vodkafan Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Hi I watched the remake of True Grit last night. I had promised myself never to watch this as I really liked the John Wayne original. However to my surprise I liked the new film much better, it was closer to the book, and less camp. I am thinking maybe they should remake Zulu or maybe Gone With The Wind? What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karsa Orlong Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 I honestly can't think of one remake I've seen that was better than the original - not just classic English language movies, but the seemingly inevitable reworkings of foreign language films. They even do it with tv series (like The Killing). Personally, I think they should leave well enough alone and try and come up with some new ideas of their own. Oh hang on, I've thought of one. Just one. Casino Royale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodkafan Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 I honestly can't think of one remake I've seen that was better than the original - not just classic English language movies, but the seemingly inevitable reworkings of foreign language films. They even do it with tv series (like The Killing). Personally, I think they should leave well enough alone and try and come up with some new ideas of their own. Oh hang on, I've thought of one. Just one. Casino Royale. I admit that I also hate the Hollywood versions of successful foreign films. For instance, I have not watched the Swedish Dragon Tattoo trilogy yet but I am sure that they are going to be way better than the much hyped Daniel Craig Hollywood version. I would rather watch it in Swedish with subtitles. Likewise with The Ring and Dark Water. But sometimes they can hit the spot. How about King Kong? Surely that was an improvement on the 1930s original? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pickle Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Surely it also depends on the Classic film, those made from Classic books are the most ripe for re-doing and no one seems to object. Jane Eyre is one which is remade every 10 years or so. Pride and Predjudice even Sense and Sensibility the later films are far better and more true than those made in 1940's. I am including TV adaptations in this I know. But on the whole I agree why does Hollywood insist on re-making classic films, there was talk at some point of remaking Blade Runner (shudder) which I am thankful they never have. I generally hate the foreign remakes of both tv and films I am perfectly able to read the sub titles and enjoy the non Hollywood polish of the original which on the whole are far better and grittier. But I am open to new films all the time and who knows some may be better, but I would like to see more originality sometimes and less of a bandwagon for big Hollywood stars. Although saying that I enjoyed the darker edge to the later Batman films despite being a big Tim Burton fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodkafan Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 But on the whole I agree why does Hollywood insist on re-making classic films, there was talk at some point of remaking Blade Runner (shudder) which I am thankful they never have. OMG that would be sacriledge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karsa Orlong Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 How about King Kong? Surely that was an improvement on the 1930s original? Ugh, I hate it! I love the original. The 1976 remake was hilariously bad. The Peter Jackson remake has special effects and that's about it. It's an hour too long and drenched in schmaltz. Give me Fay Wray and stop-motion effects any day! Same goes for the old Universal monster movies - you can't beat the original Lugosi/Karloff/Chaney Dracula, Frankenstein, Wolfman movies, imo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 I guess it depends on how "classic" the original is. I enjoyed the remake of The Mummy personally,and the 80's remake of Invasion of the body-snatchers was very good but I agree, most are just pointless attempts to earn more money. The day the earth stood still remake has to be the biggest crime against cinema so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abcinthia Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 On one hand, I agree with Pickle that films from books are ripe to be remade. I like seeing the different interpretations of books and I do agree with Pickle that the later versions of Pride and Prejudice are better. Even modern books are fine to be re-made in my opinion due to people interpreting them differently. But on the other hand, classic films from original screen plays have a certain feeling that modern films can't replicate - even when remade nearly excatly the same as before. I probably cannot even describe adequately what I mean, but the way the set is designed (even when it is obviously fake like the painted backdrops of The Wizard of Oz), the type of cameras used, the special effects and the music just add so much and gives the movies such a magic feeling and it takes my breath away to watch. Foreign moves and tv should not be remade. It always feels like something is lost in translation and it's usually the thing that made the movie/tv show interesting in the first place! Like when the Spanish film [rec] was remade as Quarantine. The ending of the film was completely changed to fit in with American problems and what scares them rather than keeping it the same as before. Which was a shame because the ending of [rec] was so unique and interesting it made me desperate to watch the sequal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karsa Orlong Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 The day the earth stood still remake has to be the biggest crime against cinema so far. You're not wrong there! I liked the Donald Sutherland remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (and the later remakes as well), but I still love the original 1956 version the best. I remember the first time I saw it, late at night on BBC 2. This was in the days when tv used to shut down overnight (imagine that!). At the end, the announcer said "I hope you're feeling sleepy now" oslt - nooooo, I can't go to sleep after watching that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodkafan Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 On one hand, I agree with Pickle that films from books are ripe to be remade. I like seeing the different interpretations of books and I do agree with Pickle that the later versions of Pride and Prejudice are better. Even modern books are fine to be re-made in my opinion due to people interpreting them differently. But on the other hand, classic films from original screen plays have a certain feeling that modern films can't replicate - even when remade nearly excatly the same as before. I probably cannot even describe adequately what I mean, but the way the set is designed (even when it is obviously fake like the painted backdrops of The Wizard of Oz), the type of cameras used, the special effects and the music just add so much and gives the movies such a magic feeling and it takes my breath away to watch. Foreign moves and tv should not be remade. It always feels like something is lost in translation and it's usually the thing that made the movie/tv show interesting in the first place! Like when the Spanish film [rec] was remade as Quarantine. The ending of the film was completely changed to fit in with American problems and what scares them rather than keeping it the same as before. Which was a shame because the ending of [rec] was so unique and interesting it made me desperate to watch the sequal. I think you and Pickle have nailed it Abcinthia. I agree with all your 3 points. If it's from a book then it's good to see different interpretations. Foreign movies should not be remade. (I liked [rec] too). And some movies are classics because they are of their time. The only thing I would add to that last is that in those movies the actors and actresses become somehow symbolic of that movie too- you can't imagine anyone else doing that role. So I guess I am conceding my argument here. But wait what if the original film was not a book but an interpretation of a historical event? The film Zulu although I enjoyed it, is full of historical innaccuracies and it always annoyed me that you see people just falling over dead pretending to be shot or stabbed when it is obvious they have not got any wound at all. And don't even get me started on all the Roman films where the legionaries wear those leather cuirasses. (These never existed and were the invention of a Hollywoood costume designer) Argh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pickle Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 I was thinking about this too well not about the complete fictional costumes of the Romans but original films which have been modernised rather than re-made, for example you have all those great spy films made at a time of cold war James Bond is a great example of this (although their relationship to the books is very tenuous so I tend to think of them as films only) but they can be modernised when the threat (war terrorism etc) is different I am not sure I do object to this kind of film being made as its a new version rather than a strict remake. Can't think of any great examples at the moment but I am sure I will, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontalba Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Hi I watched the remake of True Grit last night. I had promised myself never to watch this as I really liked the John Wayne original. However to my surprise I liked the new film much better, it was closer to the book, and less camp. I am thinking maybe they should remake Zulu or maybe Gone With The Wind? What do you think? I loved the original True Grit as well, but lets face it. That film was a John Wayne Production....don't get me wrong, The Duke was, well, The Duke, and that was ok with me. But the remake was wonderful I thought, and followed the film very closely. OTOH, I can't imagine anyone I've seen today doing a "better" (or frankly, even semi-equal to) Scarlett O'Hara than Vivian Leigh......but if she could be found, they'd have to do a mini-series. I loved the film, and it was fairly accurate, as far as it went, but out of time necessity, left out soooo many details. But I have to suppose that, in a way, it's an ego thing. We, who have seen and loved "originals" think that the new generations cannot possibly re-do, re-make, a product any better than the ones of our contemporaries. Well, it ain't true, it can be done. More's the pity it isn't successful more of the time. The day the earth stood still remake has to be the biggest crime against cinema so far. Agreed, I've only seen the adverts for the new one, and I can tell from that, it is truly a desecration. I was thinking about this too well not about the complete fictional costumes of the Romans but original films which have been modernised rather than re-made, for example you have all those great spy films made at a time of cold war James Bond is a great example of this (although their relationship to the books is very tenuous so I tend to think of them as films only) but they can be modernised when the threat (war terrorism etc) is different I am not sure I do object to this kind of film being made as its a new version rather than a strict remake. Can't think of any great examples at the moment but I am sure I will, True, and one of the examples of a remake above, Casino Royale is an example of a successful updating. Not of the film with Peter Sellers, that was only a parody of the book. But the new version of CR film was a great updating of the book. The "story proper" was kept, but the technology was updated to today's level. It was well done I thought. This thread, and the above posts remind me not only of remakes of films/books, but what about actors taking a role...I.e. the James Bond acting franchise. When I saw that a Blond was taking the place of all the brunettes prior, I was aghast! Ye Gods, what were they thinking! /sigh/ I was a Sean Connery gal, all the way. But. This guy, Daniel Craig is Good. He has made it his own in a way that the in-between guys had not. So, successful replacement accomplished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kell Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 How about King Kong? Surely that was an improvement on the 1930s original? Nope. I'm afraid we switched it off before they even managed to get off the island as it was so bad. As far as 'm concerned, they stayed and died on that island - LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karsa Orlong Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Nope. I'm afraid we switched it off before they even managed to get off the island as it was so bad. As far as 'm concerned, they stayed and died on that island - LOL! If only Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kell Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Don't tell me any different - they died horrible and torturous deaths - as torturous as the movie was for those forced to watc heven part of it - LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodkafan Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 Don't tell me any different - they died horrible and torturous deaths - as torturous as the movie was for those forced to watc heven part of it - LOL! :lol: It wasn't that bad ! Not compared to the brain -sucking emptiness of Twilight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karsa Orlong Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 :lol: It wasn't that bad ! Not compared to the brain -sucking emptiness of Twilight Was Twilight a remake?? Sheesh, I hope the original was better! And yes, Kell, they all died horrible, horrible deaths. Apart from Kong of course, who lived until he made the inevitable sequel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isandriena Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Gone With the Wind is my favourite classic film. They COULD remake it but no one can play Scarlett Ohara and Rhett butler as well as Vivian and Clark. They made that movie and it would be an atrocity to try and match that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chesilbeach Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 (edited) On the whole, I'd much rather see a classic version of a film, and remakes don't live up to the original, however, there are always exceptions to the rule. I think some of the better remakes tend to be either where they update the characters and story to make a contemporary version of an old film, rather than the ones that are more or less word for word remakes. Some of the remakes I think have been successful where I like the remake more than the original are Ocean's Eleven, Miracle on 34th Street (remade twice, 1994 version my favourite) and The Thomas Crown Affair. I don't mind that books are repeatedly adapted but I object that it's overdone - I don't want to see another remake of Pride and Prejudice or Jane Eyre for at least 20 years, however, I wish there was more originality in cinema rather than relying on book adaptation quite so much. Edited November 28, 2011 by chesilbeach Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueK Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 (edited) I'm a great lover of classic films and don't bother myself with remakes. I can't imagine Zulu being any better than the original. They were made with loving care and no amount of CGI can improve them. I agree that I don't want to see any more remakes of Pride and Prejudice (or Wuthering Heights). I haven't seen the Kieira Knightley version of P&P as there was only one Mr D'Arcy for me anyway (yes Laurence Olivier !) but Colin Firth came a close second. Edited November 28, 2011 by SueK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodkafan Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 OTOH, I can't imagine anyone I've seen today doing a "better" (or frankly, even semi-equal to) Scarlett O'Hara than Vivian Leigh......but if she could be found, they'd have to do a mini-series. I loved the film, and it was fairly accurate, as far as it went, but out of time necessity, left out soooo many details. Only one woman could pull this off......the world's Greatest Living Actress.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paun Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 I watch dvd of friends every day and myself I think Courtnex Cox is better actress than Jennifer Aniston but everyone think different. I also think first old movies mostly better than new movies but I like King NKong both old and new. But my favorite movie is Sorcerer which most people never see but it was much better than first movie which then was called Wages of Fear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontalba Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 (edited) Only one woman could pull this off......the world's Greatest Living Actress.... Can't say she occurred to me. Certainly not the physical type, and a lot of Scarlett is centered on her physical appearance. But then Vivian Leigh was the epitome of Scarlett. Edited November 29, 2011 by pontalba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paun Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 I see Gone with the wind dvd in Thai language so not same and not talking same of course like in south America in civil war day. I think new actress today number 1 is Angelina Jolie and old lady actress number m1mis meril Streep but I do not see so many movies so don't know everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppyshake Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Ugh, I hate it! I love the original. The 1976 remake was hilariously bad. The Peter Jackson remake has special effects and that's about it. It's an hour too long and drenched in schmaltz. Give me Fay Wray and stop-motion effects any day! Same goes for the old Universal monster movies - you can't beat the original Lugosi/Karloff/Chaney Dracula, Frankenstein, Wolfman movies, imo I didn't like it either .. it sort of lost something. It was too tricksy, too long and the dialogue made me cringe. I loved the cast (well, apart from Jack Black who gives me a bit of a reaction) but considering this was a Peter Jackson film .. and I love his stuff ... I was disappointed by it. I don't think I've ever seen a remake that was better than the original. There are some that are sort of as good but on the whole if it was great the first time then leave it alone. They keep having a go at Scrooge/Christmas Carol and some have worked better than others, I don't mind that though as the world can't have enough adaptations of Scrooge as far as I'm concerned ... I love the Muppet Christmas Carol and the new animated Jim Carey one but am holding out for a Tim Burton version or Peter Jackson (despite feeling that they have made some re-make turkeys!) Disappointments for me (filmically speaking .. if I listed all my disappointments we'd be here all day ) .. King Kong Pride & Prejudice Miracle on 34th Street Planet of the Apes The Preachers Wife (Bishops) Sabrina (lord, what an insult) Alfie St Trinians Wuthering Heights (but don't think anyone has been successful at bringing this book alive yet) VF .. I'm not disputing your claim but are you sure you're not being bedazzled by Miss Anistons obvious charms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.