Yeah, there is a big difference between a crappy remake, and a terrible sequel lol.

Except for The Beverly Hillbillies none of those are remakes, are they?

Correct. I confused "remakes" with sequels.

No doubt. The remake was nothing like the original which was a classic! You can't top Vincent Price!!

 

No,you can't!!

I was thinking about starting a thread on film remakes when I stumbled across this thread in searching. To address MJ's original discussion, it has to be Psycho for me. Just watched the original again last night.

 

But the question I was wanting answered is this one: What started the current phenomenon (if it can be called that) of remaking films? I know it's happened off and on for many years now, but I have become most aware of it in the horror genre (one of my favorites). Did horror movies start this current craze or was it something else?

King Kong.

 

Te '98 version of Godzilla, too.

Clash Of The Titans, and The Omen

 

By the way...count me as one who didn't think the remake of The Ladykillers was all bad.

But the question I was wanting answered is this one: What started the current phenomenon (if it can be called that) of remaking films? I know it's happened off and on for many years now, but I have become most aware of it in the horror genre (one of my favorites). Did horror movies start this current craze or was it something else?

 

I guess we are just lacking creativity. I'm not really sure.

I was thinking about starting a thread on film remakes when I stumbled across this thread in searching. To address MJ's original discussion, it has to be Psycho for me. Just watched the original again last night.

 

But the question I was wanting answered is this one: What started the current phenomenon (if it can be called that) of remaking films? I know it's happened off and on for many years now, but I have become most aware of it in the horror genre (one of my favorites). Did horror movies start this current craze or was it something else?

The Anne Heche remake of psycho used all the same script and camera angles did it not?

Edited July 18, 201214 yr by bugatti

I thought 13 Going 30 was a poor remake of Freaky Friday, which was an even poorer remake of Vice Versa which was a poor remake of Like Father Like Son.

The Bond movie Never Say Never Again was a poor and aged remake of Thunderball

The Anne Heche remake of psycho used all the same script and camera angles did it not?

 

I'm pretty sure that's right.

I was thinking about starting a thread on film remakes when I stumbled across this thread in searching. To address MJ's original discussion, it has to be Psycho for me. Just watched the original again last night.

 

But the question I was wanting answered is this one: What started the current phenomenon (if it can be called that) of remaking films? I know it's happened off and on for many years now, but I have become most aware of it in the horror genre (one of my favorites). Did horror movies start this current craze or was it something else?

 

I don't know when it started for certain but it's rare to get the remake correct.

Here are some I thought of that haven't been mentioned:

 

A Star is Born: Originial was in '37 and Julie Garland starred in the remake in '54. But the worst was the '76 one with Barbara Streistand and Kris Kristofferson. My sister bought that album and played it over and again. Still makes me :scared: when I flip the channels and see that one on.

 

Frankenstein: Original was superb in the 30's. The remakes in the 70's and the one with DeNiro tried to be closer to the book and so were not actual remakes of the original (not like the novel in many ways). The DeNiro is fine if you want the story from the novel but they all lack that scary nature of the original film. (Karloff) The original deals with the plots of the book but gets more into the horror aspect.

 

Dracula: Has there been a good remake of the original? Christopher Lee was as good or better as Dracula but there are so many redo's in that film it's hard to judge.

 

Red Badge of Courage: Made with Audi Murphy in the 40's and well done in B&W. The TV remake in the 70's with Richard Thomas was good as well.

 

All Quiet on the Western Front: Original was made by Lew Ayres in the 30's and the TV remake was again John Boy in the late 70's I believe. Both have merit but the original is awesome when you consider the fresh take of a war story from the German perspective. The book beats them all but the first probably captured the essence more.

 

Brian's Song: Haven't seen the remake. The original was fantastic. :cry:

 

The Fly: The original was terrifying to me as a youngster the first time I saw it. (See final scene with fly in the spider's web) The remake was horrible. :puke:

 

A final thought. You've already mentioned Planet of the Apes. Nothing beats the original for the "effect" from the Rod Serling script. It was just an awesome flick with one of the best "twist" endings ever. :thumb:

 

If it's perfect, don't try to improve it. Just re-release it.

Frankenstein: Original was superb in the 30's. The remakes in the 70's and the one with DeNiro tried to be closer to the book and so were not actual remakes of the original (not like the novel in many ways). The DeNiro is fine if you want the story from the novel but they all lack that scary nature of the original film. (Karloff) The original deals with the plots of the book but gets more into the horror aspect.

 

Dracula: Has there been a good remake of the original? Christopher Lee was as good or better as Dracula but there are so many redo's in that film it's hard to judge.

 

All Quiet on the Western Front: Original was made by Lew Ayres in the 30's and the TV remake was again John Boy in the late 70's I believe. Both have merit but the original is awesome when you consider the fresh take of a war story from the German perspective. The book beats them all but the first probably captured the essence more.

 

I was pretty fond of the Branagh/De Niro Frankenstein. It might have been able to do a little better with the horror aspect, but I thought it was pretty solid overall.

 

I've always thought Coppola's '92 release of Dracula was excellent... It has a handful of variances from the book (although I felt most were pretty minor, excepting the linking of Count Dracula and Vlad The Impaler), but I thought the Oldman was incredible, Hopkins was solid as ever, and it was visually incredible.

 

As for All Quiet On The Western Front...I agree...the book is the best place to go with that one. I'm still waiting for Spielberg to pick that one up and run with it. Neither version stood up to the book in my opinion...at all.

I was pretty fond of the Branagh/De Niro Frankenstein. It might have been able to do a little better with the horror aspect, but I thought it was pretty solid overall.

 

I've always thought Coppola's '92 release of Dracula was excellent... It has a handful of variances from the book (although I felt most were pretty minor, excepting the linking of Count Dracula and Vlad The Impaler), but I thought the Oldman was incredible, Hopkins was solid as ever, and it was visually incredible.

 

As for All Quiet On The Western Front...I agree...the book is the best place to go with that one. I'm still waiting for Spielberg to pick that one up and run with it. Neither version stood up to the book in my opinion...at all.

 

The reason I went with the Lew Ayres movie on that one was the ending. All of the old comrades marching and turning around ghostly while super-imposed is a vast cemetary. Pretty biting commentary for that era.