How soon can we do a remake?

[Jake]

Seeing as Hollywood has run out of good ideas I give you this question...

How many years after the original release is it "OK" to remake a movie?

...it used to be that movies from the 50s or 60s were remade and I thought that was ok but now they're remaking stuff from the 70s and 80s, isn't that a bit too 'recent' ?

I mean we will likely see a Saving Private Ryan remake in a few years the way this is going, as if it wasn't enough that they are ruining very good movies that should be just left alone.

So I think that 35 years is enough before one can do a remake or 30 max, meaning that nothing made after 1976 should be remade yet IMO.

What do you think?

[Crazy_jules]

well, i think movies should be remade because probably the orginal sucked.

i tell you what movie they should remake. . .

THE PHANTOM MENACE!!!!

[Kn'thrak]

i thought remakes are mainly made for a sure profit. To notify the new generation of the story and such but remade into the current generations understanding and knowledge.

Why you think older ppl like most originals than the remakes and younger ppl like the remakes over the originals? Rarely you will see older ppl liking the remakes.

[red_wine]

I think remakes are on a whole unnecessary. You can rarely pull of a remake that can top or come close to the original. One instance of the remake being better than the original is Ocean's Eleven. Another one which is as good is Peter Jackson's King Kong. But still, for all the technological wizardry of Jackson's Kong, I'll give the 1933 version the edge. Besides, the remakes of Pshyco and Rear Window were absolutely horrendous.

But in my native India, one director has taken the notion of remakes too far. His assitant made a film which bombed at the box office last year. He's remaking it this year, less than 9 months after the release of the original. And he says he'll keep trying until it becomes a blockbuster (which I personally think will never happen).

There was also news lately that they are gonna make a remake of the Dirty Dozen. There are some films that should not be remade and some that cant be remade.

Anybody dare remake Gone With The Wind or The Godfather...

[sex maniac]

apropos remakes, i just can't help posting this:
http://imdb.com/name/nm0498175/

[Mithrandir01]

i tell you what movie they should remake. . .

THE PHANTOM MENACE!!!!

You should find and watch The Phantom Menace purist edit. Really good. I think remake is not necessary.

apropos remakes, i just can't help posting this:
http://imdb.com/name/nm0498175/

The specialist

[jmcc]

Precisely, after I have found this thread I am thinking on the remake of The Entity. I like the original (remember that this movie was an attempt to recreate a supposedly true case, it's not fictional terror) and I sincerely don't understand how a so "marginal" movie can be remade, because appart of those who have interest on the paranormal (like me), how many people would like this?

So, from the revenues point of view I believe this one can fail. Maybe here is present the personal interest of someone: Frank De Felitta?

Edit: There are other small classics in list to be remade, but I don't remember the titles now. I have heard nothing about a remake of The Dirty Dozen. I have read that this movie was continued in some cable-TV movies, with Telly Savalas acting, and some of the old cast too.

- The Dirty Dozen: The Next Mission (1985)
- The Dirty Dozen: The Deadly Mission (1987)
- The Dirty Dozen: The Fatal Mission (1988)
- And a TV-series: Dirty Dozen: The Series (1988)

Another movie to be remade is The Wicker Man. Since the original is between the best cult movies, what can we wait from a remake? In the cast is Nicholas Cage. I have not seen the original, but by the way I remember an interview in the Spanish edition of England's SFX magazine with Christopher Lee. He have this movie between his favorites and also says that no version available to the public is the original and that he also believes that the original is being kept in secret by someone.

[Crazy_jules]

You should find and watch The Phantom Menace purist edit. Really good. I think remake is not necessary.

Okay. . maybe not the phantom menace.,

but what about attack of the clones eh?

maybe the beginning was a bit borring, they couldve spiced things up. .
like a chase scene, some sort of breach, a quick battle idk.

and a "protected sex scene" with anakin and padme"

a much better 'chase through coruscant"

idk. i just dont like attack of the clones or the phantom menace that much.

[chernabog_ca]

I'm not a big fan of the remake. I don't agree with some movies being remade, such as Psycho. Really what was the point considering that it's a classic and that Gus did a shot by shot duplicate. If you're going to do a remake, at least make it your own. Classics should never be touched. They're not needed. Again while I'm not a fan of remakes, I don't have a problem if the source material was a book or something other than an original screenplay.

[j7wild]

some movies shouldn't be remade and the one that were done recently sucked:

Pink Panther
Ring, Grudge, Dark Waters (remade of Japanese movies)

[Mithrandir01]

Ring

I don't agree. US version of "The Ring" was really good movie in my opinion. But... this is my opinion.

[redbear]

im not a big fan of remakes or of taking 70's TV shows and making movies out of them. i also think it depends on who is directing and how big the budget is....

the remake of The Thing (1982 : John Carpenter) was awesome . The remake of the Fog was not. i don't think Carpenter could pull another Thing off if he needed to.

i try to be open-minded about remakes, but more times than naught do they work out.

[Crazy_jules]

my final opinion. anything thats a remake should be better than the orginal.

the orginal has to suck in order to become a re-make.

1933 king kong sucked and was in black in white. . .

woala. .Peter jackson makes a color kick *** version.

the only movie that did suck was 'charlie and the chocolate factory'
it had a good story and good twist at the end. but the oompa loopas and things like that. . just wasent good enough to surpass the re-make.

soo yyeah.

[red_wine]

C'mon man. The 1933 version did not suck. It was pretty darned good for its time. And very well made too.

It was also the movie that started it all, the great grand daddy of all the monster movies that followed. It is an american classic. And the score by Max Steiner is one of the greatst ever. Its a lot of fun too.

Obviously it cant compare to the grandiose FX at display throughout Jackson's movie. But it was made 73 years ago.

[corfy]

Part of the problem I have with this discussion is... what qualifies as a remake?

My wife is a big fan of the book Jane Eyre. Look how many times that has been done in film. Is each time it has been redone a remake of the original movie in 1914?

To put it in a bit more perspective, is "Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring" a remake of the 1978 animated movie?

But that question aside, I think remakes can be good. This may sound weird coming from me, but I like the remake of "The Parent Trap" better than the original. And I haven't seen the original, but I did like the remake for "The Thomas Crown Affair."

As for how long people should wait, I think it depends on the audience you are aiming at. Children's movies, for example, could probably be remade every few years (not saying should, but could) to update for each generation.