What do you think of movie remakes.... do you like them?

Oh yeah, tell me about it. Anthony Perkins was made for pscyho. hehehe.. I think that movie remake was as lazy as can be. The only difference there was the color, actors and the amount of money she stole. I think this is the danger of remaking films. How can you remake something that was already 'the best'? What can you add if there's nothing more to add? Worst, who would dare beat the original cast when the match was already made in heaven? Though I think the remake of Willy Wonka's Chocoate factory was quite good. The imagination was better and the capabilities of effects better as well. The chocolate seems yummier as well.

Not to mention that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory answered a lot of questions of the Willy Wonka movie like: 1. Where or how did Willy Wonka find those Oompa Loompa’s workers? 2. Where did Willy Wonka come from - who his parents were? and all sorts of questions.

Anthony Perkins was definitely some great casting. I did see the new Willy Wonka movie and I like Tim Burton's stuff a lot. Depp did a good job but the movie still did not have the same charm as the original. The musical numbers in the new one were not a patch on the old ones.

Aren't you discouraged at all with the quality of the remakes?

We must be honest and say that not all remakes are of bad quality. Old movies have in general the fascination of old times and old actors, just like an old book. But there are remakes of good quality. I liked very much the remake of the Planet of the Apes, for example.

They did remake Star Wars, remember when they put in a lot of cool shots and CGIs for the beams and the effects? That was a remake.

Ohhhhhh Man... what was I thinking? They had the big line, "See it Again, for the first time!" Although, that was more of a re-release then a re-make... I would still rather watch those newer versions of Star Wars long before I'd want to see the re-make of Psycho again...

really agree, the original one is always the best... it will always be in memory... like firs love... you wont find another one to replace...

Oh yeah, nothing beats the original because it's the first time you see it. But it would be different though if the person saw the remake first before seeing the original. This happened when Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was seen by my teenager brother first before we told him that there was a Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory and he saw it. He remarked that the old film wasn't as good as the new one.

I don't think anyone these days would be doing a project without Money as the priority. Most especially that these actors are very much expensive not to mention the CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) is what usually drives movies these days and not the story lines nor the acting.

The main reason is usually money

Hmm.. never heard of that film. When was that made originally?

It would have been made in the early 80's. I couldn't find the original in IMBD, but did find a sequel to it. maybe they won't if the original isn't anywhere to be found? link to sequel http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096118/plotsummary

Like which ones?

Oh my gosh, the years you mentioned are too old for me and I haven't really had the opportunity to watch those. I hope there's a website that freely shows those remakes. Or a movie house which features classics instead of remakes.

I think that's it - they have ran out of ideas for movies but they don't want to spend on something that isn't sure to earn big bucks. I mean, for sure there are a lot of screenwriters with creative and good concepts for movies and such, but they have no names yet - they're not known. The movie producers of this era are far too 'safe' because it involves a lot of cash and should they have done films as to try a screenwriter out, they'd lose a lot should the movie flap. Which is why they resort to remaking so as to be sure that there will be audiences who'd like to see them or compare them with the great original film. They don't really care about the feedback because once you pay for that ticket, they're making money.

True, the originals will always get our attention. The remakes could stir the curiosity. But remakes are also good for those who weren't able to watch to originals.

Yeah, I believer there really are good movie remakes but the statistics is quite low versus the ones that are really bad.

Stepford Wives remake was also good but wasn't 'suspense' anymore as compared to the original which was a horror flick I guess. You were right with regards the new movies these days. It seems that producers are tightening up their belts and would rather produce something already making money as compared to something that is still unique and raw to make. Though it clearly shows that when you link the book with the movie and vice versa, both sells which is the point of why these producers are in this business in the first place. I think it would be okay once in a while for movie makers to do a remake or the book, but if everything you see have the same theme or the same type, that's really causing moviegoers constipation.

i mean the creativity of the directors

I think they're following that rule though. I haven't seen a remake that didn't happen after a long while in the movie. However, I'm just disgusted when there's obviously some buzz in the movie world and somehow everyone is doing the 'remakes'.

Oh really, they're attempting to do Footloose? With who? Usually these movies identify well to the original people who portrayed them. The characters are like 'stuck' to these actors and when they do re-makes and sequels and change the actors, the audience would seem to be 'lost'. Just like the sequels of James Bond where when they do decide to change the main actors (James Bond) the first new actor movie would be the testing-the-waters stage to see if the actor could convince the audience that he could be James Bond or not. But probably the best James Bond ever for me is Pierce Brosnan.

I think the whole idea of remaking is quite challenging for both the viewers and the makers. On the viewer's point-of-view, you try to compare the two pieces together (the original and the remake), you may perhaps be disappointed most of the time because instead of finding 'wow' factor in movies, the tendency is for you to spot the difference. On the other hand, on the makers point-of-view, it's tough for him really to remake something already good like the movie 'psycho', however, if the movie wasn't much before then the re-maker's opportunity to make it better is wider. But the problem in both is that viewers may find the cost of going to the movies not worth it if they'll just be there to spot-the-difference, and on the re-maker's point-of-view they must choose a movie that was already making it big before so as to be sure that audiences would still patronize it. Giving the re-maker a limited scope of what movies have potential and which movies could generate more funds at the least amount of cost.

I think some movies could be remade simply because people have not been able to watch them. Like the movies of yesteryears way back when our parents were young and we were not even in this earth yet.

Oh tell me about it. I love the classics. But sadly, stores don't have much of them and the online things are just not worth it.

Hmm.. True. I think broadcasting them would be better than doing them all over again. I can't believe that New Moon has beaten Forrest Gump??? The acting is a far outcry and the story line is just for teenagers who are still in the stage where they think 'romance is the key to love'.

Which remakes do you think are good?