Survey on Remakes!

Hey Guys! I'm conducting a survey on this question 'Which movies should not be remade?' It would be great if you could help me. If you could pick 10 movies from this list, which you feel should NEVER be remade, that would be really great! This is just to determine, which 10 movies I should use for the survey.
When it's a franchise, I'm talking about any of the movies in that franchise.
2001 : A Space Odyssey
A Clockwork Orange
Back To The Future
Casablanca
Chinatown
Citizen Kane
Edward Scissorhands
E.T.
The Exorcist
Fight Club
The Godfather
The Goonies
Gone with the Wind
Grease
Indiana Jones
It’s A Wonderful Life
Jaws
Jurassic Park
The Lord Of The Rings
Mary Poppins
Memento
Metropolis
Pulp Fiction
Requiem For A Dream
Reservoir Dogs
Rocky
Rosemary’s Baby
Scarface (I know this MAY be remade, but just in case it doesn't)
The Shawshank Redemption
The Silence Of The Lambs
Singin' In The Rain
The Sound Of Music
Star Wars
Sunset Boulevard
Taxi Driver
Terminator
The Third Man
Titanic
To Kill A Mockingbird
Unforgiven
The Usual Suspects
The Wizard of Oz

And yes... I know that Scarface is a remake, but i'm saying if they remade the latest version with Al Pacino.

Feel free to express your opinion! The more the better!

__________________
Movie Talk Blog : Reviews, Analysis, Discussions

http://bradmovietalk.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

Ideally, a remake in general wouldn't be necessarily unless the original had a great premise but 1) executed it poorly (The Fly), or 2) was underdeveloped (Happiness of the Katakuris, 13 Assassins), or 3) for some technical reasons (not Star Wars technical reasons mind you). These circumstances, at least for me, are extremely rare. Thus, for example, the Russian remake of 12 Angry Men, while fine, was unnecessary. The other issues include removing societal relevance (which I imagine will be the case with Oldboy) and adding more blood (every horror remake). There's little reason to pick ten from this list since none of them, good or bad, merit a remake. Write a new script ffs.

PS: If Wentworth Miller can get a job writing terrible (yet original-ish) scripts but get awesome directors like Park Chan Wook to film them, so can other people.

PSS: Just think how much money goes into making a film. Anti-remakes is economically feasible.

The Godfather,Pulp Fiction,Taxi Driver,LOTR (any part),Jaws,2001,A Clockwork Orange,Casablanca,Star Wars,Scarface

__________________
"Anything less than immortality is a complete waste of time."

2001: A space Odyssey
-I don't see any director today even coming close to the vision and attention to detail that Kubrick had. Besides, the film is brilliant even today, a modernization would never do it justice.

A Clockwork Orange
-Okay, pretty much every Kubrick film does not need a remake. Any remake of his works would just seem second-rate in comparison.

The Exorcist
-Hollywood has already butchered and stripped everything from this film that made it iconic with their sequels and spin offs, so I pray they at least let it die peacefully.

Jaws
-Oh God, please no more shark movies!

The Lord of the Rings
-I just don't see a need for it. Since the original relied on such little special effects, it holds up remarkably well, even today.

Pulp Fiction
-Why bother with a remake, when the first one is still incredibly rewatchable? Besides, no one's going to replace Sam Jackson and his afro. No one.

Scarface
-I don't see anyone outdoing or even matching Al Pacino as of right now, so no thanks.

The Shawshank Redemption
-This is arguably one of the greatest movies ever made, so good luck Hollywood.

Silence of the Lambs
-Nope, I'm content with rewatching the original. It puts the lotion in the basket!

Taxi Driver
-I've yet to watch it, but judging from people comparing it to Drive, I have a feeling people with short attention spans and a fear of violence will hate this movie, just like they did with Drive.

__________________
Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? You watching?. And my straw reaches acroooooooss the room, and starts to drink your milkshake... I... drink... your... milkshake!
-Daniel, There Will Be Blood

2001 : A Space Odyssey
A Clockwork Orange
Fight Club
The Godfather
Jaws
Pulp Fiction
Rosemary’s Baby
Singin' In The Rain
Star Wars
Titanic

Generally a true recent (ish) classic should not be remade. Like Star Wars or the Godfather should NEVER be remade, however in Star Wars case they can make as many stories as they like as long as they don't try to remake the original classics. Maybe there can be a case for remaking really old classics like a great film from the 40's/50's or earlier as generally they just won't be watched much anymore.

Also remakes are fine where it can be done better like Nolan's Batman films. Nothing wrong with Burton's Batmans but the new ones are simply better.

Lars Von Trier said he wanted to remake Taxi Driver years ago. I still hold ill feelings toward the man.

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews

I completely agree with you, but this is a hypothetical question. It's for my college coursework as to what people think about classic movies being remade. But, I really appreciate you giving your opinion, that could be very useful in my research!

Tbh, I'd say all of them. Rocky is being spun off anyway, they're making a film about Apollo Creed and his rise to fame as a younger man before he met Rocky.

Jurassic Park is the only exception though.
They should remake it and make it closer to the book. The book rocks.

__________________

On the right track, but still a little harsh and I don't think it's been distilled enough. The main issue with remakes is their transparency. Good artists copy but great artists steal. Brian De Palma's been stealing all of his life and while his detractors call him out on it, nobody else seems to notice or care. This, I think, is because De Palma has a unique style of directing that distances his work from its predecessors. I see no problem with a remake except for one cause, which should be obvious. Money. If, like in most Hollywood remakes, the purpose is for easy name recognition hoping to cash in on a brand name, then it's trash, right? Well, almost. This hearkens back to a similar debate about D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation. The film is extremely offensive and the intent behind it was morally horrendous, but it's a solid and revolutionary piece of filmmaking. Why does intent matter? If the product is good, what else matters?

To quote Harry Lime (the real one, not the imposter on this site), "Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock." Suffering caused the birth of great art. Is the context of its birth interesting and perhaps helpful in understanding the art? I think absolutely, but I don't think it would be great art if we couldn't appreciate it out of such context.

__________________
Mubi

Remaking that movie is literally like sticking a knife in my throat...

Funny how that makes you eternally angry towards the man instead of him talking about how he really feels a connection to and deeply sympathizes with Adolf Hitler.

I know right?!?!?!?!?

Eternally angry? No. Annoyed? Most certainly. Kirsten Dunst's reaction to that story? Pretty damn funny. As for Von Trier himself?

That quote has never sat well with me; I understand the implication of stealing as "making it your own" but it's still not really stealing, you're doing something to alter your influences in a drastic way. No one called out De Palma on it because his films aren't interesting enough. That garfield picture^^^ is exactly how I feel after all of his movies.

I don't implicate that from the quote.

I think your picture would be better if it followed the guidelines of this website:
http://garfieldminusgarfield.net/

Nonsense poopy pants!

Garfield Minus Garfield is a site dedicated to removing Garfield from the Garfield comic strips in order to reveal the existential angst of a certain young Mr. Jon Arbuckle. It is a journey deep into the mind of an isolated young everyman as he fights a losing battle against loneliness and depression in a quiet American suburb.

That is genius.

...so you think real artists plagiarize?