Feels like the forum could do with a fresh topic of debate, which is good because debate brings people together... and pushes them apart and it would be very boring if everyone felt the same way about everything (for one everyone would have the same DVD lists).

Anyway I'll stop my mindless gibbering and get to the point: I was discussing in the pub (bar: for the benefit of our American friends) with some friends the best and worst re-makes of some of our favourite films. It seems, particularly nowadays that it is extremely trendy to remake films; whether they be classics that are deemed needing to be refreshed and updated for today's audience, foreign cinema that is deemed needed to be re-made in English to reach a wider audience, or films re-made out of pure wanting to by a Director (e.g. Michael Haneke's almost frame by frame remake of the phenomenal Funny Games, or Rob Zombie's remake of John Carpenter's Halloween). Whatever the reasons there is undoubtledly massive conflict when it comes to remade films.

For instance I generally think of myself as belonging to the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" category when concerning remakes, but was astounded when a friend tried to argue that the 2003 remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre was better than the original. My first reaction was to throw-up into my pint, but as the discussions went on there was some merit to some of the things he was saying. I found myself listing several remakes that I myself prefer as well. Amongst them were: John Carpenter's remake of 'The Thing', Brian de Palma's 'Scarface', Philip Kaufman's 'Invasion Of The Body Snatchers', David Cronenberg's 'The Fly'.....

It was like opening up a can of worms. I thought my choices were fairly credible (for instance I definitely didn't mention The Hitcher, The Wicker Man, or The Omen re-makes  ), but then again others did (this may have been due to the 'pub' setting though and the amount of alcohol that 'flowed' during the night)... (there should be a 'drunk' emoticon for this one)

When it boils down to it many films 'borrow' on genres or ideas, many are adapted from screenplays, ideas or stories by third parties so if I wanted to be really bitter I could say that nothing nowadays is original in any shape or form () but I'm not going to say that - instead I'm going to extend my pub (bar )  debate to you to give me your thoughts on specific remakes, or to remakes in general, whether it be your idea or a re-made idea borrowed from someone else 

Mike

I have asked this before, but I never got any real answer to it; What is a remake?

Would you, for example, consider Casino Royale (2006) to be a remake of Casino Royale (1967)? Apart from the fact that they have (one or more) James Bond and that there is a casino setting, the sceenplays have absolutely nothing in common. So, is it a remake?

And if you answer no, then where do you draw the line?

The remake of Red Dragon was a good one.

I do not mind remakes I just don't care where there are tons and tons of them being made (I would hate to guess how many have been made in the last 2-3 years or how many are in production right now), I like for Hollywood to be original from time to time.

Cliff,

I agree with everything you say, with the possible exception of Dracula. I actually prefer the 1958 Dracula (Christopher Lee's first outing as the count) to the original.

Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
VibroCount,
I agreed with everything you said up until this point:

Quoting VibroCount:

Quote:
But the largest group are remakes which tarnish the memories left by earlier films...

I don't understand this sentiment. Why would anyone think any less of the original Psycho because the remake was inferior? If anything, one would think people would appreciate the original MORE because they now know what could have happened had the original been made at any other time by any other people.

IMO the tarnishing is actually more about the people who are only into modern films, and for whom e.g. black & white movies in particular are relics from pleistocene era. The legacy (not memory for these people) of a classic movie from the past is trivialised. But yes, I agree, if I painted a new "Mona Lisa", printed a 1000 copies of it and pasted it everywhere in the city, that abomination would not tarnish the memory of Da Vinci or the original painting 

I guess it is just all about bad taste and judgement by many of the re-makers. BUT, there are succesfully realised remakes, too.

So, if Madonna really was about to make a remake of Casablanca with her in Ilsa Lund's role, I say: watch it first. I strongly doubt her judgment and have a feeling that it is bound to go all SO wrong, but let her try it first. Indeed it does nothing to diminish the magic of the original.

Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:
Quoting Draxen:

Quote:
So, if Madonna really was about to make a remake of Casablanca with her in Ilsa Lund's role, I say: watch it first. I strongly doubt her judgment and have a feeling that it is bound to go all SO wrong, but let her try it first. Indeed it does nothing to diminish the magic of the original.

I can think of better things to do with my money than waste it on anything Madonna stars in   .

Me too  The point is, however, we never know whether the remake is for the benefit of movie goers or not, so we'd better not swing the axe beforehand. The Madonna-example was a provocation obviously... I'm not going to spend one cent on it, either, unless I can read rave reviews about it in reliable sources - what are the odds? 

Another perspective on remakes...

Ideas are easy. Everyone can think of at least one great plot, or an amazingly interesting character, or a setting which could be the basis for a great film. You've got at least one in you; I know I've got 'em.

Great writers get ideas handed to them by nonwriters all the time: "I have this great idea; if I gave it to you and you could just turn it into a novel/screenplay/story, then we could share the money."

Well, writers, despite occasional bouts of writers' block, have lots of great plots, characters and settings. The hard part of writing is not the new idea, but the work of putting it on paper. Or film. Or video.

Why recreate something that has been done before? The best part of creating a new work of art or entertainment is that transference of your new ideas to something that others can share. Why do the hard part without including the best, most fun, part?

I just do not understand remaking good films.

Trying to get a good version of something that has previously been done poorly is understandable. The Maltese Falcon's first two cinematic attempts tried to rewrite the dialog. When Huston directed the third version, the decision was made to follow Hammett's novel's dialog as closely as possible, thus elevating the remake into a classic, far surpassing the two earlier films.