Remakes Lazy Film-making?

[GforGroove]

Originally Posted by big screen satellite

what d'you reckon...lazy film making....lack of ideas...??

do we need the remakes / re-imaginations of films...

Remakes besides being a matter of money as B.miller said, are about "re-interpretration". And i want to think that is totally possible to have one story with many interpretations.

Like Solaris.. The original and the remake were both amazing. I guess i a matter of the power of the story too, like Psycho.

The examples given (Texas Chainsaw Massacre...!) about remaking aren't the strongest ones to judge if "remakes" are lazy filmaking or not i think.

[grady]

Originally Posted by GforGroove

Remakes besides being a matter of money as B.miller said, are about "re-interpretration". And i want to think that is totally possible to have one story with many interpretations.

Like Solaris.. The original and the remake were both amazing. I guess i a matter of the power of the story too, like Psycho.

ooooooo, I completley forgot about Solaris. And another fine example Gforgroove. That one ties directly into the "re-interpretation" category as Steven Soderbergh went back to the source material of Stanislaw Lem's novel and made a new adaptation.

[b.miller]

a friend of mine (who doesn't mind remakes at all since he hates old movies... but he also loved Armageddon) always brings up the argument that a remade movie is just like a remix of a song. I do think that makes for a good comparison to decide if a movie remake is good or not, but in most cases the metaphor doesn't quite hold. The Longest Yard for example, would be akin to adding a hi-hat and calling it a remix. The Thing on the other hand, would be like Basement Jaxx's remix of Technologic, where it definitely sounds like the Jaxx but also has that original spine in there. It's changed to the point where it can stand on its own as a track. I think the reason why all remakes always get compared to the originals is because so many of them cannot stand on their own. Since reading your guys' War of the Worlds responses, I've been thinking about why i really didn't mind the characters and how the aliens die... and i think it's because I was familiar with the story already. The characters certainly aren't the same but they're like the remix element... trying the story with treated vocals instead of the originals... so I was really coming at it like that and not as a stand-alone film. I mean, that's not necessarily bad because I ended up liking it for the most part, but it's definitely a different angle to look at it from.

I don't know though, because even a great remix, when compared to a great original song, kind of pales for me. I would much rather have a new story than an old one told differently.

just rambling

[Animal Boything]

I think it's a weird sign of the times that you and your friend think "remix" before "cover" since the latter is a lot more appropriate, but I digress...

I don't mind remakes at all. In the case of anything that was based on other source material to begin with, it's not even an issue. Filmmakers have every right to re-adapt. (War of the Worlds is an example.) Even if it's just a movie based on a movie, I don't mind. If it turns out shitty, so what? The original still exists. There are a few movies I wouldn't mind remaking myself, given the opportunity.

I voted "sometimes" because obviously some remakes do suck. But there's nothing wrong with them as an idea.

A lot of people come at me with the "waste of money" angle, but that's stupid, there are much worse wastes of money in the world, plus it's not like there aren't plenty of bad original movies coming out every week. A remake has about the same chances of being good as anything else.