Has there ever been a good remake?

[Cusm]

Do you think there has ever been a good Hollyowood remake of a Hollywood movie?
There are several Hollywood remakes of foreign films that I like, but I can not think of any remakes of their own that I have cared for or that has been well received. Am I forgetting one or do they not exists?

[Giles]

"Last of the Mohicans" - Michael Mann

[Inverse]

There have been countless good remakes.

The Humphry Bogart Maltese Falcon was a remake.

The Judy Garland Wizard of Oz was a remake.

The Errol Flynn Robin Hood was a remake.

The Charlton Heston Ben Hur was a remake.

Hitchcock personally remade The Man Who Knew Too Much.

Heck, Lord of the Rings is a remake!

[Charlie Goose]

The Fly

http://charliegoose.homestead.com/files/goose.jpg Honk!

[Cusm]

Let me restate it to the last 30 years.

Do you mean the old LotR cartoon?

[Corvin]

Ocean's 11.

The Italian Job

Two off the top of my head.

[Dimension X]

Billy Wilder's The Front Page (1974) is a good remake of The Front Page (1931) (but neither is as good as the other remake, His Girl Friday (1940)).

[marty888]

<b>Invasion of the Body Snatchers</b>

[Seeker]

Originally posted by Cusm
Let me restate it to the last 30 years.

Do you mean the old LotR cartoon?

if you keep constraining the criteria, sooner or later, you will "win"...

yeah, the bakshi cartoon and the rankin bass productions of LOTR ... but if you say that doesn't count because it was a cartoon, so the current LOTR is not a remake, again, you are just continiuing to constrain your question tighter and tighter.

[cultshock]

Not so much a remake but rather a more faithful interpretation of the original source material, I prefer John Carpenter's The Thing to The Thing from Another World (both inspired by the story "Who Goes There?")

[Groucho]

Assault on Precinct 13 (remake of Rio Bravo)

Scorcese's remake of Cape Fear was pretty good (but not as good as the original).

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (remake of Bedtime Story)

Speaking of Steve Martin, Father of the Bride wasn't too bad.

The recent Freaky Friday has gotten good reviews.

I enjoyed the Eddie Murphy version of The Nutty Professor.

Three Kings could be considered a remake of Kelly's Heroes.

[paradicelost]

Fatal Attraction, Three Men and a Baby, Invaders From Mars.

[The Nature Boy]

Evil Dead II, remake of Evil Dead

[cultshock]

Fistful of Dollars -remake of Yojimbo
The Magnificent Seven -remake of Seven Samurai

Of course the Kurosawa originals are still better.

[Hokeyboy]

Originally posted by Inverse
There have been countless good remakes.

The Humphry Bogart Maltese Falcon was a remake.

The Judy Garland Wizard of Oz was a remake.

The Errol Flynn Robin Hood was a remake.

The Charlton Heston Ben Hur was a remake.

Hitchcock personally remade The Man Who Knew Too Much.

Heck, Lord of the Rings is a remake! Except for The Man Who Knew Too Much, not a single one of these are remakes.

All of them are cinematic adaptations of literary works or legends. A remake is to take a property that originated as film and then creating a new film out of it.

The Maltese Falcon was a Hammett novel that was adapted many times. But Huston's film isn't a "remake" of an earlier film; it's an adaptation of the original novel.

Now The Man Who Knew Too Much, AFAIK, originated as a film and was thereafter remade by the same filmmaker. Vanilla Sky is definitely a remake of Abre Los Ojos.

Would you say that Costner's Robin Hood is a remake of Flynn's?Suppose I wanted to shoot a straightforward and extremely faithful film based on Arthur Clarke's "The Sentinel". Would I therefore be remaking Kubrick's 2001? Is the TV version of "The Shining" -- more faithful to King's novel -- a remake of Kubrick's? The same with the TV miniseries DUNE vs. the Lynch film, or the upcoming Spartacus miniseries.

[Kal-El]

I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I thought Ocean's 11 was great.

[movielib]

Heaven Can Wait, excellent remake of the excellent Here Comes Mr. Jordan.

[Inverse]

Matt, of course all those book-based movies are remakes. The only way they wouldn't be remakes is if everyone in Hollywood and the moviegoing public utterly ignored all previous film adaptations of the book.

Movies like Robin Hood (any version) are made with the recognition that there have already been previous adaptations. The previous films invariably influence the new one, if only by their mere existence. You can bet that during the very first meeting on any book remake project the following questions come up: how did the previous film versions do, and what are we going to do differently in our version? In other words, they ask the exact same questions they ask when remaking a movie based on an original screenplay.

And the previous versions influence the new version even when the new version ends up being more faithful to the book. The fact that the TV version of the Shining or the Jackson version of Lord of the Rings or the TV version of Dune is more faithful to the book than the previous version is partly a reaction to the way the previous versions were received.

The only way a book-based adaptation of something like Robin Hood could *not* be a remake is if the people doing the new version 1) had never seen any of the previous fim adaptations, 2) had no information on the contents of the previous versions, and 3) had no information on the critical or box office reception to the previous versions.

This is clearly never going to be true in the case of a Robin Hood movie, though I guess it be true of some other much more obscure property.

Oh, and getting back to topic, Desperado was kinda-sorta a remake of El Mariachi. :)

[B.A.]

Originally posted by Kal Jedi
I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I thought Ocean's 11 was great.
:up:

[MasterCXtreme]

Gone In 60 Seconds

[PixyJunket]

Vanilla Sky IMO.

[chente]

I thought the remake of Sabrina with Harrison Ford was pretty good. I actually like both versions very much.

[Spooky]

Originally posted by Giles
"Last of the Mohicans" - Michael Mann

That's the funniest thing I've read in the forums today...Oh, wait a minute...you were serious?!

[Samuel]

The Blob (Why no sequel?)

The Omega Man. Although it may be considered more of an adaptation of I am Legend rather than a remake of The Last Man on Earth.

Night of The Living Dead directed by Tom Savini. I love Romero's original but the remake is perfect.

Point of No Return is a decent remake of Le Femme Nikita.

[RyoHazuki]

Batman

[caligulathegod]

Originally posted by Matt Millheiser
Except for The Man Who Knew Too Much, not a single one of these are remakes.

All of them are cinematic adaptations of literary works or legends. A remake is to take a property that originated as film and then creating a new film out of it.

The Maltese Falcon was a Hammett novel that was adapted many times. But Huston's film isn't a "remake" of an earlier film; it's an adaptation of the original novel.

Now The Man Who Knew Too Much, AFAIK, originated as a film and was thereafter remade by the same filmmaker. Vanilla Sky is definitely a remake of Abre Los Ojos.

Would you say that Costner's Robin Hood is a remake of Flynn's?Suppose I wanted to shoot a straightforward and extremely faithful film based on Arthur Clarke's "The Sentinel". Would I therefore be remaking Kubrick's 2001? Is the TV version of "The Shining" -- more faithful to King's novel -- a remake of Kubrick's? The same with the TV miniseries DUNE vs. the Lynch film, or the upcoming Spartacus miniseries.

Come on, of course they are remakes. They "remade" the same story. You are confusing the definition. If a film is made based upon a previously made original film property, it is a remake, just as you say. If a film is based upon the same source material as a previously made film(that is, a book or a play or something), then it is a remade film of that source material. The same word works for both types of films.

[Rypro 525]

Originally posted by movielib
Heaven Can Wait, excellent remake of the excellent Here Comes Mr. Jordan. yes and down to earth with chris rock was horrible.

[J Roq]

Batman definitely.

Caligula, you're wrong about what a remake is by the way. By a good amount.

[caligulathegod]

You are going to tell me "The Fly" is not a remake? Or "The Thing"? Or "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"? What's the difference between those and "Batman"?

[caligulathegod]

Remake is not exclusively films based upon previous original film properties. A remake is a remade version of the same story. David Lynch made Dune and then Sci Fi Channel remade Dune as a miniseries. No one says they have to use the same script or base it on the same script. Most remakes tend to "go back to the orginal source to make it more faithful." They are just remaking the film from the same source. The word remake still applies. Remake means to make again. That defines these films. They made them again because someone else already made them.

[movielib]

Originally posted by Rypro 525
yes and down to earth with chris rock was horrible.
Sure was. Third time was not the charm.

[Shonn]

The Mummy

The Count of Monte Cristo

Ocean's 11

[renaldow]

Caligula, I think you're confusing remake with adaptation. When you make a movie from a book, play or other source material it is an adaptation. Some stories or legends have been adapted many times. When you set out to create a new movie based on an old movie, regardless of original source material, that is a remake.

Take these 2 Charlton Heston films as an example:

Planet of the Apes was an adaptation of the novel for the screen and made some very radical departures from the book. When it was remade a few years ago the story was an update of the original movie, not a re-adaptation of the novel. This was definitely a movie remake.

Omega Man and Last Man on Earth were adaptations of the same novel, and had similar plot points because of this. Omega Man was not meant to be a remake of Last Man on Earth, though. Both films are actually very different and have very different story lines. This is not a remake situation, but a reinterpretation of the original book.

Homework: Which is Never Say Never Again?

[zak52]

Manhunter and Red Dragon are also good examples. Red Dragon was not a remake of Manhunter.

[garolo]

Originally posted by renaldow


Homework: Which is Never Say Never Again?

Never Say Never pales in comparison to Thunderball.

[Groucho]

Regardless of how you define remake, I think we'll all agree that the answer to the original question is still "Yes."

[audrey]

Drawing a meaningful distinction between “re-adaptation” and a “remake” strikes me as pointless and pedantic. That said, I think there have been some great remakes. I suspect the success/failure ratio for remakes roughly parallels the percentages for original works: relatively few great ones, tons of mediocre movies, and a few god-awful ones.

[matome]

The Thing
Insomnia

[fumanstan]

I don't think Batman counts

[Numanoid]

To further expound on the difference: what if two movies are in production simultaneously, from the same source material? Both are released on the same day. According to caligulathegod, instead of them both being adaptations of the same source, one of them has to be a re-make. Which one?

Doesn't make much sense, does it?

[stingo]

Love Affair ---> Affair to Remember ---> Sleepless in Seattle

I've not seen the first, but the second (in spite of its flaws) is much better than the third.

[Chad]

Originally posted by marty888
<b>Invasion of the Body Snatchers</b>

I hope your referring to the 1978 version, and not that cinematic masterpiece from 1993 known as "Body Snatchers".

I think every rapper on the planet would agree that Scarface is the remake of all remakes!

Psycho ;)

[Inverse]

Like audrey says, this is all incredibly nitpicky. People have always called these things remakes (except when the previous version bombed, when the filmmakers inevitably haul out the word "reinterpretation" as a shield). They will continue to do so regardless of all the convoluted analysis we do here.

Still, one last conundrum for the "the Costner Robin Hood is not a remake" crowd. Van Sant did a new version of Psycho a few years back. I think everyone agrees that this was a remake.

But wait! Hitchcock's original movie was itself based on a book by Robert Bloch! Does this mean that Van Sant's version was a "reinterpretation" of the book and not a remake of the movie?

Of course not, because Van Sant copied Hitchcock, not the book. Exactly. Shot for shot. If that's not a remake, what is?

So something that is 100% a copy of another movie is a remake, even if the original movie was based on a book.

But wait! Suppose someone makes *another* version of Psycho. Exactly 50% of this new version is based on Hitchcock's movie. The other 50% (exactly!) of the new version is based on the original book by Robert Bloch.

Is the new version a "remake" or a "reinterpretation?"

Or, or ... what if the new version is 33.3% based on Hitchcock's movie, 33.3% based on the book, and 33.3% original? What then? WHAT THEN??????????? :D

[caligulathegod]

I know what an adaptation is. I also know a remake is. We can put all kinds of nitpicky pedantic limits on what we want to call a remake, but it doesn't change anything. If you make a movie based on the same story as a previous movie then you re-made it. What is so bad about that interpretation? You guys are limiting your definition to films that are direct remakes of other films when it can encompass films that are remakes of the same novel, play, or whatever. It doesn't matter what the object of the verb is. There's at least 20 remakes of Hound of the Baskervilles. By your definition these aren't remakes. If you can't count those as remakes then this whole topic is spurious. Red Dragon is most definitely a remake. You can't get anymore "remake" than that. The only reason it was even remade was so it could feature Anthony Hopkins.

As far as simultaneous productions, you'll have to use some common sense. If one wasn't pre-existing, then it wasn't a remake.

[caligulathegod]

Oh, yeah. Batman. I'd say it is a remake by both my liberal definition and the more conservative definition presented earlier. Although they went back to the comics for the movie it's still basically a remake of the old TV show. How? Stunt casting. Just like the old TV show, the movies don't cast villians, they cast iconic actors as hyperstylized versions of themselves rather than straight adaptations of the comic book villians. Only with an A-list movie you get A-list stars. The Schumacher films even moreso. Or you could even go back to the old serials. They were played straight.

[Face/Off]

I personally liked...

Three Men and a Baby
Point of No Return
The Italian Job
Ocean's Eleven
Vanilla Sky
Insomnia
Sabrina
Red Dragon
Traffic
The Thin Red Line
The Thing
You've Got Mail (which is an updating of sorts of Jimmy Stewart's The Shop Around The Corner)
The Bourne Identity (if you count Richard Chamberlain's TV movie)
Heat (which is a remake of Michael Mann's TV movie LA Takedown)

And I'm willing to give Denzel Washington's The Manchurian Candidate the benefit of the doubt.

Originally posted by Kal Jedi
I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I thought Ocean's 11 was great.

Considering how bad the original was, how could this one be worse?

[KitchenSink]

Airplane

Remake of Zero Hour

[Face/Off]

Originally posted by renaldow
Homework: Which is Never Say Never Again?

Never Say Never Again is a remake of Thunderball. And the man responsible for it, Kevin McClory -- being the apparent creative genius that he is -- tried to get the rights to it again so he could remake Thunderball AGAIN as the non-MGM/UA film Warhead 2000.

[fumanstan]

Originally posted by caligulathegod
Oh, yeah. Batman. I'd say it is a remake by both my liberal definition and the more conservative definition presented earlier. Although they went back to the comics for the movie it's still basically a remake of the old TV show. How? Stunt casting. Just like the old TV show, the movies don't cast villians, they cast iconic actors as hyperstylized versions of themselves rather than straight adaptations of the comic book villians. Only with an A-list movie you get A-list stars. The Schumacher films even moreso. Or you could even go back to the old serials. They were played straight.

I don't see how that matches your definitions.

"If you make a movie based on the same story as a previous movie then you re-made it"

Didn't happen with Batman in 1989 versus the 1966 version. Entirely different story. I don't see how stunt casting has anything to do with what a remake is.

[atari2600]

are you kidding? has there been a good remake? only the best movie ever - oceans 11 - was a remake!!!

[caligulathegod]

Batman might be pushing it, but it can be argued (semantically, anyway) that it is a remake of the old TV show even though they used a new story. The stunt casting just shows that the old TV show was kept in mind as they were doing it. It's closer to the TV show than it was to the comics, at any rate. It's arguable, but not definitive. I'm certainly not going to push it because I'll admit it's a weak argument. I only mentioned it to explain how someone might be able to justify calling it a remake. I stand by the other stuff I said, though. Otherwise you eliminate 80% or what most people consider are remakes and it severely limits the scope of this thread.

[Banky]

The showtime remake of 12 Angry Men was quite good.

[Grandmaster C]

Originally posted by Groucho
Scorcese's remake of Cape Fear was pretty good (but not as good as the original).
I agree. Even though I'd say that it's very good, but you're right that it's not as good as the original.

[Spooky]

Has anyone mentioned that 1939's THE WIZARD OF OZ was a remake? There was a 1925 Wizard of Oz movie.

[Gunshy]

Originally posted by marty888
<b>Invasion of the Body Snatchers</b>

if u r referring to the Don Sutherland one then :up:

-Gunshy

[Michael Corvin]

The Shining is another example of blurring the lines of remake and adaptation.

Some may consider the Jack Nicholson movie a great film, but it is a horrible adaptation, whereas the TV movie was an excellent adaptation. Is in not in any way a remake considering the poor job Kubrick did translating it to the screen.

My vote goes to the TV version. The Kubrickian hack job blows.

[cokeguy]

Originally posted by Cusm
Do you think there has ever been a good Hollyowood remake of a Hollywood movie?
There are several Hollywood remakes of foreign films that I like, but I can not think of any remakes of their own that I have cared for or that has been well received. Am I forgetting one or do they not exists?

It seems as though most of you didn't even read the first post.

Vanilla Sky
Insomnia
The Italian Job
Point of No Return
The Man Who Knew Too Much
Fistful of Dollars
The Magnificent Seven

All remakes of foreign films.

I think that Ocean's Eleven is the only film mentioned in which the remake surpasses the original.

Dan

[caligulathegod]

Fistful of Dollars is a foreign remake of a foreign film, even.

[SunMonkey]

Originally posted by Spooky
That's the funniest thing I've read in the forums today...Oh, wait a minute...you were serious?!

I agree with Giles.

[tommyp007]

Originally posted by Banky
The showtime remake of 12 Angry Men was quite good.


:thumbsup: This was the first thing that popped in my head when I saw the thread. Was wondering if anyone would mention it, and I'm glad you did!!!!!

[Groucho]

Originally posted by cokeguy
I think that Ocean's Eleven is the only film mentioned in which the remake surpasses the original.I would also say this for The Man Who Knew Too Much, His Girl Friday, and The Thing.

[JJE-187]

Wuthering Heights

[turborobb]

the new Freaky Friday was amazing.
I cant say enough things about it, I was laughing the whole time... right up there with Pirates as my favorite summer 2003 movies.

[tdilia]

The Thing, Invasion of the Body Snatchers
Red Dragon (Remake of Manhunter) I didn't like Manhunter but I loved Red Dragon.
Nosferatu with Klaus Kinski
Ocean's 11
The Ring wasn't bad at all
Disney's Tarzan (how many times has this movie been made)

[necros]

There's quite a few on my list but at the top would have to be The Thing. Prolly one of the best scifi/horror flicks ever.

[NavinJohnson]

Going past 30 years, but it is a Hollywood remake of a Hollywood film: A Star Is Born (1954)

[devilpants]

I didn't realize John Huston's Moby Dick was a remake until TCM showed a 1930's version starring John Barrymore, and I preferred the Huston version more.
And just for the record there was an earlier version of Maltese Falcon filmed before Huston's version but it had a different name: Satan Met A Lady (1936) starring Bette Davis and Warren William which screens also on TCM whenever they get into a noir mood.

[DonnachaOne]

Does it really count if they're not remakes, but new adaptations of the same source material? I'm seeing The Thing, Moby Dick, Red Dragon... these were all books and stories before films were in mind.

[caligulathegod]

Originally posted by DonnachaOne
Does it really count if they're not remakes, but new adaptations of the same source material? I'm seeing The Thing, Moby Dick, Red Dragon... these were all books and stories before films were in mind. Seriously, how many films could be called remakes if we use the strict definition that it has to be based upon an original film that was not an adaptation from another source? How about eliminating Hollywood remakes of Foreign films? What are we left with? A dozen or two? Just because it was originally a book or play and was re-adapted a little more faithfully doesn't make it any less a remake. The key root word is "re" which means "again". You can semantic it all you want but there isn't that much of a difference between "making" a film based upon a novel or "adapting" a novel into a film. There is a word that is well established that refers to movies that have been made before and then are made again: Remake. Who cares if it has any connection to the original? Is it a remake if they screened the original when they made it and not one if they chose to not let the original version influence the new one? I think you guys are just attaching a stigma to the concept and then when it is realized that a favorite movie was made before then it is hard to accept the idea that it is a remake. Of course exceptions can be made. Is Jesus Christ Superstar a remake of King of Kings? Both were based upon the Bible. I don't think so. You can make exceptions without contradicting definitions. I just think you guys are making exceptions way outside any reason. Is something not a remake just because it was made for television instead of screened in a theater? A caveat can possibly be made, but I don't think it holds up. Just because a movie is made for TV doesn't make it not a movie. It's just a lower tier. Also, it is impractical to make a movie for TV any more than 2-3 hours for one sitting, so they make them Mini-series. Can that still be called a movie? Sure, why not? Ok, then. Carrie was made twice. The second time for television. Was that a remake? It might have been conceived as a pilot, but ultimately it ended up being a one shot movie. If that was a remake, then why isn't the Shining a remake? Or Dune? Those were specifically made to "improve" upon the original by being more faithful to the source. Does a remake have to be in collusion with the original or can't one consider the idea of wanting to make a better version of the story to be a remake? Most of these exceptions you guys are mentioning fall into this catagory. Isn't that what a remake in any definition is? They wanted to make a better version. To prove that it isn't a remake, one would have to find filmmakers completely oblivious to the fact that their film had been made before. How would you prove it?

If one wants to create a thread specifying only films remade of films that are original productions, that is one thing. To say films based upon extraneous sources and then made again are not remakes is something else entirely. That is an unreasonable or illogical restriction on a well established form, that being Remakes.


For the record, how is Red Dragon not a remake? The only reason they made it was to have a version of it starring Anthony Hopkins. It was made by the same company, even.

[DonnachaOne]

Well, I didn't think someone was going to write a novel in a resonse, but okay...
Originally posted by caligulathegod
Seriously, how many films could be called remakes if we use the strict definition that it has to be based upon an original film that was not an adaptation from another source?
Considering the amount of original scripts, plenty.
How about eliminating Hollywood remakes of Foreign films?
Cusm did that in his original post.
Just because it was originally a book or play and was re-adapted a little more faithfully doesn't make it any less a remake. The key root word is "re" which means "again". You can semantic it all you want but there isn't that much of a difference between "making" a film based upon a novel or "adapting" a novel into a film.
Well, I'm not sure how I can "semantic it all I want". Simply making an observation. I would go as far as saying there's no difference between "making" and "adapting", in the context you address.
There is a word that is well established that refers to movies that have been made before and then are made again: Remake. Who cares if it has any connection to the original? Is it a remake if they screened the original when they made it and not one if they chose to not let the original version influence the new one?
It's a remake if it's a film knowingly based on a film that came before it, and acknowledges the fact.
I think you guys are just attaching a stigma to the concept and then when it is realized that a favorite movie was made before then it is hard to accept the idea that it is a remake.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
Of course exceptions can be made. Is Jesus Christ Superstar a remake of King of Kings? Both were based upon the Bible. I don't think so.
Nor do I. They're two different interpretations of the same source material, like Carpenter's and Hawks' respective adaptations of Who Goes There?.
You can make exceptions without contradicting definitions.
Of course you can. You could call Michael Mann's The Last Of The Mohicans a remake, I suppose - after all, they credit the the 1930's film in the writing credits.
I just think you guys are making exceptions way outside any reason. Is something not a remake just because it was made for television instead of screened in a theater?
Different media, different interpretations. Not remakes.
Carrie was made twice. The second time for television. Was that a remake? It might have been conceived as a pilot, but ultimately it ended up being a one shot movie. If that was a remake, then why isn't the Shining a remake? Or Dune? Those were specifically made to "improve" upon the original by being more faithful to the source. Does a remake have to be in collusion with the original or can't one consider the idea of wanting to make a better version of the story to be a remake?
I wouldn't call these remakes. I can see why those who are more familiar with the films than the books would claim them to be "remakes", though.
Most of these exceptions you guys are mentioning fall into this catagory. Isn't that what a remake in any definition is? They wanted to make a better version. To prove that it isn't a remake, one would have to find filmmakers completely oblivious to the fact that their film had been made before. How would you prove it?
A filmaker can be influenced by an earlier adapatation, but that doesn't make it a remake, in my opinion.
If one wants to create a thread specifying only films remade of films that are original productions, that is one thing. To say films based upon extraneous sources and then made again are not remakes is something else entirely. That is an unreasonable or illogical restriction on a well established form, that being Remakes.
Well, Cusm's criterion was that it would be a good Hollywood remake of a Hollywood movie.
For the record, how is Red Dragon not a remake? The only reason they made it was to have a version of it starring Anthony Hopkins. It was made by the same company, even.
DIno produced both adaptations of the same book, yes.

[caligulathegod]

I quoted you but it was more a general response. You had basically repeated what had been said before.

The original post says: Has there ever been a good remake?
Do you think there has ever been a good Hollywood remake of a Hollywood movie?
There are several Hollywood remakes of foreign films that I like, but I can not think of any remakes of their own that I have cared for or that has been well received. Am I forgetting one or do they not exists?Hollywood remakes of Hollywood films. Says nothing about films that originated as films and not novels or plays or short stories.

The question is What is a remake? All I'm saying is it seems rather restrictive to limit these to films that weren't based upon novels or plays or short stories.

There is no official genre of "Remakes". You can either have a complex definition where you cherry pick films and blindly eliminate films that even the filmmaker says are remakes or a nice simple one that opens up a decent discussion.

John Carpenter featured "The Thing" in "Halloween" and then a couple years later remade it. He acknowledges it a remake. He even used the same title screen.

http://home.columbus.rr.com/caligula/storedimages/thingfromanotherworld1951ld.gif

http://home.columbus.rr.com/caligula/storedimages/thing1982ld.gif

[danol]

Originally posted by Cusm
Do you think there has ever been a good Hollyowood remake of a Hollywood movie?
There are several Hollywood remakes of foreign films that I like, but I can not think of any remakes of their own that I have cared for or that has been well received. Am I forgetting one or do they not exists?


The Thing 1951 and The Thing with Kurt Russell in 1982 has my vote.

[DonnachaOne]

Caligula, you make an interesting point with The Thing. I understand Carpenter has a reverance for the earlier adaptation and it surely influenced him, but I wouldn't call it a remake. We simply differ on the subject and it's not worth arguing over.
Originally posted by danol
The Thing 1951 and The Thing with Kurt Russell in 1982 has my vote.
Good, 'cause it sure needs more than it has already... :)

[DrunkenWhore]

Originally posted by DonnachaOne
Caligula, you make an interesting point with The Thing. I understand Carpenter has a reverance for the earlier adaptation and it surely influenced him, but I wouldn't call it a remake. We simply differ on the subject and it's not worth arguing over.

Good, 'cause it sure needs more than it has already... :)

I see your point but I think you're wrongly misguided. Carpenter's Thing is a remake. It doesn't really matter if the story came from a book/story before or not. There's differences due to "being more faithful to the original source" but you're wrong. Thank you.

[Chad]

House of Wax - It's an excellent remake of "Mystery of the Wax Museum".

[caligulathegod]

Nah, no need for arguments. Of course, with a more liberal definition you won't get as many "that's not a remake" or vague explanations on why some things are and others aren't. Thrown out the window is the idea that movies based upon existing stories are automatically exempt.

Example:
Beau Geste (1926)
Beau Geste (1939)
Beau Geste (1966)
Last Remake of Beau Geste, The (1977)
Those are adaptations of a novel and even the parody knows they are remakes.

So then we have to get into motivations. Was this particular film made to improve on the existing film or was it just an adaptation of the same work as a previous film? Maybe a few can be proven but the vast majority we have no way of really knowing.

I dunno. It seems like splitting hairs. Outside of Psycho, which was a gimmick and not intended to be like a normal remake, I think most remakes do tend to try to be different than the original when they can. That's not enough to say, "That's not a remake." Nor just because they were more faithful to the book. Remake can refer to just remaking the story itself rather than remaking the movie, itself. Maybe one is a more "pure" form of remake, but ultimately it's still the same thing.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

Oh, well. too each his own. I've made whatever point I intended. We can agree to disagree.

[dhmac]

(Bumping this old thread because remake-itis is still in full swing in Hollywoodland)

Peter Jackson's King Kong is the only remake of the past few years I would put in the "good" category.

[Joe Molotov]

I thought Dawn of the Dead and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory were both pretty good.

[nemein]

The showtime remake of 12 Angry Men was quite good.

:up: Did that ever make it out to DVD?

The "live" version of Fail Safe wasn't too bad, considering what they were doing w/ it. Something else I don't believe that has made it to DVD yet :(

I know a lot of people will disagree w/ me on this but I liked the TV mini of The Shining better than the original.

To go the other way (foreign movies based on US movies) Full Alert (as a remake of Heat) and Jackie Chan's Miracles (as a remake/readaptation of Pocket Full of Miracles) were both pretty good.

[Mr. Cinema]

I personally thought the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake was good. Alot of people didn't, but I thought it added alot of excitement and tension, something the horror genre needs more of this generation.

[Drexl]

Spielberg's War of the Worlds wasn't bad.

[The Bus]

OP, you are asking if the remakes were good, not if they were better than the original.

As such, I'd happily say that:
Ocean's 11
Texas Chainsaw Massacre
King Kong
Freaky Friday
The Ring

were all at least "good" in my mind.

Without having seen the source material, I'd even say The Pink Panther is "good" for what it is: a family comedy. I'd rather see that movie twenty more times than have to suffer through Are We There Yet? or any other insipid family film.

[kcbrett5]

Lets go back to arguing about what a remake is. The ring is a remake of a foreign film, not a hollywood film as the thread is about. King Kong, War of the Worlds, and Charlie and the Chocolate factory are not remakes because they are re-interpretations of a book. :)

[Maxflier]

Dawn of the Dead - The remake is actually very entertaining, unlike the original.

King Kong
Ocean's 11

[dhmac]

Dawn of the Dead - The remake is actually very entertaining, unlike the original.

:hscratch:

[SuicycoDave]

The remake was great I admit, but the original was superb. Tense, atmospheric, gung ho stupidity at odds with intelligent survivors, good dialogue, Tom Savini, Ken Foree and it was most definately an inspired zombie movie... Fair enough it looks a little dated, but in 20 years DOTD 2004 won't hold up half as well as the 77 version does 20 years on...

Don't get me wrong, I loved the remake. It was definately entertaining, well made and had atmosphere but it lacked the heart and brain that the Romero version had. The original was a statement about pop culture and the remake was pop culture...

Plus the remake had no Argento music! ;)

[fliggil]

If you can deal with Nick Nolte, I love The Good Thief (remake of Bob le Flambeur). It's not as good as the original, but I certainly think it's a "good remake," Neil Jordan is pretty stylish.

[Peep]

if you keep constraining the criteria, sooner or later, you will "win"...

yeah, the bakshi cartoon and the rankin bass productions of LOTR ... but if you say that doesn't count because it was a cartoon, so the current LOTR is not a remake, again, you are just continiuing to constrain your question tighter and tighter.

I disagree. Just because two movies are based on the same source material does not automatically make one a remake of the other - and that has nothing to do with "constraining" the question.

[SuicycoDave]

How about the remake of The Stepford Wives?

[jmoneta]

I'm surprised <b>The Thomas Crown Affair</b> hasn't been mentioned.

[RocShemp]

Heat is a remake and is considered superior to the TV film that preceded it.

[rexinnih]

I thought Dawn of the Dead and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory were both pretty good.

For recent movies, these were two that also popped into my head.

[Jericho]

No love for the recent remake of...

Pride and Prejudice

[thegingerbreadm]

isnt "The Long Goodbye" a re-make of something? I love that move...Elliot Gould was never better...and the cat...how can you not love the cat...?

[shill66]

King Kong, War of the Worlds, and Charlie and the Chocolate factory are not remakes because they are re-interpretations of a book. :)

King Kong is based on what book, then?

[cactusoly]

King Kong is based on what book, then?
the Script Of The Original King Kong of 1933

[Ephemeral_Life]

I'd say Invaders from Mars and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

[chanster]

Anytime there is an independent source from a different medium, by definition it is not a remake. Sure there might be homages to earlier film versions (i.e. The Thing titles, actors from previous movie making appearances). But each director or writer interpets the source material in a different sense and goes from there. The original source for Batman is the comics, everything else since that point has interpreted the comics a different way. Same thing with Wonka, and War of the Worlds.

The original source for King Kong is the 33 movie, so that makes Jackson a remake.

Van Sant's remake of Psycho is a "super remake" - its more of a deliberate reconstruction than remake..

Directors who do a movie twice is remake - although I'm not sure if the Man Who Knew Too Much was a book before the movie. In that case, it could be either a reconstruction of the previous movie, or a new take on the source material. If there is no earlier source, its a remake.