And of course, both are adaptions of a Japanese film, Akira Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai.
Wolfgang Peterson’s re-make of, “Poseidon Adventure,” (without the adventure) was a turd. I did learn, though, that cruise ships have giant electric fans to steer with.
Don’t dis remakes. I’m looking forward to getting all cranky about the new version of The Matrix in a decade or two!
Of course, if the thread title is a serious question looking for a serious answer, this is it.
I agree. Or at least, remake flawed movies, that could have been great but weren’t done right the first time.
And that’s the other serious answer. Some people avoid old movies, especially if they’re black and white, or otherwise not state-of-the art. And new movies (even if they’re remakes) get attention and hype and interest.
In my mind, at least, a remake of an old movie is different from an adaptation of an old movie is different from a new movie based on the same source material as an older movie, both of which are a lot easier to defend.
Why worry about it? Well, for one thing, making a feature film takes an enormous amount of time and effort and money, and it seems like such a waste spending all that time and effort and money just to make something that already exists, instead of giving the world something it didn’t already have.
For another thing, fans of the old version often have a definite idea in mind, based on that old version, of the way things are supposed to be, and it bothers them when the new version gets them “wrong.”
And it bothers them that people will see the new version and think they know the story, characters, etc. based on that, when the original gives a different depiction.
I genuinely wonder: does the release of a remake of a classic movie make it more likely, or less likely, that people will go back and watch the original version?
You could make the same argument for not making yet another superhero movie, franchise movie or adaption of a popular state musical or book. For example, basically every James Bond movie is exactly the same.
But these big-budget tentpole movies can make enough for the studio to support original movies. Some of the original films will be critical or commercial successes, while many will not. And some might even spawn yet another franchise.
You can say that again!
Examples of each, please?
Totally agree here. I’m still amazed at how the interior of the spacecraft is timelessly futuristic, even by today’s standards.
I think the remake of Ocean’s Eleven was pretty good. The versions of The Wizard of Oz and Ben-Hur that you’re familiar with were both remakes, or at least not the first adaptation of the source material.
The very best remake was Ben Hur. The 1925 silent film is absolutely outstanding, but the 1959 color talking movie is a masterpiece. The 1961 remake of King of Kings shares only the title and the same basic subject matter as the 1927 Cecil B Demille masterpiece, but it is still a worth remake although not nearly as good as the silent version.
Not everyone agrees with me, but I like the black and white version of The Man Who Knew Too much over the way too long and bloated color version.
I love the movie Highlander, but watching it I’m struck by how dated it is. The music and the effects are very much a product of their time. I would totally go to see a well made remake. It’s not unwatchable to me, because of my emotional attachment to the movie. But, my kids can’t sit through it, and I understand why.
(Yes, I know, there can be only one!)
Most movies I have no problem with if they are remade basically because they were crap in the first place. Good movies should only be remade by great directors. Great movies should never be remade. Who the hell wants to see a remake of The Godfather or Rear Window or Psycho or The Shawshank Redemption or Les Enfants du Paradis or La Grande Illusion? I guess you could answer people who have never seen the originals and sometimes don’t even know about them. But why should they make do with third-rate imitations?
Once in a blue moon a remake is better than the original. For example The Maltese Falcon of 1931 was a good film in its own right but John Ford’s 1941 remake turned it into a masterpiece. So it can happen but very very rarely. But Hollywood can churn out remakes of bad or mediocre movies as much as they like for all I care. I won’t be seeing them anyway.
Here’s a list of remakes that are, according to the writer, better than the original. The list includes The Departed, True Lies, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels and Scarface.
Good points. Thx.
I remember hearing Gene Siskel say that on his old TV show with Roger Ebert. I don’t know if it was original to him, but it was the first place I heard it.
And I agree that the answer to the OP is that most kids won’t waste time on old movies, but they’ll pony up big ticket bucks to see today’s stars in a remake. *That *is the marketplace driving Hollywood decisions. The rest of us are just tails trying to wag the dog.
I love the remake of Ocean’s 11. I don’t know the original very well; I think I’ve only seen it once, and it was after seeing the remake. They both work for the same reason, a bunch of good actors who are great together.
When I was a kid, my mother loved old movies. I couldn’t see the attraction. I thought I hated old movies; it turns out I like them, I just don’t like the same ones my mom did.
That would be John Huston, not John Ford.
Adding to the list of “disastrous movie remakes,” the 1992 version of Night and the City seems to have been made by someone who did not understand the original.
There are lots of other remakes that proved “disastrous,” but in looking at online lists, I notice that I seem to have successfully avoided watching them.
Superior remakes are not as rare as some people believe. Among others not yet mentioned in this thread:
Bonnie and Clyde (1967)
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)
Fistful of Dollars (1964)
The Good Thief (2002)
Moby Dick (1956)
Mogambo (1953)
One Million Years B.C. (1966)
Sleeping Car to Trieste (1948)
Thief of Baghdad (1940)
Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea (1954)
The Unholy Three (1930)
My personal preference is for movies to be remade: I always like to see how movies can be improved by advances in technology. And, if it’s the kind of movie that couldn’t be improved by technological advances, there’s about a 99 percent chance that I wouldn’t have been interested in watching it, in the first place.
So what? Let 'em be bothered. If Paramount decides to remake, say… I dunno, Breakfast at Tiffany’s, and you’re someone who believes that it should never be remade, you probably aren’t who they are trying to get in the theaters, anyway.
Answering for myself, I can say that it does not.
Don’t just put it on the kids: I’m in my forties, and I won’t watch old movies, either.
Geez, the answer is simple. You cant make much money on replaying The Magnificent Seven.
You can make $162,360,636.00 on the remake.
And the remake is hardly shot for shot. You can love the 1960 version* and still enjoy the 2016 version.
- or even the 1954 Japanese original, which is a classic of classics.
Dropo- the Bonnie and Clyde (1967) version was horrible.
Michael Winner wanted to answer the great dangling mystery, who killed Owen Taylor? Turns out nobody cares.