If we forget films whose source material is a classic book or based on folklore, Dracula, Little Women and the like, these would need a whole new blog for each one, how many Dracula films have there been, also every year there seems to be another adaptation of a Jane Austin novel.
I'm going to be talking solely about remakes, though a little bit of re-imagining may drop in as well, but not reboots, that's a whole different subject for my next blog, maybe.
So why do they do it? Well the easy answer is money, and of course laziness, they work on the principle that if something was a success in the past then it's bound to be a success in the future, right? And of course the basic story is already written.
On the whole remakes don't work, my theory as to why this is true is because they take a beloved classic that is of a time, whether it's the 60's, 70's, 80's or 90's, and try to make it contemporary.
The problem with this is that people that have an emotional connection with the movie don't need a remake, and the people that the studio are making the remake for have no connection with the original and the title and characters mean nothing to them.
Going to start with a classic, adored critically acclaimed movie with a cast of some of the best comedic actors of the time, then replace them with some of the best comedic actors of the time but this time give them an awful script and poor direction and you get the abomination that is Ghostbuster!
Next up Robocop, why make it a PG13, misses the whole point of the original, anybody that loved the original was always going to hate this watered down, sanitised version, and those that hadn't didn't need another lackluster action movie.
There's a slew of Hollywood remakes of Asian horror that have been done badly, a prime example is their remake of Ring, it is truly one of the creepiest movies I've ever seen, freaks me out, but the Hollywood version is just a lazy jump scare effort!
It's not only Asian horror that Hollywood ruin, the brilliant Spanish horror REC was completely screwed up when they made the truly boring and atmosphere lacking sub par Quarantine.
Psycho, how can a shot for shot remake of a classic movie be so bad? Well I can only put it down to lack of atmosphere and bad casting, and it wasn't needed either, did the studio think B&W was an issue so they needed a colour version?
A couple of perfect examples of the wrong casting in a remake are Keannau Reeves in The Day the Earth Stood Still and Nic Cage in The Wicker Man, both classic movies, both awful remakes!
Some movies don't work as a remake but kinda work as a movie in their own right if you can ignore the title, for example Conan the Barbarian starring Jason Momoa isn't a bad movie but it's an awful remake, Arnies original was full of humour and the style of the 80's.
We now get onto the remakes that were as good as the originals, I'm talking westerns here for some reasons as they are the ones that seems to spring to mind!
True Grit is a fine example, both movies are brilliant, well cast, well acted and well directed, the same goes for the Magnificent Seven, both versions and of course the original original The Seven Samurai, and finally 3:10 to Yuma, both really good films.
The Thing (1982) is a remake of The Thing from Another World (1951) and was remade in 2011, so we have good, brilliant and then meh!
There's always that brilliant remake that causes conflict in your soul, mine is Dawn of the Dead, I love Zac Snyders versions but I have a massive emotional connection with Romeros original, oh the turmoil!
No comments:
Post a Comment