Remakes and reboots

[Devon Malcolm]

If you're remaking the Godfather, you can fuck right off.

 

Why, though? Obviously it doesn't need to be done just like the Psycho remake didn't need to be done, for reasons of quality and the fact that you couldn't really see how those stories could be effectively reinterpreted.

 

But if Albert Pyun suddenly announced a remake tomorrow and a few months down the lines it inevitably turns out to be shite, what's changed about the original? Nothing. Its legacy remains intact.

 

Although now I really want an Albert Pyun version of The Godfather. With Kevin Sorbo as Don Vito Corleone.

[ColinBollocks]

I agree with Gladders. Worst scenario is it's rubbish and you don't watch it (like I did with Psycho), on the other hand a re-imagining may be better or on par (the Nolan/Batman films or the latest Planet Of The Apes film). It doesn't really matter, you don't have to watch it.

[Halitosis Romantic]

If you're remaking the Godfather, you can fuck right off.

 

Why, though? Obviously it doesn't need to be done just like the Psycho remake didn't need to be done, for reasons of quality and the fact that you couldn't really see how those stories could be effectively reinterpreted.

 

But if Albert Pyun suddenly announced a remake tomorrow and a few months down the lines it inevitably turns out to be shite, what's changed about the original? Nothing. Its legacy remains intact.

 

Although now I really want an Albert Pyun version of The Godfather. With Kevin Sorbo as Don Vito Corleone.

 

Albert Pyun is a terribly underrated director, and his Wikipedia entry is hilarious. I kept expecting facts and figures explaining that he is the 7th most successful Pyun in the entertainment business.

[BiffingtonClyro]

I recently saw that Warwick Davies is against WWE remaking The Leprechaun. He said he would rather them do a sequel.

[Devon Malcolm]

Or better still, not make any more Leprechaun films at all because the originals were total shit as they were.

[The Curious Orange]

I suspect Moffatt is annoyed as they may have been planning a big promo push for the Sherlock in the US next series, much like they did with Doctor Who last series - especially with Cumberbatch & Freeman set to pop up in Star Trek 2 and The Hobbit in between.

 

I'm guessing if Elementary tanks over there that'll make that job much harder with advertisers and the like who'd be be less likely to get behind the show if something similar fails previously, , Sherlock could probably do with the overseas sales to contend with budget cuts to the BBC and the increased profile of the stars likely to bring an increased salary too.

[patiirc]

I suspect Moffatt is annoyed as they may have been planning a big promo push for the Sherlock in the US next series, much like they did with Doctor Who last series - especially with Cumberbatch & Freeman set to pop up in Star Trek 2 and The Hobbit in between.

 

I'm guessing if Elementary tanks over there that'll make that job much harder with advertisers and the like who'd be be less likely to get behind the show if something similar fails previously, , Sherlock could probably do with the overseas sales to contend with budget cuts to the BBC and the increased profile of the stars likely to bring an increased salary too.

 

Sherlock has already been commissioned for 2 more series iirc, so the money on wages and stuff has already been sorted. Worldwide sales wont be that problematic. As has always been, if its good enough, it will sell no matter the competition or similar programmes.

 

EDIT: Plus iirc Torchwood and Dr Who were co funded by American finance for the last series made, hence the big push in the US.

[tiger_rick]

Why, though? Obviously it doesn't need to be done just like the Psycho remake didn't need to be done, for reasons of quality and the fact that you couldn't really see how those stories could be effectively reinterpreted.

 

But if Albert Pyun suddenly announced a remake tomorrow and a few months down the lines it inevitably turns out to be shite, what's changed about the original? Nothing. Its legacy remains intact.

It does amongst people who saw it first. However, in the future, you'd have more and more people who'd only seen the newer version, and if it's shit never bothered to check out the original, and that legacy would be watered down.

 

I don't really think any classic film script should be remade, I think ideally the original should be the only version. If something came from a true story or a book, then I think putting another persons interpretation out there is fair game.

 

None of this particularly bothers me, I just think it's a shame when a great piece of work is done badly. Like a bad cover of a song. I've no problem with covers, some I like better than the original. it's always a shame to think that a generation of people are hearing something terrible and not realising how good it was though.

[Loki]

If you're remaking the Godfather, you can fuck right off.

 

Why, though? Obviously it doesn't need to be done just like the Psycho remake didn't need to be done, for reasons of quality and the fact that you couldn't really see how those stories could be effectively reinterpreted.

 

But if Albert Pyun suddenly announced a remake tomorrow and a few months down the lines it inevitably turns out to be shite, what's changed about the original? Nothing. Its legacy remains intact.

 

Although now I really want an Albert Pyun version of The Godfather. With Kevin Sorbo as Don Vito Corleone.

 

 

My beef with remakes/reboots is this. Quite a lot of the time they are much beloved, iconic films that people have wanted more of for years. And most of the time, the people doing the remake/reboot are people trying to squeeze a few easy dollars out of a franchise. So the mismatch between the intent and the audience is usually vast.

 

A couple of examples. I think everyone would have quite liked the idea of some new, fairly big budget Romero Dead films. But "remaking" Dawn Of The Dead (even though it turned out pretty well) was absolutely pointless. The original was the best zombie movie ever made; a remake was always going to compare negatively to the original. And it's retreading old ground that's already been expertly trodden. So why not just make a new chapter in the series?

 

Or that puported Robocop "reboot". Why not just make a Robocop sequel? The guy is a machine; you set the series 30 years after the originals, and he's exactly the same but the world's gone to shit ala Mad Max, and you could even throw in some original cast who are about the right age. Why not spend 5 minutes thinking of something good to do with the franchise rather than just a reboot.

 

Al least when they decided to revisit the Terminator films, they made the right decision to dive into another interesting area of the backstory rather than just rebooting. Take note, Batman and Spiderman producers - I'm bored with origin stories. I want to see Old Batman fighting ageing for one last mission, not another film about how he conveniently acquired martial arts skills. Karate chop!

 

I personally think reboots are only a good idea where the original franchise was either completely devalued by a shoddy film tie-in (Judge Dredd) or had painted itself into a creative corner, and there's actually a clever way of doing the reboot (Star Trek).

[Bellenda Carlisle]

Here's my 2 cents (whatever that means)

If it's another version of something based on existing source material it doesn't even really count, like that guy said here, Sherlock Holmes is ancient, who's that dickhead to say someone else can't do it when it's been done to death anyway? I want to see as many Batman, superman, spider-man etc movies as they can make because I love the characters. Chris nolan's Batman movies are good but they're not the be all and end all of Batman & I'd love it if someone else was making a Batman film in 2014.

 

Some to me are just pointless, the new version of the Thing for example, the old one is a classic and people still watch it and remember it fondly. Same with most horror ones, it just seems lazy. Same for true classics like king Kong and Psycho, a remake doesn't add anything to a film that well known and loved. (I know the 1982 thing is a loose remake of another film but it stands on it's own and the new one is obviously a remake of that one)

 

I think it makes sense if it brings it to a new audience, the karate kid with will smith's son looks abysmal and lots of people love the original but it's a kids' film & kids won't have heard of the original so may as well have their contemporary version. Same for remakes of less known or old or foreign films, the departed was great and true lies certainly reached an audience that the French original did not.

Also if there's a vague premise that can be used again that seems cool eg 21 jump street is about cops going undercover as high school kids, it's a pretty solid idea & was last seen in an 80s tv show, I see nothing wrong with making a movie using the same premise but not the same characters etc.

[Dead Mike]

Most remakes/reboots reek of Hollywood not wanting to take a chance on an original script/idea & are 'playing safe'. The worst example of this was the Nightmare On Elm St remake/reboot. If there's something to add by remaking a film, the technology the first time round couldn't allow the film makers the fully realise the concept or they were restricted by the politics of the time.

I think the cinema going public are keen for new ideas/franchises that aren't remakes or adaptations, take 'Inception' for example (before people moan Nolan's a hack blah, blah, blah) it was an original script, without any source references & did monster business. If Nolan hadn't already made the studio a squillion dollars that would've never got the green light.

[GalaxyV.2]

He's not saying that though. His point is the producers of Elementary came to them to do a US version of the show which they turned down. So they really are copying the Moff version. He's not against another Sherlock Holmes, he's often talked about modernising Holmes as not being a new idea, its just this seems a bit too similar to the version that is already going out.

 

It probably wont even make a series though so not sure why he's worried. Plus Sherlock seems to have done well over there anyway so he shouldn't worry.

[Chest Rockwell]

Most remakes/reboots reek of Hollywood not wanting to take a chance on an original script/idea & are 'playing safe'.

 

This is the really confusing thing about the Leprechaun reboot.. It is a series that, at best, enjoys a cult "so bad it's good" kinda following. Not exactly the source material you want to base a cash-in reboot on! Or is this the only thing they could get the rights to? If so, once again they're not spending their budget too wisely.

[Bellenda Carlisle]

Most remakes/reboots reek of Hollywood not wanting to take a chance on an original script/idea & are 'playing safe'. The worst example of this was the Nightmare On Elm St remake/reboot.

 

That's the worst for me too, beloved original that still looks fine, uninspired obvious remake that is already forgotten, casting a dude who was hot for 5 seconds in the main role, awful. But the worst part for me was that Heather Langenkamp (Nancy in the original) was lovely and the miserable looking bitch in the new one doesn't have the same innocence at all.

 

Also what Loki said about doing another sequel instead of a remake is more apt here than ever, I think NOES would've been a bigger hit and a better movie if Robert Englund was back as Freddy going after modern teens rather than a dull remake. It's not like Freddy has to be young and he was so important to the character

[Devon Malcolm]

Why, though? Obviously it doesn't need to be done just like the Psycho remake didn't need to be done, for reasons of quality and the fact that you couldn't really see how those stories could be effectively reinterpreted.

 

But if Albert Pyun suddenly announced a remake tomorrow and a few months down the lines it inevitably turns out to be shite, what's changed about the original? Nothing. Its legacy remains intact.

It does amongst people who saw it first. However, in the future, you'd have more and more people who'd only seen the newer version, and if it's shit never bothered to check out the original, and that legacy would be watered down.

 

The legacy is only watered down if people let it. It's not hard for people to search out originals. No classic original that I can think of has been adversely affected in terms of general opinion by a bad remake.