Do movie remakes have any value?

[Sam Gowland]

Ok, I admit I nicked the question from NTLs home page but non the less I was curious as to what your views on this would be and why.

Personally I dislike re-makes especially when they either seem to lose something from the original or don't even attempt to add anything to it.

I mean what's the point of remaking something if it isn't to improve on the original??? (which in my humble opinion rarely happens)

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ September 21, 2003 09:41 AM: Message edited by: OptimalStar ]</font>

[Kev Owens]

I mean what's the point of remaking something if it isn't to improve on the original???

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Money.

[philipswales]

True.


It's the reason behind most film-making decisions these days sadly.

I have nothing wrong with remakes per se, as long as they offer something different to the original.

I haven't seen either version of The Italian Job, but I have nothing against the remake as it seems to set out its own stall, and doesn't look too awful (unlike that other recent Michael Caine remake, Sly Stallone's Get Carter).


But when someone like Gus Van Sant takes Hitch's storyboards and remakes Psycho virtually frame for frame.... well, I could live a million years and still not see the point of it.

[asloki]

On the whole, remakes are just basically a money spinner. However, occassionally there are one or two decent remakes - look at Carpenter's The Thing and Cronenberg's The Fly, both rehashes of 50s B movies, but both improve on the originals.

Then there's Gore Verbinski's The Ring which was a remake of an already impressive Japanese film (Ringu).

I'm not sure there's a magical formula for remaking a film well, but Stallone in Get Carter? Do me a lemon!

[= KA$H =]

I agree that there is no point in a remake if it's just gonna be a frame-to-frame copy. Some adaption to the original is OK.

The best remake I have seen has to be The Ring.