For the record, I'm in agreement with you. There are those of us (myself included) who can't really say what should and should not be remade. Like I said, there is a fine line that is there when it comes to treating the original product with the respect that it deserves. Planet of the Apes is a good example. The one with Mark Wahlberg, to me it was just awful. The ones they did after that, at least to me, were actually good. It took the original concept ideas and used a degree of logic that wasn't there....well, to me at least. Godzilla, again, which version for the remake are you going with. King Kong was just remaking the original (which I liked based upon the expansion of the original plus making Kong more gorilla-like than a stop-go motion figure). I'm not even going to touch Ghostbusters and don't even get me started on the remake of Willy Wonka. I still believe the original with Gene Wilder is a classic and a part of my childhood as well as other people's childhood. With every new generation and every younger crowd that comes along, I feel kinda sad because they're being exposed to what the latest version is. They don't know what the previous versions were. Good example for me to use. A friend of mine has a couple of nephews (it's her aunt's kids.....so I don't know what the nephews are technically) who are millennials. When she (my friend) mentioned playing games like Dungeons and Dragons and having nothing more than a bag of dice, a character sheet and an imagination (as well as several liters of Jolt Cola), their minds were unable to grasp the concept of something like that. Personally, I think that there is a moment to stop giving millennials all the fancy schmancy hi-tech toys. Don't give them a tablet to read a book. Give them an ACTUAL book, with pages to read. Graphic novels and comics.....okay I say keep those. But to have a real book where you can touch the pages, feel the spine of the book,.....it's kinda sexy in my opinion. But getting back to Rocky Horror reboot, to me it wasn't just about going against the grain and what the establishment was. Yeah, it was all that plus pushing various boundaries while wearing fishnet stockings. But having to turn it into something that made it look like something from "Glee" or "High School Musical".......where everything is kinda Disney-fied just to appeal to a younger crowd, it kinda takes away that "punk" vibe that you're going with. What was once taboo,.....almost isn't. Well, maybe still taboo according to what Congress says anyway. And if I feel that having to shave the squirrels and smear mayo over my body while wearing a smiley-faced man-thong is considered to be wrong then I don't want to be right. Heck,....I know I ain't right.... .....in the head that is.....
While it is true that there are situations where there is the chance for there to be more than one version of a movie (or song, or TV show, etc.), there are also times where there simply should be only one. If you're going for a straight-up remake of something, then what you need to do is make sure you're not only honoring the original but also surpassing it somehow. At the very least you have to show that you get what made the original so good/a classic. The closest I've seen come to that is the King Kong films that have come out, but both the Peter Jackson and the 1976 remake ended up falling prey to getting a bit bloated and overblown (Jackson's version in particular). So for me those versions are decent but they didn't quite get it right. Remakes where they make it their own but still hold true to the spirit of the original are another way to go. The recent Battlestar Galactica series and the latest Ghostbusters fall into that category for me, and to an extent the latest Star Trek films as well. None of them are flawless, especially when compared to the originals they were based on, but they do hold up on their own and have been solid projects. A movie like The Crow is one I think falls firmly into the "there should be only one" category. The circumstances surrounding the original and how it contributed to the finished product weigh very heavily on that particular movie. I don't think there's any real way to replicate that, so it's one that's better left alone. As far as IT, I think they might have been better off going with a series of some kind instead of films (i.e. Game of Thrones, Walking Dead) because there's just so much to that book. That's really the only way I could see the book being done justice, but we'll have to wait and see on the films I guess.
The statement implies a concrete fact. When it's actually a very biased based opinion where you are only counting yourself. If you like the remake, and it meets your requirement for what a remake "should" be. Then it good. If other like it, but you yourself have too many issues with it, then it's a failure that never "should" have happened. In the paragraph about King Kong, and again in the paragraph about Battlestar Galactica, Ghostbusters there is a key phrase that needs to be highlighted. "for me." When saying something "should" not have been made, it speaks for everyone. When you are actually speaking for yourself. I'm from the South, but iv gone this far without partaking in an old fashion Book Burning. Not gonna start now. Which is not to say that I disagree with the opinion. I am just pointing out that what it is...an opinion. Now to loop the conversation back to Rocky Horror. The hard part about remaking a cult classic, is that you are attempting to remake a failure. The cult following it had did help some of the actors in their carrier, but director Jim Sharman. ..based on his imdb page, studios were not trying to get him to remake his magic. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0788940/?ref_=tt_ov_dr There is a line in a book I am currently reading about Bette Davis, where she says "If a movie does well, the actors get all the credit. If a movie does poorly, the director gets all the blame." So when remaking a cult movie, it's taking something that was rejected by the majority, and loved by a minority and once again trying to make it appealing to the majority. They had to have known this reboot would flop. I mean, how could it not? I'm sure that why it was "made for tv" But I have no doubt this well have it's own following. It just won't have very many card-carrying members who know every line from the original by heart. Iv not seen the movie yet, so this is just based on the music video clips iv watched, but from what iv seen it really, really looks like GLEE. Which is popular with today's youth, and I am sure the style will help gravitate them to the reboot. To wrap it up. All this "should not have been made" From one cult fan to another, when a movie we loved came out and the critics, reviews, and majority of moviegoers listed out all that was wrong with the movie. When they laid out a point-by-point case on why it "should not" have been made....did that hinder us?
There are certain moments where a film or even a piece of music should and even should not be remade. I am in agreement of having to honor the original concept,....but if there is a moment to enhance upon the original and use a slightly different approach that still keeps to the original lore (i.e. - Halloween and Texas Chainsaw Massacre), it's up to the director to try to live up to that original premise. Some films, such as "The Thing" and "Scarface", are cases where the original was decent,....but the remake was way better. Scarface, as the original black and white, was reflective on the times. The remake, again, reflective on the times but what the directors and writers had done was to make it relevant to the time it was put out and wrote a screenplay / script that made it iconic. If the original version of Scarface had the main character from Cuba and said "Say hello to my little friend" while firing an old tommy gun,.....it wouldn't work or have audience members in an uproar because of whatever reason. When it comes to the concept of "there should be only one", again, it's something that should remain intact as much as possible. When I said trying to do a reboot of "Monty Python and The Holy Grail" or even "Princess Bride", I'm sure there would be those who would declare the reboot as sacrilege. It would be hard to imagine doing a remake of Holy Grail because the original had that certain sense of magic to it......as well as a rabbit that would leap and gnaw your head off. Yeah, it was a fake rabbit, but having it as reboot would mean having to CG everything to death and that's where it kinda crosses a line. Getting back to the Rocky Horror reboot, many fans of the original felt insulted on a remake being done. Although the directors and producers had taken certain elements of the original stage production as well as the original film, there were some good moments in what was presented. But again, it does come down to the simple fact that what made the original such a classic was how it was filmed. Redoing the songs to make them more modern or pop,.....nice idea.....but,....not sold on the idea. When they did the Time Warp sequence, it was styled as "High School Musical" (where I think the director had most of his background from). When I saw the clips of the remake that I managed to catch, I felt it was like having Disney make Rocky Horror in it's own weird image. Hmmm.....a Disney princess playing the part of Janet. Nahhh....doesn't work for me. Many fans don't want to have the original product be touched. Many film studios feel the same way. Having to preserve an original film as much as possible is vital. It shows future film makers what Hollywood was doing at the time and where filming technology was at during that time period. If there is a need to introduce a young person to a film that has been remade,....it comes down to the choice of either having them watch the original or the remake. Depending on the film, it does come down to the concept of what is in the eye of the beholder. .....and when there was the mentioning of Bette Davis.....the only thing I can think of is her saying "What. A. Dump."
honestly i don't see the reason why so many people get mad when their favorite movie is remade. (rhetorically) who cares? you can still watch your movie. it's not like they're pulling the original from the shelves.. i liked both but honestly the original is really outdated
If you're okay with that,.....that's your opinion. Maybe even remake "Monty Python and The Holy Grail" seeing it might be outdated.
Very little is an absolute when discussing works of art like films, and a lot of the time things only become clear in hindsight about whether or not a particular project should have been pursued. Even so, there are many films out there that stand out or stand the test of time (or both) that the vast majority of movie watchers and film buffs say, "No, leave the original alone." And when people try to redo them or remake them, they fall flat on their face because they don't honor the original or worse don't stand up to the original. There's also cases of where a film tells its story well in one movie, making remakes or even sequels highly unnecessary. The original Highlander stands out for me in that case. I've yet to see an argument that convinces me the sequels OR the TV series were necessary when they told the story in the first film. Yes, it's all subjective. When that happens you kind of have to go with your gut.
By that same token, why would a remake be necessary if the original is still available and has stood the test of time?
if you don't want to make something because it's not necessary then you won't be making hardly anything. the remake's not hurting anyone or the original by co-existing. people need to get over their nostalgia
That much I can understand and agree with. As I stated... "So when remaking a cult movie, it's taking something that was rejected by the majority, and loved by a minority and once again trying to make it appealing to the majority. They had to have known this reboot would flop. I mean, how could it not? I'm sure that why it was "made for tv" " I think it's safe to say that the 1975 was rejected by the mass but it's mind set of that current society for it's punk sound, and sexual/gender themes. But those are the aspects that made it popular with it's cult fans. 2016 reboot now, it flipped the script. The sound is now what we today know as "pop" and the sexual tone was dropped to a more....family friendly... It took away the things we enjoyed, and remade it to better fit that type of movie viewer that rejected that first one. So I 100% can understand a feeling of those of us who enjoyed that with original, feeling like we are being pushed out of this one. While at the same time I can understand people who did not enjoy that style in the first one, feeling like they were being excluded that time around. Using this reference seems a little odd for this subject, but it just kinda fits lol But I'm reminded of a line in an eps of that animated show The Boondocks when Huey says "I can't save everyone else. If I tried, I'd just end up saving nobody" For what ever reason I guess, it's just easier for me to take a step back, and view an original and a remake as two different movies. I also know how to not care, or even disliking something while not hating it's existence. Hellz, iv tried 3 times to watch that last Chucky movie and just can't sit through it. But I know some people did like it. And I can honestly say that I am not at all bothered or threatened because of it. And when rewatching and enjoying the old Child's Play movies...the Chucky reboot never enters my mind. Maybe I am just not that sentimental...but I just don't compare things that I like, to things other people like. Nor do I think so highly of myself, to believe my taste in movies, music, books, video games, ect ect. is so vastly superior to others, and they should either bend to be more like me, or just go away. To me, that's just another form of censorship. I get that for this it's in an effort to protect that artistic dignity of a classic film, but all forms of censorship are in an effort of good intentions. And as far as judging or attacking others for enjoying something they enjoyed...Nahhh....doesn't work for me. lol I feel really odd defending a movie iv have not even watched. And from the few clips that I have seen, don't like. I just wanted to speak up because the thread is sort of designed to bash anyone who might have enjoyed it. haha I'm a gay punk, I'm damn near required to stand up for the underdog in any situation. Tho looking back, it would have probably been better had I just made a simple comment about encouraging people to like what they like, and not worry about others. Tossed in a little Sid Vicious "It's not really my problem if they think I'm weird." and called it a day. But by participating in a debate about the subject, I fear it might have only made the environment that much more hostel and discouraged people further from admitting anything they found positive about this movie, or any other remake. Also it kind of feels like we are going in a circle. Each of us are repeating our same points, just changing the words a little bit. SooooOooOoo. **waves white-flag** I concede.
There's a point where nostalgia is preferred over all things. When it comes to movies, many films stand out as a timeless classic. Good example is Citizen Kane. Probably one of the top 100 Greatest Films of All Time. It's not just a case of nostalgia to see it, but it's also a great example of film making and story telling. Some of the camera tricks, such as the camera panning out to view the entire collection of art, was an inspiration for Raiders of the Lost Ark when the camera panned out and you saw a warehouse full of stuff. Classic and nostalgic films are there to remind future film makers exactly how films were made and what made them great. Many films rely on using CGI for background scenes and extras (like extra people in a crowd). Early films (another good example, Ben Hur, Cleopatra and Ten Commandments) used actual people, elaborate set designs, matte paintings, etc, in film making. Stuff like that isn't just nostalgia, but it's a dedication to actual craftsmanship. Take a look at animated films. Companies such as Disney did their cartoons by hand. Everything now is just done on a computer. Although it's nice and there are many talented animators in that field, there should still be a nod to what early film makers had done. A lot of stuff coming out today is processed pablum. Granted, there are those in both music and film that have honed their craft but a lot of it is just "let's make something just to get some money." Kids today, and future generations, are going to find out that what was considered as classic is long gone and never to be seen again. Nostalgia is there to remind a person of what was good in life. It takes a person back to a moment in time where things were simple and less complicated. As we grow older, those things are going to be gone and forgotten. But, if we don't try to preserve them and honor their memories, those things loose the chance of being passed down to the next generation.
Nostalgia does play a part of it, but I think a large part is how well the actors in some of those films pretty much owned their roles due to their talent and charisma. Of course in terms of the topic I think Tim Curry's version of Frank can be described in those terms. He did pretty much own the role from the moment he hit the screen. But another great example to me would be Peter Sellers. His performances were almost always fantastic. On top of that, any of the Pink Panther films that were done after his death did NOT do well at all, even with great comedic actors like Steve Martin stepping into the role of Clouseau. And as good as some of the comedic actors are these days, it's tough to imagine anyone else being able to pull off the three roles he performed in Dr. Strangelove. I just love that part of the film. Another would be Marilyn Monroe. The Seven Year Itch seems like it'd be one ripe for a remake, in no small part because today they could make it more accurate to the play it was based on (in the play Richard Sherman and The Girl did sleep together, but that was a no-no at the time in Hollywood). But then you look at Monroe's performance in that film, and she hit like a freight train in her performance as The Girl. As gorgeous and capable as many actresses are these days, again it's tough to imagine an actress matching the bar Monroe set in that film.
none of what you said gives a good reason why a movie remake shouldn't be made. on the flip side, if it makes money for a company then they should do it.
Caught the very end of this garbage, and they cast Mr Curry as the Narrator? Just when thought they couldn't vomit over the original any more than they had!
The Rocky Horror reboot... Bleh. It felt like they were trying to get success through combination of attractive cast (Victoria Justice being half naked helped) and the nostalgia factor of having Tim Curry involved. In truth, it ended up painful across the board. Seeing Tim Curry struggling to say a couple words while thinking of how full of life he had been... tragic. The chemistry and sexual tension was completely lacking. The singing was screwed up on several counts, particularly with their horrible screaming "CREATURE OF THE NIGHT" at the end. It felt like they were told to scream it in the most annoying way possible. And don't even get me started on the choreography of it all. The original Rocky Horror was a play, and has been done probably millions of times since then, but this was the worst performance of it I have ever seen. Heck, the few minutes they did in Perks of Being a Wallflower were better.