What's new

More re-makes in the works (1 Viewer)

David_Blackwell

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 30, 2004
Messages
1,443
Don't forget the filming Invasion of the Body Snatchers remake (starring Nicole Kidman and the guy who is playing the next 007) which has been retitled Invasion (not to be confused with the TV series of the same name).
 

BrettGallman

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 11, 2002
Messages
1,392
Real Name
Brett
If a movie has to be remade, then it should be different, if only to justify the remake. The Psycho remake was pointless, as there is no reason to watch that one over the original. Something like the Dawn of the Dead remake, which I enjoyed, is worth watching because it does some things different. Even if these differences aren't improvements, they are at least somewhat interesting because the director/writer is trying to do something different or new. One of my favorite movies, The Thing, is a remake, but it's a pretty damn loose remake. The basic idea is there, but the execution is completely different from the 50's version.
 

PeterTHX

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Messages
2,034
I heard Stephen Sommers was going to do a remake of "When Worlds Collide". With ILM I expect a lot of eye candy for that one. "Deep Impact" could be called a "serious" remake of that, but it was tonally different, plus you only had the big wave in NYC at the end.

A few films listed are franchises, are you sure they are remakes and not sequels?
 

Nicholas Vargo

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 4, 2001
Messages
419
Location
La Mesa, CA
Real Name
Nicholas Vargo
Here's an idea that I think the studios should take under advisement. Instead of spending tens of millions of dollars to remake movies, try re-releasing the original movies in theatres by only spending about $20 million dollars in marketing and you'll get you're money back. It's an idea that will not only save the studios money, but might also give moviegoers of today a new appreciation for older movies.

It's just an idea that I bet the studios have never thought of.

Now I'll be honest with everybody, I don't mind remakes, but I think the trend has spiraled completely out of control. All of the bad ones seem to make tons of money, while the good ones are left high and dry. There are exceptions like the "Dawn of the Dead" remake, which was not only excellent, but thankfully didn't spoil the original for me when I fianlly saw it a few months back. I love both movies. Another example is "Bad News Bears", which came out last year. It was smart that it followed its original plot line, but it had its own ideas that worked perfectly.

Still, why can't they rerelease the originals instead and give America an appreciation for great movies. It would certainly get the costs down and there wouldn't be all these expensive extravaganzas that are making the studios lose money.
 

Michael Elliott

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
8,054
Location
KY
Real Name
Michael Elliott
Where he comes another point and question.

It seems from the replies to my question that most agree remakes should change and try to do something original. Outside of PSYCHO, can we name any remake that didn't try something new and original? People here are defending KONG saying Jackson took the "basic story" and did something new with it but isn't every remake like that? I really can't think of one that was "scene for scene" like PSYCHO but I could name hundreds that are like KONG in the fact that they take the basic story with new technology and add a few new things. This here has been going on since the 1890s.

My second point. People say Hollywood is unoriginal with all these remakes but how often are they original? Look at the popular horror films of today. They are remakes but it seems we've agreed they often change things around that make them somewhat original. Now, look at the popular horror films of the 80s. What were they? Unoriginal rips of HALLOWEEN or F13. Remakes are unoriginal in the fact that they carry the same title but they are more original than most of our favorites from the 80s.

We can debate pointless remakes and compare them to pointless sequels but I think both are lazy. Which is more lazy? I'd say the sequels are.



In a perfect world the studios would just re-release the "classics" but this isn't going to happen. I agree with what you said but it's a pipe dream for several reasons.

1. The people who complain about remakes are usually people that go and see all the remakes. We can look at the 2005 FILM LIST or the TRACK YOUR FILMS LIST and people are going to see these remakes. We can look at the box office numbers and see these films are doing very well. Why do people continue to go?

2. There are plenty of original films out there but no one is going to see them. So...people call the studios lazy but it's the crowds that are lazy for not seeing better films. I don't blame Hollywood or the studios in any way, shape or form. I blame the fans who continue to go see these films while overlooking gems that are out there.

Going by both "film lists" here, it seems GRIZZLY MAN and MUNICH were two films that everyone loved yet both are doing very poor at the box office while the remakes are making the serious cash. I don't buy the fact that the public are sheep because if they were KONG wouldn't have failed at the box office.

If people are going to blame anyone for this issue I think we need to blame ourselves. As soon as we quit supporting these things the sooner they'll go away. Everyone here are horror fans and remember the end of the 80s slasher cycle? We quit supporting the lazy mess and that was pretty much the end of the genre until SCREAM in 1996. The "teen horror" became the craze until we quit putting on money on them, which has now turned into the remake cycle. As soon as we stop supporting them, Hollywood will stop making them.
 

Joe Karlosi

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
6,008

Michael, what's humorous to me about this is that you tend to be the one who doesn't mind remakes at all. You've said that time and time again, that you have no problem with remakes -- and you are always the one who welcomes them with open arms who sees them. I wound up seeing the mediocre new KONG myself, but when it was first announced and I said I refused to see it on principal, you pretty much said I was ignorant. Whenever I tell you I refuse to see the remakes of TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, you say I'm missing a good film. But that happens to be one of the titles I refuse to see, because the 1974 classic is already so strong and stands on its own (I made the exception for KONG because it was such a big film).

Of course you will find some remakes I've caved in to and have gone to see, but believe me they're way, way, way down in the minority when you consider the lengthy list of remakes that actually exist out there. And there are many re-do's I will refuse to see, period. PSYCHO was one, THE OMEN will be one, and the newest POSEIDON ADVENTURE will be yet another... and there have been countless others I have refused to bother with.
 

Michael Elliott

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
8,054
Location
KY
Real Name
Michael Elliott


Yep. I'm the black sheep here because it seems people piss and moan about all the remakes yet they go see everyone of them and pass up the "original" films. People can view various lists of "Top 10 of the Year" and if they're saying none of them are playing locally then that's one thing but I'm fairly certain in thinking most of us can get to and see these films but select not to.

When the next group of horror films open people can simply stay away from them and watch "original" movies at home with our beautiful DVDs. Most of the "original" films will be on DVD then so there won't be any reason for seeing anything else.
 

Joe Karlosi

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
6,008

That may be fine and dandy for you, but what of the many others who enjoy going out to see something at their theatre? And you can bet the house that I'll stay away from 99% of the horror remakes.
 

Michael Elliott

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
8,054
Location
KY
Real Name
Michael Elliott


The majority of critics/fans "best of the year" titles are showing at theaters playing THE DUKES OF REDNECKS and THE AMITYVILLE HORROR. Several of the films listed (Grizzly Man, Match Point plus others) are only playing in select theaters, which will make it hard for some to see but many others are showing on 2000 screens. You're in NY where this isn't a problem for you since you have the chance to see various classics, every blockbuster and every indie film that gets released.
 

Joe Karlosi

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
6,008

I may be in the state of New York, but I'm not in Manhattan. It's a long ride by train into the city, plus cab fare back and forth. I'll wait to see GRIZZLY MAN on DVD but probably would have gotten to it if it was at my multiplex right down my block.
 

Michael Elliott

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
8,054
Location
KY
Real Name
Michael Elliott
Well, I wasn't meaning you in general but for the most part everyone here does have a chance of seeing MUNICH, WALK THE LINE and various other films at a theater along with THE AMITYVILLE HORROR, DUKES, LONGEST YARD or BEARS.
 

Inspector Hammer!

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 15, 1999
Messages
11,063
Location
Houston, Texas
Real Name
John Williamson
Alright, alright, so King Kong isn't a shot for shot remake, shoot me. :D

But what was in the 33 original is presant in the new one, maybe not shot for shot, but it's there.

Anyway, I just saw the preview for the When a Stranger Calls remake, I have no idea if it's going to be a good film or not but the actress playing the babysitter is no Carol Kane that's for sure...this new girl is hot! :eek:
 

Inspector Hammer!

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 15, 1999
Messages
11,063
Location
Houston, Texas
Real Name
John Williamson
Well, I believe in giving everyone a fair shake, so i'll wait to see the movie to see if she can act or not. But what I do know right now is that she is freakin' gorgeous whoever she is. :b
 

Scott Weinberg

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2000
Messages
7,477
2006 remakes I'm psyched for:

The Hills Have Eyes
Poseidon
The Wicker Man


2006 remakes I'm skeptical of:

Black Christmas
The Pink Panther
Pulse
When a Stranger Calls


Undecided as of yet:

Charlotte's Web
The Omen


2006 remakes I wouldn't see with your money and your eyeballs:

The Shaggy Dog
 

DavidPla

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2004
Messages
2,357


Judging just by the trailer, it looks like her looks ALONE got her the part. I've never seen such horrid acting in just a trailer before. I guess pretending to talk to somebody on the phone is real tough work.
 

Justin_S

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
3,581
I saw The Amityville Horror remake simply because I had the free ticket that came with the DVD box of the first three films in the series, and I had nothing else to do on a day off from work. Big mistake. Sitting at home and staring at a lamp for a few hours would've been a better way to pass my time.

For the record, I saw both Munich and Grizzly Man theatrically, and both films are in my top five of the year, Munich being my #1. I had to drive up to Dallas to see the latter, and I had to wait around a mall in Arlington for hours to see the former, as we were late for the showing we meant to go to due to traffic.


Haha, I agree completely. Terrible delivery on her part, especially when she chews out the cop thinking it's the stranger. I never thought the original When a Stranger Calls was a good film anyway though. The opening was the only interesting part, and even that came off as a poor man's version of Black Christmas. After that, it's all over the map as it veers off into soapy melodrama.

I still can't believe that my two favorite horror films, of all the horror films out there, just had to wind up on the remake chopping block. Of course, upcoming remakes of such fantastic films as The Wicker Man, Kairo (aka Pulse), Don't Look Now, Day of the Dead, and Revenge of the Nerds among others aren't any better.
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
13,328


:laugh: I also had a free ticket but felt like the flick was a waste of time. Oh well - at least I then was able to skip it on DVD, which would have been a REAL waste of time since I'd have had to review it - that would've been adding insult to injury.

Though I did get itchy at the theatrical screening - I think the seats had chiggers or something! :frowning:
 

Michael Elliott

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
8,054
Location
KY
Real Name
Michael Elliott


TAH was certainly an upgrade from the bad original and the really unoriginal sequels IMHO. I'm proud to be 1 of 13 who actually enjoyed the film. :D
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,837
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top