Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

What movie can NEVER be re-made?


Recommended Posts

Great thread, and to Fred, your worldly knowledge makes me feel like a junior high student!

I refuse to watch a remake of Alfred's Rear Window. He did remake one of his own though, "Man Who Knew Too Much". I prefer the original with Peter Lorre. I got really tired of hearing Ms. Day sing her song.

 

The remake of "The Pink Panther" is on my list of don't see. Peter Sellers was a genius. I find myself getting the "Herbert Lom twitch" frequently on busy days at work. I heard that rumor about GWTW too. I certainly hope it is just that.

I don't think they could remake "The Maltese Falcon".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I, too, like the Peter Lorre version better. I can't stand Doris Day, so even Jimmy Stewart couldn't save that one for me. Did you know that The Maltese Falcon itself was a remake? Maybe even twice? And some people actually prefer the original. I can't see how anything could be better than Bogie, Lorre and Greenstreet, for myself anyway. I don't know any more of the details, but one of the 'experts', I'm sure can fill in the details. ^^

 

 

I'm quite choked at Steve Martin, who I never did like, thinking he can remake all these classics. And I hear The Pink Panther is awful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Huntress,

 

Quote:

"I got really tired of hearing Ms. Day sing her song..."

 

Your comment struck a "chord" with this reader.

 

Understand. I like Doris Day. I like the timbre of her voice. I like her screen presence...I enjoyed her TV talk show and even her TV sitcom. But, that song--was it written into her movie contracts to sing that song?

 

I am probably indulging in hyperbole regards the frequency of "The Doris Day Song" but, sure seems to be on the soundtrack of a lot of her movies.

 

Rusty

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're all missing the point. The question is "What movie can NEVER be re-made? Well, that's easy. Any film can be re-made. It doesn't mean that it will be as good or even better, or even that it should be, just technically speaking any film can be remade.The question really should be "What movie SHOULD NEVER be made? As you all have pointed out that list would be endless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I mean, there will never be another Errol Flynn....right?"

 

Well said. I don't care what hollywood says about someone being the new so-and-so. A new Cary Grant? John Wayne? Gene Kelly/Fred Astaire? Katharine/Audrey Hepburn? And the list goes on and on. Actors now don't even compare to actors then.

 

I guess that is why I like old movies. If they tried to remake, say, Casablanca (insert a favorite of your own), and they didn't change ANYTHING (plot, dialog, etc.) does anyone think it would carry? I know I don't. The actors and directors and all the people that are mostly gone now are what made movies great.

 

NO movie should be remade, but here is an incomplete list of some that REALLY should never be remade.

Gone With the Wind

Casablanca

Any big musical

North By Northwest

It's a Wonderful Life

ETC...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point IS can NEVER be remade. Meaning no matter how hard they work or talented they are the work will simply not be duplicated in a satisfactory manner. Films that are locked in a particular time, place and mentality defies reproduction. "The Women" is a perfect example-they don't make women, marriages or actresses like that anymore. Hollywood has been making and remaking stories throughout its history some improve over time others don't. "An Affair to Remember" and "A Star is Born" come to mind...but there are hundreds first rate films that were remakes of older material...research it and see.

There are qualities that todays actors have that the old stars lack. The leading actors of any decade have their own good qualities and limitations. Fans of Sarah Bernhardt thought she was the greatest but when a much more "realistic" actress like Eleanora Dusa came along many thought she was much better than Bernhardt. They would often be featured in different productions of the same play in the same cities during the same theatre seasons. It isn't that one was really better it just was that each had different qualities.

It isn't necessary to despise the new in order to appreciate the old. The great thing about fil-unlike the theatre-is that the old and new can live and be appreciated in every decade. Betty Davis had very high regard for Meryl Streep.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are exceptions ... The Wizard of Oz of 1939 was a remake of the silent version, which most people prefer over the latter. Most feel that Basil Rathbone was the best Sherlock Holmes (I feel Jeremy Brett was the real thing), though there were others before him. Dracula is more popular than Nosferatu. The 1935 Mutiny on the Bounty is favored over the 1916 version by most. I'm sure if these posts were around in the 30s, there would be people who grew up on silent movies saying that they couldn't be remade and criticize the talkie versions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Gone With the Wind

2. Any Astaire and Rogers movie

3. Singin' in the Rain

4. Its a Wonderful Life

5. The Birds

6. Easter Parade

7. On the Town

8. Casablanca

9. The Shining (I know it has been re-made but it shouldn't have been)

10. The Sound of Music

11. Mary Poppins

12. West Side Story

13. Lord of the Rings

14. Toy Story

15. A Christmas Story

16. National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation

17. Charlotte's Web

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love Kubrick's The Shining. That's actually a very touchy subject with King fans. But I think that's a good example ... classic movies that were adapted from books were often unfaithful to the book. From Here to Eternity is a good example that was watered down for the film, yet it was a great film. What's more important, a screenwriter's version of the story, or the author's? A remake may not live up to Zinnemann's movie ... but it may live up to James Jones's book (although an awful mini-series was made for TV). The same with his book The Thin Red Line which was a sort of WWII comedy in print, but has been portrayed as both a straight WWII film in 1964, and a story of pacifism in Malick's 1998 version. Same thing for his Some Came Running. Wouldn't Jones be better served with a faithful rendition of his work? Or any other classic book that was changed drastically to fit the screen, although the movie is considered a classic in its own right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also -Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. I think the recent attempt was a good attempt, but unfortunately it pales in comparison to the original with Gene Wilder. No one can play that role like Gene did -hands down!

Link to post
Share on other sites

They will re-make anything they think will make a buck. They can re-make movies with the new digital technology and do things that they couldn't do on the original.

 

Which Cleopatra do you like better? The old one or the newer one.

 

They will always be able to do that! The old one may have meaning to you, but to a younger generation more bells and whistles make a better movie just like TCM (not so working) web site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, it's interesting that someone mentioned "Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory" being remade. It's a known fact that Roald Dahl (the author of the novel) hated the Gene Wilder version of the movie because it strayed so far from his original story and because it was so happy and cheerful.

 

I do think the new version of the movie would have made Dahl much happier. It was dark and screwy and followed his novel much more closely. The Oompa-Loompa songs (creepy as the Oompa-Loompas were in the Depp version) were actually the songs composed by Dahl in the novel and each of the children signified a certain trait, as they were supposed to.

 

I love both versions of the movie, but I find it very hard to compare them, mostly because it's almost as if they were two different stories. Part of me loves the old one because of the music and Gene Wilder and that beautiful and cheery chocolate factory. Part of me loves the new one because of the faithfulness to the book and Johnny Depp and Freddie Highmore. I just think this is one of those examples of a remake, but a remake that is so different from the original that it really doesn't matter much that it IS a remake.

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
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...