Ready for the latest 80's childhood fave movie remake?

[beaker]

Hot on the heels of the ninja turtles, robocop, akira and back to the future remake news comes this...

Ha, ok I made that as a late april fools joke. But seriously, it seems like the gloves are off and absolutely *anything* is being remade, rebooted, etc. Even that Battleship movies looks pretty much like Transformers 4.

 

[Drtooth]

Dude... Akira is never going to happen. They've stopped production for hiatuses for so long, they're abandoning the thing all together. They're doing Bleach instead... which is basically a couple years too late, but I never really followed it that much. I saw a movie, that's it.

I have no doubt Never Ending Story will get remade, but I'd tend to think that either someone completely over the top or someone completely awful and lazy will helm the thing,. I'd worry more about Tim Hill than Michael Bay.

Still, I'm VERY ticked off Warner Bros. NEVER made that Goonies cartoon series. That would have been great.

 

[BoomerangFish]

Hmm. Michael Bay. Well... that says "quality" right there eh?

I really loved TMNT as a young'in. Nothing has surpassed the quality of the 1st film... and I don't reckon any future films ever will.

 

[CensoredAlso]

Hopefully in the future textbooks on the subject will look back on this period in film history as that rather pathetic time when studios preferred to butcher classics than come up with original ideas.

I can count on one hand how many remakes or whatevers have truly been quality films. But still every time there's word of a new one coming out, audiences keep falling for the hype. Or for the fallacy that classics need "updating." The idea of a remake is very enticing in its concept. But then we the fans put all our expectations and ideas into this remake and are usually disappointed to see that none of those things were in the minds of the studio. When we get excited for a remake, it's usually for the remake in our own minds.

 

[Drtooth]

I really loved TMNT as a young'in. Nothing has surpassed the quality of the 1st film... and I don't reckon any future films ever will.

The CGI one came very close. The first one and that CGI one are the best of the TMNT movies. The second one was ruined by trying to be the cartoon series, while the third one just had a weird plot (but was better than the second for the mere inclusion of Casey Jones again). I've got like, zero faith in the Michael Bay produced one. Note, he's not directing it or writing it, but it's tainted just by his mere involvement.

I can count on one hand how many remakes or whatevers have truly been quality films. But still every time there's word of a new one coming out, audiences keep falling for the hype. Or for the fallacy that classics need "updating." The idea of a remake is very enticing in its concept. But then we the fans put all our expectations and ideas into this remake and are usually disappointed to see that none of those things were in the minds of the studio. When we get excited for a remake, it's usually for the remake in our own minds.

Don't make me post a Cracked article again... I swear... I feel like someone's distant acquaintance on Facebook or a Co-worker. Remakes get such a bad name because of hypothetical crap like this (You all know this is a joke, right?) that everyone forgets that the Steve Martin starring, Frank Oz directed version of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels was a remake of an old flop. And let's not forget those who love the musical version of Little Shop of Horrors when the original movie was very tongue in cheek. It all depends on who's in control of the project. Usually they screw it up. But then there are those rare remakes that make you forget about the original... see article.

 

[mr3urious]

The Nostalgia Critic has a few hilarious words to say about this remake.

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/vi...ials/34667-why-ninja-turtles-should-be-aliens

 

[CensoredAlso]

Remakes get such a bad name because of hypothetical crap like this

Remakes get such a bad name because they usually are disasterous in real life.

And yes I know this thread is a joke. But the problem of remakes is not.

Frank Oz directed version of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels was a remake of an old flop.

Remakes of flops actually make sense. It's remaking classics that are unnecessary and usually disasterous.

But then there are those rare remakes that make you forget about the original

Exactly, the key word there is rare. Meanwhile the majority of remakes suck up all the attention from the originals, regarding of quality.

 

[Drtooth]

Remakes of flops actually make sense. It's remaking classics that are unnecessary and usually disasterous.

Remaking little known movies works in that way. No one's attached to them quite as much, no one cares, and someone could actually do the project better. Michael Cain actually went on CBS Sunday Morning and said this. Remake flops, and they'll be successful.

Exactly, the key word there is rare. Meanwhile the majority of remakes suck up all the attention from the originals, regarding of quality.

The problem with most remakes is that they miss the point of the movie entirely and just either copy it with disastrous results or update it and throw everything special about the movie out the window. There's never quite an understanding of the context because context is a personal thing. Yet, I do like when they "remake" movies that were based on books and they actually get the details of the book right the second time, because the first director wanted to break out and do something original. Personally, I wanna see someone do a GOOD version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Preferably stop motion animated. (that's right... I don't care much for either version).

But then you have something special on those rare occasions. The Musical version of The Producers, for example. That was so much more successful than the original movie, and almost better known. It was a great movie, a bit dated with the Hippie references, though... but Mel Brooks was able to take his old film, change a few slight details (for the better... I like gay Hitler better than Hippie Hitler), add more musical numbers, and had a multimillion dollar Broadway hit. Of course, the major difference was that the tickets for the movie were like however much it was at that time vs. several hundred per Broadway ticket. My only complaint about the Movie version was that they trimmed the heck out of everything to fit the 2 hours or less crap. It really should have been longer and had more musical numbers.

 

[CensoredAlso]

But then you have something special on those rare occasions. The Musical version of The Producers, for example. That was so much more successful than the original movie, and almost better known. It was a great movie, a bit dated with the Hippie references, though... but Mel Brooks was able to take his old film, change a few slight details (for the better... I like gay Hitler better than Hippie Hitler), add more musical numbers, and had a multimillion dollar Broadway hit. Of course, the major difference was that the tickets for the movie were like however much it was at that time vs. several hundred per Broadway ticket. My only complaint about the Movie version was that they trimmed the heck out of everything to fit the 2 hours or less crap. It really should have been longer and had more musical numbers.

The Broadway musical was definitely a rare occasion when a remake really worked because they tried a completely new take on an old idea. Though I don't think it was better than the original movie, it was just different. Plus when they tried putting the stage musical in movie form for some reason it really didn't work for me. Something was off the whole time.

 

[Drtooth]

The Broadway musical was definitely a rare occasion when a remake really worked because they tried a completely new take on an old idea. Though I don't think it was better than the original movie, it was just different. Plus when they tried putting the stage musical in movie form for some reason it really didn't work for me. Something was off the whole time.

There were concepts done better in each version. There were things that worked better in the movie, there were things that worked better in the musical... it found a great balance between updating and keeping to the original concept. personally, I like being able to sit through the entire "Springtime for Hitler" song without audience comments and cut-a-ways.

Of course, there's also the angle of the actors. I don't think anyone could replace Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder, but they got a wonderfully madcap duo in Nathan Lane and Mathew Broaderick. I still like Kennith Mars's nazi sympathizer playwright... but I think that was one of Will Ferrels better performances. He tends to work well with a well done script and a strong character, rather than just rehashing Ricky Bobby in every movie.

Still, I know virtually NOTHING about the Young Frankenstein musical. But that movie I like a bit more than the Producers (I'm very close to YF), and I have to say, I've only heard like 2 songs from the soundtrack. That's not much for me to go on. All I know is Cloris Leachman was royally ticked she wasn't offered her part back for the musical... but then she was replaced by Andrea Martin... and I'm really a huge fan of her work, so it's hard to take sides.