(no subject)
Nov. 19th, 2005 08:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
apocalypsosSo I was looking through what movies are already in the theaters and which ones are coming out, and there's the usual remake and sequel stuff.
I've said in the past that most remakes that Hollywood come up with piss me off, mainly because I'm of the firm belief that if you're going to remake something, you should remake something that NEEDS remaking. Not that I'm not totally against remaking a movie because someone wants to do a more polished version, or simply for the fun of it. I mean, look at Peter Jackson's version of King Kong. He's been dying to make that movie since before he became famous, and he's got the talent and the vision to pull it off, even though the original is a classic.
Of course, then there's something like the remake of Psycho, which needed to be made about as much as I need three ears. So let me get this straight -- it's a frame-for-frame by-the-numbers remake of the original, except this time there's no Hitch, no black and white, no Janet Leigh, and no Anthony Perkins. Uh, NO. Let's not do that, okay?
In a perfect world, remakes would be made more because the original was an okay movie that could be awesome with better special effects, actors, directing or writing. It wouldn't be -- like it is in a lot of cases lately, it seems -- a sorry attempt to squeeze money from a movie-going public who doesn't get to see nearly enough decent family ar action films anymore. In the next few months, Yours, Mine, and Ours and Cheaper by the Dozen 2 are coming out, both of which drive me nuts because they both give off this air that somewhere in Hollywood is a moronic executive (who probably used to work at FOX) who thinks, "For every adorable moppet we put in a movie, that's another ten million dollars at the box office!" (The sad part is that if the first Cheaper is any indication, they're right. And I should add that depending on who you ask, Cheaper by the Dozen is either a remake of the 1950 film or simply a takeoff on the book. Either way, still sucks. Did I mention that I didn't even notice until recently that the family's name is Baker, thereby making it a "Baker's dozen" and, through an annoying use of puns, giving me good reason to punch the screenwriter in the face?)
Anyway, I can think of a dozen movies that I would love to see remade more than, say, The Poseidon Adventure. And no, I'm not letting up on that, because that review pointed out that the original is a camp classic and I wholeheartedly agree. But seriously, off the top of my head, I would love to see Titanic remade. But this time, we lose the annoying love story -- why does every movie about the Titanic have to have a goddamn love story between the classes, and at least one evil maid or manservant, and everybody calling Margaret Brown "Molly" even though she didn't get called that until waaaay after, and occasionally some child's paternity being questioned? (Who's seen almost all of the Titanic movies? I have. *snickers*) Yes, we lose the love story, and we get rid of anybody and everybody fictional, and we just focus as much as possible on the passengers and crew who were there. (Oh, wait, they did that in A Night to Remember, and it was wonderful, and why I have yet to get it on DVD is beyond me.) The best things about Titanic were when they were focusing on the ship and who was originally on it (the sinking in that movie is one of the best action sequences of the decade, if not ever), and I really wish they would have kept that up.
As for sequels, I think the thing that gets to me a lot of the time is that it's not often an attempt to continue the story or anything. Hardly anybody's trying to make a good sequel anymore. I mean, when was the last time you saw a sequel that was better than the first movie? Spider-Man 2 is the last one I can think of that is accepted to be better than the first movie, for the most part. When do filmmakers even bother to attempt such a thing anymore? People assume that a sequel isn't going to be as good as the first movie almost always, and assume an even lower quality with third movies. It would make sense to make sequels if they got better, not worse, with every passing movie.
But that's the problem, isn't it? Sequels don't get made to continue a story, they get made to make more money. The quality goes down, the box office goes up. People complain and yet they just keep going. And I hate to say it, because God knows for some movies, I'm guilty, too. (Hell, I will be in the theater the first weekend the Underworld sequel comes out. Wet Scott Speedman. GAAAAH. If he'd just come over my house and take a shower, I could save eight bucks, is what I'm saying. ;))
Those of us who read fanfic know damn well it's possible to come up with an intriguing, well-written extension of the story from a movie. Sure, a lot of fanfic is crap, but think about the best fanfics you've ever read. There is some truly wonderful stuff that is proof people can come up with perfect concepts for sequels that aren't derivative or stupid, that actually require you to think a little.
So, after all that rambling, a couple of questions for you guys:
1. Which movies do you think should be remade, and if so, why? And if you had a choice, which changes would you make?
2. Which movies without sequels do you think deserve a followup, and why? Which questions from the first movie would you like to see answered?
EDIT: I just finished watching a TAR 3 rerun. Ah, for the days when non-elimination legs didn't mean quickie reenactments of that stupid Friends scene where Joey put on all of Chandler's clothes, Bathmat muggings and three minutes of mind-numbing begging in a foreign country in the next episode.
I've said in the past that most remakes that Hollywood come up with piss me off, mainly because I'm of the firm belief that if you're going to remake something, you should remake something that NEEDS remaking. Not that I'm not totally against remaking a movie because someone wants to do a more polished version, or simply for the fun of it. I mean, look at Peter Jackson's version of King Kong. He's been dying to make that movie since before he became famous, and he's got the talent and the vision to pull it off, even though the original is a classic.
Of course, then there's something like the remake of Psycho, which needed to be made about as much as I need three ears. So let me get this straight -- it's a frame-for-frame by-the-numbers remake of the original, except this time there's no Hitch, no black and white, no Janet Leigh, and no Anthony Perkins. Uh, NO. Let's not do that, okay?
In a perfect world, remakes would be made more because the original was an okay movie that could be awesome with better special effects, actors, directing or writing. It wouldn't be -- like it is in a lot of cases lately, it seems -- a sorry attempt to squeeze money from a movie-going public who doesn't get to see nearly enough decent family ar action films anymore. In the next few months, Yours, Mine, and Ours and Cheaper by the Dozen 2 are coming out, both of which drive me nuts because they both give off this air that somewhere in Hollywood is a moronic executive (who probably used to work at FOX) who thinks, "For every adorable moppet we put in a movie, that's another ten million dollars at the box office!" (The sad part is that if the first Cheaper is any indication, they're right. And I should add that depending on who you ask, Cheaper by the Dozen is either a remake of the 1950 film or simply a takeoff on the book. Either way, still sucks. Did I mention that I didn't even notice until recently that the family's name is Baker, thereby making it a "Baker's dozen" and, through an annoying use of puns, giving me good reason to punch the screenwriter in the face?)
Anyway, I can think of a dozen movies that I would love to see remade more than, say, The Poseidon Adventure. And no, I'm not letting up on that, because that review pointed out that the original is a camp classic and I wholeheartedly agree. But seriously, off the top of my head, I would love to see Titanic remade. But this time, we lose the annoying love story -- why does every movie about the Titanic have to have a goddamn love story between the classes, and at least one evil maid or manservant, and everybody calling Margaret Brown "Molly" even though she didn't get called that until waaaay after, and occasionally some child's paternity being questioned? (Who's seen almost all of the Titanic movies? I have. *snickers*) Yes, we lose the love story, and we get rid of anybody and everybody fictional, and we just focus as much as possible on the passengers and crew who were there. (Oh, wait, they did that in A Night to Remember, and it was wonderful, and why I have yet to get it on DVD is beyond me.) The best things about Titanic were when they were focusing on the ship and who was originally on it (the sinking in that movie is one of the best action sequences of the decade, if not ever), and I really wish they would have kept that up.
As for sequels, I think the thing that gets to me a lot of the time is that it's not often an attempt to continue the story or anything. Hardly anybody's trying to make a good sequel anymore. I mean, when was the last time you saw a sequel that was better than the first movie? Spider-Man 2 is the last one I can think of that is accepted to be better than the first movie, for the most part. When do filmmakers even bother to attempt such a thing anymore? People assume that a sequel isn't going to be as good as the first movie almost always, and assume an even lower quality with third movies. It would make sense to make sequels if they got better, not worse, with every passing movie.
But that's the problem, isn't it? Sequels don't get made to continue a story, they get made to make more money. The quality goes down, the box office goes up. People complain and yet they just keep going. And I hate to say it, because God knows for some movies, I'm guilty, too. (Hell, I will be in the theater the first weekend the Underworld sequel comes out. Wet Scott Speedman. GAAAAH. If he'd just come over my house and take a shower, I could save eight bucks, is what I'm saying. ;))
Those of us who read fanfic know damn well it's possible to come up with an intriguing, well-written extension of the story from a movie. Sure, a lot of fanfic is crap, but think about the best fanfics you've ever read. There is some truly wonderful stuff that is proof people can come up with perfect concepts for sequels that aren't derivative or stupid, that actually require you to think a little.
So, after all that rambling, a couple of questions for you guys:
1. Which movies do you think should be remade, and if so, why? And if you had a choice, which changes would you make?
2. Which movies without sequels do you think deserve a followup, and why? Which questions from the first movie would you like to see answered?
EDIT: I just finished watching a TAR 3 rerun. Ah, for the days when non-elimination legs didn't mean quickie reenactments of that stupid Friends scene where Joey put on all of Chandler's clothes, Bathmat muggings and three minutes of mind-numbing begging in a foreign country in the next episode.
