On the subject of remakes...

[Drtooth]

There's a lot of talk here about remakes... a thread about horror movie remakes, and one about a possible Yellow Submarine remake...

This got me to think about something. A while ago, somewhere else I read about a new movie version of "Neverending Story." To which I heard a lot of people complaining it was another remake. I often hear Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory referred to as a remake. Which gets to my point:

Is a new movie based off of a book to begin with truely a remake? Especially when other movies are truer to the original source without quite referencing the other movie.....

Is any film version of Sherlock Homes a remake of the Basil Rathbone films of yesteryear? Are all those different versions of Dracula a remake of the Bela Legousi Universal Monsters film? is Muppet Treasure Island a remake of an older Treasure Island movie? I personally don't think so. movies based off of novels, while historically not 100% accurate to the source material, can all have different adaptions. Like, would you call Batman Begins a remake of the Tim Burton 1990 film? No. it's a film featuring the same character, only adapted differently telling a similar story. Some things are more accurate, some things less. Characters like Dracula, Robin Hood, and Sherlock Homes have always been told by so many different directors and writers... why, Dracula has the record for movies based off of him.

 

[CensoredAlso]

Just my own opinion, I felt the new Willy Wonka was a remake. I realize it was closer to the original books, but it was a movie, not a book. So it would inevitably be compared to the classic film.

A completely different story involving the same characters (i.e. Batman) isn't a remake to me. It's more of a reimagining. And doing several versions of Dracula is OK in my opinion too, as the actual character is so iconic in pop culture. He kind of belongs to pop culture at this point.

But taking the exact same story from an old film and simply doing it over again with the same title and a more modern look is clearly a remake to me. It's not being inspired by the original film. It's wanting to capitalize on the popularity of the original film.

Taking a retro TV show and trying to revisit it years later in a movie also screams remake to me, unless it takes a creative approach (as the Brady Bunch movies did).

I guess this is largely a matter of perspective! I think if these movies were generally more successful (as in writing, originality, and box office) I wouldn't be so harsh.

 

[Ilikemuppets]

Is a new movie based off of a book to begin with truely a remake?

Technically that's true.

 

[Drtooth]

Technically that's true.

I really don't think it is, as I said. Otherwise every single Dracula movie would be a remake of the 1930's Universal one... and Love at First Bite, Dracula Dead and Loving it, and Blackula are not what I'd exactly call remakes. Even Bram Stoker's Dracula I wouldn't say has any distant relationship to that version.

I think when people make movies out of pre-existing books that already were books, they tend to not want to make them remakes at all. Sure, sometimes you'll see a nod to a previous edition (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory's Oompah Loopah songs, different from the Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory version, but a definite homage). I remember a TV movie version of the Shining advertised itself as truer to the book than the more famous Stanley Kubrick version.

 

[Fluffets]

Well I do hear a lot that remakes are gonna be bad but I usually like them when I see them (though it is true I don't watch the originals) like the new Land of the Lost movie, anyone else seen that? I was hoping someone would have a thread for it but I have found no such luck and I can't be bothered to make one myself.

 

[Ilikemuppets]

like the new Land of the Lost movie, anyone else seen that?

You mean a remake of a remake?

 

[Fluffets]

You mean a remake of a remake?

What? You've lost me there.

 

[Ilikemuppets]

What? You've lost me there.

Okay, what I mean is that it's a remake of of the old movie witch was a remake of the book.

Or you could just say the to movie was another adaption of the book instead. Just depends on how you choose to look at it.

 

[ryhoyarbie]

I think if you dive into something that is an interpretation, say doing a vampire movie, or a movie about the wolfman, I don't really think it would count as a remake. It's someone's version of something mythological.

However, doing something, like another version of Nightmare On Elm Street, would constitute that it is a remake. (Yes the remake is happening).

And for the record, even though Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is closer to the book, I still like the version with Gene Wilder more. It had more imagination. Burton's version was bad and Johnny Depp creeped me out. I thought he was horrible in the movie.

 

[Fluffets]

I think if you dive into something that is an interpretation, say doing a vampire movie, or a movie about the wolfman, I don't really think it would count as a remake. It's someone's version of something mythological.

However, doing something, like another version of Nightmare On Elm Street, would constitute that it is a remake. (Yes the remake is happening).

And for the record, even though Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is closer to the book, I still like the version with Gene Wilder more. It had more imagination. Burton's version was bad and Johnny Depp creeped me out. I thought he was horrible in the movie.

I don't know whether this was implyed but there actually is gonna be a wolfman remake, I've seen the trailer, is epic!