|
Post by Techguy on Feb 19, 2006 1:19:25 GMT -5
Thinking about the upcoming Oscar night on NBC, I am convinced there are two certainties in Hollywood--sequels and remakes. About the latter, I have come to the conclusion that in the vast majority of instances, the original version is vastly superior to the remake. Which begs the question: why bother?
For example, I most definitely prefer the original version of "The In-Laws" with Peter Falk and Alan Arkin to the recent remake with Michael Douglas and Albert Brooks. For one thing, the original casting is more inspired and conducive to the zaniness needed to get the big laughs and carry along the story. Second, the original has something crucial the remake lacks--the SOCK PUPPET! I will say no more so as not to spoil the surprise. But if anyone has seen the remake, I highly recommend you find the original and rent it. If you haven't seen either, don't bother with the remake--go for the original.
Does anyone else have any experiences and preferences to share about movie originals vs. remakes?
|
|
Leonore
Silver Shield Investigator
Posts: 145
|
Post by Leonore on Feb 20, 2006 0:40:03 GMT -5
Amen Techguy!! I didn't even bother with the remake of the In-Laws because I knew the original couldn't be topped. Even though I love Steve Martin, I won't be seeing the Pink Panther remake. Peter Sellers will always be Clouseau. I've been seeing commercials for Tim Allen's remake of The Shaggy Dog! Are there NO original ideas left? I know!! They can remake True Grit with Mel Gibson or Kevin Cosner in the John Wayne role. The Glen Campbell part can be played by Justin Timberlake or Clay Aiken and the spunky Kim Darby part can be played by Lindsey Lohan. Yikes!!!! I think I would almost always go with the original over a remake, especially if the original is a classic.
|
|
|
Post by Sirenna on Feb 20, 2006 13:31:35 GMT -5
Bond movies.
They're just not as good these days.
Are other mediums included in this catergory? If so, I did like Gwen Stefani's remake of Talk Talks song that goes "funny, how I find myself alone again..."
|
|
|
Post by janetcatbird on Feb 20, 2006 17:21:10 GMT -5
But aren't there several classic movies that are actually remakes of duds? I think "The Maltese Falcon" is one but I'm not sure. And I love "The Magnificent Seven", but then I haven't seen the original Samurai to compare it to.
I dunno. My big beef is when they screw up a novel in an adaptation--and if a novel has multiple film treatments, is that a remake? I think I mentioned before that "Les Miserables" with Liam Neeson and the Orson Welles version of "Jane Eyre" had me throwing stuff at the screen. Even as a seven-year-old I rejected Gene Wilder's "Willy Wonka" because "That's not in the book," so I turned and found a (different) book to read at my cousin's house.
Generally, if it ain't broke don't fix it. If it involves updating a time, setting, or something like that it might be interesting. But with me, at least, remakes make me want to chase down the original.
--Catbird
|
|
|
Post by Metella on Feb 21, 2006 16:20:30 GMT -5
Stepford Wives
Original = spoky, unsettling, thought provoking
Remake = thought provoking only; it lost a lot of punch by trying to be ? silly ?
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Feb 21, 2006 23:08:50 GMT -5
Oooooo, good topic, Techguy!!!
Well, my first thought was the movie A STAR IS BORN --
The "original" was made in 1937 and featured Janet Gaynor and Frederic March in the lead roles. However, even that was a remake of a 1932 film titled "What Price Hollywood?" which starred Constance Bennett and Lowell Sherman and was directed by George Cukor.
Then there was the 1954 musical remake starring Judy Garland & James Mason, also directed by George Cukor.
Finally, there's the 1976 musical remake starring Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson.
Personally, my favorite is the 1954 version. But I also love the '37 version with Janet Gaynor and Frederic March...
|
|
lyra
Rookie
Posts: 16
|
Post by lyra on Feb 23, 2006 22:33:39 GMT -5
Anybody seen the original "Father of the Bride"?? Spencer Tracy (oh, my gawd I can't spell his name) in the role that made me fall in love with him! Of course I can't marry him or I'd not be able to spell my own name. O.K. I'm reeally tired. Seriously, though, if you like old movies at all, see this movie.
I'm afraid to see the new Pink Panther, another one with Steve Martin taking the lead. How could it possibly be as funny??? For anyone who's seen the original, nothing could possibly compare. Anyone who hasn't, well, you're just TOO DAMN YOUNG ANYWAY!!!
Funny: after I posted and went to top of the page, three ads were up re: the new P.P. Computers are so stupid sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by kawaiidragonfoe821 on Feb 24, 2006 12:23:29 GMT -5
Well, you know what they say 'remake is the new pink', I' am very critical of remakes, but there are some that were pretty good:
TX chainsaw massacre Charlie & the Chocolate Factory Father of the Bride (I though the remake was good)
Now BAD remakes on the other hand are a lot more numerous Cheaper by the Dozen Dawn of the Dead The Shaggy Dog King Kong Pink Panther (I loved the original too) The parent Trap
What is the film industry coming to when they can't even come up w/ original ideas anymore?
|
|
|
Post by NikkiGreen on Feb 24, 2006 16:09:37 GMT -5
I prefer the original versions of both "Father of the Bride" and "Cheaper by the Dozen". And the respective sequels, "Father's Little Dividend" and "Belles on Their Toes".
|
|
lyra
Rookie
Posts: 16
|
Post by lyra on Feb 25, 2006 0:37:29 GMT -5
Never seen the sequels. I'll have to look for them. Good to see you're still here, NikkiGreen!
|
|
|
Post by filmnoir5 on Jun 27, 2006 20:55:17 GMT -5
Is it my imagination or has 2005 and 2006 been the years of the most remakes? And the TV show into movie remakes is just too silly for words. Just this spring I have read about John Travolta playing J.R. on Dallas, Ben Affleck playing Thomas Magnum, and Matt Damon playing Captain Kirk.
I wonder who will play Monk 15 years from now?
|
|
|
Post by madger on Jun 28, 2006 10:12:30 GMT -5
Actually the upcoming Monk episode is about an actor studying Adrian to play him in a movie. Should be pretty funny.
Some remakes aren't too bad...when technology advances in film allow something to be better shown. The latest King Kong comes to mind, the original is still a classic, Mr. Madger knows the dialogue and background music by heart, but the new one is fun to watch too. We will not mention the Jeff Bridges one, sacrilege! As far as adaptations go, Lord of the Rings, good one. I still prefer the books, of course, there is nothing like exploring new worlds in a book, you can give them whatever form you want, sometimes it's disappointing to see them fleshed out by someone else, in my minds eye, Frodo, Sam etc. are still the way I envisioned them when I first read the books. Sometimes books and their movie adaptations can complement each other, though now incredibly dated, 2001 a Space Odyssey comes to mind. madger
|
|
|
Post by spaniard on Jun 28, 2006 11:40:22 GMT -5
Adaptations are ok, as long as you have clear that you are not going to see the book on the screen because we make our own movie while we read and nothing beats us as directors. When you watch an adaptation you must do it like if it was a brand new idea (not movies are always worse than the books, some movies improve bad books as well).
About remakes, I don´t mind if they are good movies, it is true that lots of classics are remakes as well. I like to see every single movie as unique, and then give my opinion without comparing it.
Worst remake of all: Psycho by Gus Van sant. I can´t believe William H. Macy and Julianne Moore would want to do that.
|
|
|
Post by janetcatbird on Jun 28, 2006 19:44:34 GMT -5
Ben Affleck as Magnum?!?!?! What?!?! Oh dear God...actually, what little I've seen of Ben Affleck he could pull off the fun guy who's tough when he has to be. But you do not remake Magnum!
Speaking of cool TV shows into craptastic movies, "Wild Wild West". The original '60s show was tongue-in-cheek fun--despite Robert Conrad's macho posturing. I mean, Ross Martin as Artemis Gordon was just cool, he had the disguises, the accents, he was brilliant, and he made me laugh. And Miguelito Loveless may have been a silly-written part, but Michael Dunn was a good actor. Contrast that with Will Smith and Kevin Kline in that godawful late-'90s flick. They overhyped the sci-fi explosions and robots, while ignoring the characters. Idiots--if it didn't sweep the Razzies, it took a bunch of nominations.
As to books, there are some that would work well as movies. George Eliot comes to mind, because so much of her books are description. Characters are well-written, plots make you think, but she spends so much time babbling about the fields and the trees and the rugged peasants--movies can easily adapt her, because they wouldn't have to leave plot points out; most of the text can be converted to cinematography and the setting. I saw a BBC adaptation of Silas Marner, starring Ben Kingsley, which was terrific.
I was disappointed with "Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe". BBC from the '80s may have had cheesy cheap special effects, but darn it they stuck to the book!
Sorry, I'm babbling.
--Catbird
|
|
|
Post by Techguy on Jun 29, 2006 0:09:32 GMT -5
Applying this topic cross-thread to the movie under discussion, does anyone think "All About Eve" could, or should, be updated and remade? And if yes, who would you cast in it?
|
|