Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:07 am**

Seven Samurai and Magnificent Seven can't be called a true remake but more of a reimaging. If Seven Samurai cut out about 40 mins to an hour it would fantastic as it stands it is just too drawn out.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:21 am**

Cail wrote:There's going to be a remake of Escape From New York. Carpenter's film is original.

I would've thought it was too new for a remake.

Guess not huh? (I usually avoid remakes, whether or not I've seen the original. Are they that short of ideas?)

--A

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:25 am**

I just don't understand the idea. I mean if a film is bad enough to warrant a remake, then everyone who saw the original will most likely think "that movie sucked, why would I want to see it again?" and the whole idea of a good movie, is that IT'S FINE AS IT IS! It doesn't need to be remade.

The whole thing stinks.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:29 am**

exactly. my feeling exactly. i mean...what FOR???

you'd have to IMPROVE on the film and how ya gonna improve on HITCHCOCK? even HITCHCOCK couldn't improve on Hitchcock!! (he did two remakes of his own films!!)

(i'm just using Hitch as an example, how ya gonna improve on Escape from New York, for that matter?)

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:32 am**

It just doesn't seem possible.

I mean, I haven't seen one good remake, where the orginal film was already fine. They all end up like crap.

I assume I've seen a few good remakes of crappy flicks, it's to late to be specific, but my previous point still remains; there wouldn't be a very large fan base to make a remake worth it.

Of course, they could always play it like the flick is brand new, with little to no fanbase to be pissed about it. Of course that might incite legal battles... hmm....

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:23 am**

I thought the remake of Dawn of the Dead was pretty good, but it's not the classic the original was. Likewise, I'm glad that Carpenter remade The Thing, though it could be argued that his film is a more faithful interpretation of the book.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:26 am**

Dawn of the Dead was pretty good. Never saw the original though. (Didn't really compute the fact that it was actually a remake in fact.)

--A

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:46 am**

Balon wrote:I just don't understand the idea. I mean if a film is bad enough to warrant a remake, then everyone who saw the original will most likely think "that movie sucked, why would I want to see it again?" and the whole idea of a good movie, is that IT'S FINE AS IT IS! It doesn't need to be remade.

Lucimay wrote:exactly. my feeling exactly. i mean...what FOR???

I agree entirely, but we're coming at this from a viewer's angle. From a corporate standpoint, remakes mean money, on a combination of curiosity value and the good name (in some cases) of the original. In my opinion, that's what the current glut of remakes is all about - getting some cash with minimal effort.

Shamefully, I have to admit to playing my part in that. As an example, I went to see the remake of The Wicker Man, knowing it'd be dreadful, knowing I'd hate it and leave the cinema in a murderous rage...but I still went. I went to find out just how bad it could be.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:47 am**

good thread.

I've always wondered about this. Surely you've got to have a reason to remake something. It's not just about trying to make it better, but to change the emphasis of the movie. You see it quite often in adaptations from books to movies--the book will have a certain agenda but the movie will have another one(25th hour being a good example). The worst remake I've ever seen was Roman Polanski's Oliver. The acting was good and the direction was solid and it was a decent enough film...but it was just the same as the original. I can't help but wonder what inspired him to make it.

The Departed was useless compared to the original.

And what about Precinct 13!! Why make that again and add absolutely nothing. Besides which the remake was completey shit.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:49 am**

One could argue that it's pointless to remake classics. Miracle on 34th Street, Citizen Kane, or (heh) any Carpenter film.

That said, I'd love to see a remake of They Live, as long as it was a low-budget remake starring another wrestler.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 12:21 pm**

Marvin wrote: And what about Precinct 13!! Why make that again and add absolutely nothing. Besides which the remake was completey shit.

God, yes. The first is great, the new one is as awful.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:02 pm**

i want to see a remake of "Hawk the Slayer". seriously. cheap cheesy movies are exactly the type of movie that are ripe for remakes, imo. give a decent director, like PJ or Raimi, $50 million and they'd make a great "Hawk the Slayer".

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:28 pm**

I just watched "The Departed" yesterday when I was home sick. I had no idea there was an oriignal.

When I hear about Escape from NY remake, I couldn't understand why they would do a remake. That movie is not old enough to do a remake. I really like Gerard Butler but I think this will be a bad move for his career. He is a good enough actor to pull it off but I think this will be a bomb at the box office.

If Hollywood needs new material, I know of a book about a leper....

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:27 pm**

Cail wrote:I'm glad that Carpenter remade The Thing, though it could be argued that his film is a more faithful interpretation of the book.

Much like it could be argued that 'Charlie and the chocolate factory' is more faithful to the book than 'Willy Wonka' was.

While it's not a remake, last year's 'Casino Royale' completely demolishes the 1967 'Casino Royale'.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:30 pm**

i much prefer "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" to "Willy Wonka", myself, and also agree that Craig's "Casino Royale" is the definitive version.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:38 pm**

Peven wrote:i want to see a remake of "Hawk the Slayer". seriously. cheap cheesy movies are exactly the type of movie that are ripe for remakes, imo. give a decent director, like PJ or Raimi, $50 million and they'd make a great "Hawk the Slayer".

OMG YES!

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:01 pm**

No. Hawk the Slayer was SO bad it deserves to be left alone. Like Paln 9 form Outer Space.

how about Philip Kaufman's 1978 remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers?

or Cronenberg's remake of The Fly?

Bingo. Excellent choices. However, Magnificent Seven is NOT superior to Seven Samurai!

Remakes can potentially be better, but only if you take a movie that was not well made in the first place, but may have a great idea. Remaking Assault on Precinct 13 was a bad idea. It was low-budget, yes, but a well executed movie.

If you are going to remake something pick a movie like Krull, or some other bad movie with a neat idea...

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:36 pm**

dANdeLION wrote:
Cail wrote:I'm glad that Carpenter remade The Thing, though it could be argued that his film is a more faithful interpretation of the book.
Much like it could be argued that 'Charlie and the chocolate factory' is more faithful to the book than 'Willy Wonka' was.

Very true, however, I thought Burton's film (to be polite) blew. The Thing, or Invasion of the Body Snatchers, regardless of their remake/reimagining status and source material, were both excellent films in their own right.

For example, Kubrik's The Shining is an excellent film, but bears little resemblance to the book. The miniseries adaptation of the book actually follows what King wrote....But it sucked.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:46 pm**

Usivius wrote:No. Hawk the Slayer was SO bad it deserves to be left alone. Like Paln 9 form Outer Space.

If you are going to remake something pick a movie like Krull, or some other bad movie with a neat idea...

what? WHAT?!?! you diss the glory that is "Hawk the Slayer" then turn around and ask for another "Krull"? shame on you.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:52 pm**

Cail wrote:
dANdeLION wrote:
Cail wrote: For example, Kubrik's The Shining is an excellent film, but bears little resemblance to the book. The miniseries adaptation of the book actually follows what King wrote....But it sucked.
Why, do you think? IMO the difference in the actors made all the difference in the world between the movie and the mini-series. I will say that I much prefer Rebecca de Mornay to Shelley Duvall.