PDA

View Full Version : What Movie Remakes do YOU Want to See?



Fragenstein
2012-07-23, 06:16 AM
So I was taken completely by surprise when I learned of the Total Recall remake. Honestly, the original wasn't that great. I enjoyed it at the time, but it's hardly a classic.

That's what I've always considered remakes to be; classic movies that were well done the first time and re-imagined for a more modern audience. Yeah, it's done for money, but I never really considered that bad movies could be remade as well.

So apparently anything can be remade. Is there anything you actually WANT to see remade?

Me? I'd like to see Vin Diesel cast as Mad Max. The first movie of what some people forget was a trilogy. I think he'd do well with the role. If so, then move him on to The Road Warrior as a followup. Go ahead and skip Thunderdome, however. That's okay.

Oddly enough, I'd also like to them take another shot at Knight Rider 2010 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_Rider_2010). Mr. Diesel, again. It seemed to be his style, and not just because it involved a car.

Anyone else? I know we all like to see original material hit the screen, but we also know remakes are going to happen. Some of them can possibly be well done.

Dr.Epic
2012-07-23, 08:53 AM
As Red Letter Media said, maybe a remake of Indiana Jones could be pretty cool if they get the right people involved in it.

Fragenstein
2012-07-23, 08:58 AM
As Red Letter Media said, maybe a remake of Indiana Jones could be pretty cool if they get the right people involved in it.

Wow. Now there's a challenge. Who would be the right people? What changes in the scenes or pacing would you like to see?

It just seems like the whole movie (the first one, at least), fell together so well that it'd be difficult to improve.

Dr.Epic
2012-07-23, 02:05 PM
Wow. Now there's a challenge. Who would be the right people? What changes in the scenes or pacing would you like to see?

It just seems like the whole movie (the first one, at least), fell together so well that it'd be difficult to improve.

I'm tempted to say Daniel Craig for Dr. Jones.

Mr.Silver
2012-07-23, 02:29 PM
Highlander.

The original film has a good soundtrack, an interesting setting/gimmick and a fairly memorable villain. Unfortunately it suffers a lot from some rather questionable casting choices and performances (Clancy Brown is really the only one who works), underwhelming action scenes and a rather slapdash narrative that tries to cram too much into its fairly short running time. The end result being a film that doesn't quite work when taken as a whole, but which shouldn't be that hard to fix if handled by people who know what they're doing.
A remake would also be able to avoid having to deal with the franchise's infamously bad sequels (which have always struck me as being double weird since the film is clearly better suited to prequels). In fact if they're actually aiming for a rebooted franchise, it might be better to actually to set the film before the quickening of the first film.

The central premise to the film really has quite a lot of potential for good films and stories (not least because there's around 500 years of human history to play around with). Whether or not the remake that is supposedly in the works already will be able to pull that off though is another matter...

Rake21
2012-07-23, 02:41 PM
Highlander.

The original film has a good soundtrack, an interesting setting/gimmick and a fairly memorable villain. Unfortunately it suffers a lot from some rather questionable casting choices and performances (Clancy Brown is really the only one who works), underwhelming action scenes and a rather slapdash narrative that tries to cram too much into its fairly short running time. The end result being a film that doesn't quite work when taken as a whole, but which shouldn't be that hard to fix if handled by people who know what they're doing.
A remake would also be able to avoid having to deal with the franchise's infamously bad sequels (which have always struck me as being double weird since the film is clearly better suited to prequels). In fact if they're actually aiming for a rebooted franchise, it might be better to actually to set the film before the quickening of the first film.

The central premise to the film really has quite a lot of potential for good films and stories (not least because there's around 500 years of human history to play around with). Whether or not the remake that is supposedly in the works already will be able to pull that off though is another matter...

I'm cautiously optimistic about this one.

On one hand, Ryan Renolds should be able to pull off a good Conner McCloud. The director is trying to use an all Queen soundtrack again. And it can't be the worst movie made in the franchise, because that would probably break a fundamental rule of physics.

On the other hand, the franchise has not done well outside of the original movie. Even the tolerable third movie and TV series are good only when compared to the other things that have been produced with the "Highlander" name attached.

Emmerask
2012-07-23, 02:50 PM
Star Wars ep 1 -3 (without lucas directing, writing or in fact having anything to do with it).

Flash Gordon

Mr.Silver
2012-07-23, 04:04 PM
I'm cautiously optimistic about this one.

On one hand, Ryan Renolds should be able to pull off a good Conner McCloud. The director is trying to use an all Queen soundtrack again. And it can't be the worst movie made in the franchise, because that would probably break a fundamental rule of physics.



Renolds is a decent actor (and hopefully can actually handle a sword reasonably well) but I'd still rather it actually had, you know, a scottish actor as Conner. Admttedly there aren't really any well-known ones who'd work, which is a problem for Hollywood's casting policies. True, I doubt he could be less convincing as a scotsman than Christopher Lambert but given that casting problems were fairly noticeable in the original (Sean Connery as an Egyptian who was posing as a Spaniard. Who the hell though that was a good idea?) it's not an enouraging sign.


On the other hand, the franchise has not done well outside of the original movie. Even the tolerable third movie and TV series are good only when compared to the other things that have been produced with the "Highlander" name attached.
Yeah, which is a shame because there is actually quite a lot of potential within the Highlander world (as it was in the first, anyway). For a start, you have about 500 years of human history to play around with (not focussing on Conner defeats the point of calling it Highlander, after all). Quite a lot happened in that time, and the immortals tended to do a lot of travelling there's a wide range of setting choices available.

Moreover, it comes with an in-built reason for conflict since the immortals are by their nature destined to fight each other, and be rewarded for being the last one standing. There's a lot of possible antagonist motivation there, besides the Kurgan's style of villainy (which works, but shouldn't be the default). Some immortals could be seeking the prize to use it to actively shape the world, whether for their own glory or because they think they could 'improve' it. Or how about an immortal who thinks that no one should get The Prize and is actively trying to prevent the Quickening by imprisoning and/or crippling other immortals (just what happens if an immortal loses a limb anyway? The original film never brings it up). There's even the possibility of a more tragic confrontation, where the antagonist isn't a particularly bad person but if forced into conflict because that's how immortals are.

That last point also touches on the fact there's also a fair amount of potential for depth present as well. Mortality is a pretty major element of the Human Condition, yet here we have an entire group of people who do not age, who are not bound by the handful of decades the rest of us have to live our lives by. How they deal with that and how that effects them is a fairly important question. Besides the difficulties it brings with human relationships, there are other matters posed by being static in a changing world. How does it feel to leave your homeland knowing that when you come back they may not even be speaking the same language? Can an immortal be said to have a home at all? Should they try and stay connected to the world or drift away from it? Should an immortal really think of themselves as being human?
Moreover these immortals, for all their power, also have notable limits. They may be immune to the random tragedy that can damage our lives (accidental death and illness) but they are fundamentally trapped bound by a particular destiny and forced to abide by certain rules that they cannot break. Exactly how much free will do they have? Is immortality itself a blessing, a curse, or simply what you make of it?
It's also worth noting that the immortals also open a way of exploring how much things change. A 'hero' of the classical Greek model would have very different qualities to what we would consider necessary to be one. A lot of moral standard that we take for granted today (our views on slavery, animal cruelty, egalitarianism, killing in general, etc) were not always held by our ancestors. It's likely at least some immortals would reflect this.

Now, it's not as if a film needs to be focused entirely on these sorts of questions (Highlander is an action film first and foremost) but being aware of them and acknowledging them to some degree is certainly an option. It's not as you can't make a decent action film that also touches on some deeper issues too and Highlander actually has plenty of possibilities in that regard. There's also quite a strong potential emotional element too, given that immortals will inevitably have felt a fair amount of loss at some point as their mortal friends and loved ones, should they have any, will likely only be temporary connections. Any relationships between immortals will also be over-shadowed by the fact that, eventually, there can be only one.



Of course, the franchise itself has seldom, if ever, even tried use any of this. In fact pretty much all the sequels and spin-offs seem to keep making a lot of really obvious mistakes.
1: being set chronologically after the first film. This is really rather stupid, given that at the end of Highlander there is only immortal left. There's really nowhere to go after that.
2: Violating the 'Rules'. It's not that hard to understand: don't fight on holy ground, there can be only one. Why would you bother changing this?
3: Forgetting Conner is the last immortal to be born. This is mostly a consequence of 1, but it really gets silly quite fast. I mean, what's the point of the Quickening if new immortals can just keep popping-up all over the place? The series is a particularly big offender in this regard. In fact, any reboot would probably be better off treating the series as being in it's own separate world.
4: Trying to explain too much. The origin of the immortals kind of works best when it's left vague. It's left unexplained because it doesn't need to be explained and unless someone has a really good explanation ('Aliens!' doesn't count) it should probably be left that way.
5. Being generally crap. Although they often manage to be far, far, worse than that.



Star Wars ep 1 -3 (without lucas directing, writing or in fact having anything to do with it).
Honestly, I don't think we ever really needed any Star Wars prequels to begin with. Pretty much everything that needs to be in Star Wars is in the original trilogy.

Fragenstein
2012-07-23, 04:23 PM
Star Wars ep 1 -3 (without lucas directing, writing or in fact having anything to do with it).

Flash Gordon

I was tempted to mention Flash, myself. But I wanted to see if someone else would as well. Glad to see they did.

So who would play Flash? Can't be Daniel Craig this time. Flash is a young buck with long blond hair.

Yora
2012-07-24, 08:10 AM
Star Wars ep 1 -3 (without lucas directing, writing or in fact having anything to do with it).
Didn't think of that way.

Instead of new interpretations of good movies, make second attemps at awful movies that could have been great.

Star Wars 1-3 are very big candidates for that.

ThePhantasm
2012-07-24, 08:13 AM
Honestly, I don't think we ever really needed any Star Wars prequels to begin with. Pretty much everything that needs to be in Star Wars is in the original trilogy.

I absolutely agree.

Mr.Silver
2012-07-24, 09:13 AM
Didn't think of that way.

Instead of new interpretations of good movies, make second attemps at awful movies that could have been great.

Star Wars 1-3 are very big candidates for that.

What, exactly, in the Star Wars Prequels that actually had potential? Because I can't see how you could create anything even remotely good about them without completely re-writing the script, the characters and scrapping pretty much all the designs.

Emmerask
2012-07-24, 09:32 AM
If they would start at ep 3 and then go on from that it could be good ^^
With some additional story modification that gives a bit more depth to vader then just the "okay I kill kids now".

The most important thing however would be to get away from the lollipop feel all the new episodes have, I liked the old more gritty style a lot better.

As for the scraping everything, quite a few remakes pretty much only have the protagonists name and general universe/very rough storyline in common so redoing everything is not out of the question with a remake ^^

Mr.Silver
2012-07-24, 12:44 PM
As for the scraping everything, quite a few remakes pretty much only have the protagonists name and general universe/very rough storyline in common so redoing everything is not out of the question with a remake ^^

Yes, but the thing is we already have something better with the same general universe and some character names. It's called the Star Wars trilogy. The only potential that approach leaves is for more Star Wars and given the landfill of spin-off books, comics and videogames that particular niche is already looking distinctly over-crowded.

Hopeless
2012-07-24, 02:57 PM
A remake of the American Godzilla movie except projected as a trilogy where the first uses the script from the original except it breaks free of the bridge and all we know for sure is that Broderick & co have escaped is wrath... for now but it ends with radio broadcasts as the image goes to black wih frantic calls for help and sounds of it smashing it way out of Manhatten.

The second movie has the US Military hunting Matthew Broderick's character as we learn Gojira has spent the last three years demolishing the US before heading into the Pacific via San Francisco.

They want to use him to lure it to the centre of the desert so they can kill it with three nuclear warheads however its disappearance into the Pacific has insured they can't use their plan.

The French retrieve Broderick and reveal his old friend was responsible for luring Gojira into the Pacific and needs his help as another kaju has appeared off the Russian coast.

Broderick eventually figures out that the French nuclear tests didn't create the creatures they only woke them up and an American plan to persuade the Russians to nuke Gojira and the new monster is almost thwarted when Broderick warns them that their presence means there may be more lying dormant in the area.

The US set off a nuke making it look like the Russians did it for plausible deniability and watch in horror as two more monsters burst out of the water/ ground.

This movie ends with Gojira and Kaju#2 battling as #3 and #4 start roaming across the country with one heading for Japan and the other crossing into Korea...

The final movie we learn Korea used nukes to kill the one that penetrated their country but in so doing awakened a new form of Kaju that takes the form of worms that gradually grow in size as they disperse across the continent.

Broderick traces evidence found by the French and his own subsequent research and uncovers an ancient ruin with information on the Kaju... in Japan revealing the Kaju enter a sleep cycle every few years to allow the ecology to recover rather than empty their food source.
Using the information he has the UN deliver food supplies to large underground areas and draws the kaju in but this is when the worms appear however the Kaju pursue the worms inside the prepared chambers and are sealed within as video monitors reveal the worms are their preferred food source and once they finish eating they enter a suspended state of animation, hibernating as the source of the worms is located and sealed away for the next time the Kaju wake up.

Broderick reveals that the Kaju were the result of the Earth developing a means to combat an alien epidemic that takes the form of the worms which when consumed granted the Kaju the means to survive prolonged hibernation only to awaken when the worms were about to spawn once more, however the use of nuclear weapon tests accelerated the worms' growth cycle and awakened the Kaju nearest to them, Broderick reveals that Gojira was spawning children to help cover for the fact it was the only Kaju awakened and had the testing not happened the Kaju and the Worms might have appeared maybe in another few hundred years...

It ends with Broderick hoping humanity had found a way to spread out to the stars since he doubted humanity will have found a way to handle the worms without the Kaju and the Kaju might start treating humanity the same way it treated the worms for the same reason they created...

It ends with a televison crew encountering the spawn of the Kaju who this time weren't discovered in time...

Ravens_cry
2012-07-25, 04:54 AM
In my opinion, it is very rarely a movie needs to be re-made in my opinion.
Now, sometimes the setting depicted in the original could have changed so much that a remake is justified.
Oceans 11 is a good example of this.
Planning a theft of a casino is a very, very different proposition now than when the original Frank Sinatra film came out, security is very different, so a remake made sense.
Sometimes the original is so flawed that a remake could be good as a kind of do-over, telling the subject matter better.
I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, though the Godfather part III might benefit from this.
Sometimes film-making technology has improved to the point where the story can be told much more effectively now.
A lot of superhero films are like this. Modern CGI has really opened up the doors to creating fantastic scenarios that actually feel real.
But a lot of the time, a remake just feels unnecessary.
For example I don't think a remake of Ben-Hur will be needed any time soon.
The gripping tension of the famous chariot race is still there, just as it was when it first came out.
It is still a highly effective film; an epic in the real sense of the word.

Brother Oni
2012-07-25, 05:31 AM
[Snip Highlander suggestions]

A fair number of these points have been explored in the TV series, particularly the 'not so bad' Immortals forced into battle because 'there can be only one', and how to deal with the fact that your mortal lovers are well, mortal.

Even the original film handles the last point to an extent, exemplified by the song 'Who Wants To Live forever?'.

An indepth character study and exploration of the Immortal psyche (especially their adjustment from a mortal to immortal mindset) sounds like a bit much for a single film or even a series of films, especially since you have to fit in the requisite action scenes and sword fights in.

With regard to the new immortals popping up, I vaguely remember that there was a discussion between Watchers that the rate of new ones coming through had reduced dramatically (off the top of my head, throughout the whole 6 year run of the original series, I only remember 3 new immortals coming into being).
In any case, the new ones are often picked off fairly easily by the vastly older and more experienced immortals, thus making their impact rather minimal. Of course there's the problem of one of them doing what Xavier St Cloud did and start gunning down rival immortals and taking their heads while they were incapacitated.

Bringing it back to dismemberment, a couple of immortals have shown that those injuries can't be regenerated (St Cloud lost a hand to Duncan) or only with minimal repair (the Kurgan and Kalas with their throat injuries, Kalas in particular losing his singing voice).

Dr.Epic
2012-07-25, 03:03 PM
I want a remake of Wanted that's actually faithful to the comics and not a generic antiheroes with guns movie.

Zen Monkey
2012-07-25, 07:16 PM
The Ten Commandments, with less theatrical stage acting and better effects. The original isn't exactly bad, but is very much a product of cinema at that time and follow conventions that aren't used anymore.

Telonius
2012-07-25, 07:57 PM
Metropolis. An amazing flick, way ahead of its time in many respects, but what's dated is really, really dated. Unfortunately I don't think there's a director alive today I'd trust to do it right.

dps
2012-07-25, 08:20 PM
So I was taken completely by surprise when I learned of the Total Recall remake. Honestly, the original wasn't that great. I enjoyed it at the time, but it's hardly a classic.

That's what I've always considered remakes to be; classic movies that were well done the first time and re-imagined for a more modern audience. Yeah, it's done for money, but I never really considered that bad movies could be remade as well.


See, that's almost exactly the opposite of my opinion about what movies should be remade. This is what I had to say in the Movie Discussion Thread when the planned remake of Judge Dredd came up:

"The thing is, if they're going to be remaking movies or rebooting franchises, properties like Judge Dredd seem to me a good place to start. Don't remake good movies, because someone has already done a good job with the concept. Remake the bad movies that had a good concept, but were poorly done, and get it right this time."

tensai_oni
2012-07-25, 08:48 PM
I agree with dps. Don't remake good movies, remake bad ones that had potential to be good but wasted it.


Metropolis. An amazing flick, way ahead of its time in many respects, but what's dated is really, really dated. Unfortunately I don't think there's a director alive today I'd trust to do it right.

Does Osamu Tezuka's Metropolis counts, since it's less of a remake and more an "inspired by"?

Telonius
2012-07-25, 10:54 PM
Does Osamu Tezuka's Metropolis counts, since it's less of a remake and more an "inspired by"?

I probably wouldn't call it a remake based on the reviews I've read. (I've never seen it - really need to get around to it one of these days - so I can't say for sure). Re-interpretation or "inspired by," absolutely.

I generally agree with dps, but Metropolis is one of those exceptions. Even if the original movie is excellent, there might be certain aspects of it that just don't jive with modern audiences anymore. Silent movies are filled with that sort of thing. They were still figuring out the conventions of what people expected from film actors. At certain points, the acting - while perfectly good, even superb, for its time - just breaks the suspension of disbelief for a modern audience. It makes it hard to experience it as a movie, instead of a piece of cinematic history. In a case like that, a remake is warranted.

Dr.Epic
2012-07-25, 11:33 PM
The Ten Commandments, with less theatrical stage acting and better effects. The original isn't exactly bad, but is very much a product of cinema at that time and follow conventions that aren't used anymore.

But they already remade it in musical form!:smallwink:

Ravens_cry
2012-07-26, 12:15 AM
But they already remade it in musical form!:smallwink:
It even had Sir Patrick Stewart as the original Pharaoh!

Fragenstein
2012-07-26, 06:47 AM
I agree with dps. Don't remake good movies, remake bad ones that had potential to be good but wasted it.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that we should remake classics. It's just that I understand why we do. A lazy and uninspired production system takes advantage of the existing popularity of a 30 year old movie and tries to make money by throwing around an updated version of it.

They expect a reaction of, oh... "Wow! It's Willy Wonka for MY generation! So cool!"

So who sat around a boardroom and said, with a straight face, that people wanted to see another Total Recall?

"Do you remember that one? Schwarzenegger was in it. Around the time people stopped caring about him except for Terminator stuff. Quaid, start the reactor?"

"Oh, what, that thing? I thought Robot Chicken came up with that. I remember, now. Yeah. Hooker with three boobs... Let's do it."


They're not calling it "We Can Remember it For You Wholesale". They're not calling it "Philip K. ****'s Total Recall". It's just weird. And it's unlikely to be any more true to the original source than the first attempt.

I don't know, though. I haven't seen it yet. It just struck me as weird that it'd be granted a second life. So how about Robot Jocks and Battle Beyond the Stars for our next remakes? 'Sounds about as randomly selected.

LaughingGnoll
2012-07-26, 07:10 AM
I want a remake of Wanted that's actually faithful to the comics and not a generic antiheroes with guns movie.

Amen brother.

As to the Total Recall reboot, I feel like the only reason they even bothered to re-use the name was so that people who saw the original with Schwarzenegger might go see it. The original idea wasn't that bad, and I enjoyed the movie, though I wouldn't say it was one of the best movies ever.

Anyone ever seen The Terror (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terror_(1963_film))? It was actually not terrible for the time period, and the story (though maybe a little trope-ish for modern standards) was interesting enough that a modern reboot could be very interesting.

Either that or the 1963 version of Dr. Doolittle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Dolittle_(film)). It was much better than the Eddie Murphy version.

Aotrs Commander
2012-07-26, 08:24 AM
Personally, I rather against remakes and reboots, because I'm rather tired of the same story being told again and again with slightly different permutations. (I want that, I'll read fanfiction...!)

New adaptions of whole stories, I'm less against, provided sufficient time between is provided (e.g. LotR or some such).

New stories with existant characters (e.g. superheroes or the aforementioned Judge Dredd) I don't mind, either. (What I mostly object to is being subjected to the origin story again and again, when it really, REALLY is not important. One of the things I liked about Superman Returns was that it wasn't another reboot.)

Exceptions, of course, remain for movies with good concepts but dreadful executed.

Though I'm hard pressed to think of an example that would not be better served, rather than a remake, so such as a new, different story with the same characters and concepts (mostly because virtually ALL the good movies of the last, well, nearly a decade or so, have been adaptions of Things That Exist In Other Media.)

Fragenstein
2012-07-26, 08:51 AM
Exceptions, of course, remain for movies with good concepts but dreadful executed.

Or is that... Dreddfully Executed...?

Thiel
2012-07-27, 06:30 AM
Personally I would pay good money to watch a remake of the Sharpe tv series.
The original is okay, but it was let down by a small budget and the technology of the day. It failed quite badly at conveying the epic sense of scale and violence the books used.

Sorahica
2012-07-28, 03:53 PM
Remake Eragon. Please, please, remake Eragon. They completely messed it up the first time.

Zen Monkey
2012-07-28, 04:05 PM
Hopefully the new Total Recall preserves the ambiguity of the original. People point to the more unreasonable sci-fi parts, but forget that there's a very good chance everything is taking place in the character's head. Everything plays out as the character desired, and there's evidence supporting the claim that it's real as well as the claim that it's imagined.

If the new one just comes out and blatantly picks a side, then I'd say it's a lesser version.

Eldan
2012-07-28, 07:32 PM
They should stick closer to the book and also include the government conspiracy and the aliens! No, I'm not serious.

Dr.Epic
2012-07-28, 10:58 PM
Remake Eragon. Please, please, remake Eragon. They completely messed it up the first time.

I'll agree with that. Having never read the books, how faithful was it?

An Enemy Spy
2012-07-29, 09:33 PM
I'll agree with that. Having never read the books, how faithful was it?

About as faithful as Star Trek: The Motion Picture was to Les Miserables. As in, not at all. Crap. Utter crap. One of the only movies I have ever regretted seeing in a theater, a group which includes Legion and basically nothing else.
Eragon isn't exactly high literature, but it's Shakespeare next to the movie version.

Dr.Epic
2012-07-30, 09:41 PM
About as faithful as Star Trek: The Motion Picture was to Les Miserables. As in, not at all. Crap. Utter crap. One of the only movies I have ever regretted seeing in a theater, a group which includes Legion and basically nothing else.
Eragon isn't exactly high literature, but it's Shakespeare next to the movie version.

So it's not Star Wars with dragons?:smallconfused:

Logic
2012-07-30, 11:06 PM
So it's not Star Wars with dragons?:smallconfused:
It is just Star Wars with Dragons. And it is also terrible writing, and long winded at that. Eragon is a bad book, but the movie was worse (and not very faithful to the book either.)

Ravens_cry
2012-07-31, 12:14 AM
It is just Star Wars with Dragons. And it is also terrible writing, and long winded at that. Eragon is a bad book, but the movie was worse (and not very faithful to the book either.)
The dragon was darn cute as a baby though.
Lord of the Rings ruined fantasy films for me because people actually got dirty, looking travel and care worn.
Everyone in Eragon looked just as clean in every scene, even though they were running or fighting for their lives half the time.

Logic
2012-07-31, 12:34 AM
The dragon was darn cute as a baby though.
Yes, indeed. Though the young offspring of almost anything looks darn cute. Notable Exception: Insects and other bugs.


Lord of the Rings ruined fantasy films for me because people actually got dirty, looking travel and care worn.
Everyone in Eragon looked just as clean in every scene, even though they were running or fighting for their lives half the time.
I liked that the Lord of the Rings did realistic wear and tear. I can see that not everyone would care for it, but it was certainly my cup of tea.

Back on Topic:

Highlander.

The original film has a good soundtrack, an interesting setting/gimmick and a fairly memorable villain. Unfortunately it suffers a lot from some rather questionable casting choices and performances (Clancy Brown is really the only one who works), underwhelming action scenes and a rather slapdash narrative that tries to cram too much into its fairly short running time. The end result being a film that doesn't quite work when taken as a whole, but which shouldn't be that hard to fix if handled by people who know what they're doing.
A remake would also be able to avoid having to deal with the franchise's infamously bad sequels (which have always struck me as being double weird since the film is clearly better suited to prequels). In fact if they're actually aiming for a rebooted franchise, it might be better to actually to set the film before the quickening of the first film.

The central premise to the film really has quite a lot of potential for good films and stories (not least because there's around 500 years of human history to play around with). Whether or not the remake that is supposedly in the works already will be able to pull that off though is another matter...

If Highlander is to be remade, it should star Thomas Jane (of Punisher fame.) He looks VERY close to Christopher Lambert, and he's done well in previous action roles. However, I think that Highlander (1986) does work as is. Yes, Clancy Brown is the best casting decision of the whole movie, but it is darn funny to see Sean Connery (a Welshman thought to be a Scotsman who is famous for playing an Englishman) playing an Egyptian that is mistaken for a Spaniard.

prufock
2012-07-31, 09:52 AM
How about a relatively new film? Green Lantern.

Mr.Silver
2012-07-31, 03:07 PM
However, I think that Highlander (1986) does work as is.
Examples of unintentional hilarity and ironic enjoyment are not generally taken as indications that a film works.


Sean Connery (a Welshman thought to be a Scotsman
Sean Connery is about as Welsh as Ryan Reynolds is Mexican. I don't know who exactly told you he was Welsh, but whoever did has misinformed you.

Dr.Epic
2012-07-31, 04:26 PM
This is a little off topic, but do you think anyone will ever at any point in the future try and remake Harry Potter? I mean, Lord of the Rings I can see mainly because Jackson's films which are so good were technically remakes and it's only 3 films. But Harry Potter - to do all 7 books - I mean, yeah...just wondering you thoughts on the subject.

Logic
2012-07-31, 08:04 PM
Examples of unintentional hilarity and ironic enjoyment are not generally taken as indications that a film works.


Sean Connery is about as Welsh as Ryan Reynolds is Mexican. I don't know who exactly told you he was Welsh, but whoever did has misinformed you.

Moments of unintentional hilarity do not need to make up the whole movie, but Sean Connery was a funny casting choice as an Egyptian. As a whole, I still think Highlander works as is.

As for Sean Connery being Welsh, I should have considered my source, as he often is less reliable than frequently vandalized wikipedia pages.

Aedilred
2012-07-31, 08:39 PM
This is a little off topic, but do you think anyone will ever at any point in the future try and remake Harry Potter? I mean, Lord of the Rings I can see mainly because Jackson's films which are so good were technically remakes and it's only 3 films. But Harry Potter - to do all 7 books - I mean, yeah...just wondering you thoughts on the subject.

I have heard this is actually in the works. :smallsigh:

Now, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea in principle. At the time I feared that they were jumping the gun a bit and it would be a better idea to let the book story play out and then make the film series so they can set up the same narrative arc in film format, keeping all the foreshadowing and allusions and so on. The way they did it just wasn't conducive to that. Not to mention that the chopping and changing of directors led to a markedly inconsistent tone. Which I suppose is in tune with the books, but still. I also felt the films were let down by the decision to stick rigidly with the original casting wherever possible.

Basically, it's difficult to cast a 22-year-old to play a 17-year-old on the basis of an audition when they're eleven to play an eleven-year-old, especially when you don't know anything about the movie he'll be in when he'll be 22. Despite that, I thought films 5-8 were actually pretty good for the most part (as far as HP films can be) and the third and fourth weren't bad; it's actually the first two that let the side down. I think some of the casting was wrong right off the bat (Richard Harris?) but more than anything the scripts were just poor.

All of that said, remaking the whole series now looks ridiculous; I think they need to let another generation of children cycle through first. This crop will still remember these films. Likewise, I don't think we're ready for a Spiderman reboot yet, but that's upon us all the same. They'll make whatever films they think will be profitable.

(Also, I'm generally of the opinion that unless you have a really special child actor on your hands, they're generally not all that fun to watch. A franchise like HP which relies on the central characters being relatively young for several instalments is, I think, always going to suck a bit unless you can address this fundamental problem).

In general, I'm with the crowd believing that remakes are best used on crappy movies that could have been better, or where modern effects mean that an older movie can be significantly improved. Highlander would be my pick as "cool concept, awful movie", too.

That said, not all remakes are rubbish. I liked True Grit and preferred the tone and bleakness of it to the John Wayne version. That said, strictly that's a new version of the same book, rather than a remake per se.

Topus
2012-07-31, 08:46 PM
Starship Troopers. The one from Verhoeven wasn't that bad, but I'd like to see a version more coherent with Heinlein's novel (with all the social and political theories). And powered exoskeletons, obviously ;)

Logic
2012-07-31, 08:58 PM
Starship Troopers. The one from Verhoeven wasn't that bad, but I'd like to see a version more coherent with Heinlein's novel (with all the social and political theories). And powered exoskeletons, obviously ;)

The problem with Starship Troopers (1997) is that at first, they weren't making the Starship Troopers movie. They were making some other movie that somewhat resembled the Starship Troopers novel, and then someone had the bright idea to get the license rights to the Heinlein book. [citation needed]

Dr.Epic
2012-07-31, 09:23 PM
I have heard this is actually in the works. :smallsigh:

Wait? What? Seriously?:smallconfused:

dehro
2012-07-31, 09:31 PM
As Red Letter Media said, maybe a remake of Indiana Jones could be pretty cool if they get the right people involved in it.

no.
just no.
might as well try to remake the goonies or the princess bride.

as for total recall.. how many 3 boobied women are there on the planet? :smallbiggrin:

I have a nagging feeling that a remake of flash gordon would include people from the twilight cast..or Zach..whatshisname from the high school musical... and that they'd take themselves seriously instead of making yet another camp fest.
also.. how can they do that without
BRIAN BLESSED??

I am more often than not against the idea of remaking movies that for some reason have attained epic/cult/classic status...whether because they were really good, because they were so bad they were good, they were a massive hit during my childhood or they were camp and ridiculous mostly because of the cast.
the original blues brothers movie would not have been the hit it was without the two main leads.
The "sequel" was mediocre and solely viable as a vehicle for the excellent soundtrack/music scenes.

if it ain't broke, don't fix it. when a movie is as good as it will ever be, don't try to remake it just to link your name to a classic or milk the franchise!
It's like the "we wanna shoot a prequel to blade runner because we're such massive fans" thing.. no you don't.. you want to make a pot of money using the name of a classic and you're most likely going to make me poke my eyes out with a hot iron. Shamalayan was a fan of Avatar.. and look where that got him.

I strongly believe that the only movies that deserve a remake are movies that bombed or had a very limited release/success for one reason or another, and have never since attained cult status for whatever circumstance... also, please Hollywood, do wait at least 5-6 years between the release/fading into obscurity of the original, before you start talking about remakes..

Aedilred
2012-07-31, 10:00 PM
Wait? What? Seriously?:smallconfused:
Well, I heard it from somebody I trust and has better media connections than me , but it's still at best like a tertiary or quaternary source, so take it with a bucket or two of salt.

Arcane_Secrets
2012-07-31, 11:36 PM
This is a little off topic, but do you think anyone will ever at any point in the future try and remake Harry Potter? I mean, Lord of the Rings I can see mainly because Jackson's films which are so good were technically remakes and it's only 3 films. But Harry Potter - to do all 7 books - I mean, yeah...just wondering you thoughts on the subject.

Personally I doubt it. It seems like a fantastically daunting and risky project considering that there were 7 books and 8 movies with a lot of people that are prone to remember the originals and will point out differences between the first set and the remakes.

After seeing Avengers, I'd really like to see Joss Whedon make Transformers watchable.

Logic
2012-08-01, 12:27 AM
After seeing Avengers, I'd really like to see Joss Whedon make Transformers watchable.
Transformers is already watchable. The trilogy isn't exactly GOOD, but it's watchable.

Xondoure
2012-08-01, 12:33 AM
Personally I doubt it. It seems like a fantastically daunting and risky project considering that there were 7 books and 8 movies with a lot of people that are prone to remember the originals and will point out differences between the first set and the remakes.

After seeing Avengers, I'd really like to see Joss Whedon make Transformers watchable.

Or another way of thinking about it is at least seven movies with an almost guaranteed chash return should they manage to be decent. :smalltongue:

ShadowFireLance
2012-08-01, 12:40 AM
Cloverfield.
We need more good movies, like that one.

Legion, Awesome movie.

TMNT Not the animated one, the origanal.

Godzilla Vs Clover.

And a Spider man with Toby.

300. Nuff said.

dehro
2012-08-01, 02:54 AM
Cloverfield.
We need more good movies, like that one.

Legion, Awesome movie.

TMNT Not the animated one, the origanal.

Godzilla Vs Clover.

And a Spider man with Toby.

300. Nuff said.

I am confused :smalleek::smallconfused:
are those the movies you'd like to see remade or to be left alone?

kpenguin
2012-08-01, 03:00 AM
Having watched The Magnificent Seven again, I'd really love to see more movie remakes that displace the setting, like The Magnificent Seven was a remake of The Seven Samurai, but with in the American frontier western setting instead of feudal Japan. Or the A Fistfull of Dollars was Yojimbo but with cowboys.

Someone should do Ran with cowboys, since Ran is King Lear with samurai. Adaptionception? :smallbiggrin:

dehro
2012-08-01, 03:43 AM
a complete displacement/remake in another setting/era/universe of a well known movie offends me a whole lot less than a mere sprucing up of CGI and a new kid playing the main role does.

the movies you mention are classics in either of the 2 versions.. which shows it can work.
it sure as hell works better than any number of other recent remakes of 80's movies... conan, to name one.

Topus
2012-08-01, 03:55 AM
might as well try to remake the goonies or the princess bride.
No, really, no. I think they are perfect just as they are and I watched them at the right time. It's almost impossible to reproduce that eighties feeling without making it outdated or forcedly modernized.
Maybe Labyrinth could enjoy a very good restyling (those jim henson puppets are wonderful, but a bit outdated by now). Now we have the visual effects to make it visually stunning.

dehro
2012-08-01, 04:50 AM
No, really, no. I think they are perfect just as they are and I watched them at the right time. It's almost impossible to reproduce that eighties feeling without making it outdated or forcedly modernized.
Maybe Labyrinth could enjoy a very good restyling (those jim henson puppets are wonderful, but a bit outdated by now). Now we have the visual effects to make it visually stunning.

agreed..

as for Labyrinth.. I remember having a huge child-crush on Jennifer Connely when I first saw her in Labyrinth.. (I still think she's yummy)I don't think that I know of a single actress that could compare without me sticking to "I'd rather have the original" and the puppets do touch the right strings..possibly more than new tech would do..at least for me. I'm aware of course that the target of the remake would be new kids who would be perfectly happy with new tech..not having seen the original. so..yeah.. a remake would make sense..as for myself, I'd probably end up seeing the merits of the new one but still loving the old one more.. a bit like what happened with Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory.. where I liked the new movie overall but hated the new oompa loompas and their music with a passion.
whipped cream snigger*:smallamused:

can I say battle for Endor and Caravan of courage? either a remake that un-teletubbyfies (that's a word, right?:smallconfused:) the Ewoks or a sequel geared to a slightly older age group?

Topus
2012-08-01, 05:20 AM
as for Labyrinth.. I remember having a huge child-crush on Jennifer Connely when I first saw her in Labyrinth.. (I still think she's yummy)
who didn't have a crush on Jennifer Connelly? :P


the puppets do touch the right strings..possibly more than new tech would do..at least for me. I'm aware of course that the target of the remake would be new kids who would be perfectly happy with new tech..not having seen the original. so..yeah.. a remake would make sense..as for myself, I'd probably end up seeing the merits of the new one but still loving the old one more..
yes i understand what you say, in fact, i like very much Henson's puppet and i loved the creatures that dwelt in the labyrinth, but by now i consider them as a fond childhood memory. Now i'd appreciate so see a grown up version of the movie, maybe a Guillermo del Toro version would be awesome. Dark and eerie, but also sweet, magic and tender.

dehro
2012-08-01, 05:54 AM
who didn't have a crush on Jennifer Connelly? :P


yes i understand what you say, in fact, i like very much Henson's puppet and i loved the creatures that dwelt in the labyrinth, but by now i consider them as a fond childhood memory. Now i'd appreciate so see a grown up version of the movie, maybe a Guillermo del Toro version would be awesome. Dark and eerie, but also sweet, magic and tender.
I'm trying to picture anyone who today could pull off David Bowie's hairdo in that movie and have something of a musical career to bring to the cast. (I said career, not necessarily talent)
this is the only, terrifying, option that comes to mind.
http://tokio.hotel.xoom.it/tokio.hotel/images/tokio_hotel_foto_bill_0.jpgthank goodness he's both too young and has the charisma of a used band-aid.. so we will not see him butcher Bowie's role.

Fragenstein
2012-08-01, 07:48 AM
I'm trying to picture anyone who today could pull off David Bowie's hairdo in that movie and have something of a musical career to bring to the cast. (I said career, not necessarily talent)

I don't think looks would really be the breaking point. A lot of peole can look like the Goblin King. Depp could probably look like the Goblin King. Hell, a muppet could look like the Goblin King. That's not the really important part.

The problem is in sounding like the Goblin King. Bowie just has this unearthly perfection about his voice that I think would be nearly impossible to match.

Maybe... just MAYBE... Marco Hietala? He doesn't have the elven delicate qualities that Bowie had, but he was pretty haunting while performing The Islander.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_RfsyQ1ff1dA/TIkEodub4RI/AAAAAAAACCA/jOJatD2sh7Q/s1600/Marco-Hietala.jpg

ShadowFireLance
2012-08-01, 12:57 PM
Those where movies I wanna see remade.

Dr.Epic
2012-08-01, 09:00 PM
I kind of want to see a remake of the Avengers - The Marvel film. I thought it was good as a popcorn film, but it could have been so much better.

AndToBeLoved
2012-08-05, 04:24 PM
If I see another remake I am going to blow my brains out.

The Glyphstone
2012-08-05, 04:33 PM
http://www.nextmovie.com/blog/upcoming-movie-remakes/

Dredd: Well, it can't be WORSE than the first one...
Red Dawn: Meh. Could be decent. Depends on if they keep the core themes - giving it a 'happy ending' would ruin it.
Carrie: Eeeeh....updated special effects won't help, the story did fine on its own.
Evil Dead: Girl-Ash? Who knows.
Robocop: No, just no. The old one was fine.
AQotWF: I didn't even know it was a movie, though I read the book in 7th grade.

Mad Max: Might be worth it, it's a pretty bland tale to begin with.
Pet Semetary: It says it'll be R-rated, that promises better than making that story PG-13.
Starship Troopers: Ehehehehehhehehehehehheheee...
The Birds: HERESY!
Commando: Eh, it won't be The Governator.
Highlander: Don't make me say the line for you...
The Phantom Tollbooth: Oh, please please please don't screw this one up...

Omergideon
2012-08-05, 05:07 PM
The best choice for a remake is always going to be something that had potential, but somehow fell through. For me this means films like Labryinth are right out as the original film was pretty awesome.

When it comes to updating films for a modern audience....I don't like it. Often the ambience, timing and general cultural background of the film-makers all combined in the most subtle ways to create the things that made a film work. Rocky could not be updated without someone who felt like Stallone did in the 70s, and a culture like the 70s, or else you would get a much more generic underdog film. Same for Star Wars, Jurassic Park and other classic films. Everything came together just right. And if culture etc ends up at the point where you COULD make those films right it become unnecessary.


However if I could have any film remade it would be The Golden Compass. Apparently the original books had much more potential than the finished product. Much more. And the finished product fairly sucked. I would like someone produce these films right.

kpenguin
2012-08-05, 06:56 PM
But... Star Wars was an update on Hidden Fortress for a new audience. Well, its original script was anyway.

Mystic Muse
2012-08-05, 11:24 PM
Cloverfield.
We need more good movies, like that one. Didn't like it. Granted, I only caught bits of it, but it didn't really strike me as a good movie, and I didn't get a "That was a good movie" vibe from the people I knew who liked it.


Legion, Awesome movie. Didn't like it. Can't exactly go into why without breaking board rules.



TMNT Not the animated one, the origanal. Unsure what exactly this refers to.


Godzilla Vs Clover. There are enough Godzilla movies. The Horse is dead. Stop beating it :smalltongue: (Not really being serious. I'd watch that.)


And a Spider man with Toby. Not quite sure what this means. Another one with Toby Macgquire?


300. Nuff said. I don't see how 300 would benefit from being remade.

Also, half of these were made within the last six years. I don't think they need to be remade quite yet. Maybe wait until each is at least a decade old, and then I could see it, but as is, unless the movie was bad and you're going back to do it correctly, I don't think a movie should be remade if it's been done within less than ten years of when you plan to remake it.

Omergideon
2012-08-06, 02:45 AM
But... Star Wars was an update on Hidden Fortress for a new audience. Well, its original script was anyway.

Even if the original idea was inspired by the Hidden Fortress, the final product was quite different enough to be considered it's own original beast. Checking out the Wiki page anyway has something very dissimilar to Star Wars in the plot synopsis.

Fragenstein
2012-08-06, 07:46 AM
Unsure what exactly this refers to.

Probably the original Eastman and Laird characters. They were much more hardcore before the rights were sold for a kid's cartoon series. Few (if any), catchphrases and a lot less immature behavior.

Obrysii
2012-08-06, 08:16 AM
I want them to remake Back of the Future, specifically with a release date of sometime in 2015.

Why? That's the era they travel forward to in the original sequel. In keeping with the original's theme of going back 30 years, they'd go back to 1985 - the year the original was released.

Brother Oni
2012-08-06, 08:24 AM
Probably the original Eastman and Laird characters. They were much more hardcore before the rights were sold for a kid's cartoon series. Few (if any), catchphrases and a lot less immature behavior.

That, plus he probably means the animatronics turtles instead.

Maybe I'm in a minority, but there's just something more 'real' when the actors are reacting to something that's really there rather than just something that would be added later. Even a guy in a green suit (ala Andy Serkis as Gollum) is better than nothing as the other actors' responses are improved as something's actually there.

Remaking Layrinth with CG muppets would lose pretty much all the charm of the original: the finale in the Escher inspired labyrinth is so impressive because it's physical.

dehro
2012-08-06, 09:08 AM
I want them to remake Back of the Future, specifically with a release date of sometime in 2015.

Why? That's the era they travel forward to in the original sequel. In keeping with the original's theme of going back 30 years, they'd go back to 1985 - the year the original was released.

as much as the idea amuses me, why would we want to see the 1980's again when we get to see the 1950's instead?

Fragenstein
2012-08-06, 09:35 AM
as much as the idea amuses me, why would we want to see the 1980's again when we get to see the 1950's instead?

Because 1980 is to many people what 1950 was to us.

Just think. Instead of playing Johnny B. Goode, he could go back and inspire Jitterbug...

Topus
2012-08-06, 09:39 AM
Remaking Layrinth with CG muppets would lose pretty much all the charm of the original
you're right, CG muppets will be totally inappropriate, I think more of realistic monsterlike creatures, as in Del Toro movies (hellboy 2 comes to mind)


the finale in the Escher inspired labyrinth is so impressive because it's physical.
I don't think so, you can have quite impressive scenarios and landscapes, even if not physical. By the way I have to admit that some of the best scenes i have ever seen were in The Fall, by Tarsem, who shot almost everything in real places (also an infinite staircase, like Escher)

dehro
2012-08-06, 10:14 AM
Because 1980 is to many people what 1950 was to us.

Just think. Instead of playing Johnny B. Goode, he could go back and inspire Jitterbug...

thank you for proving my point..
the Jitterbug, really!
lol


yeah.. it is a funny idea though :smalltongue:

Maxios
2012-08-06, 11:41 AM
Star Wars :trollface:

I expect that in about ten years, they will be remaking the Harry Potter films.

Logic
2012-08-06, 05:45 PM
http://www.nextmovie.com/blog/upcoming-movie-remakes/

Dredd: Well, it can't be WORSE than the first one...
Red Dawn: Meh. Could be decent. Depends on if they keep the core themes - giving it a 'happy ending' would ruin it.
Carrie: Eeeeh....updated special effects won't help, the story did fine on its own.
Evil Dead: Girl-Ash? Who knows.
Robocop: No, just no. The old one was fine.
AQotWF: I didn't even know it was a movie, though I read the book in 7th grade.

Mad Max: Might be worth it, it's a pretty bland tale to begin with.
Pet Semetary: It says it'll be R-rated, that promises better than making that story PG-13.
Starship Troopers: Ehehehehehhehehehehehheheee...
The Birds: HERESY!
Commando: Eh, it won't be The Governator.
Highlander: Don't make me say the line for you...
The Phantom Tollbooth: Oh, please please please don't screw this one up...
Commenting only on movies I have personally seen:

Judge Dredd: Agreed wholeheartedly.
Evil Dead: Lots of potential. But I don't think the Bruce Campbell version is deserving of cult-classic status. It's a decent movie, nothing special.
Robocop: The first one was great. The second one had potential (but, was written by Frank Miller, so that is where it went wrong. The third was also written by Frank Miller, and though I haven't seen it in ages, I remember watching it at age 10 and wondering why is wasn't nearly as good as the first one. If my impression then was bad, I can only imagine how I would receive it today. NOTE: I am currently 28.)
Starship Troopers: I would love to see the book adapted to the big screen. The original movie was a decent story, and a compelling take on war propaganda, but it didn't need to be Starship Troopers.
Commando: They tried a governator remake without him, and critics and audiences seem to dislike it. I'll hold no hope for this one.
Highlander: As I have said before, this could be good.

Dr.Epic
2012-08-06, 09:20 PM
I don't see how 300 would benefit from being remade.

Yeah, from what I've heard, it was extremely accurate to the graphic novel. Maybe they mean a 300 that's historical accurate.

An Enemy Spy
2012-08-08, 11:05 AM
Yeah, from what I've heard, it was extremely accurate to the graphic novel. Maybe they mean a 300 that's historical accurate.

300 isn't supposed to be accurate. It's a deliberately embellished story intended to fire up the men around the campfire. The assumption is that the events you see are not necessarily what actually happened.
Why does everyone criticize this movie for innaccuracy? The nazis never found the Ark of the Covenant, but nobody gets mad at Indiana Jones.

Maxios
2012-08-08, 12:04 PM
And Forrest Gump never showed LBJ his butt. He's Gump, he's gump, he's gump, but nobody cares (about historical accuracy) This is what happens when you listen to Weird Al while posting

Logic
2012-08-08, 06:36 PM
And Forrest Gump never showed LBJ his butt. He's Gump, he's gump, he's gump, but nobody cares (about historical accuracy) This is what happens when you listen to Weird Al while postingWait, are you saying Forrest Gump was a real person? I was distincly under the impression he was fictional. Or is my parody/sarcasm detector broken?

Kitten Champion
2012-08-08, 06:54 PM
I, Robot, Blade Runner -- with a genuine attempt to follow the source material.

Lawrence of Arabia, Rashomon, Metropolis, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Yojimbo, The Maltese Falcon, The Wizard of Oz, The Great Escape, Bridge over the River Kwi could all get me to the theatre.

I wouldn't mind seeing Bond classics remade with a contemporary edge, or just less camp..

Maxios
2012-08-08, 06:56 PM
Wait, are you saying Forrest Gump was a real person? I was distincly under the impression he was fictional. Or is my parody/sarcasm detector broken?

Sarcasm :smalltongue:.

dehro
2012-08-08, 07:26 PM
I, Robot, Blade Runner -- with a genuine attempt to follow the source material.

Lawrence of Arabia, Rashomon, Metropolis, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Yojimbo, The Maltese Falcon, The Wizard of Oz, The Great Escape, Bridge over the River Kwi could all get me to the theatre.

I wouldn't mind seeing Bond classics remade with a contemporary edge, or just less camp..

but... but.. butbut :smalleek:
those are all classics!
why touch a classic when it's a good one?
inevitably, the result will displease anyone who has seen and loves the original movie..and suffer in comparison.

Scowling Dragon
2012-08-08, 07:32 PM
but... but.. butbut :smalleek:
those are all classics!

What? The IRobot Movie? The one that butchered the original material so badly it can be served as a steak dinner? (It wasn't even based off the source material).

I would wan't an Irobot movie based around the Script made by Isaac Asimov!

Kitten Champion
2012-08-08, 07:40 PM
but... but.. butbut :smalleek:
those are all classics!
why touch a classic when it's a good one?
inevitably, the result will displease anyone who has seen and loves the original movie..and suffer in comparison.

Doesn't matter, I would still go see them. I think of remakes as reinterpretations of the same basic material. The quality of the remake in no way changes my perception of the original, I simply enjoy those movies enough to be willing to see them done differently.

kpenguin
2012-08-08, 09:14 PM
but... but.. butbut :smalleek:
those are all classics!
why touch a classic when it's a good one?
inevitably, the result will displease anyone who has seen and loves the original movie..and suffer in comparison.

My love for The Seven Samurai does not make me displeased to watch The Magnificent Seven.

dehro
2012-08-09, 05:08 AM
My love for The Seven Samurai does not make me displeased to watch The Magnificent Seven.

that's because the magnificent seven is a reinterpretation in a different setting, and not a remake as they now make them in hollywood.. also, it's a classic in it's own right and involved some of the biggest name in the industry at the time.. today they don't get the likes of Harrison Ford, Meryl Streep or Al Pacino for a remake..

and yeah.. I missed I robot.. that one I agree.. could/should be remade.. in a few years when most people get over Will Smith's attempt.

DigoDragon
2012-08-09, 07:12 AM
Just yesterday my wife and I were discussing how there's way too many remakes. I think we agreed that there should be a law that no movie remake can be done on movies younger than about 25 years or so.
But that ain't happening. :smallsmile:

Anyway, I read somewhere last month that the Robocop remake was a bit more like a "Reimagining", which might make it interesting to do something different with it. I love the original Robocop. Classic cheesy fun.

I can't think of anything specifically I'd like to see remade... maybe "Challenge of the Gobots" just to continue the downward spiral. :smallbiggrin:

mangosta71
2012-08-09, 09:48 AM
I'm not convinced that Asimov's I, Robot could be turned into a decent movie. It's more a collection of short stories than a novel - it would translate better into a miniseries.

I agree that I'd love to see a Starship Troopers movie that's faithful to the book.

I hope to see an adaptation of Jurassic Park that's faithful to the book some day, too. One where the velociraptors are actually intelligent and scary.

I'm trying to decide if there are any improvements that could be made to Unforgiven. Probably not enough to make up for losing Clint Eastwood...

The Glyphstone
2012-08-09, 09:52 AM
The book I, Robot would be an awful movie. I think he was talking about the Harlen Ellison/Asimov screenplay that wasn't filmable with then-modern effects, and got published in 1994 as an 'illustrated screenplay.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot#Film

Aedilred
2012-08-09, 10:00 AM
I hope to see an adaptation of Jurassic Park that's faithful to the book some day, too. One where the velociraptors are actually intelligent and scary.

You didn't find the raptors scary enough in the original? :smalleek:

mangosta71
2012-08-09, 01:45 PM
You didn't find the raptors scary enough in the original? :smalleek:
I didn't find them scary at all. Grant alluded to their intelligence in his little chat with the fat twit at the start of the movie, but we don't see them doing anything that requires any thinking capacity aside from rudimentary problem-solving. In the book they set ambushes, with the pack striking from multiple directions at once (including one particularly memorable scene featuring death from above). There's teamwork and coordination. None of this "she killed all but two of the others" nonsense, which is supposed to show us how vicious they are, but in reality just tells us that they're not smart enough to work together.

They also skimmed over the wild breeding. There was one scene with broken eggs, but they never elaborated on just how much the animal populations were growing. They never even showed more than the 3 raptors that they started with. 3 is easy to keep track of - there were 30-40 in the book, so there was the potential for them to pop up anywhere at any time. Made it much more suspenseful. And, knowing that they hunted in packs, seeing one resulted in an immediate "OH **** WHERE ARE THE OTHERS?" reaction.

ShadowFireLance
2012-08-09, 03:41 PM
+1 On Jurrasic park, Which reminds me, is there not supposed to be a JP4?
I always thought that the T-rex should've had a more Promanint role, T-Rex are cool, I also think that they should have had the Cheamlon Dinosaurs, those where cool. The Raptors should've got more, cause they have Packs, not a family, A Pack.

kpenguin
2012-08-10, 12:26 AM
that's because the magnificent seven is a reinterpretation in a different setting, and not a remake as they now make them in hollywood.. also, it's a classic in it's own right and involved some of the biggest name in the industry at the time.. today they don't get the likes of Harrison Ford, Meryl Streep or Al Pacino for a remake..

Regardless of the setting change, its still a remake. Taking the plot of an older film (and only older by six years, I might add!) and making it again. New ingredients are added and some are subtracted, but the same goes for any remake. Some remakes add more and some keep close to the original recipe. For an example of a modern remake that similarly changes the setting, take The Departed, which takes the Hong Kong crime thriller Internal Affairs and places it in Boston with Irish mobsters.

Secondly, it's a classic in its own right today. That doesn't mean that modern remakes can't be classics. And the casting is not an issue. The all-star cast of The Magnificent Seven? Of them, only Yul Brenner was really a big name at the time. The rest became big names after the film. Plus, I challenge your take that modern remakes don't have high level casting. The Departed included such luminaries Leo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, and Jack Nicholson for god's sake.

Aedilred
2012-08-10, 07:52 AM
I am inclined to draw a slightly greater distinction between a remake of a foreign film, and a remake of a Hollywood classic. The former is slightly more understandable, and direct comparisons are harder, although there are still purists who will tell you that The Magnificent Seven and The Departed (and so on) are tawdry knock-offs. They can be complete turkeys, too (Taxi!)

In remaking a foreign film, you're already bringing something new to it by default, and because most of your audience won't have seen the original, you're free to make a more original film. In remaking a "native" film, especially if regarded as a classic, there's a lot more pressure to make sure it's better than the original, and if it's not, it tends to look a bit pointless.

An Enemy Spy
2012-08-10, 12:08 PM
You didn't find the raptors scary enough in the original? :smalleek:

If you want to get realistic, they weren't actually velociraptors at all. Velociraptors are about as scary as a mean spirited chicken. The ones in the movie were closer to Utahraptors, who are much more dangerous.

CheesePirate
2012-08-10, 12:16 PM
I'd like to see Swamp Thing (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084745/) done properly. Oh, and Judge Dredd.

Aedilred
2012-08-10, 12:35 PM
If you want to get realistic, they weren't actually velociraptors at all. Velociraptors are about as scary as a mean spirited chicken. The ones in the movie were closer to Utahraptors, who are much more dangerous.
Well, indeed.

It might have had something to do with being eight or nine when I saw that film, but I don't think the raptors really needed that much of a fright upgrade. Especially given that they had to share screen time with, you know, other dinosaurs.

mangosta71
2012-08-10, 02:10 PM
Velociraptors stood about 5 feet tall, which is plenty big enough to tackle a man and rip him apart. Utahraptors were larger (7-8 feet tall), but I dunno if it's fair to say that they were more dangerous.

kpenguin
2012-08-10, 03:14 PM
I am inclined to draw a slightly greater distinction between a remake of a foreign film, and a remake of a Hollywood classic. The former is slightly more understandable, and direct comparisons are harder, although there are still purists who will tell you that The Magnificent Seven and The Departed (and so on) are tawdry knock-offs. They can be complete turkeys, too (Taxi!)

In remaking a foreign film, you're already bringing something new to it by default, and because most of your audience won't have seen the original, you're free to make a more original film. In remaking a "native" film, especially if regarded as a classic, there's a lot more pressure to make sure it's better than the original, and if it's not, it tends to look a bit pointless.

I agree that there are differences between a foreign film remake and a native film remake. I was more rebutting the idea that classics could not be remade and done well that dehro put forward, that they were pointless and insulting.

For a more native look at things, I don't think anyone found Ocean's Eleven an insulting take on Ocean's 11, despite the latter being a classic with the Rat Pack as a cast and the former changing the plot rather thoroughly other than "heist caper with a team in Vegas lead by a fella named Danny Ocean"

Classics, good films, can be remade. And the remakes can be good and enjoyable. So long as there's an enjoyable, and profitable, film on the other side, then there's a point.

An Enemy Spy
2012-08-10, 03:27 PM
Velociraptors stood about 5 feet tall, which is plenty big enough to tackle a man and rip him apart. Utahraptors were larger (7-8 feet tall), but I dunno if it's fair to say that they were more dangerous.

Velociraptors stood a little less than two feet high and weighed roughly 30 lbs.

Kitten Champion
2012-08-10, 04:13 PM
With regards to I, Robot, I would like to see the salient logical dilemmas, social conflict, and other interesting thematic elements from the original text carried over into a new complex story line that doesn't involve guns or the Frankenstein complex which Asimov actively sought to subvert.

Something not wholly dissimilar to Artificial Intelligence.

Logic
2012-08-10, 04:17 PM
Velociraptors stood a little less than two feet high and weighed roughly 30 lbs.

That is still the size of a small but deadly dog. (And yes, the raptors in Jurassic Park were basically modeled after the Utahraptor, but Spielberg began making his movie before the Utahraptor was even discovered. I have a paleontology magazine detailing the discovery of the Utahraptor and interviews with the experts that found it. They were also consulted by Spielberg as "dinosaur experts" during preproduction. Spielberg basically invented the Huge raptor for his movie, called it a Velociraptor, and then the Utahraptor was discovered.)

Aedilred
2012-08-10, 07:07 PM
I got the impression that the JP Velociraptors were modelled after Deinonychus, called Velociraptors because it's a cooler name, and the discovery of the Utahraptor was a cool and useful coincidence.

"Actual size" Velociraptors would still be dangerous, but in a different manner to the film ones. The "Compys" in the book were a similar sort of size and still managed to kill people (I think they did in the film of The Lost World).

kpenguin
2012-08-10, 08:44 PM
You know, Terrible Claw isn't such a bad name either.

An Enemy Spy
2012-08-11, 12:04 AM
I got the impression that the JP Velociraptors were modelled after Deinonychus, called Velociraptors because it's a cooler name, and the discovery of the Utahraptor was a cool and useful coincidence.

"Actual size" Velociraptors would still be dangerous, but in a different manner to the film ones. The "Compys" in the book were a similar sort of size and still managed to kill people (I think they did in the film of The Lost World).

Which is also ridiculous, seeing as how Compsognathus ate insects and small vertabrates. The idea of a group of them attacking and eating a human is just plain silly. They would probably just run away.

MLai
2012-08-11, 01:50 AM
Jurassic Park
Whatever they call the "raptors" in a JP remake, I would like it to include our updated knowledge of dinosaur external physiology. Basically dinos should look less like defeathered turkeys, and more like... feathered turkeys.
http://www.locolobo.org/files/1velociraptor.jpg

The 1st movie did conveniently excuse themselves from feathered dinos by saying the genes were spliced with frog genes.

Highlander
I'd rather have a live-action adaptation of the anime movie. Probably because I'm just too familiar with the HL universe; a remake going thru "The Origin" motions for the 1st half of the movie would just bore me.

mangosta71
2012-08-13, 09:07 AM
Which is also ridiculous, seeing as how Compsognathus ate insects and small vertabrates. The idea of a group of them attacking and eating a human is just plain silly. They would probably just run away.
Well, in the book, a group of them came across Hammond after he'd fallen somewhere. He was badly hurt and couldn't get up or call for help. It's not like they attacked a healthy, full-grown human - they just finished off one that was already dying and helpless.

According to the wikipedia article, Velociraptor stood 1.6 feet tall at the hip (which means it was pretty close to 3 feet overall). Apparently the source I was remembering was a reference on Deinonychus. Also, a 2-foot tall frog? That's not small for a frog. Especially if the bugger is nearly 7 feet long along with it.

Empedocles
2012-08-13, 02:10 PM
I'd like to see Swamp Thing (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084745/) done properly. Oh, and Judge Dredd.

Good idea. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dredd)

I hope it's good. Judge Dredd is possibly my favorite superhero.

Gnoman
2012-08-13, 09:38 PM
I got the impression that the JP Velociraptors were modelled after Deinonychus, called Velociraptors because it's a cooler name, and the discovery of the Utahraptor was a cool and useful coincidence.

"Actual size" Velociraptors would still be dangerous, but in a different manner to the film ones. The "Compys" in the book were a similar sort of size and still managed to kill people (I think they did in the film of The Lost World).

At the time the book was written, Deinonychus was classified by some paleontologists as a variant of Velociraptor rather than a separate species.

MLai
2012-08-15, 04:17 AM
Judge Dredd doesn't actually have superpowers, right? He's just a state-sanctioned Punisher.

Brother Oni
2012-08-15, 06:56 AM
Judge Dredd doesn't actually have superpowers, right? He's just a state-sanctioned Punisher.

Pretty much. Except for some psycho-conditioning that's given to all Judges, he's pretty much human, but on the scale of Simo Häyhä (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_Häyhä) or Audie Murphy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy).

Everything else he has, is technology based or personal skill, much like the Punisher as you've said (FrankenCastle aside).

Empedocles
2012-08-15, 09:38 AM
Judge Dredd doesn't actually have superpowers, right? He's just a state-sanctioned Punisher.

Correct. But his gun is awesome.

hamishspence
2012-08-15, 12:04 PM
At the time the book was written, Deinonychus was classified by some paleontologists as a variant of Velociraptor rather than a separate species.

The movie still upscaled them considerably. The discovery of Utahraptor during filming did, however, make the crew happier about it.

Bob Bakker's Raptor Red discusses the subject in a separate section from the actual novel.