Movie Remakes: yay or nay?

I'll admit I'd have more use for an extended cut of Star Wars than the current "special edition", but why exactly do you think it could use a shot-for-shot remake? That's the least interesting kind of remake.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Usually nay, but sometimes yay:

What Price Hollywood? (1932)
A Star is Born (1937) - yay
A Star is Born (1954) - yay
A Star is Born (1976) - nay
A Star is Born (2018) - Warner Brothers vehicle starring Lady Gaga - I suspect nay

I don't care to judge the director's creative talents. Certainly not on first view.

I'm looking to be entertained as a movie watcher, not a movie critic.

I've seen many films that I wasn't crazy about at first, but had something that made me go back for a rewatch, and eventually become one of my favorite movies

Absence of Malice, The Verdict and Face/Off are examples.

After I understand and am entertained by a movie, then I look for the nuances.

But first time I watch a movie, I am looking to be entertained.

Yay, with an asterisk.

I'm of the opinion if a film does poorly, and a decade has passed, remaking it is fine, because there's a possibility the film may be an improvement upon the original. On the other hand, if a film does spectacularly, or becomes a beloved piece of cinematic history (Wizard of Oz, Gone With the Wind), then remaking it is tricky as hell. If you're super lucky, you get an amazing cast, a fantastic crew, and a fresh way to approach the story, and it becomes a hit (The Ten Commandments [1956]), then congratulations, you beat the odds.

That said, what's likely to happen is a terrific film is remade on a (relatively) smaller budget, with lesser talent, smaller vision, and a cliched approach, and the film bombs.

What I'm trying to say is don't do it if you don't plan on blowing the doors off of the original. Anything other than "this will make me a billion dollars and I will buy my own Hawaiian island with the money while they build statues of me on the corner of Hollywood and Vine" is destined to fail.

Example? Ben-Hur. An epic story that holds up well, even 58 years later, to the point where it is now considered a cinematic masterpiece. So what happened? It got a remake last year, and it underwhelmed as a result. Why? It was an updated version of the 1959 classic, but without anything to really set it apart. You have to wonder who at the studio said "yeah, we'll remake this classic to almost no fanfare, little advertising, and a paint-by-numbers retread" and wasn't immediately booted out of the building for having the temerity to even offer such a subpar notion.

TL; DR - Sure, if the original sucked, or the classic can be approached in a fresh, new way. Otherwise, nay.

__________________
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Asimov

In all fairness, the original Ten Commandments was silent.

The 1956 version is THE epic Bible tale. Yul Brynner should have been required to wear one of those hats for the rest of his life, wherever he went.

Also I didn't like Heston's Ben Hur. Didn't see the new one.

And the Sutherland version of 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' was not bad at all, and updated a few things.

Nay, the originals are always better.

Those would be examples where a fresh take, and new technology came together flawlessly. I love Ben-Hur, but yeah, The 1956 version of The Ten Commandments is EPIC on every level. To this day, I feel the effects hold up, the acting holds up, the story holds up, it's just a fantastic movie.

It's like Cecil saw his original work and cranked everything all the way up to 11, and it worked.

usually I don't care for remakes, but sometimes they are okay. The Thomas Crowne Affair is the only one i can think of where i have preferred the remake.

__________________
You talkin' to me?

Either. It's how it's done that matters, not how original, or unoriginal, it is. A good movie is a good movie, and there's hardly anything original in films, so why get all up in a twist if a movie is a remake? It matters? I'd say - no.

__________________
Thanks again, Mr Portridge.

Because I'd rather get in a twist about movie remakes then spend too much energy getting outraged at real life crap in the world.

No, I do agree with you that a good movie is a good movie. No one is holding a gun to my head to go and see a reboot, or even nick it off the back of the internet truck if I refuse to pay for it. Pretty silly thing to get faux outraged about so I dont know why I do it. Just something to whine about, I guess. But I must say, this complaint has been around for years and years.

You have a lot of negative energy.

I've never been bothered with remakes, in principle. There are hardly any original stories in films, even way back in 1920, so it's not like the lack of originality is new.

I loved last year's Magnificent Seven because I let it be its own thing, though I'm not a fan of the '60 version, but that hasn't naught to do with it being a western remake of Seven Samurai. In fact, that's one reason I should love it - my favorite genre is western, and I love Kurosawa, but I couldn't get behind that film just because I didn't fully enjoy it. The one from last year is awesome, though, and that's just one example of, I'm sure, many.

I will admit that I prefer to not have a remake made, but I won't lose sleep if anything is remade. It's an exercise in futility. If it looks good, why be discouraged when you find out it's a remake? That puzzles me.

LOL. I think I'll go nd kick the neighbour's dog. Scuse me.

Well, you do get into a twist about remakes and then get angry at real crap around the world.

You seem in a bother.

There are some great remakes. I thought The Hills have Eyes remake was even better than the first even though the first was pretty good. I feel it updated it impeccably for a new decade.

I also love King King (2005).

It really irritates me when a remake comes within a decade of the original. I mean, what's the frickin' point? That's why I'm boycotting Oldboy.

The one reason to remake is to make better. When the original had unfulfilled potential or is has faded to a point where it's superb story isn't getting the love it deserves.

I was ribbing you for your improper use of "then". It should have been "than".

LOL. I didnt even notice. Stupid autocorrect. And dysfunctional keyboard. I'll kill it.

Usually Nay for remakes. In my opinion, the company runs out of other marketable idea and wants to make some quick money. That's why a remake is made. Don't you agree?

Totally.