Unnecessary Remakes

[Tarkus]

Okay, I suppose a few remakes are better than the original. But first off flame me all you want, call me gay, whatever, but I love The Music Man. Now I see a remake on TV with Matthew Broderick. Umm, guys you can't remake a movie that starred Robert Preston, Shirley Jones, Buddy Hackett, Hermione Gingold, and Paul Ford and expect to do better. Stupid even to attempt it. Don't know why people try some of these remakes but this was a disaster before it even aired. :rolleyes:

Tarkus

[samifan24]

I will admit that I have not see the Broderick remake, but I agree on the premise of the remake. Although I'm still in college, I grew up watching Preston's "Music Man" and that is the version I came to love. When I first saw that they were making a remake of the "Music Man" I rolled my eyes too. Sometimes they just can't leave a good thing alone. Just my .02 though.

[Aylmar]

I agree totally. I didn't watch the remake, but I heard the ad for it on the radio this afternoon as I was running some little sedan off the road in my monstrous SUV. As soon as I heard the ad over the horn blowing in the background, I told the guy I was talking to on my cellphone..."This Music Man remake is a serious mistake." :)

In all seriousness, though, the made for TV movie was doomed from the start, in my opinion.

[sabotai]

"call me gay, whatever, but I love The Music Man."

You're so gay.

[Lathum]

I never even thought of the music man when I was growing up

[JeeberD]

What, they're making a Ferris Bueller remake?

[mrushh]

Music Man with a Prof. Hill who looks young enough to be the little brother...I don't think so.

(Rest easy, Mr. Preston.)

[SackAttack]

Isn't that kind of like what they're saying about the impending "Godfather Part IV"? Even if you're better, you're worse?

[astralhaze]

what what what what? godfather part IV?????? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[stkelly52]

Has there ever been a good remake of anything? I can't think of one

[Honolulu_Blue]

The "Magnificent Seven" was, for all intents and purposes, a remake of "The Seven Samurai." Both are damn fine films. As for others... I will think on this.

[Honolulu_Blue]

"The Thing" was another good remake. I didn't think the "Night of the Living Dead" remake was all that bad either.

[QuikSand]

Maybe the most ridiculous idea for a remake I saw was a year or two ago there was a made-for-TC remake of Brian's Song being hawked on all the sports broadcasts. Are you kidding me? It's not like the original was shot without sound... what are you thinking?

Personally, I'd draw a line between a pure remake and a re-interpretation. I'd hate to get caught in the argument that West Side Story wasn't worth making, just because it had already been done 350 years earlier. I think I'd put The Magnificent Seven into that basket, too. And Kurosawa himself wasn't immune to reinterpretation... see all the Lear in Ran?

[AgPete]

Never seen The Music Man but some remakes I can think of that I thought weren't that bad--

Cape Fear--I'd rather a psychopathic DeNiro anyday even though Mitchum isn't exactly a slouch.

Hamlet--Olivier may be the greatest actor ever but Gibson and Branagh gave decent attempts to remake the Shakespeare legend.

Three Kings--Heard it was a modern day remake of Kelly's Heroes which is one of my favorite war films of all time. Thought Three Kings was unique enough to separate it from the original film.

Heaven Can Wait--How many different versions are there? The most recent one I can think of is the Chris Rock edition. I thought it was just as funny if not better than Warren Beatty's. (which was also based on a 1930's version I believe)

Dune--Haven't seen the remake and I may be one of the few people that enjoyed Lynch's version but it's always better to have a longer TV/Cable version if they truly want to capture the spirit of the book.

I'm a much bigger movie fan than music fan but music remakes bother me more than new film treatments. At least films can be drastically changed even if they end up being worse than the original. I heard a Tears for Fears remake on the radio yesterday! :redface: They sure don't wait that long anymore to bring out the old hits.

[jerem77]

While I would agree that most remakes don't even compare to the original (The Preacher's Wife doesn't even deserve to sit on the same shelf as The Bishop's Wife,) Music Man falls into a different category. As a stage production it is meant to be redone. It would be unfair to say that not school, College or community theatre could never do a production because "It wouldn't be as good as the original." Granted, by making it into a movie and now a TV movie they have chosen to step out of the theatre, but my guess is that Broderick chose to do this because of his love of the theatre, not the original movie. He is a Tony winning Actor, and if he wants to bring a popular play to the screen, good for him, even if it has been done before.

[KWhit]

Possibly the silliest remake ever:

Psycho - shot for shot

Dumb.

[AgPete]

Originally posted by KWhit
Possibly the silliest remake ever:

Psycho - shot for shot

Dumb.

Ditto. Now that is a perfect example of screwing up a classic. I never bothered watching the remake, it seemed like an insult to even attempt that film. Why would anyone even bother remaking something from the master himself, in particular that film.

I guess M. Night Shamaylan remade The Birds into Signs. I enjoyed that movie because it changed enough to make it feel original. I heard Psycho though was a cookie cutter film of the original and there is only one Alfred Hitchcock so I haven't bothered to watch it. Maybe one day I'll catch it on cable.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Maybe the most ridiculous idea for a remake I saw was a year or two ago there was a made-for-TC remake of Brian's Song being hawked on all the sports broadcasts. Are you kidding me? It's not like the original was shot without sound... what are you thinking?

Personally, I'd draw a line between a pure remake and a re-interpretation. I'd hate to get caught in the argument that West Side Story wasn't worth making, just because it had already been done 350 years earlier. I think I'd put The Magnificent Seven into that basket, too. And Kurosawa himself wasn't immune to reinterpretation... see all the Lear in Ran?

Or "Throne of Blood" for that matter. It's MacBeth. Great movie too. Then again, it's Kurosawa, so you expect it.

I find it hard to consider any Shakespeare film a "re-make" as well. They fit into the re-interpretation category, as they are all film versions of a stage play, as opposed to re-makes of prior movies. Hard to say Branaugh or Gibson were trying to remake Olivier's movie.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Maybe the most ridiculous idea for a remake I saw was a year or two ago there was a made-for-TC remake of Brian's Song being hawked on all the sports broadcasts. Are you kidding me? It's not like the original was shot without sound... what are you thinking?

Personally, I'd draw a line between a pure remake and a re-interpretation. I'd hate to get caught in the argument that West Side Story wasn't worth making, just because it had already been done 350 years earlier. I think I'd put The Magnificent Seven into that basket, too. And Kurosawa himself wasn't immune to reinterpretation... see all the Lear in Ran?

Or "Throne of Blood" for that matter. It's MacBeth. Great movie too. Then again, it's Kurosawa, so you expect it.

I find it hard to consider any Shakespeare film a "re-make" as well. They fit into the re-interpretation category, as they are all film versions of a stage play, as opposed to re-makes of prior movies. Hard to say Branaugh or Gibson were trying to remake Olivier's movie.

[ACStrider]

I'd say Lord of the Rings, but I'm not sure if that one counts. There was a '70's version of the trilogy that was absolutely horrid. My hat goes off to Jackson for actually staying (for the most part --- some serious liberties in the Two Towers, but as a whole I'm pleased) fairly close to the book. I'm just waiting for some hollywood director to get in his/her head to remake "To Kill A Mockingbird".

[AgPete]

Originally posted by Honolulu_Blue

I find it hard to consider any Shakespeare film a "re-make" as well. They fit into the re-interpretation category, as they are all film versions of a stage play, as opposed to re-makes of prior movies. Hard to say Branaugh or Gibson were trying to remake Olivier's movie.

That's true. Shakespeare may be the only original source that gets a free pass in this argument.