Remakes

Entertainment Showbiz Pakistan , Bollywood & World Entertainment
1

For English/American movies only.

I hear it a lot from different people that these days Hollywood is lacking original plots/stories for movies. There are a lot of remakes or movies based on stories that have already been picturized in old classics etc.

To some extent I think the argument is valid, however I think that if the end product is entertaining and is favorite/popular among people then why not?

Secondly, and more imporantly, there are certain types of subject matters that can best be picturized using today’s technology and eye-popping special effects for greater amusement. For example, movie 20,000 leagues under the sea or The Thing. I have not watched both of the classic versions (the first one does not even have a present day version), but remakes of such types of movies can be quite entertaining.

What do you think?

2

I don't think I've ever enjoyed a "complete" remake.

ie. Sabrina with Humphrey Bogart & Audery Hepburn & Billy WIlder directing was a gem,
while Remake with Harrison Ford (who happens to be one of my favorite new actors), and Julia Ormand (give me a break!), did not even come close.

SImilarily, Love Affair paled in comparsion to the Cary Grant classic "An Affair to Remember" - which admitadley was a re-make of a 30's film with Charles Boyer (love affair).

On the other hand remakes that are adaptions do work (ie. You've got Mail, was adapated from The Shop Around the Corner & the Stars Wars Trilogy is an adaption of the 30's pirate/adventure films, Indiana Jones films are adaptions of 30's adventure serieals), or remakes of foriegn films (ie. THe Professional was an excelelnt remake of a french film), and Sergio Leones Spagetti westerns & the wesrtern The Magnificant Seven, were good remakes of Japaneese films (also became the basis for the Indian film Sholay).

For the most part, remakes don't work because todays casts pale to the stars from hollywood's golden era. Is there really anyone who can be compared to a Audery Hepburn, Vivian Liegh, Ingrid Bergman, Humphrey Bogart, Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart, Gary Cooper?

Even when the stars seem good enough (ie. Harrison Ford - my favorite today vs. Bogey - my favorite of all time), the direction and the screenplay is weak.

It's too bad that they try to re-create a film that has lasted so long as a favorite - there's almost no chance of improving it, as will be the case with the current plan to remake my favorite all time film Casablanca - - with Kevin Costner and Demi (I can't keep my close on) Moore.

3

Khuram,

You have valid points but I was specifically talking about some of the subject matters that today's advanced technology and special effects can be used to create a very well entertaining movie.

Secondly, I think if a film company is going to make a remake, it should do it on a grandiose level, not simply with the intent of making some money. Cast and production design is very important in the sense. If the crew is not well talented and cinmatography is going to be mediocre then what's the point?

I personally didn't like Sabrina at all. I thought it was a poor attempt. But on the other hand, I did like Thomas Crown Affair or The Thing or The Blob.

4

Roman,
One problem I find with recent films, is that there is to little empahsis on story, characters, and direction. They seem to take a back seat to tehnology.

Perfect example are BOnd films.
The first three Bond films, while pure escapist films, still had strong character development (darker bond), since Roger Moore took over, Bond himself has become a set piece lost in the explosions, toys, and nice cars.

As far as the Thomas Crown Affair go, I thought the original was A LOT better than the remake. Again, it was the strong characters & personality of Steve McQueen (and as much as I dislike Faye Dunaway, in this film - as in "Three Days of the COndor" with R. Redford - she shines).

I didn't like Sabrina - despite the fact that it was a Harrison Ford film.

Even if you the remake had been able to match the pace, dialague, direction of Billy Wilder's original (which would have been very difficult to do, because I think that Billy Wilder ranks up there with the top 5 directors of all time), having Julia Ormand play Audery Hepburn's character is an insult to Hepburn (just like it's a joke to even think Costner in Bogart's role, or Demi Moore in Ingrid Bergman's role in Casablanca).

So, while I think that there is more technology available today, the creative ability of the writors, directors & screenwriters does not match those of hollywood's golden years - despite whatever constraints they had to face in the old studio system.

I think that most of today's critically acclaimed films are praised not because of their entertainment value, but because of their graphic nature, and "so called realism".

Bill Cosby summed up what he thought of realism beautifully, when he thought that entertainment value is where the emphasis should be - making a realistic film is not necessarily entertaining - if it was you could make a 20min film of someone sitting on a toilet - which he didn't think would be all that entertaining for viewers!

5

Man in the iron mask was better than the original.

So was Titanic.

and for people who are comparing starwars to old pirate movies and indiana jones to old adventure flicks...we were talking about actual blatant remakes and not similar storylines otherwise we could go back several steps and realize that plots or ideas or general story basis are essentially the same from the onset of time. Read some old greek plays and you will find that the essence of any movie can be captured by those.

So is it lack of original ideas,or more lack of newer interpretations and presentation of the ideas.

6

[quote]
Originally posted by Fraudz:
*Man in the iron mask was better than the original.
*
[/quote]

I didn't bother seeing the Douglas Fairbank original, or the Richard Chamberlain remake.

But I thought that Leo kid (I can't believe i'm drawing a complete blank on his full name - the titanic kid - can't stand him anyways!), version was a disgrace to Dumas's novel, and Leo was awful in the lead role.

John Malkowich's (probably butchered the spelling), acting was OK, but he was nothing like the orignal charcter of Athos, Aramis was nothing like Aramis, and Porthos was far cruder than Dumas could even have imagined.

The only real saving grace of the film was Gabrial Byrne (one of my favorite actors - terrific in Millers Crossing & The Usaual Suspects). His performence alone made the film worth seeing (just like his performence in the last Arnie film made it worth seeing). But aside from that that, the film had so many holes, that if it was an Indian films, there probably would have been at least 50 posts in hear shooting the film down.

7

all points accepted but that does not change the fact that it STILL was better than the original.

8

Khuram,

I know your points are valid and I agree with them, but my emphasis is different.

The thing is, if you are gonna make remakes and spend not enough money and not work hard on the production, it's not worth it. But if you take some of the classic stuff, work hard on it and make it a marvel, then why not? It would be entertaining as well as will capture audience's attention.

Secondly, presently something differently than the book story does not necessarily spoils it if you use imagination and creativity and present the material from a different angle. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Now another subtle point to note. It is tougher for modern movies to compete with classics to begin with. Why? Because when the classics were made, the ideas were more undiscovered and viewers' imagination was accordingly limited to that era.

But now viewers know more. They have seen more and they can imagine more. It's all because of technology, information blah blah blah.. with such an avid imagination and expectation, viewers view classic work more original and without any 'trickery' while modern works stands for more criticism. Combine that with more materialism and return on investment and you have a pretty tough picture of movie making now compared to the times before.