People who want every great movie remade today, what is wrong with them?

Seriously, EVERY great movie you can think of, it's either already been remade, or somebody wants it remade. It's not enough they've already remade Invasion of the Body Snatchers (twice), that pos 3D Night of the Living Dead, War of the Worlds, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Last House on the Left, Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, but now they're in the process of remaking Highlander, The Birds, Fright Night, Soylent Green, Logan's Run, and then you've got moronic people saying 'they should remake Rebel Without a Cause, Jaws, remake Charlie Chaplin, Harold and Maude, etc.' is NOTHING sacred to these idiots?

I agree that many times a remake, especially of something that is generally regarded as a classic borders on sacrilege. I just knew that Keanu Reeves as Klaatu was going to suck so I waited until it was on cable before I held my nose and watched it. I was right. But. Remakes aren’t always a bad thing. One of the best examples I can think of is The Maltese Falcon (1941) which is a remake of a 1931 version. I’m not sure but it might actually be the third version. These Three (1936) was remade as The Children’s Hour in 1961. Nothing wrong with the later version. The Magnificent Seven (1960) is a remake of The Seven Samurai (1954). As much as I love The Thing From Another World (1951), I think John Carpenter’s version is just as good (if not better in certain ways). The Ten Commandments and Ben Hur were both remakes of silent films that were considered classics. I think Peter Jackson did right by King Kong and I liked George Clooney’s Ocean’s Eleven better than Sinatra’s. Sorry Mandy. I would take Angie Dickinson over Julia Roberts though. No disrespect to Julia.

If they ever remake Metropolis, I'll set myself on fire. You heard it here first.

I'm noticing this attitude that implies that this latest generation of 12-24 y/o's need their "own" versions of things that were just popular 10-20 years ago. As if they couldn't at all relate to something that predates them by just a few years....and I think that's some bullshit. There was absolutely no need for remakes of Friday the 13th, Halloween and Nightmare on Elm Street....or for those 90210 and Melrose Place revivals. The originals ain't THAT old.

For some reason its become this "trend" & i dont get why. even the movies that aint direct remakes like THE ROOMATE have obvious copycat plots.

Marc wrote:...There was absolutely no need for remakes of Friday the 13th, Halloween and Nightmare on Elm Street...

Was there a reason to make those in the first place?

To scare the hell out of moviegoers, and it worked.

Supernova wrote:Seriously, EVERY great movie you can think of, it's either already been remade, or somebody wants it remade. It's not enough they've already remade Invasion of the Body Snatchers (twice), that pos 3D Night of the Living Dead, War of the Worlds, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Last House on the Left, Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, but now they're in the process of remaking Highlander, The Birds, Fright Night, Soylent Green, Logan's Run, and then you've got moronic people saying 'they should remake Rebel Without a Cause, Jaws, remake Charlie Chaplin, Harold and Maude, etc.' is NOTHING sacred to these idiots?

I don't understand Hollywood myself. As I have said before, I have read some fantastic books in my lifetime and they could have made movies out of some of them. With all the books out there in the world why would they want to continue to recycle?

I'm wondering if this may have started with the writers strike of '08. Perhaps new projects couldn't be pitched, and so Hollywood decided to recycle; then when the strike ended, they just kept on rolling with it.

Just a theory.

Seriously, though, I'm sick of the reboots too. The chances that I'll be interested in a new take on a movie I already saw is slim.

Especially if they don't add anything new to it besides the actors in the roles.

Personally, I am fed up with it and have ignored virtually all of them. Almost every remake that I have seen is totally inferior to the original. If I know the outcome then why watch it again in remake?

Tony Marino wrote:Especially if they don't add anything new to it besides the actors in the roles.

I agree that remakes just for the sake of remakes is nothing more than a grab for more money. The Day The Earth Stood Still and The Manchurian Candidate are two examples of this in my opinion. If, on the other hand, they try to at least remake a story closer to it's original source material, The Day The Earth Stood Still for example, I wouldn't have a big problem with that. As I said on the Jaws thread, if they remade it closer to the plot of the book I think that would be OK. I think that sometimes just the fact that technology has advanced can be a good enough reason. I liked Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong. He kept it in the 30's like the original but the action was better. Kong was even more of a character. On the other hand, I don't see any point in remaking movies like Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon or To Kill A Mockingbird.

What bothers me the most if when they remake a horror classic and throw in a lot of CGI, thinking that it will make things so much more elaborate and innovative than the original. That's arrogant and it turns me off. At the same time all the expensive production value doesn't cover up the script being weak.

I don't think it's that serious. People act like the original is going to disappear into thin air or something. It's their money....they wanna remake something that's prob. going to suck anyway, then let them. It's not like they're doing a hell of a job bringing entirely new movies that are worth watching anyway.

Nystyle709 wrote:I don't think it's that serious. People act like the original is going to disappear into thin air or something. It's their money....they wanna remake something that's prob. going to suck anyway, then let them. It's not like they're doing a hell of a job bringing entirely new movies that are worth watching anyway.

Nystyle709 wrote:I don't think it's that serious. People act like the original is going to disappear into thin air or something. It's their money....they wanna remake something that's prob. going to suck anyway, then let them. It's not like they're doing a hell of a job bringing entirely new movies that are worth watching anyway.

That’s very true of course and as I’ve tried to say, I’m not against all remakes but I can’t help wonder how many bad ones got the green light over something better because the Suits only thought it would make more money. I know that’s what they’re in business for but many movies lose money anyway (i.e. they don’t recoup their production costs despite cable and DVD sales).

I guess I ain't the movie buff I thought I was. lol Haven't even seen many of these. lol I don't have a problem with remakes. If they're done right, they'll be worth it. If they're done poorly, it helps you appreciate the greatness of the original.

Forgiveness Man wrote:I guess I ain't the movie buff I thought I was. lol Haven't even seen many of these. lol I don't have a problem with remakes. If they're done right, they'll be worth it. If they're done poorly, it helps you appreciate the greatness of the original.

Good point.

Some of the remakes are definitely nothing more than a money grab but other remakes I don't mind. Sometimes I even like the remake better than the original, though I don't know if movie adaptions of books would be considered remakes. Love the "Heidi" movies and the Pride and Prejudice" movies and the variations, but I don't know if I'd really consider them remakes, because they're usually based on the book, rather than the original movie.