Film remakes

[radiokills]

http://lazysupper.com/?p=986

 

Hollywood is creatively bankrupt. 75 remakes in 2010?

 

the wizard of oz, rocky horror picture show, rosemary's baby, the dirty dozen are among them.

 

 

forgive me if this is old news to people.

[u2roolz]

I'll come back here to remake my flimsy answer, as this stuff does interest me and is in my field.

 

Edit: There's a similar thread when PopTodd, I think, started a thread about the Clash Of The Titans remake. Irony?

Anyways, I mentioned how many of this year's releases are 80s remakes, reboots & sequels ( ) a la Tron & Wall Street.

But I will write more.

 

I only heard about the Wizard Of Oz film where they explain how it came to be written, much like Finding Neverland for Peter Pan. And Robert Downey, Jr.'s name kept being tossed around for L. Frank Baum. Apparently, that isn't true and it's really a prequel to Wizard Of Oz and Downey is playing the Wizard and the movie will be CGI and directed by Sam Mendes??!! Grain of salt.

[Winston Legthigh]

Hollywood's output has ALWAYS been 95% craptastic, from day one, remakes or no.

 

And I think that estimate is generous.

[u2roolz]

VC Thread About Clash Of The Titans Remake Which Turned Into An 80s Remake Discussion

[TCP]

Even back in the day, most of the films were from plays and books.

[bjorn_skurj]

They would not DARE remake Wizard of Oz!

[TCP]

They already did, they called it The Wiz! MJ is in it!!!

[Beltmann]

They would not DARE remake Wizard of Oz!

They already did, starting in 1914, then again in 1921, 1925, 1939, 1969, 1971, 1976, 1978, and 2006. That doesn't include various sequels like The Land of Oz (1932) and side projects like the upcoming The Great Powerful. There have been roughly 20 Oz-related film projects over the decades; the 1971 one is a well-known Turkish version. And once we start counting up TV projects, it gets out of hand.

 

I've seen bits of the 1914 version, but the earliest one I've seen in its entirety is the 1925 version, which features Oliver Hardy in a supporting role about a year before he hit it big with the Laurel & Hardy films.

 

I'm not one of those people who thinks a remake is somehow a "violation" of a sacred text (The Karate Kid and The Dirty Dozen ain't exactly Shakespeare). As I've said before, all a remake does is add extraneous chapters to the original's side stories, nothing more.

[Preferred B]

Don't forget one of the most terrifying children's movies of all time, Return to Oz. Heh. Whoo.

[m_thomp]

Missing from the list is Let Me In, the Hollywood remake of 2008's Let The Right One In.

 

I assume this is being remade purely for dyslexia sufferers who have been unable to sleep at the prospect of reading subtitles. Otherwise it's achingly unnecessary.

[Beltmann]

I assume [Let the Right One In] is being remade purely for dyslexia sufferers who have been unable to sleep at the prospect of reading subtitles. Otherwise it's achingly unnecessary.

Yeah, the original is not just one of the best vampire movies I've ever seen, it's one of the best movies, period, I've seen in the last few years. I'm curious to check out the remake, I suppose, but I'm definitely glad to have seen the original first.

 

I don't want a carbon copy in which the only difference is American faces, or a dumbed-down Hollywood version (which might be likely). But if they can somehow bring an American sensibility and thoughtful interpretation to the project, I'd welcome the project. I don't want to re-ignite an old war around here, but I think of Infernal Affairs--I very much enjoyed the original, but I'm glad to have The Departed, too.

[Sir Stewart]

Well, the Let The Right One In redo is directed by the dude who directed Cloverfield and stars Richard Jenkins, so I'm in.You just never know with these things. The American version of The Office sounded like the worst idea ever when it was announced.

[suites]

They already did, they called it The Wiz! MJ is in it!!!

 

 

What about Willy Wonka that is a blatant ripoff....off WIO.

[u2roolz]

So which came first: the demographic or the product? (I am quoting myself from the other thread that I linked to on here)

 

The easiest and simple truth is that there always will be people who are between the ages of 8 & 21 who will be experiencing movies for the 1st time in some capacity. What I mean is that for every generation there are certain films that define what a filmgoing experience is to them. Depending on how into films this age group is most stuff put out there will seem somewhat new, unless if they're constantly downloading older films off of Netflix. And at a certain point these people will decide which types of genres that they like. It's of no irony that the biggest genres tend to be that of the (superhero) action, (romantic) comedy, & horror. Within these 3 different genres are certain templates for storytelling.

 

Let's take horror for example: people expect to see a certain formula applied. Hot people. Death. A villainous killer who is of a distinct quality. And let's not forget: a lot of nudity...and oh more deaths. {sadly, a great story doesn't cut it for the moviegoing public.} What evidence I've gathered from personal experience is this type of brief criticism: "I didn't like this at all it wasn't like 'insert horror movie here' the other movie was better". So by this seemingly present feeling towards that genre producers and studios keep churning out the same "product" and once people get sick of the sequels they resurrect it for the next generation as a remake or reboot.

 

*(side note) {Take this really interesting film out now Splice. There are horror fans who hate this film and feel ripped off because it didn't play by the generic "formula" or "rules" for a better word. It was a smart horror film that was a throwback to the early David Cronenberg films. Now I'm not saying that there won't be teens who have their minds blown and their eyes opened to different avenues of storytelling. This will happen, but sadly I think they tend to be in the minority. You can use the phony quote I gave above for the horror film and apply that to Splice, so now that film is viewed as a financial failure the studios won't be that hard pressed to run out and make a sequel or something like it. In fact, the movie was created independently and Joel Silver picked it up to distribute through Warner Bros. horror division Dark Castle. He wanted to put out an alternative to the typical horror films in the present day market. It's actually quite remarkable that there is a film out there like Splice that is in such a wide release. It really should be more of an art house film, but thanks to Joel Silver it wasn't.}

 

For those that just grew up with the Spider-Man franchise they are about to experience a reboot for probably the 1st time and it will be interesting to see what they do. Spider-Man 3D is a reboot that takes Peter Parker back to high school. I highly doubt that the majority of the original fanbase will be on board. But what it will do is open the door for restarting the Spider-Man franchise for a whole new generation of kids & teens. Yes, I realize that from the 10 year gap between Spider-Man (2002) and Spider-Man 3D (2012) is kind of an "amnesiac" joke, but hey anything goes. I wasn't satisfied at all with Spider-Man 3. They could have made a 4th film, but would people come back and be so forgiving? Why find that out and why not press restart instead?

 

Another thing that comes with all of these remakes is that it creates jobs within the industry. If a film would get a rerelease, it probably would just have to hire people in post production to remaster it and add some things (scenes) etc. I'd be the 1st one to love for something like Tron to be rereleased in theaters before the sequel gets out in December. I'm guessing that Walt Disney assumes that they don't have to do that or they will simply use their Disney Channel to achieve that.

 

Let's go back to my quote that began this mess. It's a tough cookie to crack. There's really no simple defined answer because you would have to go all the way back to the 40s and 50s etc. and see which genres were more popular. You hardly ever see a Western or a War film nowadays. If there is one, it's usually on the independent circuit. What you do see is what people keep coming back to the theaters for: horror, action (superhero), & (romantic) comedies. Are people coming back because this is what was being made when they were in the impressionable age bracket of 8-21? So you could argue that the product came first? But in some weird way the demographic keeps staying the same, although the people in that certain demographic are constantly changing due to the aging process. It's almost identical to the pop music phenomenon.

 

Edit: Oh, and another thing: that article's headline is very misleading. There certainly aren't 75 remakes coming out this year in 2010. Perhaps what they mean is that there are 75 remakes being conceived, greenlit, written, & released in 2010.

 

Next: I'll take a look at the reasoning behind remaking such recent "Cult" foreign films such as the already mentioned Let The Right One In, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, & Death At A Funeral.

 

And I'll take a look at the box office for the horror films that I talked about and see if they made more money than their original counterparts with inflation involved.

[u2roolz]

An interesting article that I came across at Dark Horizons (a great Australian website for movie news).

Dark Horizons Link

 

The "Red" Scare Gets Rebooted

 

By Garth Franklin Monday June 7th 2010 01:06PM

 

With the Cold War still very much in effect in 1984, it came as no real surprise that John Milius' "Red Dawn" used the Soviets as the antagonist in its tale of American school kids taking up arms against an invading military force that has occupied their small town.

 

Of course the political landscape of the world has shifted so much in the past quarter-century that any attempt at a contemporary remake was going to have to update the threat. So when MGM began production on said remake last year, it was decided that the invading force would be a Chinese and Russian coalition.

Last week segments of the script leaked online over at TheAWL.com which has lead to a small but brewing concern that the film could potentially be used to reinforce or even propagate xenophobic attitudes.

 

ABC News says that editorial responses in the Beijing-based Global Times a few days ago indicate that many scenes of the film 'demonize China'. People's Daily Online says "because the entire film is full of dialogue about killing the Chinese as well as scenes smearing China's image, many Chinese people are very angry."

 

Not helping the case is that no promos or official materials have been released so far from the upcoming $42 million production, thus the only things seen in relation to the film have been set photos of locations plastered with propaganda posters mostly consisting of the invading army's red star insignia.

 

The film is currently targeting a release later this year.

 

This is very much true. For a film that is supposed to be out in November as a somewhat big release there hasn't been anything about it at all except for this news story. It should be interesting to follow the story and see what MGM does to the film.

[drop dead ed]

can't wait for Mortal Kombat!!

 

looks like an exciting remake considering the first two, now, are terrible

[tinnitus photography]

Yeah, the original is not just one of the best vampire movies I've ever seen, it's one of the best movies, period, I've seen in the last few years. I'm curious to check out the remake, I suppose, but I'm definitely glad to have seen the original first.

 

this.

 

loved that movie. so well done.

[TCP]

Missing from the list is Let Me In, the Hollywood remake of 2008's Let The Right One In.

 

I assume this is being remade purely for dyslexia sufferers who have been unable to sleep at the prospect of reading subtitles. Otherwise it's achingly unnecessary.

Get off the high horse, man! If I wanted to read, I'd go get a book.

[u2roolz]

Red Dawn Remake Gets Delayed Indefinitely

 

As we recently heard, some members of the Chinese press aren't too happy about the country's depiction as invaders in the RED DAWN remake.

 

Turns out they may not have a movie to worry about -- the update of the kid-guerrilla classic was originally scheduled for release in November, but as of now it's nowhere in sight.

 

No, the studio didn't flinch after the negative feedback. In truth, there's not really a studio at the moment -- RED DAWN was an MGM production. And MGM's widely publicized problems means that until the studio stabilizes and/or its existing projects find a new home, the movie is in limbo. As the LA Times claims, "no one knows when the movie will ever be released".

 

The 1984 John Milius flick starred Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen leading a group of Colorado teens battling an invasion by Russian and Cuban armies. The new version (which has Chinese military as the antagonists) stars Chris "Thor" Hemsworth, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Josh Hutcherson, Isabel Lucas, Adrianne Palicki, Josh Peck and Connor "Son of Tom" Cruise.

[Analogman]

Red Dawn Remake Gets Delayed Indefinitely

 

As we recently heard, some members of the Chinese press aren't too happy about the country's depiction as invaders in the RED DAWN remake.

 

Turns out they may not have a movie to worry about -- the update of the kid-guerrilla classic was originally scheduled for release in November, but as of now it's nowhere in sight.

 

No, the studio didn't flinch after the negative feedback. In truth, there's not really a studio at the moment -- RED DAWN was an MGM production. And MGM's widely publicized problems means that until the studio stabilizes and/or its existing projects find a new home, the movie is in limbo. As the LA Times claims, "no one knows when the movie will ever be released".

 

The 1984 John Milius flick starred Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen leading a group of Colorado teens battling an invasion by Russian and Cuban armies. The new version (which has Chinese military as the antagonists) stars Chris "Thor" Hemsworth, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Josh Hutcherson, Isabel Lucas, Adrianne Palicki, Josh Peck and Connor "Son of Tom" Cruise.

 

We don't need it anyway. Watch the original. In the good old days of the cold war, you could portray the Russians and Chinese as bad people and get away with it.

[Sir Stewart]

WOLVERINES!!

[Analogman]

Exactly.

[uncool2pillow]

a-man, you didn't watch 24, did you? Some badass Russians in the last season. I think the pretty much laid of the Chinese, though. Mostly focused on Russians, Middle Easterners, white supremacists, and drug lords.

[Analogman]

a-man, you didn't watch 24, did you? Some badass Russians in the last season. I think the pretty much laid of the Chinese, though. Mostly focused on Russians, Middle Easterners, white supremacists, and drug lords.

 

Yes, I did. I was going to say - there is one show that gets away with such things. Although, I think the writers and producers were called out by various organizations many times.

 

I still can't they believe the scene with Jack and the sniper.

 

Anyhow - at the moment I can't think of any remakes I would go see - or have seen.

 

I am sort of intrigued by the current practice of taking TV shows from the days of my youth and making movies out of them.

 

As I have said before, I would go see a Magnum P.I. movie. They could never duplicate the chemistry among the actors on that show, but I would go see it anyhow.

 

I suppose that is one of the problems with such things. Those who are familiar with the show or original movie have whatever went on stuck in their heads.