What would you have done in the remake?

[Henry88]

[jellydonut25]

in 90% of cases (at LEAST), i would not have made the movie in the first place

stuff like War of the Worlds, The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Crazies, etc are such a product of their times that in adapting them for a modern setting, you'd have been better off just coming up with something new and not ruined the message of the original film.

then you have the stuff that doesn't even remotely NEED to be remade: foreign films of only two or even fewer years ago (Let the Right One In, A Tale of Two Sisters, [*rec], etc) and movies that are quite simply CLASSICS (Nightmare on Elm Street, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, Various movies in Romero's 'Dead' series, etc)


but, for one of the remakes that didn't bother me because the original(s) aren't classics, i would have spent a LOT less time on the first group of people who almost all die anyway in the Friday the 13th remake. that was like 20 minutes/half hour of the movie and it could been like ten minutes or less.

[canofhumdingers]

I don't consider War of the Worlds a remake. It's a book. And there have been numerous adaptations* if it (film and otherwise). Sure the new film might pay homage to the classic at times, but that does NOT make it a remake. Just like the new True Grit is NOT a remake of the John Wayne film.

Though I guess there could be instances where a movie was based on a book, then someone specifically remakes the movie without going back to the original book... In fact I'm sure that's happened, though I can't think of any specific examples right now.

To answer the OP, I'll reference PJ's King Kong. That could've been really good if he'd just followed his own advice. I remember once reading or hearing him complain that what killed the 70's remake for him was that the girl begins to understand and sympathize for the monster. Even to the point of trying to save him/being saddened by his death. This totally ruins the tragedy of his story: that being that NOone understands him or feels sorry for the horrors he's been put through. They fail to see his "humanity" and view him solely as a monstrous beast to be oggled and then destroyed. Then, after saying that's what he didn't like about the 70's film, PJ goes & does the SAME THING!!?!?!?! So yeah, I'd change that, cut the ice skating scene :puke: , and probably hire a better editor who would have the guts to tell peter he needs to trim some serious fat out of the film. The pacing was just not good for an adventure movie.



* as a side note, I'd LOVE to finally see someone make an good film adaptation of the book that is actually set in the Victorian period, like the book....

[Dr Kain]

[MouthForWar]

[MouthForWar]

As far as how to do a proper remake, look no further than Cronenberg's The Fly. Respect and honor the source material, but put a new spin on it to make it stand out. Don't water the story down to fit whatever PC standards and trends are happening (The Fog, Prom Night). Don't just rehash the exact same film but add gore and a prettier cast (Hills Have Eyes, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hitcher, The Omen, etc.) and don't make the EXACT same film (Psycho) and don't put a happy ending on something that shouldn't have it (The Crazies).

Take the original, put a new spin on it and up the ante. As many problems as Rob Zombie's Halloween has, he dared to make his own version of the story, which is respectable. Other examples: Invasion of the Body Snatchers The Thing, The Blob, Piranha 3-D, The Ring, Willard... and even though Let Me In stays very similar in story to Let The Right One In, it has a completely different tone, and respects the source material greatly. So those are all good examples of remakes done right. Its a thin line to walk for a lot of film makers, and more often than not, the remakes never trump the originals and were just bad ideas to begin with. If the film maker has a clear vision of THEIR version of the story and are sincere about it, chances are you'll get a good one. If they are just after the name to make a buck and hire people that don't give a sh*t (Nightmare on Elm Street, for example), its gonna be a pile of crap that will be forgotten, while the original still remains relevant.

[Dr Kain]

Really? You put The Ring in the same category as The Thing? WOw, The Ring is not even remotely good, nor is the Japanese version. I fell asleep during both versions because they were not scary, they were not suspenseful, and they were not paced well.

Anyway, I have never seen the original version of The Thing, but would love to.

[metal_bryan]

I don't care for either version of The Ring, but I think that the remake is definitely as good as the original in its own way... which is what MFW was actually trying to say.

[MouthForWar]

[jellydonut25]

[walshiam]

[jellydonut25]

[MouthForWar]

[MekaGojira3k]

[MouthForWar]

[Gwangi]

[Shonokin]

[we77964]

[we77964]

[we77964]

[Jinzo Ningen]

The 2002 Mike Young Productions update of He-Man & The Masters of The Universe was a blueprint-perfect example, IMHO, of how to do a remake - and do it right. Every character was easily recognizible yet fully updated and, for the most part, looked better for the updates instead of being changed just for the sake of change or so that the director/producer could put his own unique "stamp" on a character. The stories respected the source material and closely followed Filmation's Eternia/storyline bible with minimal changes, while expanding upon the mythos in cool & interesting ways.

If only every movie and TV remake could be this good.

[planetxleader]