The reboot/remake bandwagon rumbles on...

[P-Jay]

Miguel Alvarez said:

OT - Is that any good? The Abel Ferrara one is good if a bit grim.

It stars Nicolas Cage, Val Kilmer and "X to the Z" Xzibit so no, it's terrible.

[pmanson]

There was an actress being interviewed on R2 yesterday about the film 'Spy', apparently one of her next projects will be Ghostbusters

[anonymous-user]

What happened to The Dambusters remake?

[ajprice]

pmanson said:

There was an actress being interviewed on R2 yesterday about the film 'Spy', apparently one of her next projects will be Ghostbusters

Oh yeah, its Ghostbusters, but they're women. Paul Feig is directing it, he's done the Spy film, Knocked Up and Bridesmaids. Make of that what you will. http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/ghostbusters/33842.... The actress would have been Melissa McCarthy, she seems to be everything he does.

Edited by ajprice on Thursday 4th June 15:06

[Rick_1138]

strummerville said:

Let's not forget the woeful film versions of TV series (mainly from the 70s or early 80s)

The Sweeney
Miami Vice
Charlie's Angels (perv factor as a kid far better for the TV version!)
Starsky & Hutch
Dukes of Hazzard

I would argue that the recent film version of Miami Vice was a good film. The Colin Farrell one?

[downstairs]

TEKNOPUG said:

Other than film makers being incredibly lazy, I really don’t see the point in re-making films that were already successful in the past.

I'm not sure if this is specifically a response to the OP, but of course BTILC was a colossal bomb at the box office and solely the reason why John Carpenter retreated from the studios and continued his career independently.

However, while I do wonder about the mentality of the producers and studios pushing remakes and reboots, I'll happily judge the results on their own terms. I really liked the new Total Recall, much prefer it to re-watching the lumpen Schwarzenegger nowadays. Robocop on the other hand was a shame: decent enough but I felt flimped that there was so little Robocop-ness to it, although it nevertheless clearly was the story of a robotised copper.

I'm old enough and ugly enough to not be precious about "my" old films. The trailer for the new Point Break looks interesting - tonally very different from the old film I remember, so possibly worth a look depending on how the publicity makes me feel nearer the time.

But surely Point Break's audiences today will think of the original Keanu/Swayze film as just another old film? Other than a broad awareness of a title's existence, what do the producer's gain? The same as if when I was a teen they'd remade 55 Days At Peking or something - no way would I have cared about the old one.

So who is the audience for remakes? Who are they pitching them at? Is it you and I? Doubtful, because whilst we come complete with an awareness of the title and story and maybe a pre-existing love of the older film, we also come with a natural scornfulness of how they're going to ruin it. So maybe the studios want new audiences? Kids? Point Break was 25 years ago. If I was 14 now, I wouldn't have been interested in ever seeing such a creaky old relic; but the new one looks cool man! Wing suits an' ting. Action!!

Or maybe the remakes are pitched at the same audience as so much other box office dross? The undiscerning people who will go to the cinema as a Friday night social activity, and not because they care anything especially about films. People who have meant that all of the Pirates Of The Caribbean films have turned massive profits. Audiences for whom a film's quality is nigh-on irrelevant. And add to that the slim portion of people like me, who have awareness and affection for the older films, but are prepared to give the remake a punt if it looks decent on its own terms.

Perhaps if that's the gamble, on a two hundred million pound investment, why not make it a remake and hoover up that potential extra audience goodwill?

[downstairs]

Or maybe it's even worse: maybe they know you'll see a remake when you loved the original, even if it's just to see how much they've ruined a film you love. Even if you hate the new one, you've still paid.

Alternatively: if they remake a film you love, ignore the new one and retreat to home with a glass of sherry and a BluRay.

[Halb]

P-Jay said:

I hear they're having a 3rd go at Spiderman in a generation - they've got a 14 year old Lad lined up for it this time.

There MUST be some storyline within the comics that allows a continuation, do we really need to see meek boy is bitten by radioactive spider and gains 'powers', boy becomes less meek and uses powers for his own entertainment, by not using his powers for good he inadvertently gets his uncle killed, uses powers for good and becomes spiderman for a 3rd time?

I've read that the 'origin' will be bypassed. That at the time of the Avengers sequel there is already a 14 year old Parker swinging around New York.

[Miguel Alvarez]

P-Jay said:

Miguel Alvarez said:

OT - Is that any good? The Abel Ferrara one is good if a bit grim.

It stars Nicolas Cage, Val Kilmer and "X to the Z" Xzibit so no, it's terrible.

Nicholas Cage I'm undecided on. Raising Arizona and Con Air were brilliant. Other stuff not so much.

Val Kilmer has been in some good films but I really don't remember anything about his characters.

Xzibit. Can't imagine him being a great actor no matter how much I like his music.

So on that basis I'll give it a miss.

[Halb]

strummerville said:

And of course European films remade in Hollywood.

1. Get Carter
2. The Italian Job
3. Alfie
4. Day of the Jackal
5. Oldboy (ok, not European)
6. Taxi

Gone in Sixty Seconds.

The Ladykillers (not as good, but decent in it's own right).

[944fan]

Rick_1138 said:

strummerville said:

Let's not forget the woeful film versions of TV series (mainly from the 70s or early 80s)

The Sweeney
Miami Vice
Charlie's Angels (perv factor as a kid far better for the TV version!)
Starsky & Hutch
Dukes of Hazzard

I would argue that the recent film version of Miami Vice was a good film. The Colin Farrell one?

I thought it was full of promise. Good cast, Michael Mann back at where it all started, but the end result was a bit of a let down really. It wasn't terrible but it could have been a lot better. Apparently it was Jamie Fox's ego that ruined it.

A good bit of that film is the Donzi boats racing up the Miami River. That on full blast on the surround sound is excellent.

[P-Jay]

digimeistter said:

What happened to The Dambusters remake?

Stuck in pre-production hell it seems - some stuff has been filmed - fly-bys and stuff, but nothing with any actors in it.

Peter Jackson is the driving force behind it, 'they' say it was put on hold to make the Hobbit films, which are now done so it might be back on - but these films that are on/off/on/off for years and go through production hell often turn out terrible...

[ajprice]

This week, Kindergarten Cop. Probably without Arnie. Although they are admitting defeat before they start as its a straight to on demand and won't be anywhere near a cinema. http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/kindergarten-cop/3...

[Halb]

ajprice said:

This week, Kindergarten Cop. Probably without Arnie. Although they are admitting defeat before they start as its a straight to on demand and won't be anywhere near a cinema. http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/kindergarten-cop/3...

Makes you wonder, 'why bother?'

[marcosgt]

Rick_1138 said:

strummerville said:

Let's not forget the woeful film versions of TV series (mainly from the 70s or early 80s)

The Sweeney
Miami Vice
Charlie's Angels (perv factor as a kid far better for the TV version!)
Starsky & Hutch
Dukes of Hazzard

I would argue that the recent film version of Miami Vice was a good film. The Colin Farrell one?

You must be VERY argumentative then

M.

[SWoll]

marcosgt said:

You must be VERY argumentative then

M.

I didn't mind it TBH. Not up to Mann's earlier standards and I do remember having to put the subtitles on at one point so I could understand what Farrell was mumbling about but an enjoyable enough movie.

[Halb]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/back-to-the-future...

[Stoatman]

Top gun , 2 !!!!!!

[Morningside]

This week. Transporter. Why? It's not that long since the original. Unless it has a 7 series I am out.
http://screenrant.com/transporter-refueled-trailer...

[ZesPak]

Moonhawk said:

Some action/scifi remakes that are considered better than the original:

The Thing
Invasion of the body snatchers
The Fly
Heat
Oceans 11
True Lies
Godzilla
King Kong (possibly)

I'd argue for Dredd as well.

Though, when rebooting something that was hugely succesful not that long ago, you'd have to do it very well.
For all intents and purposes, I thought of Jurassic World as a remake. And a pretty damn good one. But most just aren't, at all. Look at recent things like Robocop.

As for spiderman, I'm not going to argue over the age of the actor (19 iirc?), as that's actuall a lot more believable than a 30 something going to high school. But really, the THIRD reboot of the franchise over the span of what, 15 years? That must be some sort of record. I hugely enjoyed Spiderman 2, but the rest was just various degrees of "meh" to me.

Another argument is for reboots where the actors don't really "nail" it or are superfluous to the quality of the film. For example Jurassic Park or Godzilla. The actors did an ok job in general, but they didn't make the movie. Scarface would be quite the opposite, Psycho would be a great example ( Vince Vaughn).

Edited by ZesPak on Tuesday 30th June 13:14