|
Post by gillianren on Nov 6, 2007 3:46:40 GMT -4
Not even something so simple as Some Like It Hot, which is how I found out about the whole thing in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 6, 2007 4:16:14 GMT -4
Speaking of Billy Wilder, don't miss One, Two, Three.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 6, 2007 6:27:16 GMT -4
Why do they re-make old movies that were much better than the re-makes? The Italian Job, The Ladykillers, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Nov 6, 2007 7:27:23 GMT -4
Don't forget A Night to Remember.
Even when I compare it to Cameron's film, to me it's still the definitive film about the Titanic.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 6, 2007 9:14:30 GMT -4
Why do they re-make old movies that were much better than the re-makes? So they can get people like gillianren's friend into the theaters. Some people may refuse to watch old movies but they'll spend their money to see a crappy modern remake.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Nov 6, 2007 9:18:36 GMT -4
My son is constantly astounded when, as he once again is telling me about the "hot new movie" that is out, I tell him that "it's a remake."
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Nov 6, 2007 9:20:33 GMT -4
Speaking of Billy Wilder, don't miss One, Two, Three. "Russian rockets - Venus!
American rockets - Miami Beach!"
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 6, 2007 11:45:50 GMT -4
Hey, I liked the new Italian Job. It wasn't the greatest film ever but I liked it enough to buy the DVD. Ocean's Eleven was a pretty good remake too.
I suppose he would never watch episodes from the first or second Doctors Who either, or the original Twilight Zone (Shatner again!).
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 6, 2007 12:55:24 GMT -4
There's nothing inherently wrong with remaking a movie. Most of the plays I am involved with are remakes, strictly speaking. Re-imagining a story, especially to tell it in a more modern idiom, is an honored practice that often works.
What irks me are bad remakes. That is, classic films whose original imagination was iconic and masterful, retold with a lackluster or formulaic script, cast, and art direction solely for short-term capitalization on name recognition.
Successful remakes must be films in their own right. The Italian Job remake works because the remake stands on its own artistic and technical merit.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 6, 2007 13:02:09 GMT -4
The remake of Psycho, on the other hand, may be the worst idea ever.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 6, 2007 13:21:08 GMT -4
I tend to agree. The original Psycho was written by acclaimed writers, directed by the master of suspense, performed by a highly skilled cast, and photographed in impeccable film-noir style. It stands as one of the greatest films of all time in any genre.
The remake actually had a number of good things going for it. It was written by the original novel's author in collaboration with Hitchcock's original screen writer. It was directed by Gus Van Sant: not at all a throwaway director. The cast is at least competent -- not the typical unknowns that win roles in capitalist remakes in order to keep costs down.
But for all that, it ended up being a shot-for-shot remake of the Hitchcock film. It interjected almost nothing new by way of a reimagining, except for color, and it omitted much of what made Hitchcock's version the masterpiece it is: the subtlety of dialogue, pacing, and characterization. Bloch had the opportunity to restore his original characters and try the film that way. He didn't take it. Van Sant had the opportunity to adopt a more modern shooting and acting style, which frankly sells movies. He didn't take it. They missed the boat; and the boat they missed was preceded by an icon of American cinema.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 6, 2007 13:25:21 GMT -4
Jason, you might be interested in the news that Lex de Azevedo is working on a remake of the film version of Saturday's Warrior. The previous version was not very good, and was made without his creative input. He is the producer of the new version and he is committed to making it good. I'm meeting with him tomorrow night and I'll try to eke some casting and creative details out of him.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 6, 2007 14:01:30 GMT -4
Saturday's Warrior is a film that could probably benefit from a remake.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Nov 6, 2007 16:00:48 GMT -4
So is Starship Troopers.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 6, 2007 16:23:34 GMT -4
You mean you didn't like the complete perversion of Heinlein's ideas, the way the sergeant trained a trooper by throwing a knife through his hand, the way the starships milled around like sheep, or the way the troops on the ground cleverly disguised themselves as a disorganized mob? I don't understand. My favorite was the pilot what's-her-name with the single expression (plucky concern) throughout the entire story.
What irks me are bad remakes. That is, classic films whose original imagination was iconic and masterful, retold with a lackluster or formulaic script, cast, and art direction solely for short-term capitalization on name recognition.
Another remake we didn't need was The Manchurian Candidate. It wasn't bad, really; it just didn't have the zip of the original - actually, it was a bit too slick, and the updated scenarios didn't add any benefit.
On the other hand, while nothing could quite match the original Fail Safe, I really enjoyed George Clooney's live version on CBS. That took a bit of courage to attempt, and showed some real respect for the original as well as the viewers.
|
|