MOVIES - Do you prefer a Rerelease or a Remake?

yoda313 · POLLSTER Joined: 15 Jun 2004 Location: the real world

Hi,

So with all the remakes that happen in hollywood would you rather see a rerelease of the original movie or a remake?

I think a rerelease would be more fun since depending on the age many people may never have seen it in the theaters. Take Star Wars for instance. I was born in 78 so I was too young to see the original trilogy in the theaters. But once the special editions came out in 97 it was a dream come true. They also rereleased ET (though I didn't see it).

I think remakes are often a let down or if they are a verbatim remake than what was the point?

I do believe action/sci fi movies may benefit more from a remake with the incredible advances in special effects (though many would consider that to ruin the original feel of the film).

What do you think?

Kevin
_________________
Live long and prosper - and rock on dude!!!!

shelbyGT · Fuzzy Nuts Joined: 17 Oct 2003 Location: Kansas City, KS

How about none, make the movie industry come up with new, novel ideas for once.
_________________

yoda313 · POLLSTER Joined: 15 Jun 2004 Location: the real world

waheed · Unique Joined: 23 Jul 2003 Location: Manchester, UK

Just give me the original. Re-releases special editions are just studios making more $$$ out of us and not worth it.
_________________

Faustus · insane. Joined: 11 Apr 2002 Location: Dallas, TX

Depends on the movie. I'd rather see a GOOD remake but since they are so rare in a perfect world there would be more rereleases.

HOWEVER, from a recent conversation somewhere else I'd like to see a trend of BAD movies remade into good ones. It seems like there are a ton of movies that had good ideas and horrible execution out there. Why not "reimagine" those instead of trying to remake stuff everyone already remembers and loves.

If your out of ideas why not pull them from places that will NOT be widely remembered and loved?

MrMoody · Mad Eye Joined: 26 May 2002 Location: NTSC Land

guns1inger · Posted: Jul 28, 2005 21:35

There are few, if any, remakes that match the original. Ususally the original has a chemistry and a rhythm, even if crude or low budget, that a remake can't match. Even when the same director remakes his own material for whatever reason (bigger budget, hollywood contract etc) it seldom works. I much prefer the raw energy of the original Evil Dead over the almost shot for shot remake of Evil Dead 2 : Dean by Dawn. Yes, the budget is bigger, the effects are better, but the order has been changed and the rhythm thrown completely off.

Where a director has been forced to butcher his work, or studio exec has taken over a project and removed footage, then a special edition director's cut is something I like to see. There have been some truely great director's cuts released, from Lawrence of Arabia to Blade Runner. In these cases, you are seeing the movie how the director intended at the time it was made - what would have been in the cinema had they had the opportunity.

To me this is different to what George Lucas has done the original Star Wars trilogy, or what Spielberg did to E.T. This is trying to make up for imaginary transgressions or percieved shortcomings due to budget or technical limitations. To me these changes, while primarily cosmetic, have done nothing to improve on the original, and in many cases weaken them.

Most remakes are simply needless (The Italian Job), poorly realised (Planet of the Apes), or even racist in their reason for existing (remakes of Japanese horror films simply because some audiences won't watch a film where the dialogue isn't in English)

So, my preference, in order

1. The original, as the director intended (be this the original release, or a director's cut)
2. The original release version, as a special edition (restored, docos etc)
3. Original release without extras

Remakes are superfluous, re-imaginings, if take from the original source, are acceptable, but will most likely be crap. There are exceptions to this,of course - John Carpenter's The Thing comes to mind.
_________________
The views expressed in this post are mine alone, unless plagiarised from others
Read my new reviews page here

Bodyslide · Posted: Jul 28, 2005 22:44

I'll take the original.

yoda313 · POLLSTER Joined: 15 Jun 2004 Location: the real world

Hi,

guns1inger · Posted: Jul 29, 2005 07:41

I respect that he is in a position to be able to go back and enhance his films in ways he probably couldn't even image at the time, but there is a difference between going back making changes for technical reasons, and going back and re-assembling a movie to the state the director had it at the time, but was then lost due to studio tampering, distributor bitching or other political, rather than technical, reasons. Lucas could have had all the budget in the world, and Star Wars wouldn't have looked much better - the effects were cutting edge at the time. The fact that now, with all the budget and technical expertise at his disposal the final three are, for the most, substantially inferior to the first three, show that it was not the technology that made the first set what they were. His changes, while providing nice eye-candy, don't do anything to enhance the original films in anything other than a superficial, asthetic way.
_________________
The views expressed in this post are mine alone, unless plagiarised from others
Read my new reviews page here

lordsmurf · Posted: Jul 29, 2005 07:49

yoda313 · POLLSTER Joined: 15 Jun 2004 Location: the real world

Hi,

MrMoody · Mad Eye Joined: 26 May 2002 Location: NTSC Land

guns1inger · Posted: Jul 29, 2005 08:24

LS - perhaps 'racist' is too harsh - would you be happy with 'intolerant of anything that isn't like them or requires any effort on their part'. It's sad that you will miss out on great works, or only be exposed to inferior remakes or butchered dubs.

lordsmurf · Posted: Jul 29, 2005 08:43

yoda313 · POLLSTER Joined: 15 Jun 2004 Location: the real world

Hi,

shelbyGT · Fuzzy Nuts Joined: 17 Oct 2003 Location: Kansas City, KS

I gotta say that I think it sucked how Lucas released the last 3 before the first three.
Yeah, I know his reasons. However, the whole time I'm watching any of the first three (especially this last one that came out), the whole time I'm just thinking to myself "I already know how this ends up, why am I here?"
_________________

smearbrick1 · Posted: Jul 29, 2005 10:04

I think it's totally amazing that although the prequel trilogy had more cg effects, they were still lacking where Lucas films always lack... dialogue, story, consistency... shall I go on? George Lucas is basically a hack filmmaker. If he were a young filmmaker in today's world... he wouldn't have made it out of film school. While the original trilogy is ok, and the prequels are also ok... I can't seem to get overly excited about any of them. They're just not that good...
_________________
www.myspace.com/altonhambone

shelbyGT · Fuzzy Nuts Joined: 17 Oct 2003 Location: Kansas City, KS

While I see what you're trying to say.... a hack film-maker wouldn't be as successful as Lucas.
_________________

smearbrick1 · Posted: Jul 29, 2005 19:29

If Lucas was just starting out in today's film industry, with the talent that exists, I just don't think he would make it. I think people expect more out of movies these days. I don't think Lucas can deliver. Sure, Sith made over half a billion dollars... it was destined to. Doesn't make it a great or even a good film. Just one guy's opinion though.
_________________
www.myspace.com/altonhambone

Jester700 · Member Joined: 22 Nov 2001 Location: usa

You can't compare Lucas with current filmmakers. Different era. What would the "new guys" have produced in 1977 without all the stuff they rely on today that had gone before? It's like saying Hendrix can't compete with the newer guitar players.

Lucas wanted to make a Flash Gordonesque space opera. He succeeded greatly at his goal.

ChrisX · Posted: Jul 30, 2005 01:42