Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

When compared to the original movie, how different should a remake actually be?

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

When compared to the original movie, how different should a remake actually be?

Old 09-28-21, 12:40 PM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 927
Received 33 Likes on 23 Posts
When compared to the original movie, how different should a remake actually be?

Movie remakes can be difficult to properly make. When a remake is too similar to the original movie it is a remake of, people tend to say that it is simply a copy of the original without its own identity, and that it is a pointless remake. On the other hand, when a remake is too different than the movie it is a remake of, the major criticism tends to be that it was so different than the original that it is essentially a remake in name only. So how unique should a movie remake actually be when compared to the original movie? Thanks to anyone that replies.
The following users liked this post:
PhantomStranger (09-30-21)
Old 09-28-21, 12:56 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 45,319
Received 1,018 Likes on 809 Posts
Re: When compared to the original movie, how different should a remake actually be?

On a difference scale of 1 (Psycho 1998) to 10 (Suspiria 2018), I'm good with a 5 or higher. Basically what it comes down to is if it's remade as a cash grab, which is almost always terrible, or if the director/writer found something interesting in the original material and chose to shift focus to that.
The following users liked this post:
Rocketsfan (09-29-21)
Old 09-28-21, 01:00 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Mike86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 24,732
Received 1,149 Likes on 899 Posts
Re: When compared to the original movie, how different should a remake actually be?

I think remakes should take the general idea for the film in question, and either expand on elements of the original film or put some sort of spin on an aspect of the story or a character.
The following users liked this post:
IBJoel (09-29-21)
Old 09-29-21, 07:42 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Ash Ketchum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 12,625
Received 276 Likes on 211 Posts
Re: When compared to the original movie, how different should a remake actually be?

I liked the fact that THE THING (1982) was so different from THE THING (1951), both very good movies with their own strengths, with the remake hewing closer to the concept floated in the original short story.

I hated that THE GETAWAY (1994) was simply a scene-for-scene remake of THE GETAWAY (1972) when it should have gone back to the original Jim Thompson novel and made a version based more closely on it.

KING KONG (1976) and KING KONG (2005) were different enough from KING KONG (1933) to make them more interesting than they would have been if they'd been straight remakes.

So I prefer more difference than similiarity.
The following 2 users liked this post by Ash Ketchum:
Abob Teff (10-02-21), IBJoel (09-29-21)
Old 09-29-21, 09:34 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Josh-da-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Bible Belt
Posts: 43,877
Received 2,718 Likes on 1,875 Posts
Re: When compared to the original movie, how different should a remake actually be?

The Thing is the gold standard here.

It took all of the good stuff from the original, gave it a great script, great cast, modern special effects, and gave it an R-rating. It took the story, and made the kind of movie they couldn't have made in the 1950s.

This is where most remakes fail (particularly of the genre variety) in that end up being watered down knock-offs of the superior originals.
Old 09-29-21, 10:22 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Toddarino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Northeastern Wisconsin
Posts: 4,474
Received 825 Likes on 546 Posts
Re: When compared to the original movie, how different should a remake actually be?

When a movie is based on a book I’d prefer that if they have to remake it, they go back to the source material and work with that.
I also wish they would just exclusively remake bad movies.
Old 09-29-21, 02:08 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,955
Received 131 Likes on 102 Posts
Re: When compared to the original movie, how different should a remake actually be?

With remakes I tend to like the version I watch first ... for better or worse. I also prefer when they remake mediocre films that had some potential as there's no risk of degrading the original film.
The following users liked this post:
IBJoel (09-30-21)
Old 09-29-21, 04:23 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 8,983
Likes: 0
Received 246 Likes on 175 Posts
Re: When compared to the original movie, how different should a remake actually be?

I can like different versions because they fit different moods I have.

Dracula (1931) late night creature feature on tv
Horror of Dracula (1958) drive-in
Dracula (1979) indoor theater
Old 09-29-21, 05:05 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Hero
 
GoldenJCJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colorado
Posts: 27,247
Received 3,186 Likes on 2,054 Posts
Re: When compared to the original movie, how different should a remake actually be?

My first thought is that Iíd prefer remakes to occur only when the original can and should be improved upon. Whether itís terrible acting, limited budget, script problems, etc. if theres a good foundation for a good story, a solid remake could work. Knowing that studios donít follow that rule and instead remake popular, well made films, I suppose itís pointless to expect that.

Instead, I would hope that filmmakers use the SPIRIT of the original and make it their own. Thinking of solid remakes, The Thing and The Crazies come to mind as better than the originals. They followed the spirit of the original but made it their own movie.

Iíll also add, no fan service! I donít need original cast members popping up in cameos or wink, wink homages sprinkled throughout. I donít need that shit! I also donít need filmmakers thinking that CGI fixes all. The remakes of The Haunting and The Fog are proof that adding a shit ton of CGI in place of good old fashioned practical effects doesnít make a better movie.
Old 09-29-21, 06:10 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Nick Danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 30,594
Received 1,452 Likes on 924 Posts
Re: When compared to the original movie, how different should a remake actually be?

I think it depends on the first movie. If they're doing a remake of an excellent movie, the result had better be very good. Seven Samurai > Fistful of Dollars and Ben Hur > Ben Hur are examples of a successful remake. I get ticked off when a good movie is remade as a pedestrian movie. The only difference between that and a rip-off movie is that the remake bought the rights to the original title.

If they're doing a remake of an ordinary movie, sure. Knock yourself out. Try to do something interesting with it. It's pretty much the same as new genre movies with similar plots to old ones. I'll watch it if it sounds fun.

If they're doing a remake of a bad movie . . . but no one wants to remake a movie that didn't make money the first time.
Old 09-29-21, 06:31 PM
  #11  
Inane Thread Master, 2018 TOTY
 
OldBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Are any of us really anywhere?
Posts: 49,372
Received 898 Likes on 759 Posts
Re: When compared to the original movie, how different should a remake actually be?

Originally Posted by Josh-da-man
The Thing is the gold standard here.

It took all of the good stuff from the original, gave it a great script, great cast, modern special effects, and gave it an R-rating. It took the story, and made the kind of movie they couldn't have made in the 1950s.

This is where most remakes fail (particularly of the genre variety) in that end up being watered down knock-offs of the superior originals.
The Thing is great, no doubt. But The Fly (1986) and Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) are right with Thing in remake dept.

I think it depends on original. Was it classic or ok, that one is being remade? Meh. I don’t mind different takes, cast, ethnicity, etc. I certainly don’t want shot for shot remakes ala Psycho. Ugh. But fresh takes while remaining in spirit of original or at least know it was from somewhere else. But originality goes a long way.

I mean Thing is almost completely different movie. Of course, 30 years of technology goes a long way as well with sci-fi/horror.

As long as it’s good, good acting, story, I’ll give it a go.
Old 09-30-21, 12:46 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
dhmac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Kissimmee, Florida
Posts: 7,422
Received 67 Likes on 58 Posts
Re: When compared to the original movie, how different should a remake actually be?

I'm not sure why, but the movie era we are in can't seem to make good remakes. The '70s thru the '80s and a bit beyond was a good era for remakes and has some great examples ("The Thing", "The Fly", "The Blob", "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", "Night of the Living Dead", "Invaders from Mars", "Wages of Fear / Sorcerer") of remakes as good as or better than the original. That rarely happens anymore. I don't know if it's too much studio involvement instead of independent filmmakers in control but remakes are almost guaranteed to be bad these days.
Old 09-30-21, 04:35 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Hero
 
PhantomStranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Phantom Zone
Posts: 27,473
Received 802 Likes on 676 Posts
Re: When compared to the original movie, how different should a remake actually be?

Hollywood shouldn't remake classics, period. There's almost never a good reason remaking a movie that was already wildly successful in its day. The most interesting remakes are when they tackle flawed movies and make meaningful improvements.
Old 09-30-21, 05:29 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Legend
 
milo bloom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Chicago suburbs
Posts: 18,279
Received 1,401 Likes on 1,026 Posts
Re: When compared to the original movie, how different should a remake actually be?

I think I'm mainly on the side that says you should only remake movies that weren't great the first time but had an interesting concept that's still worth exploring.

I'll also go ahead and say that if a movie had a lot of cultural issues that make it cringey in this day and age but, again, have an interesting concept, then those are also good candidates for remakes.
Old 09-30-21, 05:42 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 43,318
Received 1,638 Likes on 1,025 Posts
Re: When compared to the original movie, how different should a remake actually be?

I am all for remakes if they take the core ideas and characters and modernize them. For example, I much prefer modern movie fight scenes over stuff from the 80s and 90s. We're just better at it now. Same with effects and the general feel of modern cinematography and editing.

For example, I actually liked the Robocop remake - same idea, spun it differently, added some more characters and stories and pushed the effects up a bunch of notches. It wasn't perfect, but I can watch and enjoy both as different enough.

Also, I don't really care what gets remade. They don't go and destroy the original so that's still available anytime I want it. And maybe there is something about a new version that hooks someone who wouldn't have given the original a chance. And if not, then they just fade away and I couldn't care less if a big Hollywood studio loses money in the process.
The following users liked this post:
IBJoel (10-04-21)
Old 10-01-21, 01:16 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Hero
 
TomOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 40,139
Received 1,297 Likes on 942 Posts
Re: When compared to the original movie, how different should a remake actually be?

It all depends. I'm generally not opposed to remakes.
Old 10-01-21, 01:40 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 12,897
Received 941 Likes on 717 Posts
Re: When compared to the original movie, how different should a remake actually be?

Originally Posted by Nick Danger
I think it depends on the first movie. If they're doing a remake of an excellent movie, the result had better be very good. Seven Samurai > Fistful of Dollars and Ben Hur > Ben Hur are examples of a successful remake.
I could get snarky here, but I can see you just made an honest mistake. So I guess I'll ask, are you saying Seven Samurai > The Magnificent Seven, or is Yojimbo > Fistful of Dollars?

Or is it more likely both?
Old 10-01-21, 03:11 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Nick Danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 30,594
Received 1,452 Likes on 924 Posts
Re: When compared to the original movie, how different should a remake actually be?

Originally Posted by Paff
I could get snarky here, but I can see you just made an honest mistake. So I guess I'll ask, are you saying Seven Samurai > The Magnificent Seven, or is Yojimbo > Fistful of Dollars?

Or is it more likely both?
It was supposed to be Yojimbo. Sigh.
Old 10-01-21, 03:22 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Runaway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 1,798
Received 398 Likes on 321 Posts
Re: When compared to the original movie, how different should a remake actually be?

Originally Posted by Draven
I am all for remakes if they take the core ideas and characters and modernize them. For example, I much prefer modern movie fight scenes over stuff from the 80s and 90s. We're just better at it now. Same with effects and the general feel of modern cinematography and editing.

For example, I actually liked the Robocop remake - same idea, spun it differently, added some more characters and stories and pushed the effects up a bunch of notches. It wasn't perfect, but I can watch and enjoy both as different enough.

Also, I don't really care what gets remade. They don't go and destroy the original so that's still available anytime I want it. And maybe there is something about a new version that hooks someone who wouldn't have given the original a chance. And if not, then they just fade away and I couldn't care less if a big Hollywood studio loses money in the process.
I'm with you on that, including Robocop. Robocop and in some way Total Recall suffer from the fact that the originals are so cool. Both remakes aren't that bad, while Point Break is just bad. The action set pieces are spectacular but the movie never has the same dynamic and Edgar Ramirez just isn't Patrick Swayze.

Old 10-01-21, 06:06 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 12,897
Received 941 Likes on 717 Posts
Re: When compared to the original movie, how different should a remake actually be?

Originally Posted by Toddarino
When a movie is based on a book Iíd prefer that if they have to remake it, they go back to the source material and work with that.
Not always. I remember a bunch of people who wanted Carrie to go on a more apocalyptic rampage (destroying the whole town, essentially) like in King's book, but I think that would be overkill (no pun intended). DePalma and Cohen wisely chose to narrow the focus, because it keeps Carrie as a more sympathetic character. If you go by the book, you start to make her more of a villain. That was Steve-o's first book, and even he had issues with it.

Carrie is a film that didn't need to be remade at all, let alone twice. Even if DePalma's film deviates from the source.
Old 10-02-21, 04:40 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 8,983
Likes: 0
Received 246 Likes on 175 Posts
Re: When compared to the original movie, how different should a remake actually be?

The target audience for most remakes, especially horror, are probably too young to even realize they're remakes. Same with adaptations of old tv shows. Most people under 50 probably aren't aware there was a Mission Impossible tv show.

What people aware of an older version think about it is irrelevant. From both and artistic and financial standpoint. We got our version and they get theirs.

It's like comparing today's kids cartoons to Saturday morning cartoons when you were a kid.
The following users liked this post:
IBJoel (10-04-21)

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.