I love a good remake.

Karl Hungus

Just looking at my Blog again, I noticed an entry I did back in January, and though it would actually make a very good discussion:

Now, as some people who are aware of my frequent rants against remakes are already spluttering their beverage on the screen, yes you did read that correctly, and yes I do indeed love a good remake. I suppose the problem is that these days, the good ones are so few and far between. When we think of it, there was certainly a few remakes that have become classics.

Personally, one of the greatest horror films of all time, is a remake. John Carpenter’s 1982 film The Thing, a remake of the 1951 film, The Thing From Another World. The 1978 version of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers is personally, the definitive one. Likewise, David Cronenberg’s 1986 remake of the Fly. Evil Dead 2 was simply a bigger budget version of the original.

Even lately, there’s been some good remakes aswell. I thought the 2004 version of Dawn Of The Dead was amazing. And although I’ve been mainly annoyed at Hollywood remaking Asian films, Asian film-makers are not aversed to doing remakes either. Takashi Miike’s film The Happiness Of The Katakuris is a remake of the Korean film The Quiet Family, and Takeshi Kitano’s update of Zatoichi was nothing short of an absolute masterpeice. Although I don’t know if that quite counts as a remake, as it’s not a version of any particular Zatoichi film, rather just taking the character and creating a new story with him.

So, what makes a good remake? Well, I think what makes a remake good is when the film makers want to take a different look at the subject matter, when they want to make the film not for the sake of money, but because they genuinely want to inject their passion into it, and of course when they have a respect for the original film. Generally all the best remakes are the ones that are quite different from the original, so part of what I loved about the remake of Dawn Of The Dead was that besides the zombies + shopping mall premise, it was an entirely different film; a film that can be judged on it’s own merits, a film that the director had a real passion for making, and overall a film that wasn’t just ploughing through a tried and tested routine to bring in money.

I can watch both versions of DotD, and view them as completely seperate films, because in all effect, that’s what they are. Likewise with The Quiet Family / The Happiness Of The Katakuri’s, both of which I own on DVD, they’re just two different films, just sharing the same premise.

Of course “Remake” is now a dirty word as far as many are concerned. Either that or “Money in the bank” if you’re a movie producer. It’s a wholely justified dirty word though, with respect to so many of the absolute soulless movies that Hollywood is churning out these days, and the ever maddening remakes of Asian films, which usually consist of a fairly straight scene-for-scene job, with added plot points to dumb things down, bigger stars, and plenty of unnessicary SFX.

Thoughts?

BlitzKrieg

your theory is very much correct. when the film is remade to be more then just a cash in, when it tries to tell the same story/premise/character differently you will get a film which is actually quite good and can be seen standing on its own two feet. (earlier remakes include a fistful of dollers remake of Kurasawa's yojimbo.)


But there is one single black smudge on this theory.


There's a film. Which recieved the support of its original director to be remade, which was aimed to be a more definite telling of a story which was hampered by so many problems (technical, budget etc) to actually tell the story as it should have been.


And it was ****e.

worse then ****e it was dire.

it was aweful.

i am of course

talking about 'THE FOG'

The movie relies mainly on atmosphere for its chills. John Carpenter did extensive re-shoots of the movie (almost the equivalent of a second film), because he was not satisfied with the original result. The film did not get good critical reviews when it was initially released, but it was a commercial success. It is now generally considered to be, as Carpenter once called it, "a minor horror classic". Carpenter himself stated that this is not his overall favourite film due to re-shoots and low production values. This is one of the reasons he agreed to the 2005 remake (see below).

monkeyfudge

Is 'The Thing' really a remake though?

Aren't both films adaptations of 'Who Goes There?'?

lostexpectation

this thing is the ****z so is the fly but i thought the Dawn of the Dead remake was blaa I didn't notice the thought behind it... and theres alot more time between the first two...


theres gotta be more examples

Necronomicon

Karl Hungus wrote:

Well, I think what makes a remake good is when the film makers want to take a different look at the subject matter, when they want to make the film not for the sake of money, but because they genuinely want to inject their passion into it, and of course when they have a respect for the original film.

Very much agree with this statement. I think you used the right example as well, Dawn of the Dead was what a remake should be like. Sam Raimi was so impressed with Zack Schneider's take on the film that he said he'd give his blessing for someone to do the same to Evil Dead.
What annoys me about remakes lately is just the sheer volume of them. Hollywood are throwing out remakes like there was no tomorrow at the moment. I think it's become so trendy that a lot of them are just being made for the sake of being remade.

Speaking as someone who worked in a video shop, I can only think of one advantage to these remakes....it arouses interest in the original.

Karl Hungus

BlitzKrieg wrote:

But there is one single black smudge on this theory.


There's a film. Which recieved the support of its original director to be remade, which was aimed to be a more definite telling of a story which was hampered by so many problems (technical, budget etc) to actually tell the story as it should have been.


And it was ****e.

worse then ****e it was dire.

it was aweful.

i am of course

talking about 'THE FOG'

Ah, but there's a problem with your problem with my theory:

John Carpenter hasn't really done jack **** of any worth for years!

BlitzKrieg

good point...

mike65

I would'nt mind but it tends to be decent flicks that get the treatment, I'd love to see Damnation Alley done properly but as the first version flopped so badly its proberly not going to happen.

There's going to be no escaping The Omen remake to be released on 6/6/06 (geddit?!).

Carpenter geting in on the action of the Fog remake ws poor judgement but at least he did'nt direct it unlike George Sluizer who murdered his own classic noir horror The Vanishing.

Mike.

BlitzKrieg

There's going to be no escaping The Omen remake to be released on 6/6/06 (geddit?!).

the redone teaser for it is a disgrace to atmosphere.

-original it was nothing but the camera panning over to the child and it comes up "His day will come" then it comes up 6/6/06

-now they have this godaweful text coming up the bottom going on about nostradamus and the date etc. Its painfully intrusive in a atmospheric teaser an some of the lines are aweful. (esp when it states 2006) god i hate it.

monkeyfudge

BlitzKrieg wrote:

the redone teaser for it is a disgrace to atmosphere.

-original it was nothing but the camera panning over to the child and it comes up "His day will come" then it comes up 6/6/06

-now they have this godaweful text coming up the bottom going on about nostradamus and the date etc. Its painfully intrusive in a atmospheric teaser an some of the lines are aweful. (esp when it states 2006) god i hate it.

Oh... haven't seen that new version. But I did like that original teaser, the way the kid looks directly into the camera is very confrontational to the viewer.

Necronomicon

I may be wrong but I think you guys are describing the same one! If it is the one with the child suddenly staring into the camera, I like it as well.

BlitzKrieg

it is the same one...its just the version i saw online and the version i saw in the cinema are different by adding in these excessive subtitles which ruin the atmosphere.

The Black Oil

Re: The Omen remake, I think (can't remember exactly) the early teaser is mostly the kid on a swing in a park and a few dogs, the kid looks into the camera at the end.

There's longer one out now, more action and stuff.

Meh, a pointless remake.

madrab

yeah there can be good remakes, but then again we have to be reminded why it isnt always a good idea...


rollerball

koneko

BlitzKrieg wrote:

talking about 'THE FOG'

Words cannot describe how bad this film was. I thought it would at least be a bit entertaining, but it was just... so.... bad. I mean, there are literally no words to describe how bad it is.

Merrick

koneko wrote:

Words cannot describe how bad this film was. I thought it would at least be a bit entertaining, but it was just... so.... bad. I mean, there are literally no words to describe how bad it is.

Wow, I'm glad I didn't go see that now. Was it so bad that you couldn't even get any entertainment out of laughing at it?