It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

When NOT to do a remake.

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Just saw Depp's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Um, not a good move imo. He's a fine actor, one of my fav's BUT Gene Wilder nailed the part. Gene is Willy Wonka. It would be like a good actor trying to outdo Capt. Jack Sparrow. Depp nailed that one.

Can you imagine someone trying, I DO mean trying to do Capt. Quint? Not happening. No one could do that part like Robert Shaw. It's said that he ad libbed many of his lines. How about someone trying to recreate the elderly Don Corleone? Yeah, DeNiro did the younger version of that character but trying to outdo Brando? Not happening.

Sometimes an actor just has to back away and NOT do an iconic part. BTW, this generations Poseidon Adventure sucked. Sometimes a movie just shouldn't be made.

There are many examples of betterment, what I'm talking about here is trying to outdo the best. Not a good career move.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 07:04 PM
link   
I'm against all remakes nine out of ten times anyways.

Why not be original for a day or two and actually try to make a quick buck off of something you came up with yourself? Or let's do the "Hollywood" thing and regurgitate the same movies that we've seen for the last twenty years.

I've seen too many remakes in the last few years.

Most of them are disappointing to say the least, but the odd one does leave a positive lasting impression.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   
They just 'remade' Day of the Dead (Dear God, it's bad enough to give you cancer) and I hear they are remaking Hellraiser, The Crazies and Escape from New York too....



I mean, come on.. That's like remaking Mad Max...



*Terrible thoughts come into brain*

[edit on 10-4-2007 by Spreadthetruth]



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   
The War of the Worlds.

The only thing better was the Special effects.
But that alone does not make a movie.

The original was goundbreaking for it's time, and it still passes the muster, IMO.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Just saw Depp's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Um, not a good move imo. He's a fine actor, one of my fav's BUT Gene Wilder nailed the part. Gene is Willy Wonka. It would be like a good actor trying to outdo Capt. Jack Sparrow. Depp nailed that one.



I gotta say I prefer Johnny Depp's version, not because of him, (he is a good actor though) but because the story is so much more true to the book.
Gene Wilder played a happy excentric when in the book he had a darker side, which Depp plays quite well. All the stuff from the umpa lumpa's living in the forest and the chocolate castle are straight from the book.
The ending completely cuts out any chance of a Glass Elevater story and Wonkas father was Burtons input, other than that, it is the book which is why I prefer it...



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 10:38 PM
link   
As a film critic I'm CONSTANTLY bombarded with the whole remake issue and I say the same thing each time it's brought up, "No remake will eclipse the original in the hearts of the fans. So long as the originals remain safely on shelves and in collection there's no reason to whine."

Let the new generations have their remakes.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Hmmmm.... This was interesting to me....

Producer plans Barbarella remake


A remake of the cult 1960s science-fiction film Barbarella is in development, according to reports.
Original producer Dino De Laurentiis has secured the rights to remake the 1968 film, which starred Jane Fonda.

De Laurentiis told trade paper Variety that Barbarella was the "ultimate science-fiction adventure heroine: smart, strong, funny and sexy".


I find this really wierd since I suggested this as a possibility to Dave Rabbit who was interviewing jane fonda a while back... and here we are....

I think this film may have to re-name the now infamous orgasmatron as it would be in breech of copywrite of this, since it's a registered trade mark...

What is the Orgasmatron®?

The main issue I have with Remakes is often good acting is replaced by visual fx.

A good remake can only ever be good when the acting is on par or better than the original.. Another mistake is to rush parts of a film that previously added to the over all feel only to cut down movie length...

For me the biggest disappointments in film remake history was Dune the mini series.... Where was the acting in that one…

And the Hitchikers Guide to the galaxy....All the subtle humour of the original was totally removed from the remake.

A good example of an excellent remake would be something like Lord of the Rings.... yep it was a remake of this.... The Lord of the Rings - 1978

Anyway...

All the best,

NeoN HaZe.

[edit on 16-4-2007 by Neon Haze]



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Yeah I know what you mean. Two movies I can think of right off is:

Freaky Friday and Parent Trap



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   
When NOT to do a remake

When the first Halloween was a perfect masterpiece.

Peace



posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Halloween was best the first time.
Jaws the first time. I will always feel that the original movie will always be the best no matter about new graphics and computer animation. I can't even count The Friday the thirteen's anymore. I really wish that the Hollywood producers would focus on their original imaginations instead of others. It's like Shawshank Redemption. Nobody IMO could make a remake than that one. Come Hollywood get it together and come up with some new stuff.


SR

posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
When NOT to do a remake

When the first Halloween was a perfect masterpiece.

Peace


Right on dude!! I love Rob Zombie movies and everything but seriously we don't need a remake especially if it turns out half-assed like most horror movie remakes these days i mean what the heck is going on! Is there really no new fresh idea's anymore



posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spreadthetruth
Escape from New York too...

[edit on 10-4-2007 by Spreadthetruth]


There's only one Snake Pliskin. EFNY without Kurt Russell would be like remaking Rambo without Stallone.


SR

posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
"2001: A Space Odyssey" - Should be left alone no GCI update etc. etc.

Battle Royale 1&2: Please don't 'Hollywood' it ok so Martin Scorsese managed to do it with 'Infernal Affairs' and take all the credit as if it was his idea but at least he made it his own in a way and it worked but i would be happy if the BR's are left alone...BR 2 was a pile of dung anyway but it tied everything up.



posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Wonka was a different movie from Charlie and the Choc. Factory. I don't think they deserve comparison. Even my daughter (4) says she can't pick a better or worse one because they're too different.

Halloween shouldn't be remade either but I read that this time around it's a retelling with some focus on the time in the insititution and after the breakout but before he hits the home town.

The Inlaws never should have been remade.


If a movie is a classic, why redo it? It's a no win situation. You will be compared to a classic and will be hard pressed to do better, setting yourself up for failure.



posted on Apr, 26 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   
When NOT to do a remake.


When your names Rob Zombie.
:bnghd:



posted on Apr, 26 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I'm dreading the upcoming Logan's Run remake. But I'll still see it. Because I love Logan's Run. Part of the only reason to see a remake IMO is to pick at it like an old scab.




top topics



 
2

log in

join