(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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-11-20 03:05 am (UTC)Easy answer here: Tim Burton's London After Midnight. Because the original film is lost, and Burton did a riff on Lon Chaney's make-up with the Penguin in Batman Returns. He should do it as another of his morbid Danny Elfman stop-motion musicals.
The Magnificent Ambersons has already been remade badly, but someone should restore the original's famous lost scenes with newly shot footage where the original actors' features are digitally mapped onto other actors, and the voices are done by good impersonators.
'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?'
I'd love to see a Grosse Pointe Blank sequel. And an Empire Records sequel, though Renee Zellweger and Liv Tyler have priced themselves out of it. I just want more of those characters. And I want to know what Martin Blank is doing now. Insane as it sounds, if it were done right, Malcolm McDowell 30-some years older in a Clockwork Orange sequel — perhaps teaching Beethoven in some school and dealing with modern punks like he used to be — would be so wrong it'd come all the way around to right. :)
no subject
Date: 2005-11-20 03:13 am (UTC)Ooo. OOO. That is a beautiful, beautiful mental image. *savors that just a little more*
no subject
Date: 2005-11-20 03:18 am (UTC)It would take off from the actual ending of the book, where Alex goes back to gang life for a while but then decides on his own that it's just not doing it for him any more and considers a normal everyday life.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-20 03:24 am (UTC)Boondock Saints could also use a sequel
no subject
Date: 2005-11-20 03:48 am (UTC)Here here.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-20 03:48 am (UTC)I can't stand remakes. The only movies I can think I'd want to see sequels to are ones that already have sequels. I want to know what happened after the end of Before Sunset. It seemed to end so abruptly. And I still want Terminator 4, or however many it'll take to get the story of what happens after the war, how John Connor meets Kyle Reese and makes him his best friend and sends him back. It has so much potential.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-20 03:48 am (UTC)...ah, it'd probably be terrible.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-20 03:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-20 03:53 am (UTC)2. A sequel is a bit harder... I'm keen to see how 28 Weeks Later turns out. I'd also like to see where George Romero goes with his "... of the Dead" series after Land of the Dead, whether the new trilogy will focus on new characters and scenarios with each film, or continue to follow Simon Baker's character.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-20 04:08 am (UTC)HEE! I love that one! They milk every Titanic movie cliche there is! I almost forgot my favorite, which got milked twice in that miniseries -- never get laid on Titanic. All men who have sex on Titanic die. *snickers*
how John Connor meets Kyle Reese and makes him his best friend and sends him back
I want that story so friggin' bad, but of course, not really a surprise. :)
no subject
Date: 2005-11-20 04:13 am (UTC)2) Dogma. It may have wrapped up nicely, but I'd adore being able to see Bethany's daughter growing up and accepting who she is. With lots of Metatron's help, hopefully.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-20 04:13 am (UTC)A remake could also show more of the dark side of Barnes Wallis' personality and the civilian devastation than was possible in 1954.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-20 04:55 am (UTC)You mean All Saint's Day?
no subject
Date: 2005-11-20 04:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-20 05:03 am (UTC)(Everything I know about John Glover tells me he would do that. Because everything I know about John Glover tells me he is insane. Nice, but insane.)
1. It's not exactly a remake, but.... I think that they should keep making Dune until they actually, y'know, get it right. Even if they fail, well... the SciFi Channel version did a remarkable thing and made all the old fans look at the David Lynch version and go, "Y'know, this is not that bad."
(As a few free tips to anyone who attempts this:
A) The fact that this is a science fiction piece does not mean you should go insane with the wardrobes. If you find yourself making anything like this--and trust me, even though that picture has been resized badly, it's not really any better with the correct proportions; this was just what a quick google found--please stop what you are doing immediately. For the good of humanity.
B) The book is, contrary to what some of you believe, a complete story. There really isn't a need to add anything to it, like weirding modules or complicated subplots involving Irulan. In fact, Irulan was barely in it. You do not have to introduce romantic tension between her and Paul, because there was none. That was, in fact, a plotpoint.)
And speaking of sequels, Children of Dune, while still not that I'd call great, was much better.
2. I'd love to see a sequel to Dogma, like someone else mentioned. And I've always wanted a sequel to Unbreakable.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-20 05:56 am (UTC)Having seen both movies and read the book, I'd say the modern-day version has little in common with the original film and even less in common with the book. They all share a title, aaaaaand... well, that's it.
I was going to say I'd love to see a sequel to Ferris Beuhler's Day Off, but someone beat me to it! I wonder if he *is* a fry cook on Venus, as Cameron thought he might end up. I think he's a big Hollywood producer, what with his wheeler-dealer ways. Or a successful con-man.
I know it's not a movie, but I was reading Harlan Ellison's rather harsh script for City on the Edge of Forever and I'd love to see a re-make of that Star Trek episode done as a full-blown modern-day movie based on that script, with today's CGI. I would cast Paul Gross as Captain Kirk, as Kirk needs to be played by a self-adoring Canadian actor with a chip on his shoulder and lifts in his shoes. Peter Wingfield would play Spock because I tend to cast him in an awful lot of movie roles in the theater of my mind. Peter needs work!
no subject
Date: 2005-11-20 11:13 am (UTC)2. Rocky Horror. I know there was supposed to have been a sequel, and I haven't seen it, but from what I've read it doesn't actually do any of the stuff I would want a sequel to do. I'd want to explore Brad and Janet's post-Frank traumas (and lingering tendencies), find out why those aliens call their planet Transsexual and why their social structure is governed by Earth movie clichés (are they proto-Thermians perhaps?) and of course bring back Frank. if ever a movie monster deserved to rise from the dead, he did.
Why are you looking at me that way?
no subject
Date: 2005-11-20 07:03 pm (UTC)non-elimination
Date: 2005-11-20 07:33 pm (UTC)Either that, or change them all into double legs.
Re: non-elimination
Date: 2005-11-20 07:42 pm (UTC)Hell, I don't know. I'm grasping at straws here, because between the Bathmat muggings, the bunching, the casting lately, and the way they've dumbed down the clues to the point that a toddler could do them, the show's starting to drive me nuts.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-20 08:26 pm (UTC)Yours, Mine & Ours was released in 1968 with Henry Fonda and Lucille Ball.
(he has 10 kids, she has 8. SHE IS NOT AN ARTIST FOR GODS' SAKES! SHE IS A NURSE AT A NAVY BASE!!!!! AHEEJRAEAJrlkdlfkahr'erawk)
Figured I'd clear things up since I love the originals so much.
thanks!
no subject
Date: 2005-11-20 08:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-20 11:06 pm (UTC)My first thought was "Any movie by George Romero", except that I think it's more problematic to remake horror films (and yet they're the ones remade the most often) because they speak to cultural fears that maybe don't carry across generations. Night of the Living Dead's Ben was a big deal in the sixties precisely because Romero didn't make a big deal about it.
There is one movie, though. As much as Paul Newman was fantastic in The Verdict, I would really love to see what Clive Owen could do with it.
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?
Underworld, definitely, but the writers intended for it to be trilogy from the beginning. They built it into the story. Genre movies such as the Batman franchise or the Spiderman franchise as well seem to accomodate more stories more easily.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-21 11:49 am (UTC)I guess I can deal with changing the actor with every movie...but don't you think they should at least stay with the storyline facts?
no subject
Date: 2005-11-21 04:03 pm (UTC)Uh... yeah, I haven't thought about that at all.
Sequels... well, Pirates of the Caribbean. Oh, wait...!
no subject
Date: 2005-11-21 10:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-21 10:07 pm (UTC)I also would like to see Vampire$ remade as a decent movie this time (which is to say, John Carpenter's version borrowed some character names from a very good novel and left out everything else that was good about it).
Aside from that, I'm stumped on remakes or sequels. (Prequels, OTOH... I'm crossing my fingers that Peter Jackson does get to make The Hobbit.)
no subject
Date: 2005-11-22 02:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 10:51 pm (UTC)Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. Make it less campy, and with more of a modern teen comedy sensibility (which is an oxymoron, I know) and it'd be kind of a hoot.
Plus have Genghis Khan kill SOMEONE besides a mannequin. You'd think between Napoleon, Billy the Kid, and Joan of Arc, someone would piss him off enough to take a swing.
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?
Independence Day (and yes, I'm a dork). I want to know the aftermath of a world where all major cities have been destroyed by aliens, most major government bodies have been vaporized, Houston's a nuclear wasteland, and the public knowledge that aliens exist. The sociologist in me yearns for more.
It would also mean Adam Baldwin gets another job, which I think we all want.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 10:53 pm (UTC)If they were all supposed to stick to continuity, then why doesn't Tim Burton's Batman follow along the lines of Adam West's Batman? ;)
no subject
Date: 2005-11-24 12:31 pm (UTC)I didn't even know there was different franchises...I've never read the comics...*wail in confusion*
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 06:19 pm (UTC)http://www.darkhorizons.com/news05/051129f.php