Redoing The Classics

[Dave]

I want to know how you guys feel about the recent trend of rebooting everything that has been labelled a classic in Hollywood.

Over the last couple of years, we have seen massive reboots on franchises that should, probably, never have been touched in the first place. A few that spring to mind straight away are The Jungle Book, Total Recall, Terminator, and now Beauty and the Beast. And rather worryingly this seems to be a growing trend. People have said that it is down to money. The studios that make movies are less willing to go out and create a new series of movies or take a chance on something new because they are terrified that they will tank. So they put their eggs in the reboot basket and take the money rather than the chance, leaving a permanent stain on the classics that went before.

Don't get me wrong, they can be decent movies. I thought the new Jungle Book was a decent remake but I still prefer the original. That said, Total Recall was pretty bad in my opinion. It goes both ways, I suppose. I'd just rather see something new than the same old on a permanent cycle. I've even heard that they are redoing The Lion King as a live action movie. That makes me really sad.

But how about you? Are you for it or against it? Have you seen any reboots that you liked? Or have you seen any that you didn't care for?

Let me know.

 

[Hyorinmaru]

I'm not a fan. Most of the time the reboots suck and are a waste of time to go see or even buy. I've been seeing CHIPS trailers recently and it looks awful.

I've been saying for years that all the originality is gone in Hollywood and this crap is the reason why

 

[Dave]

Aw, man, I saw that CHIPS trailer too. Truth be told, I didn't actually watch a lot of CHIPS back in the day, so I'm willing to give it a go. I know about CHIPS but since I haven't watched a lot of it, I'm kinda treating it as if it were something new to me.

And I guess that how a lot of these should be viewed. I guess the companies that make them will say that they are bringing the movies to a whole new audience that might not have gotten the time of say otherwise. I can kinda get that.

But there is a line of good taste and I don't want to see it crossed. For example, if I see a reboot of Back to the Future or The Godfather, I'm going to crack the fuck up!

 

[Hyorinmaru]

And I guess that how a lot of these should be viewed. I guess the companies that make them will say that they are bringing the movies to a whole new audience that might not have gotten the time of say otherwise. I can kinda get that.

I could go for this excuse if the remakes weren't completely different than the original.

CHIPS for example is obviously a Buddy Cop comedy movie while my wife who saw the original said it was more of a procedural/drama show.

 

[enviousdominous]

I want to give reboots a chance, but I totally understand when someone hates the idea of a reboot. The most horrendous form of sacrilege for me was when Spike Lee directed a reboot of Park Chan-Wook's movie Oldboy.

The original Oldboy, to me, is a rare example of a perfect film. It took so many risks and created spectacular scenes, and it was one of the most compelling storylines in a movie. The fact that it came out in 2003 (around the time that I was living in South Korea) only makes it more idiotic that someone would want to reboot it in 2013.

When I found out it was being remade, and that it was giving very low-key mentions of the original masterpiece, I went nuclear. I watched the reboot for the sake of fairness, and half-way through it was giving me a headache. It's a piss-poor attempt at tracing over the flawless presentation that was the original. Friends of mine who didn't watch the original before-hand are fussy about watching the original because they didn't think the reboot was that good, so it seems that a shitty reboot can actually spoil an awesome original.

I didn't get into the hatred being thrown at the cast and crew of the new Ghostbusters movie, mostly because I think Kate McKinnon is awesome. But I can see why people would be miffed at a movie that isn't even supposed to be part of the original continuity of the franchise.

If it's a movie for kids, whatever then. I don't expect a kid from this generation to have patience for a movie that was created before 3D animation technology or CGI.

 

[Dave]

I could go for this excuse if the remakes weren't completely different than the original.

CHIPS for example is obviously a Buddy Cop comedy movie while my wife who saw the original said it was more of a procedural/drama show.

Well, I suppose they have to change them in some ways. Because the only thing infinitely worse than a reboot, is a re-release. I've seen it a few times with Avatar, Titanic and The Phantom Menace. I don't mind them making changes to the original Al of they make sense.

However, one thing that seems to be annoying me more than ever is everything being so gritty when it gets a reboot. It all started with Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. Everyone thinks that we want to see a gritty twist to everything and it's not the case. At least CHIPS is going the other way and trying to add a new spin to something, rather than making it gritty and hoping that saves it.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

Some remakes are hit-and-miss. A lot of remakes are forgettable, decent, some are just awful, and you'll have rare cases of the remake surpassing the original. I get all the complaints about Hollywood being lazy, and using remakes as a cash grab to lure in fans of the original, but a lot of fans of the original films have a bad problem with overreacting. Using the Ghostbusters remake as an example, you would've sworn Melissa Mcarthy, Paul Feig, and the powers that be dug up the graves of loved ones for Ghostbusters' fans, so they could pull their pants down, and shit inside each casket.

Twitter, other forms of social media, and message boards adds fuel to the fire for fans tearing into remakes, and some of the complaints are legitimate enough. I complain about remakes every now and then, but some fans really need to get over this idea of studios defiling a sacred work of art to take advantage of loyal fans by screwing them over, and luring them into a movie theater to buy a ticket.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I can't say I'm a fan of it as a whole because it seems like Hollywood doesn't put very much effort into the reboots/remakes so much of the time.

A big problem with the remakes is that they lack the spirit of the originals. There's so little of the original film contained within the remake, most of the time, it seems that the studios are simply hoping that a combination of name value and nostalgia equals box office gold.

I remember when the Dukes of Hazzard remake came out back in the 2000s and how awful it was. Not that the Dukes of Hazzard was exactly television excellence, but it was the sort of show that you could sorta turn your brain off for an hour, watch and enjoy the fact that it wasn't supposed to be "sophisticated" television. The remake had nothing of the spirit of the original TV series, it didn't have the goofy but often likeable characters, it didn't have the sense of being something that the family could watch and the casting itself was appalling. Sean William Scott and Johnny Knoxville as Bo & Luke Duke were just...I dunno.....there had to be two better guys than that. Jessica Simpson, while undoubtedly hot, came off as someone who couldn't be sexy without behaving like a cheap ****, Cooter was a right wing, conspiracy theorist pervert, Burt Reynolds as Boss Hogg looked like some gay pimp and the guy who played Roscoe P. Coltrane was a damn psycho.

 

[Jeff Deliverer of Mail]

I can't say I'm a fan of it as a whole because it seems like Hollywood doesn't put very much effort into the reboots/remakes so much of the time.

A big problem with the remakes is that they lack the spirit of the originals. There's so little of the original film contained within the remake, most of the time, it seems that the studios are simply hoping that a combination of name value and nostalgia equals box office gold.

I remember when the Dukes of Hazzard remake came out back in the 2000s and how awful it was. Not that the Dukes of Hazzard was exactly television excellence, but it was the sort of show that you could sorta turn your brain off for an hour, watch and enjoy the fact that it wasn't supposed to be "sophisticated" television. The remake had nothing of the spirit of the original TV series, it didn't have the goofy but often likeable characters, it didn't have the sense of being something that the family could watch and the casting itself was appalling. Sean William Scott and Johnny Knoxville as Bo & Luke Duke were just...I dunno.....there had to be two better guys than that. Jessica Simpson, while undoubtedly hot, came off as someone who couldn't be sexy without behaving like a cheap ****, Cooter was a right wing, conspiracy theorist pervert, Burt Reynolds as Boss Hogg looked like some gay pimp and the guy who played Roscoe P. Coltrane was a damn psycho.

Ya, perfect example is the insulting Dukes of Hazzard remake. The only thing remotely watchable is how stunning Jessica Simpson is as Daisy Dukes. Terrible casting for everyone else. Viewers should demand refunds at the theatre when crap like that is green lighted and released.

 

[Loveless]

Creatively it never works out to try and improve something that is already highly regarded, and if that was the only point this would be a very short discussion. The thing is though, these remakes go a long way to funding the smaller, riskier projects that would otherwise fall by the wayside.

Plus I always live in hope that one day I'll get a version of I Am Legend that isn't complete bullshit.