Sorry. I know this isn't exactly movie "news", but this still seemed like the place to put it...


As we are all aware, Hollywood has been very excited about the idea of making remakes lately (not that it's anything new). Whether they're straight up remakes, or "reboots", we've been seeing more than our share lately. I don't necessarily have anything against a remake (John carpenter's "The Thing" and David Cronenberg's "The Fly" being a couple of my favorites) and many of the recent reboots have been very good, but it seems like there really should be a need to make a new version of something old beyond it being an easy way to make some quick money.
While remakes have been done well in the past, and I'm sure they still will occassionally, for the most part it just feels like people are running out of original ideas and are simply ripping off old ones to turn a buck. Of course, part of the problem is probably my age. I remember when some of these movies came out (or at least watched the originals as a kid on TV) and tend to feel close to them. I'm sure many people who remembered watching "The Fly" and "The Thing from Another World" back in the fifties felt like the 1980s versions were worthless retreads. Anyway, whatever the reason, I just can't fathom why so many remakes are being made, and even moreso, why they are slapping the name of a classic movie or TV show onto something that barely even resembles the original (I'm thinking "Land of the Lost" among others). I mean, if you really feel you have to change everything about the movie, why not just come up with an original idea and make a brand new movie rather than drag a beloved name down with you as you change everything but the vaguest of notions of the original concept?

Another problem (also age-related I'm sure) I have with many of these remakes is the fact that, in updating them, the directors/producers... end up filling them with all the CGI graphics and shaky-camera work that is so prevalent in movies these days. And I believe that a lot of the shaky-camera stuff is actually used to hide the less-than-seamless appearance of many of the CGI effects (in addition to siimply being the flavor of the day thanks to music videos, commercials and the simple up-the-action-quotient-from-the-lasst-movie factor), but that's another story.

What brought up this rant? Well, I was just reading a review of the new version of "The Taking of Pelham One Two Three", which has been simplified to "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3". A perfectly good heist caper movie has been supercharged into a cookie-cutter action movie--just like everything else that's out there. Here's a quote from the review* that I thought says it all:

"Then again, just knowing the director is Tony Scott ("Top Gun," "Man on Fire," "Domino") is a major indicator of the changes in store. A low-key, steadily paced thriller about a New York subway hijacking has been amped up with Scott's trademark acrobatics: incessant camera movement, sped-up footage that jarringly cuts to slo-mo, seizure-inducing edits and a blaring soundtrack".

True, if you're simply going to make a shot-for-shot remake without updating it at all, then there's no point in making the remake in the first place (see Gus Van Sant's 1998 "Psycho"), but where do you draw rthe line between re-invention and rip-off?


* Associated Press review, written by Christy Lemire

nice rant sir.

i do like some remakes (the hammer stuff is really remakes of the universal stuff) but some are just silly and poorly done.

i think its the next generation of film makers wanting to put their stamp on what they grew up with that and fear of making something new that might not sell.

I can't wait for them to remake "Night of the Living Dead" again. It's been like over a year since the last remake! What gives?!?

I think the recent wave of remakes is pathetic, born out of Hollywood's commerce-over-creativity belief that doing something with built-in name recognition is a safer bet than trying something new. Because that thriving fanbase for HOUSE ON SORORITY ROW is going to make the studio that remakes it thrillions... What they don't seem to understand is that most of the things they remake are unknown quantities to the younger audiences they're aiming the films at, so the kids don't view, say THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL remake with any more interest than they would any other big-budget Sci-Fi release, while a large percentage of those who DO know the original are turned off by the idea of a remake. We're now quite seriously at the point where just about any film you can think of has a remake or sequel in the works, and that's just silly. The belief seems to be that a remake, no matter how unknown or unloved the source material, is a safer bet than something new and original. So, instead of someone taking the time and creativity to give the world the next MATRIX, energy and funds are focussed on remaking RED DAWN.

We all know that the practice of remakes and updates are nothing new, but they seem to be the rule rather than the exception these days. In the Old Days, every fifth film released wasn't a remake. Moreover, in the Old Days (pre-80s), the original versions of the films weren't so readily available to watch. They might get the occasional re-release, or play on TV once a year (if you were lucky), but now with cable and home video, it's easy to just watch PLANET OF THE APES '68 whenever you want, and then go to see the remake and have it compare unfavorably with your (pretty fresh) memory of the original.

Beside all that, what's the ration of good to bad remakes? In my experience, most aren't as good as the originals, or just aren't all that great by themselves. Not too many are successful, which to me is the most confusing thing. Hollywood is a business, and you'd think they'd notice that when remake after remake fails to be the next TITANIC, it might be time to try something fresh and exciting. I guess the hope of profits to be made from a built-in audience/name recognition still makes remakes more of a safe bet in their mind. For me though, when I hear announcements of remakes I just groan a little, as I don't have much interest in them. I've seen a few good ones in the last decade or so, but really watching them is generally time better spent re-watching the original or watching something else. In the long run it's generally the original people are going to reach for anyway. I mean, I thought the new DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL was OK for what it was, but when I get a Gort hankering in the future, that's not going to be the one I watch.

Although I dislike most of the movie remakes, what I really can't stand is the movie based on a TV show. With the lone exception of Star Trek, they are all appallingly bad and vaguely resemble the source material. Yet Hollywood will continue to churn these out because they make money.

I agree. Most remakes are just not worthy, and movies based on TV shows ruin the show. (This was mentioned in another thread regarding Spongebob Squarepants) They can't even get a cartoon-based movie right!