The "its not a remake" remake - what is going on here (1 Viewer)

[Seth Paxton]

Okay, no writing credit on the "remake" of The Deep on Into the Blue. But obviously it was a new version of that film.


Now we have Annapolis with a plot, setting and lead casting that indicates that it is at least a rough rework of An Officer and a Gentleman. Again, no writing credit for the original idea is listed, but the similarity based on the trailer is striking.


Is this the new trend, a possible reaction to criticism for making to many admitted remakes? What in the WWW of Sports is going on here?

 

[Zack Gibbs]

From what I understand Annapolis is in fact heavily centered around the sport of Boxing. A lot of people have complained about its misrepresentation in the trailers. Anyways, if you haven't seen it you really can't say if it's a rip off.

Which is essentially what you're talking about, Rip-offs. Personally I think there are differences between movies that have similar plot aspects (that's how I would view The Deep/Into The Blue), movies that are rip-offs (Alien/Leviathan), and movies that are re-makes (2005 at the Box-Office).

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I've always felt it's not as blasphemous to re-work certain ideas from older movies into a newer film. And I know there are some who find this baffling, but I don't mind as much if the title is different. Part of the problem I have, as simple as it is, is that it gets confusing trying to identify one film from another. There should be only one LAST MAN ON EARTH, for instance... only one OMEGA MAN, and only one I AM LEGEND (the newest redo they're talking about). They'd all be variations on Richard Matheson's story, but at least they'd all have their own identity.

I'm still against remakes on principal today, though. I'll still say I don't feel there's much point in remaking ANYTHING anymore, but I'm of the opinion that they're a little easier to take when they don't blatantly purport to be the "other movie".

 

[James@R]

I think we can add 16 Blocks to this list, which looks to be a pretty blatant remake of Eastwood's The Gauntlet.

 

[TonyD]

wow annapolis has a boxing plot in it.

i've seen the trailer a dozen times and see that its a remake of an officer and a gent.

 

[Hunter P]

I agree with the assessment of the trailer but it is only the trailer. Has anyone seen the movie yet?

(btw, I have no plans on seeing this movie specifically for the "been there, done that" feeling I got from the trailer.)

 

[Scott Simonian]

Yes. My friends subjected themselves to Annapolis. It's about boxing.

 

[Stan Rozenfeld]

I think remakes have always been around, so I don't mind them in principle. Some of my favorites: Maltese Falcon, Ben-Hur, My Darling Clemetine were remakes.

I do dislike when they don't give credit to the original idea. I can't put my finger on it, but some things I judge in my mind as a 'tribute', and some things as a 'rip-off'.

I remember when Clint Eastwood made Pale Rider. Later there was a documentary about him (I don't remember the name), and he discusses Pale Rider a little bit. There is no mention at all that it's basically a remake of Shane. I was pissed!

 

[Don Giro]

Wow. I never realized that "Into the Blue" was essentially a rehash of "The Deep" until reading this thread. I must be getting old.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Yes, but all of those were a long time ago when remakes were still well done. And at least with one of them (BEN-HUR) I could understand remaking a silent film with the advent of sound. What could possibly be the reasoning in re-doing ANY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE, THE OMEN or THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE? If it's just to utilize CGI effects, that doesn't cut it with me, personally.

 

[Eric Peterson]

This is one of my biggest pet-peeves in movies. I'm not sure which I hate more.

1. Re-Makes that keep the original name, but end up doing nothing other than insulting the original.

2. Re-Makes that use a new name, do not credit the original, and pretend that it's an original idea. (Remember that most of the public is completely ignorant on film history)

This is not to say that re-makes are a bad idea, but most of the time they are done for the wrong reasons. As mentioned above, most of these titles do not need to be re-made. Re-release the original. So many people are afraid of watching a film that's more than 10 years old and the studios are not only promoting that attitude, they are enforcing it. Maybe, I'm crazy, but I think the studio would have made more money by re-releasing "The Bad News Bears" or other such fodder (minimal capital required) and see what happens.

9 times out of 10, I would much rather watch the original. Especially, when it's a remake of a movie that was successful in the first place. Why not remake a movie that had a good idea, but was poorly made? There are hundreds of such films laying around. I feel the same way about cover songs in music. If you want to cover a song, why not try to promote an artist that you love and respect that many people don't know about? There is no need to cover "The Beatles" or "Led Zeppelin"

Just my 2 cents! ---- Well maybe 3 cents!

 

[Joe Karlosi]

That's it, Eric. So many people have been fed this stuff and they've gotten to the point where they're not interested in "yesterday". But just as audiences have become conditioned to only accepting new product, they can also be helped along in appreciating the past. The movie studios themselves could help promote this by knocking it off with the remakes and perhaps starting a revival of the best older films. If done right, the public would begin to embrace the classic films and it may even become in vogue.