Shouod Some Classic Movies Just NOT Be Remade?
By anniepa
@anniepa (27955)
United States
January 5, 2009 12:41am CST
I got my idea for this discussion from a response to another discussion I posted recently about a classic sci-fi film. The poster said it would be great if the movie in question were to be remade with today's technology, that the new generation would then get to see it. I wasn't the only person to think this film at least didn't need to be remade, it was fine the way it was originally. This is not to speak poorly of change or new technology; we've all seen some old movies where the sound doesn't quite match the movement of the lips or where the scenery literally looks like cardboard paintings. However, "new" and "updated" does not always translate to "better".
I think most of us will probably agree that about 99.999% of the time the original movie is better than any remakes that follow it, especially to those who saw the original first. I'm sure the fact we saw it first may have something to do with it, but that's not the whole answer. The original usually IS better, especially if the original was truly good or even GREAT because what's the point in trying to improve upon that which doesn't need improving? The same can often be said for sequels - the first is almost always the best with the sequels often being inferior imitations.
There are certainly exceptions to this rule and as anything dealing with the arts and entertainment it's always subject to personal opinion, but don't you agree that some movies simply don't need to be, in fact should NOT be remade? I do understand why the studios do it, if a story was good and worked well a generation or more ago why not try to make it work again with an updated, modernized script and setting, new technology if applicable and actors young people today will want to go see? I've surely seen some remakes that I've really enjoyed. I've seen more than one remake of several movies in fact; I've lost count of how many times they've reworked "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"...lol! I just think some films, especially some of our finest classics, are quite enjoyable enough just as they are.
What do you think? Are there any movies you hope they never remake? Are there any you really wish they would? (Feel free to provide your fantasy cast!)
Annie
9 people like this
28 responses
@1corner (744)
• Canada
5 Jan 09
If the classic was very well-made, I agree, they shouldn't be re-made. I've always simply liked originals. Unfortunately, the movie industry doesn't work this way. Anything that would bring money in is the practice with them. Having said that, though, there are classics whose characters look better in modern-day attires, and hairdos.
2 people like this
@1corner (744)
• Canada
6 Jan 09
I've never watched that myself. (Plus, I'm not into horror movies that much.)
What came to mind when I wrote the last statement was the Narnia movie "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe." I saw the one made in the '70's, and the recent one. Prefer the 2nd version a whole lot more. I'm sure the first attempt was thought cool back then, though.
1 person likes this
@kellyjack (8)
• United States
5 Jan 09
I'm not real big into Horror films but I recently watched Texas Chain saw Massacre and there is no way you replace the retard family and Leather face with todays actors. You had to have that B-movie feel to pull that off,Leather face got all the press but his Father and brother should have won some type of award,could you really be acting to act that way.
@crimsonladybug (3112)
• United States
5 Jan 09
Pretty much, I think that classics are classics because of what they were and any attempts to remake them are going to come up short, new technology or not. I am all for exposing a new generation to a great classic but re-release it.
I recently heard of two potential remakes that just about brought real, honest-to-gods tears to my eyes. One was Rocky Horror Picture Show, the other was The Crow. And not another Crow sequel but remaking the original with Eric Draven. I cannot fathom anyone in the current entertainment business who could hold a candle to Brandon Lee in that role.
And RHPS..... Who in the world could possibly replace Tim Curry as Dr. Franke-N-Furter? I don't think it's possible. Unless they find some outrageous nobody in the UCLA film school or something like that. But drawing from the existing talent pool.... no way. And if they remake it, will seeing it in a theater be anything like seeing the original? With costumes and horrendous activities for the "Rocky Horror Virgins?" Rocky Horror is more than just a movie, it is an experience that should not be messed with. (P.S. I have seen it done as a stage performance and still nothing like the film)
2 people like this
@irishidid (8688)
• United States
5 Jan 09
Let's Do The Time Warp Again!
No one could do the part justice. Tim Curry is brilliant in anything he does and only he can do what he does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt7JrRHro3U
1 person likes this
@Rozie37 (15499)
• Turkmenistan
5 Jan 09
I do not know about many movies. But one movie that she have never been touched is "Cheaper By The Dozen." The remake is a complete joke, compared to the original. As it happened for me, I saw the remake, right after seeing the original for the first time. I loved the first one a lot.
2 people like this
@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
7 Jan 09
Mmmm....yes and no...LOL It really depends on the movie itself. I didn't see the newer version of "The Day The Earth Stood Still" but I read reviews and everyone gave the thumbsdown on it..in other words a bomb. With some movies remakes though their really is a vast improvement due to today's technology and special effects available now, that wasn't back then. Now I did see both versions of Psycho...the original is a true classic and while the newer version isn't bad it's not great..uh, the only reason I saw it, was it had Viggo Mortensen in it and I'm a big fan of his...but no, a remake of it definitely wasn't needed. On the other hand, I really did enjoy the newer version of The Time Machine with Guy Pierce, also Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe far surpasses the original BBC version made some twenty years ago. One great disappointment I thought in line with the "sequel" craze....Star Wars...the original first three from the 1970s-80s far surpassed the newer ones...at least more attention was given to story rather than special effects...ironically it was those movies that paved the way for better special effects..but the last three episodes (or should I say first three in sequence) was more razzle dazzle special effects and very lame storyline
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
8 Jan 09
I'd almost forgotten about the Claudette Colbert version of Cleopatra. You're so right - I loved that one, too, but the Elizabeth Taylor version was just star-studded hype, in my opinion. I also agree with you about today's special effects; they seem to have made some producers and writers think they gave them a license to ignore the story and plot in favor of spectacular effects. I'll take less or inferior special effects with a great storyline any day of the week.
Annie
@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
7 Jan 09
Oh as a PS here.... I can think of one remake disaster of a classic. Cleopatra. I lOVE, LOVE, love the original with Claudette Corbet --the remake with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton was terrible...as for one movie that shouldn't be remade...in my opinion...The Birds
1 person likes this
@eclecticeducation (112)
• United States
5 Jan 09
I don't know, sometimes I like the remake better than the original. I guess I kinda like that "up to date" feel to a movie, but there are some movies out there that I can't imagine as an update. Can you see a modern version of "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes"??? lol!!!
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
5 Jan 09
OK, here comes true confession time...
I've never seen "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" but I understand it was one of George Clooney's earliest roles, right? I've been intending to rent that for the heck of it for years but keep forgetting.
Annie
1 person likes this
@deebomb (15304)
• United States
6 Jan 09
To me when they start do remakes of the old movies it's like they can't come up with any new material. I like the old ones and making most of them can't compare to the originals. It seems like when they do a remake they change too much and should just give it a new name. Some movies belong to original actors. I just can't see then improving on the old Vincent Price movies. They would be ruined if they were changed to fit todays standard of horror flicks. They were very scary in their day. Not the gory kid but the sit on the edge of your seat kind.
1 person likes this
@irisheyes (4370)
• United States
7 Jan 09
I know one movie I wish they had never remade. It was called "Waterloo Bridge" and starred Vivien Leigh and Robert Taylor. It was a World War II Black & White Romance and it was absolutely beautiful - sentimental, tragic, stylish etc. I saw it a couple times on late night TV when I was growing up. Well, they remade it in the 1950's with Leslie Caron and some male dancer (Gene Kelly maybe) They changed over to a happy ending and made it a song and dance movie and it was dreadful.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
11 Jan 09
You know, that title is familiar to me but I can't place it for sure. The original one sure sounds the best. I'll definitely watch for it either on TV or look for it on DVD - the Vivien Leigh/Robert Taylor version, of course. I think I'll skip the song and dance version!
Annie
@worldwise1 (14885)
• United States
6 Jan 09
I guess I'm a Classic movie purist in most cases, anniepa. I definitely think that some movies should not be remade because they invariably lose something in translation. I grew up watching b&w movies and I did sometimes wish that I could see them in color. Most of the colorized versions I've seen are pretty good, and I think that that is where they should draw the line.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
6 Jan 09
We're just alike in this way, worldwise1. I remember how some people were so up in arms over colorizing some of the old b&w classics but I really didn't mind that. I grew up with a black and white TV but once I got used to color I really didn't want it any other way. You're right, though; that's as far as it should go!
Annie
@quinnkl (1667)
• United States
8 Jan 09
Being a huge fan of classic and OLD movies, I tend to not like to see them remade. I was aghast when they started colorizing old black and white movies. But my son will watch them if they are colorized sometimes, so I backed off on being so upset about that. I guess if they want to try it, go ahead and maybe some youngsters will get to see and enjoy those movies, BUT leave the old versions out there and alone for us to enjoy and look back on many years from now too. Some of them just need to be left alone in my opinion as well.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
8 Jan 09
I remember how there was quite a furor over colorizing some of the old classics but I guess I got over that. Maybe since I came from a generation where we had both color and black and white and I grew up with a black and white TV but was so happy to finally have a colored one...lol!
As time goes on there are fewer and fewer "new classics" being made, unfortunately. At the same time, I guess there are also fewer and fewer movies being made that anyone would ever care to remake! I guess for purists like myself, if a movie was really good I don't want to see it remade because they got it just right the first time so why mess with perfection and if it wasn't very good the first time it's certainly not remaking anyway!
Annie
@taface412 (3175)
• United States
6 Jan 09
I agree I do not think they can be remade...I really don't like it when they play around with the plots either (changing them). It's one thing to make a movie based somewhat on a previous one, but to mess up what everyone already knows from the original.
The only one I think was done decently was Psycho. They kept with Hitchcock's theme and the director's did well in making the scenes look like he did it. The actors played the parts well and in fact they added more to what was already there...but all other remakes I think are a waste of time.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
8 Jan 09
I saw Grand Canyon a long time ago, I think when it first came out, but I'd like to watch it again since it's been so long. You're right, it was a serious role for Steven Martin and he was excellent. There are some actors who are definitely "stuck" in a single one-dimensional character. I mean, they may play a variety of roles in many different movies but they're still basically playing the same character. I really appreciate the truly versatile actors.
Annie
@taface412 (3175)
• United States
7 Jan 09
Luckily I am at the age where I can appreciate the classics...and in addition to this I was fortunate enough to take a film appreciation class while in college. If it was not for that course and love of films well I most likely would have not noticed the similarities in Psycho.
And maybe that was what the director of the new film was also showcasing...how to remake a film while attempting to keep the original scenes. And I agree with the leaving things to the imagination with the older films compared to the newer ones. That is why i hate the slasher genre. They are a complete waste of time. The only one I found interesting was Scream...they at least attempted to make a point and in the second one with the opening scene they did with art imitating life...the girl in the movie theater and all the people dressed as the scream character.
And you are 100% correct no one should ever touch the Gone with the wid movie...in fact I watced the tv remake (or part of) the followup novel Scarlett...of course it was not with vivian lee and it was most definitely no where near as great as gone with the wind.
I think the problem is also that many actors today are character actors and stay within their niches. They need to step out. have you ever seen Grand Canyon? it has steve martin and danny glover, etc. MArtin plays the most serious role I have ever seen him do...and he was woderful at it.
1 person likes this
@lronMaiden (993)
• Finland
5 Jan 09
If the remake is good enough, otherwise no.
1 person likes this
@lronMaiden (993)
• Finland
7 Jan 09
That's true. The thing I hate the most in remakes is when they do like 5 or 10 remakes of one movie, why not just 1 or 2?
@SpikeTheLobster (6403)
•
6 Jan 09
I shall divide my response into three parts. (a) do not remake, (b) remake and (c) translate/retell
Certain movies should not be remade. Like the one you're thinking of. (hehe!) There are so many failed remakes of original classics that it's impossible to list them all: Bodysnatchers, Wicker Man, Taxi, Shall we dance?, etc. Many of these are just a bad idea from the outset, because they don't remake them - they try to "bring them into the next century". In other words, they rewrite all the good bits and replace them with dumbed-down crud.
There are some that have been good remakes and SHOULD be remade. Really, really old films that would otherwise be overlooked. Cult classics made with a proper budget. That kind of thing. The important part is to keep the story intact.
Finally there are translations. A Fistful of Dollars as the remake of Yojimbo (and even Last Man Standing as another remake was quite well done). Magnificent Seven from Seven Samurai. And so on. Making the same film in another language and adjusting the surroundings to suit the target audience can also be a good thing, if done properly.
The way I figure it is that if a studio wants to remake something, remake it. Don't rewrite it. If they've just run out of ideas, don't make anything!
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
6 Jan 09
Your first part speaks for itself - "do not remake"; your second part really doesn't apply to classics because if they would "otherwise be overlooked" they're not really classics, right? Your third part I agree with completely, but translating or making another version of a film from another country isn't really what I was talking about.There have been many great American films that have been versions of foreign films but adapted to "fit" here.
Annie
@paoxav (1382)
• Philippines
6 Jan 09
Why not? if they got great reviews and the old movie was great itself, it deserves a remake.. Like Superman, Batman, or even Spiderman. Those were great animated movies. I wont wonder that maybe 3 to 4 decades from now, we'll gonna see a remake of Titanic. James Bond film will surely continue too.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
6 Jan 09
I wasn't really referring to animated movies when I started this post. Regarding your first sentence, "if they got great reviews and the old movie was great itself, it deserves a remake," I tend more to feel that if it was TRULY a great movie it deserves to be allowed to stand on its own, in most cases. Titanic has already been made and remade several times but it hasn't always been the same exact story and characters so these don't really totally qualify as "remakes". James Bond will probably continue forever, I won't argue there, but it's been mostly new films with various actors through the years and since everyone gets older I imagine that will continue as well.
Annie
@Savvynlady (3684)
• United States
6 Jan 09
I believe some should stay alone. An Affair to Remember was remade like four times and I think enough is enough. Casablanca should NOT be remade. neither should many more. I was truly surprised to see The Women remade last year. I plan to get both videos and compare or do it at a chick night party or for my birthday party with girlfriends.It really depends on the movie. Like to a new and updated version like The Women perhaps, but that is like three versions of that, 1939, 1957 and now 2008. Call it a night.
1 person likes this
@SomeCowgirl (32191)
• United States
6 Jan 09
I think that if a film should not be remade if it was good the first time. It should be reshown, and maybe made in technicolor if it was not made before color television, but other then that a classic is a classic. If a person of a younger age wishes to watch it they either enjoy it or not.
I've watched many movies that have had themes that I didn't understand at first, but after speaking to someone who watched it when it first came out I understood what is being told in the story.
This isn't to call anyone old, either.. so don't take it as that.
1 person likes this
@hdjohnson (2981)
• United States
6 Jan 09
I have mixed feelings about this topic, as I am a HUGE MOVIE FAN.
I would say yes, only if the movie has a great story line and teaches it's viewers a great life lesson.
I would say no, only if the movie sucked, the previews sucked, the popcorn and snacks sucked at the theater that day. 
1 person likes this
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
5 Jan 09
Gone with the wind. It should never be redone. THey would only mess it up. Leave it alone.
To tell you the truth I can not think of one remake that I have liked as much as the orginal.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
6 Jan 09
I can't either, Lil, and I'm SOOO glad they haven't remade Gone With the Wind! Reading this post from you really proves my point - you're young, MUCH younger than me, yet you still appreciate a classic like Gone With the Wind, which came out when my mother was a young woman. I can't even begin to imagine who would play the major roles in a new version of that gem. There are many beautiful and talented young actresses but Vivien Leigh WAS Scarlet O'Hara, pure and simple as that!
Annie
@EliteUser (3964)
• Australia
6 Jan 09
Hey,
Good question! I might just have to diagree with you on this one :D In my opinion most movies that are remade are a LOT better. Actually, well...the movie's graphics are a LOT better! Lets take the well known movie called "Narnia: The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe". The older movie of this is FAR worse than the newer one. Especially the graphics. If you have seen the older version, they had to add "cartoon" animation with the humans and all the people dressed up. The beavers in this movie were real people just dressed up. It looks totally fake. And lets take that wolf guy, in the movie they had a real wolf then it transformed into a man dressed up as a wolf. TERRIBLE graphics! Now in the new remake of it, the graphics are FAR better and it makes it look SO real! Same as the movie of the Hulk. The really old one made made in like the 1970's or 80's was a man dressed up as the Hulk. Recently the Hulk just released in 2008 is FAR better! Hope this changes your mind! =D
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
6 Jan 09
I must admit I haven't seen either version of this movie so I can't really comment but you very well may be right in the case of this type of movie. However, I still say most remakes fail to measure up to the original. I don't think it's all about graphics and special effects, especially with "live action" films which really are a totally different thing from animated films. Obviously with the latter the technology has improved greatly even in the last decade.
Annie
