Please don't do that! Sequels and Remakes you did not see coming... (1 Viewer)

[cinemiracle]

When it comes to remakes -the greatest sin of all time was in the TV remake of the short lived and much despised CASABLANCA. Truly an abomination. Even the musical version of GONE WITH THE WIND was better.

 

[TravisR]

I've not seen the trailer for the new film, but you've essentially described almost *all* of the newer rebooted film series. One of the reasons I dislike the new Star Trek is they are nothing but rather generic action films with familiar character names dropped in so people think they're related to the original films/TV series.

I can't argue with that and I've liked all the new Star Trek movies.

 

[Bryan^H]

A remake of 'Overboard'(1987) is in the works.

No. Please, stop now.

I love Overboard. I grew up with it, and I honestly think that it just gets better every time I see it (something like 30). Some movies deserve to be left alone.

 

[Oliver Ravencrest]

The Blob (1988) is one of the better remakes. There aren't many remakes that I like but some do surpass the originals. There are some movies that I had never realized were remakes (Ben Hur, Wizard of Oz). I'm more okay with a remake if it does something different with the movie rather than a beat for beat copy. I know some are more of a new adaption a book or story (The Thing) but I still count them as remakes.

I don't mid sequels, as long as the movies are good and I love the characters, but the longer as series goes on, the worse the movies get. There are some movie series and characters that I haven't tired of, like Superheroes. They've been appearing in one medium or another since the 1930s and the are highly adaptable to different eras. I just don't want to see their origin stories re-told multiple times in a short period (Spider-man).

What I don't want to see are sequels with the original characters and actors made 20 years or so after the last movie i the series. I don't want to see the character get old. Crystal Skull and The Force Awakens are my main reasons behind this but the exception I make is with the Star Trek movies with the original cast. I don't need to see any more Pirates of the Caribbean and Tarzan movies.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Let us not forget the remake of PSYCHO. Truly the most idiotic and brain-dead lunacy in re-making one of the all time classical films.

I honestly don't think Van Sant's "Psycho" is a bad film, but it's arguably the most pointless remake of them all...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

There are some movies that I had never realized were remakes (Ben Hur, Wizard of Oz).

That was a point I alluded to earlier. People like to crap on remakes is being bad bad bad, but that doesn't acknowledge how many genuine classics were remakes...

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

That was a point I alluded to earlier. People like to crap on remakes is being bad bad bad, but that doesn't acknowledge how many genuine classics were remakes...

Well, I acknowledge that there have always been remakes but my point with this thread is they were never the primary focus of the motion picture industry...now they are. I mean when they start searching around for what property they want to finance they have a list of previous properties that they go to first. If you want to pitch something off their radar (something that had not been done before or new) well, the chances of your film getting made plummet.

I believe one of the reasons that Warner Archive released Doc Savage is that it is on the remake list with Chris Hemsworth potentially attached as Doc. Not sure how far along they have got with that but it has been mentioned and is lurking out there.

Interestingly I just watched a prequel to what is pretty much universally acknowledged as a bad film, Ouija, called Quija: Origin of Evil. Now, I have not seen the first film but on a 5 million dollar budget the film made over 100 million worldwide. This pretty much means instant sequel even though the teenage audiences worldwide that flocked to it thought it was a lousy film.

Interestingly they hired a much better director and writer to make the second film, and a better cast, and let the director make the film he wanted to make. So, he turned in a period (1960s set) prequel that also uses a bit of the Tarantino Grindhouse idea of adding cigarette burns in the upper corner of the screen for reel changes and a few sudden cuts as if some frames are missing to the pot. This makes this film even a bit more fun. Mike Flanagan co-wrote and directed Ouija: Origin of Evil and it is actually one of the better horror films of recent vintage. It is actually a better film than the second Conjuring film as an example...which is also a period set film. Here is a case of the second film not actually being just a cash grab repeat and Flanagan actually turns his film into a stand alone production that has nothing to do with the first film other than the Ouija board being present.

Sadly, so far, I think a lot of people have skipped Flanagan's film because the first film was so lousy. That's a mistake because he actually made a very good horror film that is well worth seeing if you enjoy the genre and has nothing to do with the crappy teenage jump scare film that kicked this "franchise" off.

Not sure how many cases like this exist where the first film is utterly horrible and then the second film is actually very good. Or a case where a much better director agrees to make a sequel to a really bad film.

I should probably point out that Ouija: Origin of Evil made over 80 million on a 9 million dollar budget so we can be pretty certain we'll see another Ouija film. Probably not one as good as Flanagan's film but with that kind of return on investment they will keep making them.

 

[TravisR]

Interestingly I just watched a prequel to what is pretty much universally acknowledged as a bad film, Ouija, called Quija: Origin of Evil. Now, I have not seen the first film but on a 5 million dollar budget the film made over 100 million worldwide.

Having seen the first one, I can say that you want to keep it that way.

 

[TJPC]

In the days of old Hollywood, a movie would come out and then after its run be put into the vaults to rarely be seen again. It made sense to do a remake, since no one remembered the original in detail. Compare the 1937 A Star Is Born with the 1954 re-make. There are sequences that are word for word identical (Norman at the sanitarium). Today with home video we have all these movies at our finger tips. I'd say a remake never has to be made since we have the original readily available to us. You can argue for sequels since depending on the movie we sometimes would like to see what happened to the characters if only to remark how old the actors look now!

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Yes, one of my favorite "old school" remake examples is Howard Hawks with Rio Bravo in 1959 and then El Dorado in 1967. I'm certain he did that because the first film worked and likely had been put on a shelf since it was released and so he made the film again in 1967. In this case I actually like the second film more in part because I like James Caan a lot more than Ricky Nelson and Robert Mitchum gets a slight edge over Dean Martin...who is actually excellent in Rio Bravo. I do think though with a second shot at telling the story Hawks improves it in his 1967 version. I know not everybody agrees with that but hey, we do have two versions.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Oh and hey, that Hitchcock guy did remake himself on occasion like The Man Who Knew Too Much 1934 and 1956. Took his time getting that done though I think.

 

[Randy Korstick]

Yup, there are 3 post-1980 remakes that easily top the original films. I find none of the 3 originals to be better than competent, and the Rat Pack "O11" is mostly pretty terrible.

A few more:

"The Fly" (1986)
"War of the Worlds" (2005)
"Dawn of the Dead" (2004)

Couldn't disagree more on 5 of the 6. Carpenter's the thing is both different and equal to the original so that is the one exception. The other 5 are far inferior to the originals. The latest version of the thing is not in the same league as the original or 1982 version.

 

[TJPC]

I am no fan of the original Oceans 11 and 12, but I found the sequels unwatchable. My wife and I applied our "20 minute rule" to the "Oceans 12" remake. With so much media, if a movie doesn't grab us in the first 20 minutes we eject it and go to something else.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

The Blob (1988) is one of the better remakes. There aren't many remakes that I like but some do surpass the originals.

The Blob is of course getting another remake. That's on the way...

 

[Angelo Colombus]

The Blob is of course getting another remake. That's on the way...

Maybe we can save time and money and release "Batman v Superman v The Blob"....

 

[skylark68]

Clash of the Titans was a bad one. I never even saw "Wrath". The original wasn't the best movie, but Harryhausen's creatures were vastly superior to the same old CGI and the ultimate sin, fast cutting. So many of these modern films are meant for those with very limited attention spans.

 

[BobO'Link]

I looked up what possible remakes are coming. I just have to say "What are they thinking?" on some of them. OK... on most of them. Here are a few:

Ace Ventura (without Carey)
Alien Nation (did this even do that well the first time?)
An American Werewolf in London (how about remaking "...in Paris" and make it worth watching?)
Big Trouble in Little China
Escape from New York
The Black Hole - OK... I can get behind this one if they leave out the script stupidity and kid-friendly robots of the original.
Blade
Car Wash (Really?!? Car Wash?!?! It was stupid fun, but a remake?)
Clue
Das Boot (OK... this needs to stop now!)
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels - and the "original" was a remake.
Dune - Another I can get behind if it's done "right."
Dungeons and Dragons - Another head-scratcher.
Every Which Way but Loose
Fantastic Voyage - Might be OK but James Cameron is involved making it less attractive.
Flash Gordon - Another which needs to be done "right"
The Green Hornet - Do it right and we'll talk but leave Seth Rogen out of it please
The Invisible Man - with Johnny Depp - ummm....
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen - OK... another I can get behind if it's done right
Logan's Run - supposedly in a "Hunger Games" style franchise (isn't that what the short-lived TV show did already?)
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence - No... just no.
The Ten Commandments - again (no not Exodus: Gods and Generals but another one)

And many more. It's truly gotten out of hand...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I am no fan of the original Oceans 11 and 12, but I found the sequels unwatchable. My wife and I applied our "20 minute rule" to the "Oceans 12" remake. With so much media, if a movie doesn't grab us in the first 20 minutes we eject it and go to something else.

There's no "original 'Ocean's 12'". There was no sequel to the 1960 film.

When I first saw "O12", I hated it, but I liked it a lot more on second viewing. It's very different than the 2011 "O11" and I couldn't appreciate it on its own merits until I stopped comparing it to its predecessor.

"O13" is a lot more like "O11" and fun in its own right,

All 3 Soderberghs are substantially better than the 1960 film. That one has star power and a good finale but is a pretty terrible movie otherwise...

 

[Malcolm R]

The Gremlins reboot vs. Gremlins 3. Discussion over the years has wavered about whether to do a reboot of the original or a regular sequel. I think the needle currently rests on "sequel", which I'd prefer if it ever gets made.

I just hope it's a good film. I'm apparently one of the few who did not like Gremlins 2 at all.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I know Dwayne Johnson, the Rock, is slated to fill Kurt Russell's shoes in one or both of the Carpenter remakes and that basically all John Carpenter films are at some point up for remakes.

I've met Dwayne Johnson and thought he was a very nice guy but I have no interest in seeing him in remade John Carpenter films. Thanks anyway.