films that shouldn't be remade

DeletedUser

i liked it better we the made snakes and rat special effects the old fashoined way, they used real ones! (look it up on the creation of theindiana jones and raiders of the lost ark)

oned thing i liked too was that they kept seeing the ark in all the movies again except for the 2nd movie
 

DeletedUser

Exactly!!! I loved Indy until the made the fourth movie. WHY INDY WHY?!?
 

DeletedUser

I still don't see why they played that weasle man as his son. Leonardo DiCaprio would have been Far better because he is a far more versitile actor.
 

DeletedUser

Exactly!!!! Why indy and george lucas?!? I trusted you more than ill ever trust obama!!!
 

DeletedUser

I see, so you trust an actor more than you trust a doer. I guess that's why you voted for Bush, aye? Oh right, you couldn't, you're too young to vote... still.

(( stay on topic or i'll taunt you a second timea' ))
 

DeletedUser

If you ever get a chance, watch the making of Raiders of the Lost Ark. It's a wonderfully interesting little documentary - mainly for the fact of seeing how the stunts were performed.

Indy getting dragged along by the truck was quite a set-up (not to mention a great modern homage to the old matinee movies where the hero might be dragged along by a stage coach) but the highlight is where they get the truck to explode and flip over in the market place. The planning that went into that was mind-blowing and the result was that they had one chance to get the shot because they only had one truck (they had to shoot later scenes with it first).

Now, somehow I can't imagine anyone posting in five or ten years time suggesting anyone watch the Making of the Kindgom of the Crystal Skull. Watching a bunch of sweaty geeks sit around a computer screen dragging pixels to create a wildly unrealistic shot just doesn't have the same appeal.

Well, not to me anyhow.
 

DeletedUser

and in the making they also said that the snakes and rats in the movie were real and that several escaped
i think using real things rather than pixels is better and that is why movies went bad when they were remade
 

DeletedUser

Hmm...

I'm not sure I agree with that. I don't think CGI is to blame for the quality of remakes. My problem with CGI is where it's used to pull off something that couldn't be done for real. I'd have no problem at if they'd used CGI snakes and rats in an Indy film - providing they were realistic. If CGI is doing its job, then you shouldn't really notice it, in my opinion.

The problems with remakes are legion.

I think the biggest is the nostalgia factor. They never remake flops (unless they're "cult" flops) so inevitably the original film will have a senitmental place in the hearts of its fans. Even if the remake would be considered a better film by any objective critic, fans of the original are usually more than a little biased so it's tough for the remake to live up to their expectations.

Then there's the question of whether to do a "faithful" remake, a "modernisation" or a "reimagining".

The Anne Heche/Vince Vaughan Psycho was a faithful remake - frame by frame. Which begs the question "Why bother?" Why fix something which wasn't broken? Of course, the original brilliance of Psycho was in the fact that Hitchcock completely mislead the audience for half the film, drawing them in to believe that Janet Leigh's embezzlement was the central plot. When she was disposed of, it was completely unexpected. These days, though, everyone connects Psycho with "the shower scene" so whereas Hitchcock produced suspence, Gus Van Sant's remake could only manage impatient anticipation.

With a "reimagining" there's often no real resemblance between the original and the remake beyond the name. It's just a case of trading on an established name to sucker the public - and most of them end up feeling like it too.

Modernisations can work, though, if done with a bit of sensitivity. The Thomas Crown Affair springs to mind. It may be as good as the original or it may not - it's a matter of opinion and, I'd guess, generation - but it's certainly not a travesty.
 

DeletedUser

Elmyr said:
Here's one that should be remade!

The Blues Brothers!

Starring Corey Feldman and Corey Haim!
Click to expand...

Only if Haim can stay sober long enuff to film it.He couldn't stay sober to play in the lost boys sequel for cryin' out loud
 

DeletedUser

A friend was ranting on about the remake of "Clash of the Titans" to me earlier on, saying how it had been ruined and that the 3D was a crappy gimmick.

I just looked at him and said "mechanical owl and Harry Hamlin" and he went "Oh yeah, I forgot. The original was a bit duff, too."

Sometimes, nostalgia has a way of lying to our minds. Mind you, he made a great point about the lead having a noticable Aussie accent. I haven't seen the new version, but an Aussie accent ... in ancient Greece .. as a lead?

Reminds me of Sean Connery ... "Hi, Sean. In this film you are a Spanish fancy swordsman called Ramirez. Can you give it a shot?"

*heavy Scottish Drawl* "My name is Ramirez."

"Screw it, that'll do. Scene."
 

DeletedUser

The Mod Squad (Yikes, that was a disaster, even with good actors in the role. Very bad script.)

Nightmare on Elm Street. (It doesn't look terrible, but I know it won't be as good as the original)

The Taking of Pelham 123 (I fell asleep during it. So that should tell you something.)

The Last House on the Left (Why? Why do a remake of this movie?)

Fame (Another disaster. There was nothing wrong with the original. Even the T.V. series was decent. Why make another movie? Dumb and the movie bombed hard.)

Child's Play (Yes, they are doing a remake of Child's play with the same guy who did the voice in the last 5 movies? Again, why? lol!! Please let this serious die for goodness sake.)

Login's Run (The guy who is working on T2RN (Tron 2) is suppose to do this movie next. I'll be interested to see how it turns out. The original Login's Run was just an average move to me.)

They need to stop with all the remakes. The only decent remake I'm seen so far was "Funny Games".
 

DeletedUser10480

Artagel said:
A friend was ranting on about the remake of "Clash of the Titans" to me earlier on, saying how it had been ruined and that the 3D was a crappy gimmick.

I just looked at him and said "mechanical owl and Harry Hamlin" and he went "Oh yeah, I forgot. The original was a bit duff, too."

Sometimes, nostalgia has a way of lying to our minds. Mind you, he made a great point about the lead having a noticable Aussie accent. I haven't seen the new version, but an Aussie accent ... in ancient Greece .. as a lead?

Reminds me of Sean Connery ... "Hi, Sean. In this film you are a Spanish fancy swordsman called Ramirez. Can you give it a shot?"

*heavy Scottish Drawl* "My name is Ramirez."

"Screw it, that'll do. Scene."
Click to expand...

Ha. The issue is the 3 d they used on this movie was done AFTER the fact....they shot it low budget then used gimmicky digital bits to make it '3=D'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top