Remakin' me crazy- Page 2

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 10/19/12 at 11:38am

I love CRUEL INTENTIONS.

And the SMG version of THE GRUDGE was atrocious.

[romantico]

Posted: 10/19/12 at 11:39am

I prefer Mars Attacks over Independence Day.

I also am in the minority who prefers Fail Safe over Dr.Strangelove.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 10/19/12 at 11:39am

"My least favorite remake is Rear Window, which I think exploited the fact that Christopher was already wheelchair-bound."

With Reeve's active participation, of course: he was one of the executive producers. A sad film in many ways.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 10/19/12 at 11:49am

I think the big problem is that a lot of the newer versions of these films don't really have much to add to the originals. I can't see YOU'VE GOT MAIL as having anything to add to the original SHOP AROUND THE CORNER -- Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan can't hope to add depths that weren't explored by James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan.

On the other hand, Huston's film of THE MALTESE FALCON does what neither of the preceding films had done -- played the story as a straight up dramatic detective thriller with high stakes. The version immediately before it, SATAN MET A LADY, plays the story for particularly lame romantic comedy. The other version with Cortez, now known as DANGEROUS FEMALE, is a real botch: a pre-Code catastrophe where Ricardo Cortez's Sam Spade is so busy chasing dames that you never for a minute believe he's got what it takes to sort out the strands of plot -- his brain is clearly not his favorite organ.

Huston's THE MALTESE FALCON ups the ante considerably, playing the story for the dark proto-noir that it is.

Likewise Hitchcock's remake of MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, which pays a lot more attention to the issues in the main characters' clearly trouble marriage than the earlier film, and is a far richer film for it. The horrifying moment when Stewart extorts Day into taking sleeping pills before telling her their son has been kidnapped would have been unthinkable in the earlier version.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 10/19/12 at 11:52am

I'm fine with remakes, as long as they do something to justify the remake. One of my all-time favorite made-for-television films is 1989's WOMAN IN BLACK. I was thrilled to see that they made a theatrical version, and while it is almost a completely different story (although the basic elements remain the same), I really like the theatrical film. Not quite as much as the original, but there was so much different about it, and done so well, the theatrical film barely justifies comparison, which is a good thing.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 10/19/12 at 11:52am

I came across Rear Window on one of the satellite stations not long ago. At first I thought it was the original, then I saw this modern setting and thought the timing most be off on the menu, and waited a while. Then I saw Reeve in the wheelchair and got a little depressed.

Romantico, I am curious what you think about foreign language remakes. A lot of old ones that are my favorite involve Westerns and Samurai movies taking off from the other like The Magnificent Seven and A Fistful of Dollars. Not just a language change but a cultural change, no different from Kurosawa adapting Shakespeare to Japanese culture. But what about the more modern ones. Like the Tony Leung starred Infernal Affairs trilogy gets cobbled into one Scorsese film, The Departed (I much prefer the former)? Do you think it is a little lazy for Hollywood to cash-in on the fact moviegoers have a tendency to hate subtitles or do you think there is something a little different with giving a lesser known film in America a more widespread audience?



Updated On: 10/19/12 at 11:52 AM

[Marianne2]

Posted: 10/19/12 at 11:57am

If the remake is good, I don't mind. But, some are really pointless. Like even though it was not exactly the same, I did enjoy Cheaper by the Dozen. On the other end, the remake of Yours, Mine, and Ours was terrible. I liked the idea in the original how all the kids were the parent's biological kids. The remake had some adopted and it just was not funny.

[blueroses]

Posted: 10/19/12 at 12:11pm

I loved The Departed, Little Women and The Talented Mr. Ripley.

I guess adaptations from television don't count, but I LOVE both Brady Bunch movies (the second even more than the first!). If we can use adaptations from theatre to television, there's Angels in America.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 10/19/12 at 12:45pm

I was just wondering if we were allowed to include television-to-movie remakes...the list would certainly grow longer. The Brady Bunch Movie would probably be my favorite in this large category. I also like Bernadette's Pennies From Heaven.

I'm not sure which sub-category the dreadful Bewitched falls under - probably best to just pretend that never happened.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/19/12 at 1:07pm

Baby, you can include whatever you want!

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 10/19/12 at 1:58pm

Thank you, kind sir.

If I'm to continue to take this so pedantically, I would have serious reservations about including the likes of Pride and Prejudice, Litte Women etc., seeing as how these are based on novels and would probably exist in any case, whether the previous movie had been made or not.

Finally, the Sharon Stone remake of Diabolique was diabolical.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 10/19/12 at 2:01pm

The Wizard of Oz was a remake. I would suggest that it is an example of a remake being better (? Perhaps different) then it's predecessor

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 10/19/12 at 3:23pm

"Not remakes, but does it bug anyone else when they try to colorize black and white movies?"

I seriously doubt (hope?) that anyone here prefers colourized films. It seems to be a fad that has passed, anyway. Back when Ted Turner was obsessed with doing it, one of the worst things he did was colourizing old black and white cartoons--these were not done with technology--they actually sent the original film over to Asia and had the art re-traced from the original frames and coloured (which I would have thought would be greatly expensive). There are hysterical examples in books about the Flesicher Popeye cartoons, to use one example, where they would cheaply only trace every four frames or so, making the animation much more limited, and do simpler versions of the backgrounds.

That's where the iedea of remakes gets hazy--I'm not sure the Wizard of Oz could be counted as a remake--the earlier silent version (which wasn't one of hte Oz films Baum did himself) bears so litle resemblance to the novel--although MGM did take the idea from it of making it a dream.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/19/12 at 3:24pm

Remake is no longer the PC term they use in Hollywood. It's now called a 'reboot'

It seems like when people were first using "reboot" for movies, it was about restarting a franchise (like the Hulk, Spider Man, Batman, etc) which made sense to me, but I do find it annoying when a singular remake is referred to as a reboot.

I guess I don't really see remakes as much different than stage revivals. Sure, some are unnecessary, but often they can shine a new light on the material or give an actor a chance to stake a claim on a role that others have tackled before.

Great posts, everyone. I love reading everyone's thoughts on the subject.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 10/19/12 at 3:28pm

"I loved The Departed, Little Women and The Talented Mr. Ripley.

I guess adaptations from television don't count, but I LOVE both Brady Bunch movies (the second even more than the first!). If we can use adaptations from theatre to television, there's Angels in America."

I think adaptations from plays falls more into the category of adaptations from books, myself.

I have a hard time thinking of Ripley as a remake. Yes, both it and Plein Soleil (sigh Alain Delon and all those crotch shots) are based on the first book int he series. But both are so completely different in their approach (with Ripley adding so much original material that, while I love the film, Patricia Highsmith would have hated--including Ripley showing emotion), that I wouldn't be even shocked if most involved in Ripley had even seen the earlier movie.

[Marianne2]

Posted: 10/19/12 at 3:49pm

I'll admit, I will watch either version, but I do think March of the Wooden Soldiers with Laurel & Hardy was okay in color. I guess it's the toyland aspect that makes it a little more magical for me. But, I don't care if I see it in black and white.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 10/19/12 at 4:36pm

My issue with colorization--well besides the fact that often, post 1940 anyway, films were intentionally in B&W--is that it always looks so fake to me. Maybe if done now, with computers, etc, it would look better. As it is, it kinda looks like those early colour films back when they used two strip technicolor and similar processes before technicolor introduced the three strip process around 1933 (Reginald posted that ComiColor Sleepy Hollow from Ub Iwerks brief time at Columbia, I believem which gives a good example--Walt Disney had snatched up exclusive rights to use three strip colour in animation with his SIlly Symphonies, but the other studios attempted to gain the appeal with their colour process, using the old one which I believe was based on red and blue and any colour those two could match--it always looks kinda weird... Here's an example with the only colour Betty Boop cartoon--who knew she was ment to be a redhead http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIC-jncQbKk ).

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 10/19/12 at 5:51pm

The colorization "fad" hasn't quite passed. The Ray Harryhausen films have all been colorized, and the Blu-ray release of IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE includes a colorized version, as well as the original.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/21/12 at 1:27am

Is the 1936 Show Boat considered a remake? There was that silentish one in the 20s.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 10/21/12 at 1:29am

I think the 1994 LITTLE WOMEN is far and away the best version ever filmed. I really have a hard time believing any future version could add anything to that one.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/21/12 at 1:31am

For me, nothing beats the Japanese cartoon one I used to always rent when I waa a kid.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 10/21/12 at 1:33am

The one where Beth dies and turns into a pink butterfly that's taken up to heaven on a giant flying panda bear wearing a dress and shooting rainbows out of it's mouth?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/21/12 at 1:36am

Something like that. I'm not sure if it was part of the series or what, but it was this one episode dvd that covered the events of about half the first book. Beth recovered and the dad came back and then it ended.

I want them to do "Littlest Women" where they're all under four feet tall and Laurie is played by Peter Dinklage.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 10/21/12 at 1:40am

LOL. I saw what I did there....

And this shiz is crazy!


Japanese Littlest Women Cartoon. Updated On: 10/21/12 at 01:40 AM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/21/12 at 1:42am

Holy funkballs, that takes me back to like second or third grade, when I lived on a dirt road in Georgia. I would rent this ALL the time from the video store.

Watching that was like an acid flashback. I totally remember how the announcer would say "these Little Women!"