TopBilled

Remake vs. original / Remake vs. another remake

81 posts in this topic

screen-shot-2019-04-01-at-11.11.29-am.pn

Anyone a fan of the second version of PSYCHO, from 1998?

I remember seeing this one in the theaters.

screen-shot-2019-04-01-at-11.09.55-am.pn

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow, I usually prefer the original.

"Psycho" was such a unique horror film.

It could never be effectively re-made.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen the remake... nice pictures, tho. I don't know why anyone would even bother to remake a film if all they plan to do is re-shoot the same scenes...

I felt that way about the Spencer Tracy version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, too. I thought Spence played it okay, (tho when in full Hyde throes he got a bit Liberace-ish,) but the whole thing is just such a scene-for-scene re-do it's like Spence was just trying to beat Fredric March at his own game, (bad idea to try it.)

Edit: On the other hand, Ingrid Bergman made it worth the effort.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kay said:

I've never seen the remake... nice pictures, tho. I don't know why anyone would even bother to remake a film if all they plan to do is re-shoot the same scenes...

I felt that way about the Spencer Tracy version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, too. I thought Spence played it okay, (tho when in full Hyde throes he got a bit Liberace-ish,) but the whole thing is just such a scene-for-scene re-do it's like Spence was just trying to beat Fredric March at his own game, (bad idea to try it.)

Edit: On the other hand, Ingrid Bergman made it worth the effort.

Well your 'edit' kind of answers your 'why anyone would even bother' question;   A producer believes another set of actors (as well as director, editor,  etc...) can creates something 'different' to make the effort worthwhile.

But overall I agree; there isn't much of a reason for a new adaptation if 'all they plan to do is re-shoot the same scenes....'.

What I find most creative about a new adaptation is the creation of a new-screenplay (since I believe the most creative part of film-making is the creation of the screenplay).     E.g. taking a book that covers thousand of hours of 'activity' (as well as many different characters) and condensing this into 2 or so hours (often by removing characters or downplaying their 'role' as defined in the book).    

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kay said:

I've never seen the remake... nice pictures, tho. I don't know why anyone would even bother to remake a film if all they plan to do is re-shoot the same scenes...

It was Gus Van Sant.  He "thought it might be fun" to do a remake.  'Nuff said.  😓  (That, and Universal was getting itchy again to find something to market their "Universal Horror"(tm) brandname again, with the Brendan Fraser "Mummy" coming the next year.)

For years, I used to confuse it with the time Universal discovered an alternate storyboard for the Shower scene after Hitchcock's death, and, because DVD deleted-scenes didn't exist yet, didn't know how to turn it into a project...But no, that was eventually used as the flashback/prologue to Psycho II (1983), and that was a better movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why have they done remakes in the past you ask?

Because of newer technologies that have come down the pike since the earlier versions were done.

Take all the 1930's and later sound remakes of earlier made silent films, for instance. And THEN take all the technicolor and widescreen Cinemascope remakes of those same stories and movies made a generation later.

(...and THEN add in the thought that the producers of remakes often bank on the idea that much of their target audience are not familiar with the original earlier productions, and that much of this audience is often "turned off" to the idea of even watching a B&W or "low tech" movie, and there you have it!)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw this list and thought I'd include it in this thread. It's from Rotten Tomatoes. It's their list of the 24 worst remakes, based on their "Tomato-Meter", which is tabulated via an averaging of critical appraisals. The "worst" were determined by the greatest discrepancy between the rating of the remake as compared to the original, or best known, films. Like all lists, they're subjective and don't really mean anything beyond entertainment.

  1. Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)
  2. The Invasion (2007) - remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
  3. Get Carter (2000)
  4. The Women (2008)
  5. The Mummy (2017)
  6. Godzilla (1998)
  7. The Wicker Man (2006)
  8. The Stepfather (2009)
  9. The Jackal (1997) - remake of Day of the Jackal (1973)
  10. The Haunting (1999)
  11. House of Wax (2005)
  12. Down to Earth (2001)
  13. Halloween (2007)
  14. The Pink Panther (2006)
  15. Day of the Dead (2008)
  16. The Fog (2005)
  17. Mr. Deeds (2002)
  18. Arthur (2011)
  19. Swept Away (2002)
  20. Rollerball (2002)
  21. Pulse (2006)
  22. The Heartbreak Kid (2007)
  23. Ben-Hur (2016)
  24. Psycho (1998)

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE GET-AWAY (1941), an MGM crime film, was a shot-for-shot remake of the studio's earlier picture PUBLIC HERO NO. 1 (1935). It has the same running time, so even the editing is exactly the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dargo said:

Why have they done remakes in the past you ask?

Because of newer technologies that have come down the pike since the earlier versions were done.

Take all the 1930's and later sound remakes of earlier made silent films, for instance. And THEN take all the technicolor and widescreen Cinemascope remakes of those same stories and movies made a generation later.

(...and THEN add in the thought that the producers of remakes often bank on the idea that much of their target audience are not familiar with the original earlier productions, and that much of this audience is often "turned off" to the idea of even watching a B&W or "low tech" movie, and there you have it!)

All very sound reasons for a studio to do a 'remake',   but another primary one was money;  the studio already owned the rights to use the original source material,  as well as the screenplay used in the film version they released.      

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dargo said:

Why have they done remakes in the past you ask?

Because of newer technologies that have come down the pike since the earlier versions were done.

Take all the 1930's and later sound remakes of earlier made silent films, for instance. And THEN take all the technicolor and widescreen Cinemascope remakes of those same stories and movies made a generation later.

(...and THEN add in the thought that the producers of remakes often bank on the idea that much of their target audience are not familiar with the original earlier productions, and that much of this audience is often "turned off" to the idea of even watching a B&W or "low tech" movie, and there you have it!)

Dargo,

Did you see my comment about PUBLIC HERO NO. 1 and THE GET-AWAY? In that case only six years had passed, no new technologies were used, and it was a shot-for-shot remake also in black-and-white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

The Mummy (2017)

Thanks Larry. Interesting list. In the case of this film, is it being compared to THE MUMMY (1932) or THE MUMMY (1999)..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TopBilled said:

Thanks Larry. Interesting list. In the case of this film, is it being compared to THE MUMMY (1932) or THE MUMMY (1999)..?

It was the 1932 version, which has a 93% rating, compared to the 2017 version which has a 16%.

The 1999 version has a 58% rating, btw.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

All very sound reasons for a studio to do a 'remake',   but another primary one was money;  the studio already owned the rights to use the original source material,  as well as the screenplay used in the film version they released.      

Good point too, James.

And perhaps yet another reason for remakes being made would be the whole "vanity project" aspect to this.

You have an actor or actress who has become a big star, and said big star has always loved some particular old movie. They then get the idea that they could play the lead in that movie and maybe either do a better job of it or at least put a little different spin on the character than did the earlier actor.

Usually of course they don't.

(...a variation of this would be some producer who gets in HIS head that said "new big star" would be perfect for the role in that old movie HE has always liked, and so would begin this whole process again)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for films with more than one 'remake':   I wonder if they compared The Women to The Opposite Sex.    I have seen all 3 versions and I enjoy the 2008 version with Meg Ryan over the 1956 version with June Allyson. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

I just saw this list and thought I'd include it in this thread. It's from Rotten Tomatoes. It's their list of the 24 worst remakes, based on their "Tomato-Meter", which is tabulated via an averaging of critical appraisals. The "worst" were determined by the greatest discrepancy between the rating of the remake as compared to the original, or best known, films. Like all lists, they're subjective and don't really mean anything beyond entertainment.

  1. Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)
  2. The Invasion (2007) - remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
  3. Get Carter (2000)
  4. The Women (2008)
  5. The Mummy (2017)
  6. Godzilla (1998)
  7. The Wicker Man (2006)
  8. The Stepfather (2009)
  9. The Jackal (1997) - remake of Day of the Jackal (1973)
  10. The Haunting (1999)
  11. House of Wax (2005)
  12. Down to Earth (2001)
  13. Halloween (2007)
  14. The Pink Panther (2006)
  15. Day of the Dead (2008)
  16. The Fog (2005)
  17. Mr. Deeds (2002)
  18. Arthur (2011)
  19. Swept Away (2002)
  20. Rollerball (2002)
  21. Pulse (2006)
  22. The Heartbreak Kid (2007)
  23. Ben-Hur (2016)
  24. Psycho (1998)

 

Most of those remakes were pretty "popular" with audiences too iirc. I still like the 90s Godzilla even if I admit it isn't the greatest film. :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

Dargo,

Did you see my comment about PUBLIC HERO NO. 1 and THE GET-AWAY? In that case only six years had passed, no new technologies were used, and it was a shot-for-shot remake also in black-and-white.

Yeah, but ya know TB, there IS usually an exception to every rule. ;)

(...in other words, can you think of another example in which a shot-for-shot remake was made within such a short amount of time, and where no big technological cinematic advancements had transpired in the interim?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

All very sound reasons for a studio to do a 'remake',   but another primary one was money;  the studio already owned the rights to use the original source material,  as well as the screenplay used in the film version they released.      

That's one reason we've gotten so many remakes of 80's and other classic MGM films lately (Magnificent Seven, Robocop, Total Recall, Overboard, Clash of the Titans, Ben-Hur, and now Child's Play with Mark Hamill as Chucky):  The studio is still trying to dig its way back out of bankruptcy(ies), and all they have to work with are titles that either belong to the former studio, or have fallen into a semi-public-domain status after MGM, United Artists, Hemdale and/or Orion folded.  New scripts cost money, you know.

Except for the Steve Martin "Pink Panther"'s, that was Sony trying to build themselves a house franchise out of the free UA titles they already owned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

As for films with more than one 'remake':   I wonder if they compared The Women to The Opposite Sex.    I have seen all 3 versions and I enjoy the 2008 version with Meg Ryan over the 1956 version with June Allyson. 

  • The Women (1939) - 91%
  • The Opposite Sex (1956) - 20%
  • The Women (2008) - 13%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Dargo said:

Yeah, but ya know TB, there IS usually an exception to every rule. ;)

(...in other words, can you think of another example in which a shot-for-shot remake was made within such a short amount of time, and where no big technological cinematic advancements had transpired in the interim?)

There were a bunch of them Dargo. Examples:

MGM remade HIDE-OUT (1934) as I'LL WAIT FOR YOU (1941). Seven years passed, both in b&w.

Warner Brothers remade LIFE BEGINS (1932) as A CHILD IS BORN (1939). Seven years passed, both in b&w.

Warners remade THE LIFE OF JIMMY DOLAN (1933) as THEY MADE ME A CRIMINAL (1939). Six years, both b&w.

Warners remade THE MAYOR OF HELL (1933) as CRIME SCHOOL (1938). Just five years, both in b&w.

Warners remade THE PETRIFIED FOREST (1936) as ESCAPE IN THE DESERT (1945). Nine years, both in b&w.

Warners again-- remade THE DAWN PATROL (1930) in 1938. Eight years, both in b&w.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

There were a bunch of them Dargo. Examples:

MGM remade HIDE-OUT (1934) as I'LL WAIT FOR YOU (1941). Seven years, both in b&w.

Warner Brothers remade LIFE BEGINS (1932) as A CHILD IS BORN (1939). Seven years passed, both in b&w.

Warners remade THE LIFE OF JIMMY DOLAN (1933) as THEY MADE ME A CRIMINAL (1939). Six years, both b&w.

Warners remade THE MAYOR OF HELL (1933) as CRIME SCHOOL (1938). Just five years, both in b&w.

Warners remade THE PETRIFIED FOREST (1936) as ESCAPE IN THE DESERT (1945). Nine years, both in b&w.

Warners again-- remade THE DAWN PATROL (1930) in 1938. Eight years, both in b&w.

Okay okay. So maybe that old saying SHOULD go: "There are SIX exceptions to every rule" then!!! ;)

LOL

Yeah, your point is somewhat well taken in this case I suppose, but I still would question a few of your examples here as "pure remakes" of the earlier films, and with your The Petrified Forest/Escape in the Desert in particular being more an example of the "variations on a theme" type of latter film.

(...but regardless, I would still say the reason DeMille remade his The Ten Commandments, and the reason McCarey remade his Love Affair, among others I could list given time, and total and "pure" remakes I might add, was because they wanted to retell their film's stories using the latest and greatest film technologies afforded them in later years...oh, and they knew there'd still be a strong audience for those stories IF they were well done and well told yet again)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dargo said:

Okay okay. So maybe that old saying SHOULD go: "There are SIX exceptions to every rule" then!!! ;)

LOL

Yeah, your point is somewhat well taken in this case I suppose, but I still would question a few of your examples here as "pure remakes" of the earlier films, and with your The Petrified Forest/Escape in the Desert in particular being more an example the "variations on a theme" type of latter film.

(...but regardless, I would still say the reason DeMille remade his The Ten Commandments, and the reason McCarey remade his Love Affair films, among others, and total remakes I might add, was because they wanted to retell their film's stories using the latest and greatest film technologies afforded them in later years...oh, and they knew there'd still be strong audience for those stories IF they were well done yet again)

Most, if not all the ones I listed, were shot-for-shot remakes. In the case where a remake had a shorter running time, that's because scenes from the original were dropped (for budget reasons) but the scenes that remained were filmed shot-for-shot. No re-staging was done.

In the case of the Petrified Forest remake-- yes, they did update the characters, to reflect wartime (with Nazi intrigue). 

I agree that most remakes were done to capitalize on new technology.

But also, like James indicated, it was just a cheap way to get a picture done, since they already owned the story and could use the same script again. Plus the stories had already proven to be crowd pleasers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Un-remake-able..?

Too sacred:

screen-shot-2019-04-01-at-8.01.37-pm.jpe

Not commercial enough:

screen-shot-2019-04-01-at-8.01.11-pm.jpe

Too politically incorrect:

screen-shot-2019-04-01-at-8.01.53-pm.jpe

Who'd want another version:

screen-shot-2019-04-01-at-8.03.43-pm.jpe

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

This was remade, as this:

Barbwireposter.jpg

Interesting. Had never heard of this one before. It's supposedly based on a Dark Horse comic book series. I see that Irene Chaiken is credited with an original screenplay, but yes, it's obvious she aped the plot from CASABLANCA. Not sure if we'd call this an unofficial remake or just a blatant ripoff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us