MOVIES - Do you prefer a Rerelease or a Remake?

[yoda313]

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

[shelbyGT]

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

[yoda313]

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

Hi,

There is an option for neither in the poll

Kevin

[waheed]

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

[Faustus]

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]

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.

What a great idea. Unfortunately it will never get past the narrow-minded bean counters, who will assume if it failed the first time it will fail again.

[guns1inger]

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.

[Bodyslide]

I'll take the original.

[yoda313]

Hi,

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

Um sorry but whether or not you like the star wars se that's exactly why lucas redid them. He wanted to use the new special effects that he helped create. You may not like the tinkering but he has time and time again said these se versions are the way he wanted to make them but couldn't.

Kevin

[guns1inger]

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.

[lordsmurf]

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)

Alright, gotta disagree with this one.

My primary language is English. If the audio entertainment is not in English, I don't care to hear it. Trying to decipher the foreign dialogue becomes work, no longer entertainment. Speak my language or shut up. nothing "racist" about this, not in the least.

Subtitles, you say? If I want to read, the library has thousands of books.

[yoda313]

Hi,

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.

I don't want to harp too much on this but:

Without the technology enhancements lucas had to sacrifice the story. For one Jabba the hutt wasn't included in the first version of A New Hope. And also you couldn't possibly show coruscant and all of the political story of the emperor because it would have looked too cheesy. They barely got bespin (cloud city) to work and the original sets were extremely claustrophobic. Granted special effects alone don't tell a story. BUT without them the sense of wonder and disblief just aren't the same. Things like the podrace and mustafa volcano planet (episode 3) were impossible without cg.

Because special effects were so basic early on Lucas had to restrict the story. He couldn't go to as many places as he wanted. The prequels are much more vivid and open because of the technology.

Now that ALL the movies are done you can appreciate the differences technology has made. The original trilogy was a action movie that couldn't dive too deep in the universe because it would have been too difficult to make. Though it was wonderful the era.

The prequels have the role of diving into the exciting jedi world that luke could only dream of. When he said that tatooine was the farthes from the action we now know what he meant. The sheer volume of stunts and vistas of the prequels is amazing and helps show how vast the star wars universe is.

With all the stories told now we can appreciate the campy closed in feel of the original trilogy and the jaw dropping limitless bounds of the prequels.

Kevin

[MrMoody]

You may not like the tinkering but he has time and time again said these se versions are the way he wanted to make them but couldn't.

Except that statement is obviously false. This has been run into the ground since 1997 but I'll rehash it again.

He always wanted but couldn't have:
-no matte lines & improved effects. Of course.
-more ships, people, creatures and landscape. Sure. But this is where he should have stopped.
-juvenile humor going on on the background. Maybe, but we're stretching now.
-Greedo shooting first? Restoring cut scenes that didn't rely on effects? Different music? Obviously not. These are things he could have easily done that way the first time.

[guns1inger]

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.

Speak my language or shut up. nothing "racist" about this, not in the least.

- I think I smell burning - did someone leave the irony on ?

[lordsmurf]

'intolerant of anything that ... requires any effort on their part'.

With entertainment, this is me.
Make me a badge that says this, I'll wear it.

Entertainment should be fun, I should not have to "think about it" or "work to make it happen". It no longer becomes outright entertainment. Only a small following of people that MAKE IT their hobby will go to that length (sort of like doing video work :P ). Hobbies are for working a little to reap some enjoyment. Most movie-goers are seeking casual entertainment, not a hobby.

[yoda313]

Hi,

Restoring cut scenes that didn't rely on effects

The only one I can remember in the se that was like that was the biggs/luke scene in the hangar at yavin. All of the other scenes were cg related - or the new monster in hoth. Everything that was changed/enhanced except for biggs was a special effect treatment.

And remember - JABBA was always supposed to be a creature of some kind. Originally thought to be furry but changed to a slug in JEDI. These were the changes he wanted to make but didn't have the time or money to do them.

This is not me saying this. Rent the videotapes of the FIRST special edition releases. He clearly states this in his own words. I'm simply reiterating them.

Kevin

[shelbyGT]

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]

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...

[shelbyGT]

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

[smearbrick1]

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.

[Jester700]

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]

Hi,

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

Kevin

Kevin, I prefer the Special Edition, Ultimate, Extreme, Directors Cut or whatever it’s called.

It can be extended edition just like LOTR, Return of the King - The Extended Edition.

I like special releases and I much prefer the original making of the film, not the re-make such as Assault on Precinct 13 (2004) as this one isn’t as good as the first one.

I don’t like re-makes as I’d rather see something as different and no copy of previous releases.

ChrisX

[guns1inger]

I put the LOTR Extended Editions is the Director's Cut basket. If the distibuters were braver, and will to accept one less showing a day to allow the full version to be shown, PJ wouldn't have had to remove so much.

Personally, I love the extras, commentaries etc that make DVD what is it.

[AlecWest]

It all depends on the film for me. In most cases, I want to see a DVD that looks exactly like the movie as I saw it in the theater. In most cases of "special edition" releases, I've agreed with the editor about what got cut out the first time around (ie., "Animal House," "1941," etc.). In a few cases, though ("Witness," with Harrison Ford and "Godfather 1&2"), I thought the editor who cut some original scenes should have been taken out and shot (grin). I'd give anything to be able to buy a DVD release of the "Godfather Epic" version briefly released on VHS ("Godfather 1&2" told in chronological order).

As an example, one scene from the "Epic" version (but cut from "Godfather 2's" flashback scenes) was when Vito Corleone first meets Hyman Roth. Without that scene, the viewer merely thinks that Roth was an old business partner of Vito. With the scene, we see Vito "adopting" Roth into his family ... giving him his name, as it were. So, later (without the scene), viewers simply think Roth betrayed Vito on a business level. But with the scene, the viewer sees that Roth betrayed his honor as a "family" member ... an "infamnia" that has much deeper connotations in the structure of things than a mere business decision ... and explains why Michael is so vehement in his desire to take revenge.

Remakes? Most leave me flat. The original 1947 "Miracle on 34th Street" has never, IMHO, been outdone by any remade version (3 at least). However, some films seem to "get it right" the second time around. The 1938 "A Christmas Carol" is a pale predecessor to 1951's "Scrooge..." starring Alistair Sim. But later remakes seemed rather thin to me. And Hitchcock's original 1934 version of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is a pale predecessor to the 1956 remake with Jimmy Stewart & Doris Day.

[AlecWest]

Humorous aside on "A Christmas Carol." I've always thought it would be interesting if Rush Limbaugh would make an alternative version of the film, tailored to his viewpoint, and done as a "horror" film, hehe. In it, Scrooge would be an honest man trying to make a profit in business ... but beset by liberal clingers and hangers-on. Then one night, he's shocked to find that his best friend and late partner, Jacob Marley, has become a liberal in the afterlife ... and forces Scrooge to undergo visits by three other liberal ghosts during the night. And, by morning (horror of horrors), Scrooge has become a liberal himself.

[ricardouk]

Hi Kevin to answer your question i would rather have a rerelease than a remake

My primary language is English. If the audio entertainment is not in English, I don't care to hear it. Trying to decipher the foreign dialogue becomes work, no longer entertainment. Speak my language or shut up. nothing "racist" about this, not in the least.

Lordsmurf if you dont see foreign films you're missing out on some great films! take for example the film"TAXI" we europeans got the 3 ORIGINAL"TAXI" movies while you (usa) got a poor remake with queen latifa just because of what you said

Subtitles, you say? If I want to read, the library has thousands of books.

[Shocker Milwaukee]

All remakes blow for lack of originality. Get a new story, or go home.

All of Lucas' tinkering with originals is crap. Especially in ROTJ. He butchered it.

[bazooka]

I vote for neither.

[e404pnf]

We can all name good and bad examples for both remakes and re-releases. The remake of 'Get Carter' for example was terrible, but Jude Law made an excellent 'Alfie' (only though coincidence did they both originally star Michael Caine)

What I consider to be the biggest problem with most Hollywood movies is that they aim for the lowest common denominator. There is no longer a target audience, the target is everyone.

There is a place for the movie which is just pure entertainment, no brain required (as LS referred to). But I also like to see movies that I need to think through. Just because a topic or story is thought provoking or inspiring, should stop it from being made into a movie. These will however not make as much money because they will not hit the (American) mass market. Luckily these films do exist - they just take a little tracking down!

This aim for the lowest common denominator can been also be seen in film ratings, the Terminator films being a great example. Here in the UK the first movie was an 18, the second a 15 and T3 was a 12A. I would agree that violence of the sake of it is unnecessary (ie Kill Bill) but when it's an integral part of the story it shouldn't be excluded simply to attract a younger audience.

-e404pnf

PS I voted "Rerelease - original version" - this is usually the safest option

[BSR]

I voted for rerelease special edition style

I liked the Star Wars SE edition,

Also like Evil Dead 2 better then Evil Dead 1. In Fact, I like Army Of Darkness(Evil Dead 3) even better, laughed my A$$ off.