What movies can NEVER & should NEVER be re-made? (actor, watching, Steve Martin)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Remakes serve two purposes, semi-guaranteed income, and a chance for actors to exercise their egos.
IIRC there was an early version of Wizard of Oz that was far worse than the Judy Garland version.
As for "Birth of a Nation" being offensive, I find it just the opposite but not for the reasons you might expect. First of all, the North really did spit on the South after the war and history books and other movies have glossed that over terribly. I suspect a lot of the hate of the movie is that it tears away some of the cloak of honor the North was trying to build out of whole cloth. Secondly, it exposes the viewers to a movie where they get to see just how movies attempt to influence audiences, in a way that they can't avoid. That helps them become more discriminating moviegoers. There are plenty of movies that demean blacks and minorities far worse than BoaN. It has simply become PC to dump it on it because of a few over-the-top scenes.
The 1959 version of Ben-Hur was the third adaptation of the book, but is the best known. The 1925 silent might be better though, I don't know. Even if it is the 1925 silent version is the second, not the first. (Although the 1925 one is the first full-length adaptation) The Magnificent Seven might not be as good as Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, I haven't seen either one, but I think it has a fair amount of admirers.
I'd say in the case of film adaptations remakes make some sense. Possibly a different or "truer" adaptation of the original book or play has value. Another is when the film is a foreign-language film and you might want to give it a new setting or background. I could also see doing a new version of some silent films as many of them are not well preserved or are only rarely seen.
The 1959 version of Ben-Hur was the third adaptation of the book, but is the best known. The 1925 silent might be better though, I don't know. Even if it is the 1925 silent version is the second, not the first. (Although the 1925 one is the first full-length adaptation) The Magnificent Seven might not be as good as Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, I haven't seen either one, but I think it has a fair amount of admirers.
I'd say in the case of film adaptations remakes make some sense. Possibly a different or "truer" adaptation of the original book or play has value. Another is when the film is a foreign-language film and you might want to give it a new setting or background. I could also see doing a new version of some silent films as many of them are not well preserved or are only rarely seen.
I can see your points and I agree that in certain circumstances (new version of a silent movie) a remake might be a good thing.
As for the adaptation of a foreign movie I am not that sure. I have not seen all the foreign movies that have been re-made for the English speaking public but often they loose the uniqueness of the culture that has produced them first. They become a simplified version of the original.
That said, there may be some remakes that exceed or equal the original. That might be true, for instance, of the Werner Herzog version of Nosferatu.
What do you think about foreign movies remade to be American, like Seven Samurai/Magnificent Seven, or Fever Pitch/Fever Pitch?
Like The Grudge? Japanese horror flicks are pretty weird, and don't make much sense. It's only good to remake them if they fill in some major holes in the plot to make it all make sense. I watched a Japanese-language movie once--I think it was called One Missed Call. (Don't ask me why the title wasn't in Japanese also). I know they remade that.
I'm thinking that there are musicals out there that are so identified with a certain actor, that putting anyone else in the role just wouldn't feel right.
And not only musicals...what about The Shining with anyone in the lead but good ol' Jack? Singing in the Rain without Fred Astaire, Miracle on 34th St. without its cast? Indeed, they remade it...but did anyone LIKE it? Did it "work"?
No movie should ever be remade. If it's worth remaking, what's wrong with the original?
I suppose it could be argued that a new generation of special effects could enhance a picture that depended on the effects, but then, what fun would it be to see a remake of an Ed Wood picture?
Maybe a remake of a silent picture, with sound and voices, would be an appropriate update. But then, why not just add synched actors voices and foley sounds to the original flicker? What a delight it would be to see a classic like Miss Mend, with realistic voices.
I can see your points and I agree that in certain circumstances (new version of a silent movie) a remake might be a good thing.
As for the adaptation of a foreign movie I am not that sure. I have not seen all the foreign movies that have been re-made for the English speaking public but often they loose the uniqueness of the culture that has produced them first. They become a simplified version of the original.
That is a cause for concern on remakes of foreign films and does happen on occasion.
Another case where remakes might be interesting is when the original movie was a flop, as in poorly executed rather than just financially unsuccessful, but the story had potential. Can't think of an example of that offhand, but there was likely some B-movie with a good story.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.