per se. It has its moments but also its fair share of cheezy 80s-ness (combined with David Lynch WTF-ness). The Villeneuve movie is a massive improvement.
I’d agree Highlander is due a reboot (though having re-watched recently, I reclassified that from “good but cheezy 80s action movie” to flat out “bad”)
Starship Troopers is also due reboot IMO. Yeah we all get the Verhoven version is a parody of the facist-y themes in the Heinlein book (which it’s only half based on), but that doesn’t mean it needs to be an episode of Beverly Hills 90210.
One more I’d add is the early Peter Jackson movie Bad Taste. Again not a bad movie, but its an action scifi movie made on a budget of about $2.50, there is only so much even Peter Jackson can do with that budget in that genre. I’d like to see what he can do with $250 million budget. He can’t touch Dead/Alive though its the low budget affects that make that.
Also I’m personally pissed they rebooted Total Recall (badly) but not the much more flawed (and less Arnie-friendly) Running Man.
Actually Jumanji is a perfect example of how to do an updated remake properly. The shift in gaming from primarily board games to primarily video games gives you an opportunity to do something fundamentally new, while still being faithful to the spirit of the original. Our ideas of what a game can do are very different now than what they were 30 years ago.
Also has no one mentioned Prey? That is pretty much the gold standard of a reboot (though technically a prequel, I’m not sure if the two things are mutually exclusive?)
Its does everything right IMO. It takes the essence of the original Predator. and the things that make it cool (the awesome Predator fight scenes) and do those better than the original, while at the same time completely re-imagining the plot (and doing away with all the crappy 80s posturing and “acting” by Arnie and his buddies).
If every reboot was that good I would have no problem in rebooting all the classics (the only problem I had with Prey is my increasing frustration that the Star Wars reboots could have been this awesome but weren’t 
)
That would apply to quite a few versions of Bram Stoker’s novel Dracula.
The Jumanjii are sequels, though, not remakes of the original.
I found the Jumanji sequels to be absolutely delightful.
I’m still a little bitter about the Disney version of Beauty and the Beast. The conflict of the original fairy tale, which was rather nakedly about making a girl who had to marry a disgusting rich man for his money feel better about it, is firmly centered on the girl sacrificing herself for the good of her family. Once she’s given a reprieve from that sacrifice, she makes the free choice to return to the Beast, and that act of love is what transforms him.
Disney, on the other hand, could absolutely not resist fitting the tale into their standard template, which requires a dastardly exterior villain. Therefore, the boorish but funny Gaston turned abruptly into a mustache-twirling evil character midway through the movie. I’d love to see it remade with the dramatic focus firmly recentered on Belle’s internal conflict. No villagers with torches, no exterior villain threatening her family. If we want to keep Gaston (and why not? He’s funny), he can be a minor character with all the same songs.
If anyone has an in with Disney, I could write up some notes.
This. In the book the theme was one should not have a vote unless one had served the country – not necessarily military. Rico’s father was not a fully-fledged citizen abd was fine with that.
Also, what’s a Cap Trooper withouy his Cap?
I wouldn’t mind seeing Breakfast at Tiffany’s that was actually closer to the novella.
I just mentioned in the Movies thread that I’d watched the Frederic March/Janet Gaynor version of A Star is Born today. It was one version of many. I see no reason for all the remakes, but I can see the two lead roles as catnip for a certain type of actor.
My older sister watched this before me, and she’d rented it. I was there the next day for a family dinner, so she watched it again with me and was watching for my reaction. I had to find it on HBO and make my younger sister (who’d missed the dinner) watch it with me so I could watch her reaction. I love that movie.
Is that a racist rowboat?
First a question to the OP, because I feel I’m missing something. You say that a new movie from the same source material isn’t a remake as such. And then you write about two unnecessary movies which you list as being made from earlier source material.
All three QFT
The OP said they wanted subjective opinions and someone upthread mentioned Forbidden Planet. Which of course is Tempest.
So, for anyone thinking hat some stuff should never be touched - do you also think that we should stop setting up Hamlet or Macbeth? Because the definitive version was staged and filmed in [some year]?
I say that if an IP is available legally, go right ahead. The new movie or song or book might suck hairy, syphilitic goat balls and I’m free to avoid it. But the remake might also blow the original out of the water, and if we put restraints on creators, we’ll never find out. An animated Jaws with Baby Shark might very well be awesome. The first animated Spider-Man movie might seem pointless on paper but the result is vastly superior to any of the live action outings.
Are you referring to my descriptions of “The Beguiled” and “Papillon”? Because while both were originally drawn from books, in the case of the latter, I’m pretty sure it was meant as a remake of the earlier Steve film, and in the case of the former, even if Coppola went back to the original source material, it’s still a re-interpretation of the story where I think the first film was probably closer to the book (haven’t read it, but get that impression), which book was a source for Coppola so a comparison between the two films can be made with light to what changes were made to the original material.