Donations Appreciated!

My Stance on Remakes

Stupid weather. I have a chest cold that completely blew out my voice. So, instead of not doing anything, I figured I would do something different.

This is a subject that I’ve referenced many times in my videos, but I figured I would take this opportunity to talk about it a little more in depth.

As a general rule, I don’t like remakes. Now, as I’ve said before, I think there is a place for remakes, and every once in a while there is one that is done incredibly well that either compliments the original or updates it in a way that makes sense. Most often, the best remakes are the ones that take the basic concept of the original but form their own movie around it. The Fly is a perfect example of this. While both movies have the core of, “Scientific experiment goes wrong and said scientist is turned into a fly,” the two movies play out completely different. This is not so much the case with the current crop of remakes.

I’m not from the camp of, “Remaking this movie ruined my childhood;” I am definitely from the, “This doesn’t need to be,” grouping. When a movie is remade, it doesn’t make the original vanish. It doesn’t tarnish the sheen of the original. If anything, if the remake sucks, it just makes the original look that much better.

Right now, there is nothing that currently defines the decade. When people look back on the movies of the 2000s, they will see nothing but recycled products.

So, here are my reasons and feelings on why I think Hollywood needs to at least slow down with all the remakes.

1) They’re lazy. I understand, from a marketing angle, why remakes exist. The producers aren’t looking at the movies from an artistic perspective; they are looking at them from a business perspective. “Content A was a hit, so why not just take that, do it again, and it will be a hit again?” This is the basic mindset: just copy/paste the whole thing. Kids are the majority of theatergoers, and they’ve never seen/heard of these films. Psycho is a prime example. The two movies are almost identical, but the remake feels like a hollow shell. Even though it is essentially the same thing, you are not getting the same performances from Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche that you got from Anthony Perkins and Janet Leigh. Even worse, while Gus Van Sant is a very good director, he did nothing of his own and simply aped one of the greatest directors in history. This doesn’t come across as an homage; this comes across as a statement of, “I can do this better.” Well, as it was proven, he couldn’t. If he wanted to do an homage to Hitchcock, he could have at least done a movie that was “in the style of.”

2) It takes money away from unknown properties. To a producer, it is a much safer bet to go with something previously established than to invest in a property that is unproven. “How do we know if this will work? Right now, our demographics are showing that Dancing with the Stars is huge, so let’s look in our back catalog. Footloose! That was about dancing! We can just do that but add hip hop music all the kids like these days. Maybe throw in a few cover tunes of the original soundtrack for the parents.” The problem is that a movie like this just doesn’t make sense today, especially when they do it almost shot for shot and word for word. Most of the movies they are remaking fit within a certain time frame. In the 80s, there were these little pocket towns that declared stuff like dancing evil. Now, they have since moved on, and it’s not music and movies that are the big bad; video games are!

What is the point of doing a remake if you are just going to do the same thing again? Why not take the opportunity to do things a little differently? If you are just going to do the same thing over again, it’s not necessary.

I don’t understand the logic of taking $125 million and remaking a movie like Total Recall, a movie that didn’t need to be remade, instead of perhaps taking that money and churning out about 10 smaller productions. You would probably get a higher chance of return on investment, plus, there is a good chance that one of them could become the next Paranormal Activity, Saw, or Blair Witch Project. I can’t wrap my brain around the, “All the eggs in one basket” approach. How many studios have gone under following this logic? The, “If it was a hit once, it will be a hit again,” thought process has proven its invalidity. For every hit remake like Clash of the Titans, you get a major bomb like The Wolfman.

Did we really need another Spider-man this quickly? How about instead of making another origin story Spider-man you make an adaptation of Dr Strange? Mutant X? Moon Knight? X-Factor? ROM? Namor? Hell, make a Spider-girl movie! Or how about investing in one of the many other comic companies? I’d love to see big screen versions of Grendel, Preacher, The Maxx, or The Sandman. I’d also give just about anything to see something from the short-lived but much beloved (by me) Ultraverse. Give me Prime! Give me Hard Case! Give me Mantra! Any one of these could be the start of a new franchise, if done properly.

3) They dumb down foreign movies for the American market. The Ring was a huge success when it was remade for the American market. It was well done, and while they changed some of the things from the original movie, Ringu, it had a unique feel and stands on its own merits as a solid remake. I still prefer the original, but I own and enjoy the remake. Unfortunately, Hollywood misinterpreted the success of The Ring. Instead of realizing that perhaps audiences wanted creepy, atmospheric horror films, they came to the conclusion that they wanted more foreign horror! So, what do we get? Terrible reproductions of films like Shutter, Pulse, The Eye, and One Missed Call. One of the many things they failed to realize in the conversion is cultural differences. For example, in the U.S., we think of ghosts as incorporeal beings, a shape of a person or the “flying sheet with holes,” as it were. In J-horror, the ghosts they usually focus on are called onryo, the spirit of a young girl who has been killed or wronged by a man and has returned to take vengeance upon the living. They usually don’t return to go after one person in particular; they usually just linger in one location and inflict their revenge on anyone unfortunate enough to enter that space. This is why you see so many movies with young, pale-faced girls all in white with dark hair covering their faces; this is Japan’s most common perception of a ghost. Instead of updating the movies to have the American trope of what we perceive as a ghost, we get an influx of movies filled with Samara.

While sucking the J-horror teat dry, they moved on to other genres and did piss poor adaptations of foreign movies like Shall We Dance and My Sassy Girl. With those remakes, once again, they missed the cultural differences of them. With Shall We Dance, the idea of a married couple dancing in public is incredibly embarrassing in Japan, which is why the lead goes to great lengths to go to his ballroom dancing class in secret. In the Korean movie My Sassy Girl, they took the character of “The Girl,” who was a little goofy in the original, and remade her into Jordon, who was a complete mental patient. She was supposed to be quirky, not nuts.

Another thing is while altering the movie for American consumption, they often miss the point of the original. *SPOILER* In the movie Kairo (Pulse), ghosts have found a way into our world. The ghosts are trying to escape the emptiness of the afterlife but end up bringing in so much despair that the living kill themselves. While on the surface it seems like just a ghost story, you soon realize this is not the case. It’s really a tale about how much of a cultural impact technology is having upon the social structure. Even though we are all plugged in together, we are becoming a world filled with lonely, isolated people. In Kairo, Kurosawa has created a downright depressing atmosphere based on this philosophy: as humans, we are ultimately alone in both life and death. Even though technology gives the illusion of pulling us closer together, it is ultimately driving us further apart. In the remake, Pulse, the internet is full of ghosts that make people kill themselves. Also, it has about a million boo scares.

4) They take good directors and turn them shitty. Ed Wood. Beetlejuice. Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure. Tim Burton has made some of my all-time favorite movies. They are unique, clever, and have a look that is distinctly his. Then…Planet of the Apes happened. While it wasn’t the worst thing I had ever seen, it wasn’t very good. I thought it was an interesting departure from the original, and the makeup effects were outstanding. However, it just felt off, and the ending was horrible. Still, I figured it was just a fluke. Not everything can be a home run, right? So, Big Fish was quite good, and everything seemed ok. Then, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory came along, followed by Corpse Bride, which was an attempt to recapture the former glory of The Nightmare Before Christmas. Many people don’t realize that The Nightmare Before Christmas was directed by Henry Selick, not Tim Burton. Sweeney Todd. Alice in Wonderland. Dark Shadows. He seemed to be stuck in this rut where he was taking famous existing properties and turning them into movies that had the distinct Tim Burton paint job: Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, and lots of eyeliner. Then, he does Frankenweenie to show that he was not content with remaking others films; he has since moved to remaking his own! The rumor is that he will be doing Pinocchio next. Anyone want to guess who will play Geppetto?

Why does this very talented director seem stuck in this void of creativity? He certainly pulls in enough at the box office that he could pick and choose his scripts, and yet, he chooses to continue to remake classic properties – things that honestly don’t need to be remade. I give him credit for at least doing them in his style, but really, what else is different? The stories end up being the same; it’s just the overblown budgets of the productions and the Burton look.

5) They aren’t needed. If you need to remake something, why not take something bad and make it good? There are tons of movies that end up failing either because of the budget or many other problems. Why not take them and make them good? I’ll give a prime example: Project Metalbeast. It’s a great concept: a bulletproof werewolf in a science research lab. The original is entertaining but had a tiny budget and couldn’t pull off all the things they wanted to do. Take this and expand the story, throw a few extra bucks at it, and you should have gold.

Instead of remaking a beloved classic like Total Recall, why not remake Philip K. Dick’s Screamers? (based on the short story, Second Variety) While I am a fan of Screamers, it is not without its flaws. A remake could follow the book closer and give it the budget it deserved the first time.

6) They’re sneaky. After getting wind that the general public wasn’t happy with the overwhelming amount of remakes, they decided to change tactics. They had no intention of stopping; they just figured by changing the names of the movies, they could still remake them, and no one would be the wiser. A Tale of Two Sisters became The Uninvited. Infernal Affairs becomes The Departed. The Sons of Katie Elder is now Four Brothers. Let the Right One In became Let Me In. Can’t Buy Me Love is now Love Don’t Cost a Thing. [REC] changed to Quarantine. You get the point.

7) Remakes of remakes are unnecessary. Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House (1948) > The Money Pit (1986) > Are We Done Yet? (2007)

Invasion of the Body Snatchers(1956) > Invasion of the Body Snatchers(1978) > Body Snatchers (1993) > The Invasion (2007) > Invasion of the Pod People (2007… Granted, this was an Asylum release, and shameless knockoffs are what they do)

King Kong (1933) > King Kong (1976) > King Kong (2005)

A Christmas Carol…Remade into oblivion every few years.

Remakes, when done with the right mixture of new content and talented individuals, can indeed work. Al Pacino’s Scarface is vastly superior to the original. Alexandre Aja’s The Hills Have Eyes eclipses the Wes Craven version. True Lies was an outstanding action comedy, while the original, La Totale!, was just played as a comedy. They did things differently, the right way. They added to the formula, while simultaneously respecting what made the original work.

I’m not saying stop remakes; I’m just saying stop making so many of them. The same goes for reboots. Honestly, I’d rather have sequels over remakes. Why? Sequels, when done right, can greatly expand the universe within the film exists. Look at Alien. Alien is a brilliant movie and one of my all-time favorites. Then, along comes Aliens. They expanded the story of Ripley and went on to create the whole diverse hive of the Aliens. It spawned more movies, books, comics, and video games. The same thing happened with The Terminator, Mad Max, The Godfather, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, Die Hard, Night of the Living Dead, and Raiders of the Lost Ark. All of these movies had amazing debuts and had sequels that brought you more into the characters that lived within those worlds. You got to know them better and see them evolve. No one would argue that, eventually, a series runs its course and needs to stop. Why? How many TV shows go on for years, pumping out hundreds of episodes? Movies each only run about 90-120 minutes and come out every year or so. Why is it so frowned upon to have a movie series release a new one every year? I don’t see this as a problem. If the series has its followers, it will continue to do well, and they will continue to make sequels. If the series starts to go south, it will show in the box office returns, and they can either try to change things up or stop completely.

I know a lot of people complain about the Resident Evil movies, but I am happy to see a new one every other year or so. I’ve enjoyed all of them, and I like that they are not exactly like the games. They took the subject matter and went in a different direction with it. I’ve already played the games; why would I want to see what I already know will happen?

Also, as much as I dislike the Transformers movies, I give them credit for continuing on with the current story instead of jumping right into a reboot. They already have the foundation set up, so incorporating new characters and storylines is a much better movie, in my humble opinion. Perhaps the series will do better with Mark Wahlberg in the lead instead of Shia LeBeouf… If not, well, I can always look forward to a glorious ripping at the hands of the wonderful folks at Rifftrax.

So, in the end, what the hell do I mean? Less. Less is more. Remakes will always exist, and I am fine with that. However, when you remake and reboot everything, you establish a creative void, and you will eventually run out of material. Invent. Create. Make new properties people will be buzzing about and buying for years. Take risks. The next big billion dollar franchise is sitting on someone’s desk, waiting to be made.

25 Responses to “My Stance on Remakes”

  • I remember my mother said after she saw the trailer for the “Karate Kid” remake, “so this is what it’s like to feel old”. I might have said the same thing when they released the trailer for the remake of “Total Recall” (as the original was released during my lifetime), but “Kid” actually maintained the core concept and really shook up its surroundings while “Recall” was pretty shameless about being a money grab.

    I’ve said for years that “American Werewolf in London” is the one of the best remakes I’ve ever seen, it just wasn’t called “The Wolf Man”. Same Premise, Different Title.

    Some titles they select I just have to wonder why. I understand rebooting/remaking of something like “Highlander” since the original had good ideas, but it could stand a bit more refined in its execution. Less certain is something like “Robocop” which is very ’80s and yet still relevant to our current time.

    • Cecil:

      Certain things make sense to update. A new werewolf movie every now and then is fine, especially if they do things a little different. I just get annoyed when they take the exact story from a previous film and just do the whole thing again. What is the point?

      While I didn’t like The Karate Kid remake, I give them credit for at least trying something different. It wasn’t the same thing…actually it wasn’t even Karate, it was Kung Fu.

      Robobop remake baffles me. There are certain movies that are off limits in my opinion and that is one of them.

  • Cristiona:

    I think money is the primary driver. I don’t begrudge Hollywood for wanting to make money, but the ever-inflating budgets make every picture riskier. I remember when 100 million was a huge budget; now it’s small. With their inability to keep costs under control, they can only do movies that are “safe”, which makes for some woeful pictures. Sure, sometimes it works out well (Nolan’s Batman movies were fantastic) but often it makes for souless movies.

    I know Burton’s an easy target, but I like his movies, even if they aren’t good. And while I won’t defend Alice in Wonderland, I think his version of Sweeny Todd was pretty damn good.

    For movies like Total Recall, I’m willing to give them a chance (even if the Total Recall remake turned out to be rather meh). When an older movie has a source that they only lightly touched, a remake that hews closer to the original is welcome; especially with a source like Philip K. Dick. As much as Blade Runner is a classic, a new version of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep could be a great flick. It probably wouldn’t, but it -could- be.

    While I haven’t seen the remake of The Hills Have Eyes, I think I’d probably still like the original better, but I’ve never been a gore fan, so making it more graphic isn’t going to be appealing. There’s other films out there that count as remakes but aren’t thought of as such, and I think there’s a lot of confirmation bias going on (because bad remakes/reboots are REALLY bad; people forget about the good ones).

    Of course, I suppose some of it falls on the movie going audiance. When Transformers 3 makes a jillion dollars, why bother trying an untested property?

    • Cecil:

      Money will always be the prime motivator. Problem is, people will only watch the same thing so many times. The reboot of Batman was needed after what they did to the character with Batman and Robin. They also waited 10 years.

      I laugh when Hollywood talks about keeping spending under control and all the lengths they go through to cut corners…then they pay Brad Pit 30 million dollars for 6 months work. If they want to figure a way to cut costs how about paying celebrities on a more realistic scale and stop price gouging the audience with outlandish ticket charges?

      I love Burton up to Sleepy Hollow. His movies are still some of my all time favorites. However, almost everything in the 2000s seems lost. Not just because it is mostly remakes but because they just don’t have that flair that made his old movies so good. They are all empty.

      When the Total Recall remake was first announced they said they were going to make it closer to the book, which if they did I would have been fine with that. However, after seeing the movie it is just the Arnold version, with a new coat of paint and no Mars.

      The Hills Have Eyes remake was tremendous. Brutal, mean, well directed, and great practical effects. It was like a love letter to 70s exploitation horror.

      Yeah, when Transformers keeps rolling in the money it shows that people will just buy whatever they advertise. I know people who hated all three but saw them in the theater more than once. I just don’t get it.

  • MH:

    Was looking forward to this. I was in the hospital and got out but still haven’t gotten over it. So, this was a bright spot for which to look forward.
    Haven’t finished reading, but am going to disagree with “Psycho”. If Hitchcock’s daughter approved, how could one have a problem with it? I saw people opposing thing, and I thought it like absurd.
    Hitchcock did do a remake of his own movie, “The Man Who Knew Too Much”, and I think the remake is the one people not only know, but like better. I don’t think remakes are a problem. For the concert hall sequence, the two seemed close to be identical, the same sort of thing Van Sant did, but I don’t know of anyone who had a problem with it.
    The statement, “Even worse, while Gus Van Sant is a very good director, he did nothing of his own and simply aped one of the greatest directors in history”–that is wrong. He added camera movement that was interesting. If you compare the two films you can see what he did. Where Hitchcock would use cuts, Van Sant would move the camera (the sequence with Crane and Bates, when he is checking her in is an example). Not only that, you got to see shots that Hitchcock wanted but was not able to do (such as the smooth opening shot into the window and the overhead shot of Marion Crane falling forward, and the more complete circular motion of the camera focusing on her eye). I was a big fan of Robert Bloch, the author, and read “Psycho” twice around the time the new version was coming out, and I was excited about it. I also was a fan of Bernard Herrmann’s music, and in this version you got to hear his music performed by Danny Elfman in 5.1 sound. My stance on it is this–if you like a film, you are going to want more of it, and a remake gives you more. Van Sant was offered to do any movie he wanted from Universal and I am glad he chose this. It is the only way we got a new “Psycho” film. I wish it was more successful, because maybe then they would have started making more “Psycho” films, and a dream for me–maybe they would have filmed Robert Bloch’s sequels (which were quite different and his “Psycho II” shocked me with the twist). I would have loved for them to have continued and used the cast for movie versions of his books. You have to admit, the new version of “Psycho” was better than way the series ended (such as the 1980’s series, “Bates Motel”, based on what I have seen of it–though I am not trying to put it down). I know a new version, “Bates Motel”, is to premiere soon, and I don’t want to bad mouth it, but since it is acting as a prequel, I think it is going to be like other series where it takes a long time to catch up with the main story Bloch wrote.
    As for unnecessary remake, I really thought “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” fit in the category. I had trouble understanding the opposition to the new “Psycho”, but the praise for this other movie.
    “One” other thing (besides the fact I liked “Quarantine” and I disliked the attacks people have made on it), I don’t think you can put “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” in the remake category, but the adaptation category, since like “Hamlet”, they are new versions of the original story (in this case, Jack Finney’s “The Body Snatchers”).
    On “However, when you remake and reboot everything”–I can see the reboot thing as a problem. Like with the “Rocky” films, one of the great things about them is you have one story with the same actors returning for their roles, but when you reboot, it is like the story gets cut off and what the audience may get attached to can get left behind. It’s like the series ended, yet it is still continuing. It is like a double message to the audience.

    • Cecil:

      I hope you start feeling better soon! Yikes, I’m not a fan of surgery.

      Eh, Hitchcock’s daughter may have approved for the paycheck or perhaps she just didn’t really care all that much. George Lucas’ kids can’t stand Star Wars, so if someone ever remade the original trilogy I’m sure they would be fine with it.

      See, thats the thing. Ok, so he made some alterations and a lot of work went into it…it still is almost the same exact thing. Why take all those artists and just duplicate? If they were going to do it, why not make a few different changes besides the time period. I just think it was a waste. The original is perfect.

      I did enjoy Psycho 2. I thought that was a way of continuing the story and still having something new to bring to the table.

      The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo remake actual made sense. Both movies were adaptations of the book but each followed different aspects of the book. While I think the original is better, the american remake wasn’t a copy of the movie, it was a closer adaptation of the book. (although, I thought it was too slick) It is one of the few of the more recent remakes to not just be a copy/paste.

      For the Body Snatchers thing, I was just pointing out how the same material seems to be getting recycled every few years. The original is a classic and the first remake is the one most think of when you say Body Snatchers. After that, they are just retreads.

      Rebooting something like Rocky is blasphemous, which I’m sure they are thinking about how to do it somewhere. The problem is, this is an iconic character that you can’t just “do” again. Certain things should be off limits. I know there is a Citizen Kane remake that has been floating around for years. That should never be.

      • MH:

        It wasn’t surgery, but almost came to that. Thanks for the empathy. I hardly ever go to the hospital, but this was bad. I had been sick earlier in the year, and I had the pleasure of watching through the “back catalog” of your videos then (the problem being then that I had used up most of the videos–for some reason one of the Hulk Hogan videos sticks with me).
        Patricia Hitchcock, as I understand it, was not going for a paycheck, but was excited about the film, saying her father would have liked it.
        It was a great thing to redo the film, giving us the things Hitchcock wanted to show but was unable–and if you are a fan of the original, you are going to want more of the same. I wouldn’t say it is “almost the same exact thing”, for although many of the shots are the same (the point was it being an experiment) and an altered version of the script was used, most everything else was changed from art direction (the motel has an joke–a sign saying it is newly renovated) to the sound design to the cinematography to costumes to even interpretation of character. You got to hear Herrmann’s unused climax music (Elfman made an unexpected choice of combining it with the “Murder” music). About the only problem I had with the film was the zoom to Marion Crane’s mouth during the shower sequence.
        I am surprised you are in favor of “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo”, but had a problem with “Psycho”. The remake of the one looked like I was watching the 2009 version.

  • Bryan:

    First of all, sorry you’re sick. Now, my views on remakes are similar to yours. Generally, I do not like most of them. There are some remake that are actually good, but they seem to be few and far between. I prefer it when they built upon a preexisting property. I will say this. Certain films could use a good some polishing and retooling. When it comes to reboots/remakes, I try to keep a wait and see for myself policy.

  • Motyka:

    Honestly, I would say that “Quarantine” was better movie than “[REC]”. Sure, both movies are almost identical but the remake at least didn’t have that-

    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER

    -ridiculous Vatican-related twist.

    • Cecil:

      I loooooooooooooooooooooved [REC] especially the end.

      *SPOILER*

      The exorcism angle was so much better than super rabies. Although if you get a chance, check out Quarantine 2. It doesn’t follow REC 2, it makes its own way and is quite good.

  • Innominatus:

    I also do not have a problem with sequels as long as they do something different with the property. To me the problem lies not in remakes but instead with retreads. Imagine if “Aliens” was just “Alien 2” were another alien was on another ship and everyone except one person dies? It would be a remake in everything but name. Sequels and remakes both need to do something different while still showcasing a competency in what made the original work.

  • Get well soon,Cecil and no offense,MH,but I totally agree with Cecil about the Psycho remake. Instead of replaying the whole film shot by shot (for the most part) and placing the script in a modern day time frame which negates some of the social conventions of the original plot-Van Sant could have done better.

    For one thing,he could have gone back to the Bloch novel and used more of it for the film;Norman Bates in the book was a fuddy-duddy middle aged man instead of a twitchy guy in his twenties and a good character actor like William H. Macy would’ve been great in that role. The time period of the story could have been set in the later half of the 1960s/early 70s to reference the Manson killings.

    Or,what about making Detective Arbogast a woman? Kathy Bates would’ve been excellent(and not just because of her last name). Instead he took the easy way out,in my opinion. Always felt that that scene in Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back,where Van Sant is in the corner counting stacks of cash and yellling,”Jesus,Ben, I’m busy!” is what he was doing during Psycho.

    BTW,recently saw the Spiderman reboot and while I agree that it was soon to update that series,the new movie was pretty good on it’s own merits. Hopefully,with the success of The Avengers,Marvel and Hollywood will take a chance on some of the other comic book properties out there that deserve a decent film(and maybe by then DC will get their act together and give us a good Wonder Woman movie!).

    • Cecil:

      Thanks 🙂

      William H Macy is great in just about any role. Love that guy.

      lol, yeah Van Sant perplexes me. He’ll make an experimental film like Gerry but then still makes oddball attempts at mainstream like remaking Psycho. He obviously does what he wants, why would he do this? I guess it is like how when Peter Jackson was offered to make whatever he wanted, he chose to remake King Kong, which was his favorite movie. I just don’t get that. If I was ever given that opportunity, I wouldn’t remake something that I loved. I would make my own thing. (kudos for the Jay and Silent Bob mention btw)

      The new Spidey was good and bad. I liked Garfield more than Maguire. I also liked that they started with Gwen Stacy like the books instead of jumping right to Mary Jane. The Lizard was a better villain than the Power Ranger Green Goblin. However, the big things that took it down was his constant need to take of his damn mask and the lack of a “with great power” speech. Those are two key components to Spider-Man. His secret identity and the speech that makes him realize he has to be a hero. Visually it was great, acting was great, and Sheen was a wonderful Uncle Ben. It was good and a zillion times better than Spidey 3.

      The only thing I’m concerned about it Sony owns the movie rights to Spider-man. Now, the movie did well but not as well as they wanted. If the second one isn’t a monster hit they will most likely sell the rights to Disney so they can have all the Marvel properties. Then, in all likelihood, Disney will reboot again.

      DC is having problems with their movies. I hope with Superman they can get things on track. I’d be happy with a good Wonder Woman movie. I’d also love for them to make a real Green Lantern movie and not whatever the hell that was a few years ago.

  • Fall_to_the_Ground:

    I actually like the 2005 version of King Kong. That movie was so obvious a love letter to the original, and you could tell the amount of effort that Peter Jackson put into it. The 70’s version just seemed to rob Kong of everything that made the 1933 movie memorable.

    Also, you have to think that just because two movie share similar plots or elements-doesn’t necessarily make one a remake of another.

    • Cecil:

      Peter Jackson is one of my favorite directors. His old extreme gore movies are the stuff of legend. He knocked it out of the park with the LotR movies and I didn’t hate his version of King Kong, I just felt it didn’t need to be. As I said a few posts up, if it was his favorite movie, why would he feel the need to redo it?

      No, similar plots or elements doesn’t equate a remake but some things are too similar. Every movie with a vampire isn’t a remake. Every movie with aliens isn’t a remake. However, a movie about a boat that brings a giant ape back to New York as a side show attraction, that falls in love with a girl and goes on a rampage in the city…it’s a remake. 😛

  • Stampy:

    I’m fine with remakes because of three stories: Robin Hood, King Arthur and Ivanhoe.

  • Mike M:

    I hear ya…I really cant think of any iconic movies after 2000. And no, Im not going to think about putting Avatar on it since it is basically a Dances with Wolves remake, but with aliens and CG.

    My friend and I actually had a conversation about what the best science fiction movie of the last 10 years was….and we were really stumped. All the ones I was thinking of that are recent came from the 90s (Event Horizon, Gattaca, etc). In the end the best I could come up with was Pitch Black.

    Anywho, needless to say…I have become very selective about where and to whom I give my money to in the movie bizz.

    • Cecil:

      I liked Avatar but its not a movie I put in the same class as Terminator and Aliens. Unfortunately, Hollywood completely missed the obvious on this one. Avatar revolutionized the way films can be made but all they saw was “People want 3D movies!”

      Hmmm…I think there are some great sci-fi movies from the past decade but they are few and very far between. There are plenty that are enjoyable but a good lot of them are forgettable. Let me see if I can think of 10…(not counting superhero movies)

      Pitch Black and Chronicles of Riddick are both top shelf IMHO. Equilibrium is an overlooked gem. I loved the adaptation of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Serenity was great. Sunshine was great. I very much enjoyed Children of Men. Timecrimes was awesome. District 9 was terrific. Moon is amazing.

      They are out there but it’s definitely not like the 70s-90s where you could rattle of any number of classic films that are still being watched today. Many of the big blockbusters of the 2000s are high profile garbage movies that you forget 2 minutes after you walk out of the theater.

Leave a Reply