Anything Goes : Re-makes by Bob Galinsky

They can be.

The original Casino Royale was like a 'Carry on' Movie...

Rarely. Adams Family was good. The Invasion of the Body Snatchers in 78' was excellent. Equal to the original and to some younger folks-probably better.

All depends on who is doing it, and I think, the cultural baggage the original film has-- for example, you'd probably not want to remake something like Citizen Kane or Laurence of Arabia, but something like, say, Hot Tub Time Machine could certainly be re-done.

Godfather 1 and 2 were killer. Kill Bill 1 and 2--killer, pardon the pun. Godfather 3? Not good. Back To The Future 3, not bad.

It depends on the original writer and if the remake actually follows the story the way the author penned it to start with. Steer too far from the original and it sucks. Totally.

Gary, what was The Godfather (1 or 2) a remake of? And Back to the Future? I wasn't aware that was a remake.

The U S remake of REC, was great, it was word for word (only in English) of the Spanish Original, in which I believe that most of the Actors worked without a script and were just as shocked as the audience, as the horrors unfolded...

I'd say yes, but in a minority of cases. There's also a difference between a remake of a film and a big screen adaptation of a television show. I can't think of any TV show that I think was done well as a film, with the exception of the Addams Family. As for movie remakes, it galls me when they do a so-called remake, yet it's a completely different story that bears little resemblance to the original. The Out Of Towners, The Women, and The Stepford Wives are the three that pop into my mind. I guess Fame too, though I haven't seen the newer one. Why do a "remake" when you're completely changing the story???

Going off topic onto TV shows as movies: What about “The Fugitive”? “I thought “Lost in Space” wasn’t bad. “Miami Vice” was quite good in my opinion. While the first “Mission: Impossible was dreadful, the most recent “Ghost Protocol” was really good. Then there’s “Star Trek”. You feel none of those movies were as good as the TV series? I think “The Muppet Movie” was an excellent film. Did you ever see the movie “Pennies From Heaven”? Or “The Simpsons Movie” or “South Park”? How about “The Untouchables”? I thought that was an excellent movie.

Ooh, I totally forgot about some of those. Fugitive was great, and I think Star Trek was extremely true to the original. Of course, that's easier with the original cast. I was so disappointed in Lost In Space. That was a childhood favorite. I thought going darker was an okay decision, and they did slip in a few tongue-in-cheek nods to the original, but I just didn't like the story. I was also really disappointed in the Simpsons. So often, all the money seems to be spent on the big-name cast and special effects, and whatever's left over goes toward the script.

I think bringing a TV show to the big screen is different than remaking an older movie. Since it's based on a series, you're kind of making a two hour episode. But to take a movie and completely change the story, then call it a remake just boggles my mind. Both The Stepford Wives and The Women, both well known and beloved movies, had so little to do with the original story that they may as well have given it a new title and mentioned in the credits that the movie was inspired the original.

King Kong - Which remake are you talking about?.... The remake? or the remake of the remake? or the remake of the remake of the remake of the remake? I liked the remake best...I found the original too Monochrome....

Which seems ironic, given that English and American films tend toward franchises. You'd think they'd have left every opportunity for a sequel, in case the first one made enough money.

I agree - They can be. But I think an important consideration is WHY should a film be remade. Is it because CGI will look really cool and more believable than a guy in a monkey suit? Or is it because the director/producer/studio believes the story has something more to reveal. Do we really need another Seven Samurai or The Wild Bunch or The Birds? Probably not, but they're in development as we speak. Cheers! Am enjoying the discussions as a new member.

Jacques Audiard directed "The Beat My Heart Skipped," an amazing French remake of James Toback's "Fingers." I think cross-cultural remakes can be interesting. "A Woman, a Gun and a Noodle Shop" was at least a bold, if not particularly successful, retelling of the Coen Bros' 'Blood Simple.' Remakes that explore the story in new contexts are welcome. Remakes exploiting old box-office successes not so much. Fincher's 'The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo' for example... what freshness did that remake bring to the story..?

A remake is good if you can tell the story from a different perspective and still maintain the message or intent of the piece you chose. For example: "10 Things I Hate About You" was an excellent remake for younger audiences of Shakespeare's "Taming of the Shrew" just as the musical version "Kiss Me Kate" appealed to a completely different audience. But both were great remakes of a classic.

Oh, I so disagree with you Illimani. I prefer the original to 'Birdcage'. Too often, Robin was allowed to be 'Robin', stepping out of character. And I never truly believed there was a relationship between him and Nathan. It also 'sanitized' the story and some of the gags to make it more appropriate to general audiences while the original was unafraid to offend.

Obviously these are all only opinions, and this is mine, but I totally disagree that Birdcage was better than La Cage Aux Folles. Though I loved it and laughed my ass off, it was watered down, IMO. The original is much more of a low-budget, art house, foreign language film, and that's part of its charm, but I also thought it didn't pander to the audience as much as Birdcage.

Martyn, I guess I'd say the same about All In The Family, though I don't know how directly related it was to Till Death Do Us Part. Jacqueline, you bring up another good point. I see a difference between a reimagining of a story that's been done over and over (usually from great literature). and a remake of a movie only produced once before. I used The Women, The Out Of Towners, and The Stepford Wives as examples because a) the originals were so unique and made such a statement about the eras they were made and b) the remakes or The Women and The Stepford Wives were so different that they told a completely different story. Why not give those movies a different title? Same with Fame. That was more of a sequel than a remake, from what I understand. In the case of The Out Of Towners, the sociopolitical statement of the original was an indictment of the rapidly changing American culture of the '60s.

I have no problem with remakes, if the filmmakers want to bring their view to a classic story, but the remakes that seem to be for purely commercial purposes are a travesty. Godfather 2 and 3 are NOT remakes but sequels. TV shows are 'revamps' and not really remakes. Roxanne was NOT a remake of Cyrano, but a revamping. Quarantined was a remake of REC, and they're almost identical except that the original did a better job at 'hinting' at the cause of the outbreak, while the remake never addressed that issue. The same can be said about the two versions of 'The Ring'. The Stepford Wives is a good example of a sound idea not fully committed to. The remake was intended as a sort of comic version of the original, but it never quite reached its potential

so why mention it, since this is a discussion about remakes. As for the King Kong comments, one must remember that the original was done 80 years ago, so to try to compare it to the most recent is rather unfair. The Peter Jackson version is certainly impressive, considering the special effects and work done by Andy Serkis but I sincerely doubt anyone was scared by it, unlike the original which had audiences screaming in fright. One must also remember that the original had the famous 'spider' scene cut because it was too frightening for the audiences, and the shots of natives being 'squashed' by Kong.

The idea that a remake can capture anything of the emotion and drive of an original remains to be seen. However, I am producing The Invisible Man adapted almost directly from the novel in the manner H G Wells told his tale. No one has EVER done that with his book- until now. So we are not remaking this film as much as creating an original from the novel itself.

Bravo! A very valid and important perspective in this discussion. And I also believe that "the emotion and drive of an original" can almost never be the same or experienced in exactly the same way, especially as it may be separated by a decade or more in this ever-challenging and changing brave new world. Like Frankensteins, creating and re-creating is our mission. Break a Leg!

That's another issue as well. When the original picture is based on a novel, and they screw it up. I hold up Cabaret as one of the worst offenders. The play is much darker. The movie was much more of a feel-good story (about the rise of Nazism???) and completely changed some of the characters to make them sexier and more jet-set. What a cop-out.

Same goes for Fried Green Tomatoes.

I read all the Harry Potter books after seeing most of the movies. I thought they did an excellent job, considering the time constraints imposed by film. But I felt they did a good job condensing the stories. My biggest beef would have been that Emma Watson is too pretty to be Hermione, as described by the book. I was very moved by The Perks Of Being A Wallflower and now want to read the book. I have two friends who had read it before seeing the movie, and they enjoyed the movie better. Both said they loved the novel, but the film cut out a lot of extraneous storyline.

Remakes...I've never seen a remake that stood up to the original. I've never understood the obsession with trying to remake something and most of the time it's something that was done great the first time, "Fame," "Footloose" and I'll even throw, "Dark Shadows" (all of these remakes were mistakes)into the mix.. I've heard this bs flowery of an answer that, "It's going to speak to another generation." Most of the time, unless it's poorly made, the message of the original piece is still there and speaks quite well. Let's call the spade a shovel here folks- Out of all the remakes that have been launched, "poorly made," is never the excuse the excuse to go back and remake it. It's usually an ego, obsession or a wallet that needs to be quenched.

Arthur, what do you think about Cronnenberg's "The Fly"? Carpenter's "The Thing"? Huston's "The Maltese Falcon"? How about Haneke's remake of "Funny Games" or Hitchcock's remake of "The Man Who Knew Too Much"? Hitchcock also remade his "39 Steps" - did you see the remake? Wondering if you feel that didn't stand up to the original. I thought the remake of "Hell in the Pacific" as "Enemy Mine" stood up well to the original. Scorsese has done two remakes that I think stood up well to the original; "The Departed" and "Cape Fear". You don't think they did? I think most remakes are worthless, but I've seen many that stand up well to the original so I'm curious.

The Fly and The Thing are two great examples of remakes surpassing the originals. Another example would be Lillian Helman's "The Children's Hour" which got a bastardized version made earlier as "These Three". When "These Three" was made, they couldn't make it about a lesbian's secret crush but had to sanitize it with a woman coveting her friend's fiance

we're referring to John Carpenter's "The Thing". The 2011 movie was a prequel and basically copied everything without adding anything to the story.

Jacqueline, why not stay on subject instead of going off on your own tangents. Here we were talking about the The Thing and it's remake, and you bring up the 2011 sequel. It's easy to assume we thought you were referring to it as a remake, so I was just clarifying. And why would anyone want to remake a mediocre movie like 'Escape from New York'? what creative purpose would it serve?

And when one does go off on a tangent, please point it out gently and respectfully.

I thought I did, but Jacqueline seems to be eager for a fight.

Improve an original if it's ancient? OK, then why have multiple people tried to remake, "ancient" movies like Gone with the Wind and Casablanca or Miracle on 34th Street and they've all failed miserably? If it's that easy they should have received the same kudos and accolades as the originals. It's not that easy! Those films are like water from the moon and for a good multitude of reasons. Like I said, the reasons that a remake happens is usually an ego, obsession or a wallet that needs to be quenched or a combination of those three. As for John Carpenter's The Thing- Please know that I am not being sarcastic or anything but I remember when that was released and the critics hated it. It did lousy at the box office, for that matter because the audiences agreed- it was lousy.

Help, Jane, get me off this crazy thing! Unfollowing now. It was fun while it lasted though.

Agree with Arthur. There's no need to remake GWTW or Casablanca - those movies are near perfect and nothing can be done to improve them. Can you imagine Casablanca in color? Sounds blasphemous to me. I think the special effects in Carpenter's 'The Thing' were too much for most critics at the time, but now they are viewed as groundbreaking and wonderful. I still remember the original tagline for the movie which the studios felt was too ambiguous. "The warmest place to hide is human". Now that is a scary thought.

I would define a 'Remake' as recreating a Movie following the exact guidelines of a Screenplay from a previously done Film... Adapting a Movie from a Book or Short Story could be done 100s of times, with each interpretation completely different, depending how it is perceived by the Screenwriter...

Yes Leonard mentioning this twice "Jacqueline, why not stay on subject instead of going off on your own tangents." was not gentle. Especially since the 2nd time she had not even said anything recent. Maybe she deleted something or you did not realize you had already posted that to her. Twice publicly is a scold.

Way to go Laura - making a comment bout something said months ago. Nice to see you have to put your two cents in, 'scolding' me for comments everyone else forgot.