An article for people who hate remakes

Mark Hamill

6 Classic Movies You Didn't Know Were Remakes.
This is just for the people who complain about remakes anytime they hear about something being remade. It is true that a lot of modern remakes are crap, but thats because the studios tend to give them to hack directors who dont understand or appreciate the original material, not because remaking something is automatically bad.

(Here is another, more general, article on things which some people decry as ruining the movie industry, but have actually been around for a lot longer)

Galvasean

Cracked.com is doing a lot for the film forum these days.
that website.

Nolanger

Ben Hur - based on a 1920s version
Phantom of the opera - based on a 1920s version
Ten commandments - based on a 1920s version

I am a camera - original version of Cabaret
Philadelphia story - original version of High society
Shane - original version of Pale rider

Mark Hamill

There is also "The Thing", which was a remake of 1951s "The Thing From Another World" (both adaption from the story "Who Goes There?") and various comic book movies (there are several Batman, Superman, Spiderman remakes etc).

Mickeroo

Antoine Faqua's King Arthur is a remake of Antoine Faqua's Tears of the Sun.

losthorizon

I knew Scarface was a remake. I actually have both Ben Hur and The Phantom of the Opera in my movie collection - both are silent films. Both are are surprisingly
good.

Goldstein

I just hate the crap ones

Dude111

I dislike most all remakes because they are all crap compared to the original!

pixelburp

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There is also "The Thing", which was a remake of 1951s "The Thing From Another World" (both adaption from the story "Who Goes There?") and various comic book movies (there are several Batman, Superman, Spiderman remakes etc).

Well, now to be fair - is The Thing really a remake? It may share a common source material with The Thing from Another World, but good god both movies are (tonally) worlds apart from each other.

Generally though, I have nothing against remakes. After-all, any fan of classic literature would be well used to the idea of a constant stream of adaptations of their favourite novels; ask any Jane Austin fan. If I see a remake come out, and from the outset I see it's taking a different avenue, or different direction from the original film, or puts forward an interesting alternative perspective then I'm interested.

Mentioning The Thing is actually interesting because we're getting a prequel sometime in the future. I'm not annoyed about this because a.) the film-makers seem faithful and enthusiastic and b.) we're going to see things from an interesting premise (ie, the Norwegian base found destroyed in the Carpenter version). That's a nice idea, and even if the prequel ends up being rubbish, at least you can't say it was a cold, cynical cash-in.

So for me it's a case by case basis; if it feels like the film-makers are genuine & want to retell the same story a different way, then fair enough, have fun & sure you never know. But if it feels like this is nothing more than a cynical cash-in of a franchise that might have some pop-culture currency, then I'm against it.

Mark Hamill

pixelburp wrote: »

Well, now to be fair - is The Thing really a remake? It may share a common source material with The Thing from Another World, but good god both movies are (tonally) worlds apart from each other.

Generally though, I have nothing against remakes. After-all, any fan of classic literature would be well used to the idea of a constant stream of adaptations of their favourite novels; ask any Jane Austin fan. If I see a remake come out, and from the outset I see it's taking a different avenue, or different direction from the original film, or puts forward an interesting alternative perspective then I'm interested.

Mentioning The Thing is actually interesting because we're getting a prequel sometime in the future. I'm not annoyed about this because a.) the film-makers seem faithful and enthusiastic and b.) we're going to see things from an interesting premise (ie, the Norwegian base found destroyed in the Carpenter version). That's a nice idea, and even if the prequel ends up being rubbish, at least you can't say it was a cold, cynical cash-in.

So for me it's a case by case basis; if it feels like the film-makers are genuine & want to retell the same story a different way, then fair enough, have fun & sure you never know. But if it feels like this is nothing more than a cynical cash-in of a franchise that might have some pop-culture currency, then I'm against it.

In its simplest meaning, The Thing from Another World made a movie from the novella, and then The Thing remade it, so technically yes its a remake. I think this is what you describe as the interesting remakes though, a new filmmaker telling a story in a new way and its how I like it too (I would, however, think that whoever is first to adapt something currently popular from another medium, should stick reasonably close the source material. )

Creature

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In its simplest meaning, The Thing from Another World made a movie from the novella, and then The Thing remade it, so technically yes its a remake. I think this is what you describe as the interesting remakes though, a new filmmaker telling a story in a new way and its how I like it too (I would, however, think that whoever is first to adapt something currently popular from another medium, should stick reasonably close the source material. )

But why do you say The Thing remade it? I don't think it did. The Thing has hardly anything in common with The Thing From Another World. You've got a source material. Then you've got two films both of which have very little in common. I really don't see how The Thing is a remake.

HavingCrack

The Wizard of Oz was the only one in that list that I didn't actually know was a remake. I was pleasantly suprised.