Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Trampa501

Why Are Film Remakes Generally Inferior To The Original?

Recommended Posts

Of course there may be exceptions, but I don't normally expect a remake to be as good as the original. Why is this? I have two possible reasons why. One: the makers of the new version change important strands in the film to make it "different" to the original; in doing so they destroy part of its quality. Two: Nearly always there's an attempt to update the setting, make the thing look "real", which has the opposite effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there may be exceptions, but I don't normally expect a remake to be as good as the original. Why is this? I have two possible reasons why. One: the makers of the new version change important strands in the film to make it "different" to the original; in doing so they destroy part of its quality. Two: Nearly always there's an attempt to update the setting, make the thing look "real", which has the opposite effect.

I thought the remake of the War of the World's (Tom Cruise) was better than the "original." Indeed slightly more loyal to the HG Wells book. Proves there is an exception to the rule!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there may be exceptions, but I don't normally expect a remake to be as good as the original. Why is this? I have two possible reasons why. One: the makers of the new version change important strands in the film to make it "different" to the original; in doing so they destroy part of its quality. Two: Nearly always there's an attempt to update the setting, make the thing look "real", which has the opposite effect.

I would venture that a very good film is produced when three planets align.. good acting, good directing and a novel/interesting story/twist.

You can reproduce some of the actors (if you didn't kill them off), you can try to use a similar directing style, but you will never recreate the novel interesting element created in the first film.

Most films follow a story where you create a group of characters.. put them in an awkward position then miraculously in the face of all adversity they beat the bad guy in a nail biting near death finale. I think any story loses it's credibility when exactly the same characters manage to get into an almost identical pickle and defeat a predictably similar bad guy in an even more elaborate finale than the first. It just isn't fresh and original any more.

Edit.. Oops.. I thought we were talking about sequels :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case of remakes I think the acting and directing usually loses something that made the original exceptional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the remake of the War of the World's (Tom Cruise) was better than the "original."

Personally I'm not a big fan of the 2005 version, although the "fighting machines" were superb, genuinely chilling.

I think where the 2005 version fell down was in its unappealing characters. Personally I was rooting for them to get fed into the "Martian" sausage grinder.

Someone really needed to stuff a rag into that Fanning child's screeching gob.

Most film remakes are unecessary. If the original was good, why remake it?

The guys behind "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" had the right idea. They were remaking a film that should have been good ("Bedtime Story") but wasn't. That's a great motivation for a remake, an opportunity to get it right the second time, not to improve on something that wasn't wrong in the first place.

I hold such hopes for the remake of Logan's Run, but I may reach "lastday" before it ever arrives!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there may be exceptions, but I don't normally expect a remake to be as good as the original. Why is this? I have two possible reasons why. One: the makers of the new version change important strands in the film to make it "different" to the original; in doing so they destroy part of its quality. Two: Nearly always there's an attempt to update the setting, make the thing look "real", which has the opposite effect.

The worst remake I've ever seen (or hope to see) is Nick Cage murdering The Wicker Man. If Dante had written in the 21st Century he would have found an extremely nasty part of Hell for Mr Cage.

As for the best, I know its not a film, but I thought the new Battlestar Galactica was a good take on the old story. And it had Lucy Lawless in it. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there may be exceptions, but I don't normally expect a remake to be as good as the original. Why is this?

Regression to the mean. Only films that did well (by a chance set of circumstances) are remade. The dice are rolled again anew, and the law of averages takes over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To pinch a comment I read somewhere else, remakes generally work best when the original wasn't very good - see Ocean's 11 or, if we're discussing TV as well, Battlestar Galactica. A remake of a good film is likely to be inferior as a-regression-to-mean thing because most films are crud.

Remakes that have particularly annoyed me: The Prisoner, Dawn Of The Dead, Rollerball.

Edit: didn't see TW's comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Italian Job (someone should be shot for the remake)

The Thomas Crown Affair (this Pierce Brosnan, done between Bond's, romp is entertaining, but the original had Steve McQueen and the music score was memorable)

Get Carter (don't even get me started on the remake!!!)

Day of the Jackall (WTF!!!!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the best, I know its not a film, but I thought the new Battlestar Galactica was a good take on the old story. And it had Lucy Lawless in it. :D

Fond as I am of the original (I saw the pilot movie 3 times in the cinema --- with "Sensurround" no less), the original BG wasn't that good overall. It would be hard to do a remake and produce something worse than "Galactica 80". The remake was exceptional though.

Regression to the mean. Only films that did well (by a chance set of circumstances) are remade.

"Brand" recognition is probably a big factor in executives giving something the green light as well. Although they never seem to grasp that if a movie is well made, it can succeed on its own merits (The Matrix vs. Phantom Menace for example).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble with Hollywood, is that they cannot leave a film/idea alone...If they see a film doing well, they then release a number of rehashes of the same idea, and/or sequels... They are so shyte scared of coming up with a new idea... They're even remaking Total Recall...leave it a bloody lone...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guys behind "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" had the right idea. They were remaking a film that should have been good ("Bedtime Story") but wasn't. That's a great motivation for a remake, an opportunity to get it right the second time, not to improve on something that wasn't wrong in the first place.

If you are talking about the Steve Martin/Michael Caine version, it didn't realise it was a remake. Funny though.

Let's hope they don't try to remake Brief Encounter because it looks old :blink: .

Apparently, there are only seven stories: "overcoming the monster; rags to riches; the quest; voyage and return; comedy; tragedy; rebirth" Seven Basic Plots

Then here Ref:

According to Jessamyn West, an IPL volunteer librarian, the seven basic plots are:

1 - [wo]man vs. nature

2 - [wo]man vs. man

3 - [wo]man vs. the environment

4 - [wo]man vs. machines/technology

5 - [wo]man vs. the supernatural

6 - [wo]man vs. self

7 - [wo]man vs. god/religion

//

It is amazing what peer pressure can do.

1. A hero – the person through whose eyes we see the story unfold, set against a larger background.

2. The hero’s character flaw – a weakness or defense mechanism that hinders the hero in such a way as to render him/her incomplete.

3. Enabling circumstances – the surroundings the hero is in at the beginning of the story, which allow the hero to maintain his/her character flaw.

4. An opponent – someone who opposes the hero in getting or doing what he/she wants. Not always a villain. For example, in a romantic comedy, the opponent could be the man or woman whom the hero seeks romance with. The opponent is the person who instigates the life-changing event.

5. The hero’s ally – the person who spends the most time with the hero and who helps the hero overcome his/her character flaw.

6. The life-changing event – a challenge, threat or opportunity usually instigated by the opponent, which forces the hero to respond in some way that’s related to the hero’s flaw.

7. Jeopardy – the high stakes that the hero must risk to overcome his/her flaw. These are the dramatic events that lend excitement and challenge to the quest.

It's hard to come up with original ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble with Hollywood, is that they cannot leave a film/idea alone...If they see a film doing well, they then release a number of rehashes of the same idea, and/or sequels... They are so shyte scared of coming up with a new idea... They're even remaking Total Recall...leave it a bloody lone...

They'll be remaking the Dambusters next. Hang on a minute.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They'll be remaking the Dambusters next. Hang on a minute.....

...they have already renamed Guy Gibsons dog! blink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A weird Bond remake has got to be "Never Say Never Again" which was a remake of "Thunderball" but retained Sean Connery in the lead role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regression to the mean. Only films that did well (by a chance set of circumstances) are remade. The dice are rolled again anew, and the law of averages takes over.

Genius. Or someone who has studied his Kahneman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are talking about the Steve Martin/Michael Caine version, it didn't realise it was a remake. Funny though.

The film did start out as a remake, with (according to Wikipedia), Mick Jagger and David Bowie as the leads.

Although not officially labeled a remake, I can definitely remember Frank Oz espousing the philosophy that it was better to remake a failed film than a good one, although that was probably in a newspaper somewhere. I can't find it online anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The film did start out as a remake, with (according to Wikipedia), Mick Jagger and David Bowie as the leads.

That would have been terrible. Glad they chose Martin & Caine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A weird Bond remake has got to be "Never Say Never Again" which was a remake of "Thunderball" but retained Sean Connery in the lead role.

That was a contractual thing. Kevin McClory and Ian Fleming wrote a screenplay in 1959 for a proposed Bond movie. This was essentially what would become "Thunderball".

Fleming later wrote the novel "Thunderball", using the aborted script as a basis (although without telling McClory or co-author Jack Whittingham). This led to a 9-day trial in 1963:

The nine-day trial was held at the High Court in London, England, in November 1963. During the proceedings, Fleming admitted to the court that he had indeed based the Thunderball novel on McClory and Whittingham's scripts, and agreed to publicly acknowledge this fact. On December 3, 1963, the court ordered Fleming to assign and sell the film copyright of the novel Thunderball and all copyrights in the screenplay to McClory. Additionally, under the order of the British court, Fleming gave appropriate authorship acknowledgement in all future editions of Thunderball.

LINK

This caused no end of legal problems for decades afterwards. It delayed the production of the movie (originally intended to be the first Bond movie), caused problems with the use of the Blofeld character (which is why he has never appeared in an "official" Bond film since 1971, save for an unnamed appearence at the start of "For Your Eyes Only").

McClory also retained the rights after 10 years to make his own version of the story, hence why "Never Say Never Again" follows the plot of "Thunderball" so closely.

In fact, we've been threatened with a series of "Thunderball" remakes over the years:

With the release of The Man With the Golden Gun, Bond fans begun to become tired of the Bond character. The film was a critical bomb, Albert R. Broccoli is working, for the first time, without his longtime partner Harry Saltzman, and the rights to Thunderball had returned to Kevin McClory. Sensing that the time was right to get back into the 'Bond-game,' McClory promptly announced that he would begin production on a new Bond film, entitled James Bond of the Secret Service.

MGM promptly filed suit against McClory to stop him from making a rival Bond film. McClory's argument was that he alone had the rights to SPECTRE and Broccoli and company could not use it. Broccoli stated that McClory had no right to make a movie based on the original drafts, as he didn't have Ian Fleming's permission. Due to lack of financial backing, McClory backed down.

1978-1983: Never Say Never Again

In 1978 Danjaq/United Artists and the Fleming Trustees tried, in two separate actions, to prevent Paramount and McClory from making a James Bond spin-off movie called Warhead, which would be based on McClory's Thunderball scripts. Danjaq/UA did not proceed with their action, but encouraged and indemnified the trustees to bringing the case to court, however unsuccessfully, in an effort to keep the project in limbo.

Fast forward to 1981. The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker are global blockbusters and Bond is back in the limelight. Despite sneaking the "wheelchair villain" into For Your Eyes Only, an obvious reference to Blofeld, Kevin McClory still has sole rights to Thunderball, SPECTRE and Blofeld. At this point, McClory has spent the last seven years talking about and trying to find financial backing to go win a court case and remake Thunderball. All his problems were solved when McClory met Jack Schwartzman of Warner Brothers. Schwartzman knew that McClory had the rights to do the film, his case just had to be presented correctly.

The Fleming trustee case against Never say Never Again lasted until 1983, when the British High Court ruled for Kevin McClory, stating that the Deed of Assignment dated December 31, 1963, gave McClory full rights to both the novel and original scripts to Thunderball. Thanks to the help of Warner Brothers' lawyers, McClory was finally free to begin production on his remake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would have been terrible. Glad be chose Martin & Caine.

You have to wonder if someone at Wikipedia is having a laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a contractual thing. Kevin McClory and Ian Fleming wrote a screenplay in 1959 for a proposed Bond movie. This was essentially what would become "Thunderball".

Fleming later wrote the novel "Thunderball", using the aborted script as a basis (although without telling McClory or co-author Jack Whittingham). This led to a 9-day trial in 1963:

Yes because "Never Say Never..." came out about the same time as Octopussy (with Roger Moore). Eon needn't have worried as Octopussy did considerably better at the box office.

Octopussy worldwide gross $187.50M

Never Say Never Again worldwide gross $160M

Also rentals were down for Never... so Roger Moore won the battle of the Bonds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes because "Never Say Never..." came out about the same time as Octopussy (with Roger Moore). Eon needn't have worried as Octopussy did considerably better at the box office.

"Never" has a bit of novelty for a while (Connery being back, a slightly different feel) but to me it got very dull by about the half-way point.

Maybe I should watch it again (someone has put it up on YouTube).

I really like the bit where Bond, having been lectured on his health by M, tells Moneypenny that his new assignment is to "eliminate all free radicals".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Thomas Crown Affair (this Pierce Brosnan, done between Bond's, romp is entertaining, but the original had Steve McQueen and the music score was memorable)

Some interesting music in that one,including Noel(son of Rex)Harrison's "Windmills Of Your Mind."

Believe a remake of "The Lavender Hill Mob" is in progress...the original was a 1951 Ealing comedy.Can't see a remake having the same charm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.