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.
My daughter saw the Poltergeist remake before the original and she liked it much better.
Poltergiest 2015 was actually really good but got caught up in the remake bust and also a packed May 2015 line-up. It had a good amount of callbacks but didn't do everything.
The biggest thing I notice with remakes is that it is hard as the director has to walk the line between a new vision, sticking somewhat true to the original (cameos for instance) and also trying to be modern.
The premise is a bit silly. How many versions of Shakespeare plays have been done, both on and off-screen? Some work, some don't. With movies, sometimes the first attempt is just a sketch. Edison did a version of Frankenstein, and the number of re-makes and takeoffs probably run into the dozens. FWIW, a lot of art film is a re-working of foreign product. Sometimes it can be really bad, like the remakes of Cousan Couisine and Tall Blonde Man... other times remakes of foreign product can be fairly decent.
I think part of the reason why remakes are popular with Hollywood, in addition to an almost guaranteed gross profit, is that they appeal to the ego of actors who want to outdo a previous actor's interpretation of a part.
Good point Harry.
I was just thinking that of course, the 1995 Pride and Prejudice was obviously superior to the 2005 "remake." But then again, the 1995 one could be considered a "remake," since movies have been made about that book back to 1940. And to me the 1995 one was much better than the 1940 one, or the cheesy one I saw form the 80s.
I think, though, that the big problem a lot of us have with re-makes is:
When one version has already come out that's viewed by most people as "iconic"
When a remake comes out within a short period of time, and the "original" is still being viewed widely.
When a re-make is put out that is obviously, in an empirical sense, far inferior (low budget, poor acting, bad writing, clear attempt to just "rip off" the original to make some money)
But when movies (I include miniseries) are made based on a piece of literature, I expect that there will be multiple versions coming out. Books are fair game. In that way we can compare, contrast, and criticize them. But if a movie was not based on a book, and it gets re-made, I think the result is often pretty bad.
By the way, I am so excited to see the new Roots at the end of this month! Of course the original miniseries was considered iconic, but there was also the matter of it being a vehicle for shameless self-promotion among a lot of 1970s celebrities, who just appeared in it to say that they did. The scenery, wardrobe, and props in the original were also really bad, even to the point of being laughable at some points (the African huts on a beautiful expanse of mowed lawn). I'm sure this new one will be a lot more detailed about historically accurate scenes, costumes, and objects. Only three of the cast seem to be people with big names. Again, since they are both based on the book, remakes are fair game.
But I guess there are exceptions. For example, The Godfather movies were based on a book, but I don't think a remake would be acceptable to anyone.
By the way, I am so excited to see the new Roots at the end of this month! Of course the original miniseries was considered iconic, but there was also the matter of it being a vehicle for shameless self-promotion among a lot of 1970s celebrities, who just appeared in it to say that they did. The scenery, wardrobe, and props in the original were also really bad, even to the point of being laughable at some points (the African huts on a beautiful expanse of mowed lawn). I'm sure this new one will be a lot more detailed about historically accurate scenes, costumes, and objects. Only three of the cast seem to be people with big names. Again, since they are both based on the book, remakes are fair game.
.
The Roots remake will suffer in impact compared to the first because it's not nearly as important in its place in American history--the US today is a far different country from 1977.
I dispute your contention that the original was merely a "vehicle for shameless self-promotion among a lot of 1970s celebrities." In 1977, the case of "Roots" was nearly the total of black celebrities, particularly on television--there were so few they could nearly all be contained in one program.
Moreover, the quality of programming that had black roles (blacks were seldom cast into "everyman" roles) was so poor that any actor desiring a part of a high-quality production would have wanted to be in "Roots." Nothing shameless about it...that would be like a television actor turning down a role in Star Wars or Star Trek.
The Roots remake will suffer in impact compared to the first because it's not nearly as important in its place in American history--the US today is a far different country from 1977.
I dispute your contention that the original was merely a "vehicle for shameless self-promotion among a lot of 1970s celebrities." In 1977, the case of "Roots" was nearly the total of black celebrities, particularly on television--there were so few they could nearly all be contained in one program.
Moreover, the quality of programming that had black roles (blacks were seldom cast into "everyman" roles) was so poor that any actor desiring a part of a high-quality production would have wanted to be in "Roots." Nothing shameless about it...that would be like a television actor turning down a role in Star Wars or Star Trek.
To clarify, I believe the large number of WHITE celebrities who latched onto Roots were the shameless self-promoters. It totally made sense for the black celebrities at the time to be in it. But did we need Robert Reed, Sandy Duncan, Ralph Waite, Lorne Greene, etc? No, they just jumped in to say "hey, look at me!"
To clarify, I believe the large number of WHITE celebrities who latched onto Roots were the shameless self-promoters. It totally made sense for the black celebrities at the time to be in it. But did we need Robert Reed, Sandy Duncan, Ralph Waite, Lorne Greene, etc? No, they just jumped in to say "hey, look at me!"
I should have clarified above.
I'm not sure that wasn't "casting for dollars" on the part of the producers. Remember that in 1977, this was a ground-breaking production.
First--and not to be quickly dismissed--it was the first of its kind as a mini-series. The idea of pulling a television audience night-after-night to a non-episodic, closed-end production was daring and probably scary for financiers...not to mention it being a production about black history (and that was not an automatic draw subject, either).
The belief was that people were set in their viewing patterns, and this show by its consecutive-night mini-series nature would run up against one top-rated program or another every night. Putting then-top white television actors into every episode was probably necessary to get it on the air at all.
I'm not sure that wasn't "casting for dollars" on the part of the producers. Remember that in 1977, this was a ground-breaking production.
First--and not to be quickly dismissed--it was the first of its kind as a mini-series. The idea of pulling a television audience night-after-night to a non-episodic, closed-end production was daring and probably scary for financiers...not to mention it being a production about black history (and that was not an automatic draw subject, either).
The belief was that people were set in their viewing patterns, and this show by its consecutive-night mini-series nature would run up against one top-rated program or another every night. Putting then-top white television actors into every episode was probably necessary to get it on the air at all.
Are you saying it was the first American miniseries? I think Rich Man, Poor Man came out earlier. I remember reading someplace that was the first US prime time miniseries.
The fact that it was about black history was groundbreaking. But I was a white kid in a white family in a mostly white town, and I can definitely say that everyone I know watched it night after night, and it definitely wasn't because of the Waltons' Dad or the Brady Bunch dad or Sandy Duncan.
Are you saying it was the first American miniseries? I think Rich Man, Poor Man came out earlier. I remember reading someplace that was the first US prime time miniseries.
The fact that it was about black history was groundbreaking. But I was a white kid in a white family in a mostly white town, and I can definitely say that everyone I know watched it night after night, and it definitely wasn't because of the Waltons' Dad or the Brady Bunch dad or Sandy Duncan.
I would not presume to tell you why you watched it.
But we know from current issues regarding race and casting that such issues are still on the minds of casting directors even today.
The difference in production is that Roots aired on consecutive nights rather than being lodged into a comfortable weekly position.
I would not presume to tell you why you watched it.
But we know from current issues regarding race and casting that such issues are still on the minds of casting directors even today.
The difference in production is that Roots aired on consecutive nights rather than being lodged into a comfortable weekly position.
But my point was that I really don't think people were watching the original Roots because of the white celebs that were appearing in it (or the black celebs for that matter). They were watching it for the STORY. Makers of TV shows, casting directors, tend to over-value the weight that well-known names carry. We viewers mostly want a good product, and don't care if every single actor in it is a no-name. Did you watch Roots because of LeVar Burton or Louis Gossett Jr, or because of the story? Similarly, no one will be watching this new one because of Forest Whitaker or Lawrence Fishburne. they will be watching for the story.
But my point was that I really don't think people were watching the original Roots because of the white celebs that were appearing in it (or the black celebs for that matter). They were watching it for the STORY. Makers of TV shows, casting directors, tend to over-value the weight that well-known names carry. We viewers mostly want a good product, and don't care if every single actor in it is a no-name. Did you watch Roots because of LeVar Burton or Louis Gossett Jr, or because of the story? Similarly, no one will be watching this new one because of Forest Whitaker or Lawrence Fishburne. they will be watching for the story.
both the story and the acting.
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.
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.
