Are remakes like King Kong necessary? (1 Viewer)

[Joe Karlosi]

Good idea, Robert. I'm sorry, but I just saw this plea after I posted the last few comments. But I've pretty much said all I care to on the subject anyway.

 

[JayHM]

Thank goodness!

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Do you have anything more substantial to add to the topic?

 

[Robert Crawford]

Now, that this topic has its own thread, let's continue this discussion in a mature manner. Thanks.






Crawdaddy

 

[Holadem]

Sorry but I find this remark hypocritic at best, from someone who constantly laments contemporary attitudes towards B&W films.

--
H

 

[george kaplan]

Hollywood as ALWAYS made lots of bad remakes, and ALWAYS been capable of making great remakes. The fact that a small percentage of remakes are great is no excuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater and condemn all remakes, especially before they've even been seen.

 

[JonZ]

I dont know, Im not very excited about Jacksons King Kong.

 

[Michael Martin]

Are remakes necessary? No. Should they be attempted? Sure.

I have no idea how good or bad PJ's King Kong will be. I am extremely hopeful, but also have concerns (I love the LotR films, but still don't like Gimli being transformed into comic relief). I have every confidence that Kong himself will be the best Kong ever presented on screen; if Jackson has proven a couple of things about himself, it's that he can direct F/X and infuse them with emotion and character. I think BOTH versions of King Kong have their share of strengths and weaknesses, and have no problem with PJ attempting his telling of the tale.

 

[Steve Christou]

The only downside to Peter Jackson's King Kong, is that apart from the expected state of the art visuals, we pretty much know all the major plot points. And unless Jackson does a War of the Worlds on us and makes this a 'reimagining' of the 1933 classic, there'll be precious few surprises in it. I'm still really looking forward to it though.

One remake I would like to see done right one day is Richard Matheson's I am Legend, one of my favorite novels which has twice been filmed before as Last Man on Earth with Vincent Price and The Omega Man with Charlton Heston. As much as I like Omega Man it isn't a faithful rendition of the novel, mutants instead of vampires.

Are remakes necessary? Well if the original is creaky, dated, unfaithful to the original source material or avoided whenever it turns up on the telly, why not?

 

[Michael Martin]

From what I have read, Jackson is staying faithful to the main plot points of the original movie. Not a shot for shot or even exact scene-for-scene, but it's not a "reimagining" (at least Universal isn't calling it that atrocious term).

Another remake is hitting the screens this May: The Longest Yard. This, to me, is a great example of a remake gone horribly wrong. The original was an R-rated, lean, tough comedy with grit and bite. The remake looks to be a formulaic, watered-down film. I have no problem with someone remaking the movie; the premise is rich enough for both dramatic and comedic material I can easily see it being told different ways with different characters. But the trailers and advance buzz for this one are painting it as Hollywood taking an easy route to BO profits rather than developing something original or at least with originality.

 

[george kaplan]

Well after your initial viewing of the 1933 King Kong, any time you watch it again, you know all of the plot points (major or minor), and there are zero surprises in it. If those are necessary ingredients, then it argues not against remakes, but against ever rewatching a film a second time, since every remake will certainly have more differences than rewatching the same film again.

 

[Steve Christou]

George, I wasn't trying to make that point against remakes, I was simply saying that I and many others are looking forward to Peter Jackson's remake but the downside is we already know the basic plotline. No real surprises apart from whizz bang visuals, a deafening soundtrack and Kong accidently swallowing Naomi Watts in the shocking climax.

But you've hit upon the one big handicap of all remakes, familiarity "Hey wait a second this all seems strangely familiar, replace their guns with swords and it's that Japanese film we saw a year ago remember? Samurai something."

 

[Michael Elliott]

It's funny but I've been going through Kino's THE MOVIES BEGIN and EDISON collections, which are mainly films from 1890-1915. It was funny seeing a movie released on 12/1/85 and then the "remake" was released 12/22/85.

Remakes have always been around and they will continue to be. No one minds remakes when they enjoy the film and the only reason this is causing trouble now is because certain members are now seeing their favorite films remade. People don't mind BEN HUR (Heston) version because they've never seen the original. People are upset that KONG is being remade because they've actually seen the previous versions. If you are against remakes, that's fine. However, I think it's a bit hypocritical to say "this" remake is okay but "this" one is bad. That "one" is bad because you enjoy a previous version. That other "one" is okay because you haven't seen the original.

As someone else stated, the only thing that's changed since 1895 is technology. Rent/buy some of those early films and you'll see the same things getting repeated throughout the 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, 40s, 50s and even 2005. What's different? Just technology. The original KONG was B&W so they upgraded to color and better effects. The new KONG now has CGI so there's the "upgrade". I'm sure our great grandkids will be seeing another remake. There was nothing wrong with the original BEN HUR except it was silent and B&W. Did they change the story? Nope. Technology just got better so they added sound and color.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I don't know Steve, I sort of think this can often be a postive aspect too. Sometimes its the joy of seeing a classic story told again in some new way. Snow White comes to mind, or people that loved the LOTR films, or any serious hit film from a hit book...like GWTW, Mockingbird, Grapes/Wrath. And we all new the Titanic was still going to sink.

Sometimes knowing the basic story is exactly what brings us to the theater. We know its a story we like which is sometimes better than risking seeing a lame one we've never seen before.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

If we want to get technical, I'd say the only things really "necessary" are food, water, and shelter.

 

[george kaplan]

Well for some people, it's only through being part of the making of remakes that they can earn money in order to buy food, water and shelter.

 

[David_N]

Same goes for Titanic. Every director puts in their own twists, dialog, etc. As others have said, remakes usually give some much needed attention of the original.

 

[JackKay]

Guys, don't worry, this December just grab a bag of popcorn and watch the damn movie.