Film remakes.

[LT ED]

Ok guys and gals if you could have just one of your favorite films remade what would you choose? For me it would have to be Close Encounters of The Third Kind,for some reason that film left an indelible mark on me.I remember watching in or at the cinema when I was 15 as the mother ship rose up from behind devils tower.Im 49 and still think it measures up to any other scifi film past or present.

[cabba2203]

That is a great film. I have it in my personal collection. So what about it do you not like so much you want it remade?

Was the acting bad? were the original FX not good enough to move you? When you watch it today, are you no longer entertained by it?

 

Just curious as we are in the Hollywood years of remakes.

 

I can see if the original was horrible and a remake was needed to do it justice, like what they did with The Punisher and Judge Dredd. I like my original favorite movies the way they were in most cases.

 

(I am not passing judgement on anyone who likes remakes - this is friendly discussion)

[LT ED]

No you get me wrong,the first was great , what I would like to see is what a modern remake would be like but it must follow the original script .

[cabba2203]

No you get me wrong,the first was great , what I would like to see is what a modern remake would be like but it must follow the original script .

 

I see what you're saying.

[Rabs]

Yeah.. it kinda depends on what they do with it. I thought that the new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was kinda pointless and the new Total Recall was even worse..

 

Total Recall was terrible.. the script was 80% or so the same as the first one and they didnt even go to Mars.. just rubbish..

 

I think if the do re-makes then it should be for a good reason.. King Kong was also another kind of pointless remake.. Same with Conan the Barbarian just all totally pointless and worse than the originals.

 

And theres loads coming in the next year or so, including a new Robocop (just why mess with a classic?)

 

I think that remakes of classic horror films could be cool.. I hear theres a new Nightmare on Elmstreet coming too..

[milod]

RE: Close Encounters - and Devils Tower - are just about a 90-minute drive from here.

 

Oddly Bear Butte at Sturgis, SD, home of the famed motorcycle rally, also is a laccolith, but yet still covered with soils.

 

The two are about two hours apart by highway.

 

m

[FenderGuy1]

RE: Close Encounters - and Devils Tower - are just about a 90-minute drive from here.

 

Oddly Bear Butte at Sturgis, SD, home of the famed motorcycle rally, also is a laccolith, but yet still covered with soils.

 

The two are about two hours apart by highway.

 

m

Cool, and I also want my fav killer car film Christine to be remade!

[Rabs]

Cool, and I also want my fav killer car film Christine to be remade!

Now thats a good idea.. Stephen King films are mostly terrible.. They should also redo IT I loved that film but it could be a good remake

[milod]

This may sound a bit odd to some of the younger set especially, but IMHO at least 50 years should go between the original and the remake - either that or a major change in film technology.

 

And yet... even a silent such as Nosferatu may be best as it is.

 

I can't imagine a better John Wayne than John Wayne for the movies "The Cowboys" or "The Shootist."

 

Also, I can't really imagine a better "Wizard of Oz" than the classic 1939 film. Or of a better "Gone with the Wind."

 

John Wayne's "The Quiet Man" might be okay to do an update with, but I doubt today's actors could make it work as well; it's among the relative few John Wayne flics that the girls like to watch, too.

 

Special effects can be pretty good or not so good. I think "Avatar" may have had a better story, but the effects and basic concept of the film worked fairly well with them.

 

m

[Jeff-7]

Too much stuff gets remade, seems to be happening much more now than in the past. That and "bonus material" added to the original (looking at you Lucas and Spielberg). Most of the time when a movie gets remade it is terrible compared to the original. I can't think of a single remake that was on par or better than the original that I have seen. Come up with something new, remakes just seem like cash grabs.

[CowboyBillyBob1]

I don't understand why I would want to remake a movie that I love. They are perfect the way they are.

Casablanca, Streetcar Named Desire, Breakfast at Tiffany's, The Godfather, Psycho, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Wizard of OZ, Citizen Cane, and others.

No way a remake can improve these perfect films.

The only thing I can think of would be home movies of my kids growing up. To refilm that would be a gift from God.

[stein]

We were just talking about this at work.

 

I think the A-TEAM movie was great. And the re-make of TRUE GRIT was good as well.

 

I think there are plenty of good actors that can really do justice to the best. And while I agree that there should be time between films to make a re-make worthwhile, it also takes some skill and effort on the part of the film makers. Technology can't do everything.

 

The MIAMI VICE movie, on the other hand, sucked.

 

I would like to see BONANZA re-done in some form.

[RaysEpiphone]

Id rather see a continuing chapter of and older movie then one that leaches off an original.

[grampa]

"River Of No Return" if it can be done with holographic technology so that I can see a wet Marilyn Monroe really up close.

[Izzy]

This may sound a bit odd to some of the younger set especially, but IMHO at least 50 years should go between the original and the remake - either that or a major change in film technology.

 

And yet... even a silent such as Nosferatu may be best as it is.

 

I can't imagine a better John Wayne than John Wayne for the movies "The Cowboys" or "The Shootist."

 

Also, I can't really imagine a better "Wizard of Oz" than the classic 1939 film. Or of a better "Gone with the Wind."

 

John Wayne's "The Quiet Man" might be okay to do an update with, but I doubt today's actors could make it work as well; it's among the relative few John Wayne flics that the girls like to watch, too.

 

Special effects can be pretty good or not so good. I think "Avatar" may have had a better story, but the effects and basic concept of the film worked fairly well with them.

 

m

 

Amen, milod.

I prefer films with substance and now movies seem to be all fluff and special effects (unless you turn to under radar/ foreign films). A better Gone With the Wind? Imposible! Though, after reading the book, I wished they had stuck to the story a bit more. They cut out a bunch of great things.

 

I'd like to see some ANIME films or series turned into film, but these are seldom treated with respect and are often reduced to sci-fi special effect flops. If treated with respect Gilgamesh would be a rockin' film as would Akira.

[rct]

Mrs and I were kids in school on a date when we went to see Close Encounters. In 2003 when we were past 40 we were on our first drive around this country and of course, Matho Thipila, Bear Lodge, Devils Tower was on our list. So we had this little dvd player and we sat out there under the stars and The Tower and watched Close Encounters. For like prolly the hunnerth time we've seen it. It was the best time we've seen it.

 

rct

[btoth76]

When they make a movie out of a novel - it always sucks. When they make a remake of a movie - it sucks even worser (in my experience - of course).

[cabba2203]

When they make a movie out of a novel - it always sucks. When they make a remake of a movie - it sucks even worser (in my experience - of course).

 

What about Jaws? (Peter Benchley's novel)

 

What about The Lord of the Rings? (Peter Jackson version)

 

Game of Thrones? (yes a series but still books to "film")

[milod]

As for making movies from novels... I think it "sucks" in terms of matching a well done novel, but OTOH it's also a matter of getting ideas for movies in time and space as well as characters and actions.

 

So... I see movies from novels as something "based" on the novel rather than a made as a mirror to it. Also, depending on the length and complexity of some novels, they may or may not lend themselves to a straightforward film version. A short story or novella probably is far better. Louis L'Amour's first tale turned to a movie, "Hondo," and the more expanded book version are to me a good example of a tale being well represented in film.

 

Izzy...

 

Dunno much about anime - don't forget I'm doggone old and more, I live in the boonies where there's not the social reinforcement of anime that does much for anybody I know.

 

Gilgamesh? Well, I have several versions of the tale translated from the cuneiform and there are some interesting differences through the years, and some additional differences of treatment of the remnants of the ancient character from circa 1500 CE (AD) forward. The original had the demigod king not as having a super-extended lifespan, although as I understand it, at least one king-list had him as reigning roughly 125 years circa 2500 BCE which would have been incredible and "immortal" had it been a single individual and not a dynasty. In a sense, a 1950s novel with the character "Gilbert Nash" is one of my more interesting mental connections.

 

So... which Gilgamesh? <grin> As for me... All I recall is being born in the west of England in 1453... Just kidding. Check the Vermont state records and, truly, you'd see I was born July 15, 1842, in Washington, VT.

 

m

[pippy]

...What about The Lord of the Rings? (Peter Jackson version)...

With all due respect, cabba, I thought the series missed out an enormous amount of important story development and detail and, instead, went way overboard by concentrating on the fighting scenes.

If you weigh up how much of the original text is devoted to fighting and compare it with the relevant % of footage in the films you'll see precisely what I mean.

 

Just MHO, of course, and I'm sure the box-office are happier with things as they are!

 

P.

[rct]

With all due respect, cabba, I thought the series missed out an enormous amount of important story development and detail and, instead, went way overboard by concentrating on the fighting scenes.

If you weigh up how much of the original text is devoted to fighting and compare it with the relevant % of footage in the films you'll see precisely what I mean.

 

Just MHO, of course, and I'm sure the box-office are happier with things as they are!

 

P.

 

It was really hard for me to suspend my Tolkien purist disbelief for the movies, but once I remembered the Bakshi Hobbit and saw that we were actually getting some real stuff, I got over it and went with it and enjoyed. A really really huge job that not many filmmakers probably would touch, he did a pretty good job I'd say!

 

rct

[btoth76]

What about Jaws? (Peter Benchley's novel)

 

What about The Lord of the Rings? (Peter Jackson version)

 

Game of Thrones? (yes a series but still books to "film")

Hello Cabba! Excuse me, these opuses are not to my taste. But to prove You are right, yes I can recall one exception to my previous statement. The Russian movie version of Bulgakov's "Master and Margaritha" was up to the qualities of the book. Cheers... Bence

[LarryUK]

It was really hard for me to suspend my Tolkien purist disbelief for the movies, but once I remembered the Bakshi Hobbit and saw that we were actually getting some real stuff, I got over it and went with it and enjoyed. A really really huge job that not many filmmakers probably would touch, he did a pretty good job I'd say!

 

rct

My house is an ex reading room and Tolkien used to come in here and read. Just saying. He lived in a cottage with his mother up the lane.

I sometimes think when I'm watching tv, did he sit reading where I'm sitting.

[cabba2203]

With all due respect, cabba, I thought the series missed out an enormous amount of important story development and detail and, instead, went way overboard by concentrating on the fighting scenes.

If you weigh up how much of the original text is devoted to fighting and compare it with the relevant % of footage in the films you'll see precisely what I mean.

 

Just MHO, of course, and I'm sure the box-office are happier with things as they are!

 

P.

 

LOL - I didn't see any issue with editing out some of Tolkiens English vocabular diarrhea. (I mean this in friendly jest)

Sorry - You may be spot on, but I find JRRT a pain to read at times. I much prefer Michael Moorcock and Glen Cook.

So yeah, I loved the Jackson film adaptation.

[milod]

Cabba...

 

A fun series is David Drake's "With the Lightnings."

 

Drake is a Vietnam vet who is also a classical scholar and has taken more than a few of his tales as updates of events and lifestyles of ages past. The first "With the Lightnings" comes from Kipling's Chant Pagan, btw. Imagine a lean, hard-faced female librarian whose parents and pre-teen sister were murdered (and worse) in political upheavals that she escaped; she is cold as ice and a dead shot duelist.

 

Thing is, I think a lotta folks have read this set and similar material from Drake and don't recognize the background.

 

Ditto almost any half-well written bit copying Xenophon and his Anabasis written roughly 400 BC. Several have been done the past 50 years or so.

 

m