Another Awful Remake?

[Girard]

I have When Worlds Collide and After Worlds Collide downloaded and want to begin reading these books soon. I’m much less of a sci-fi fan than I was in school, but these books have remained a favorite.

Now to that crappy 1951 George Pal movie:



Given the technology of the early 1950s, he probably did the best he could, but I still remember that hokey ending with the obviously painted backdrop for the ‘new’ world the survivors from Earth emerge from the space ship onto.



They’re supposed to bring out a remake in 2012—with computer-generated enhancements, it’s got to be better than the predecessor, but it’s not likely to follow the 1930s books either. I wish that a fan of these books would ‘finish’ that never-written sequel that was supposed to have made up the trilogy. After all, Sherlock Holmes’ adventures have been continued by other writers, with more or less success.



I'd like to see the 2012 remake (if there is one) stick with the 1930s time period--given, it would be more expensive, and they'd have to deal with the 'political correctness' of our period. (There were no 'coloreds' aboard the two U.S. spacecraft, nor the British ship either, as I recall--Orientals on the joint Communisty/Nazi (some alliance!) ship, I suppose. I've seen plenty of movies set in the 1930s with overhead shots of the era's cars zooming by. If these are computer-generated, they're good. Alec Baldwin's The Shadow comes to mind, for instance.

[Onedin]

I've never fully understood the concept of the Remake in general.........it may be just me but to me it implies that the original isn't good enough or something............What is the purpose of a remake?



The often Classic original of anything to me is always the real deal.

[batman]

It's no different from staging a new version of a play or doing a cover version of a song IMHO. Sometimes a film maker has a favourite film that he/she feels they can bring some 'new' ideas to, or an actor with 'clout' fancies tackling a particular role and maybe a writer feels he can attach his/her own ideas to a well known story and reach a wider audience than they might otherwise achieve. Sometimes this works, more often than not it doesn't. However, the prime motivation appears to be the desire to re-market a successful product for a new (usually younger) audience and make some serious money. It's nothing new, remakes have been happening since films began and plays have been re-staged for hundreds of years. We'll always have remakes in one form or another.

[Onedin]

name='batman' timestamp='1285522086' post='477709']

It's no different from staging a new version of a play or doing a cover version of a song IMHO. Sometimes a film maker has a favourite film that he/she feels they can bring some 'new' ideas to, or an actor with 'clout' fancies tackling a particular role and maybe a writer feels he can attach his/her own ideas to a well known story and reach a wider audience than they might otherwise achieve. Sometimes this works, more often than not it doesn't. However, the prime motivation appears to be the desire to re-market a successful product for a new (ususally younger) audience and make some serious money. It's nothing new, remakes have been happening since films began and plays have been re-staged for hundreds of years. We'll always have remakes in one form or another.

Well I realise that however open I am to remakes, it's probably just me being old-fashioned, traditional, nostalgic, melancholic..........

[CaptainWaggett]

name='Onedin' timestamp='1285522871' post='477714']

Well I realise that however open I am to remakes, it's probably just me being old-fashioned, traditional, nostalgic, melancholic..........

So what is your favourite version of The Wizard of Oz or Oliver Twist or The Maltese Falcon?

[will.15]

When Worlds Collide isn't a very good movie so this is one of the rare times a remake makes sense, but it will probably still suck.



They remade House on Haunted Hill, which was fun but cheesy, and still managed to make it awful and far worse.

[Girard]

name='will.15' timestamp='1285525538' post='477735']

When Worlds Collide isn't a very good movie so this is one of the rare times a remake makes sense, but it will probably still suck.



* * *

I agree. It's quite obvious in the 1951 version that they had run out of money on the film when the ship's door opened onto a painted backdrop that might have been tossed out from the Roxy Theatre! I still remember the kids in the audience booing. Even in 1951, they had great miniature makers--and they could have taken stock footage from Africa, as an example.



So, in this case, I'm cautiously optimistic they can employ 21st century technology and bring something to the screen that's of worth. It's not like redoing Casablanca with Charlie Sheen's playing Rick.

[Bernardo]

name='Girard' timestamp='1285533660' post='477807']

I agree. It's quite obvious in the 1951 version that they had run out of money on the film when the ship's door opened onto a painted backdrop that might have been tossed out from the Roxy Theatre! I still remember the kids in the audience booing. Even in 1951, they had great miniature makers--and they could have taken stock footage from Africa, as an example.



So, in this case, I'm cautiously optimistic they can employ 21st century technology and bring something to the screen that's of worth. It's not like redoing Casablanca with Charlie Sheen's playing Rick.

Depends where you are coming from. Retro or classic Sci Fi is one of my cinematic passions and if the same plot was to be used I would prefer another title so both works can stand or fall on their merits. Remakes strike the same yuk chord in me as seeing the Eiffel Tower in Vegas or if they were to produce a new improved Statue Of Liberty that waves and winks as one passes by, then put it at the entrance to Sydney Harbour or San Francisco. Like most works of art, the imperfections often are a key factor in appreciating said works and, when produced; the imperfections were not merely a demonstration of the level of perfection current at the time, they were also contemporary pictures of their life and time and should be viewed and valued as such.

[Girard]

name='Bernardo' timestamp='1285539712' post='477856']

Depends where you are coming from. Retro or classic Sci Fi is one of my cinematic passions and if the same plot was to be used I would prefer another title so both works can stand or fall on their merits. Remakes strike the same yuk chord in me as seeing the Eiffel Tower in Vegas or if they were to produce a new improved Statue Of Liberty that waves and winks as one passes by, then put it at the entrance to Sydney Harbour or San Francisco. Like most works of art, the imperfections often are a key factor in appreciating said works and, when produced; the imperfections were not merely a demonstration of the level of perfection current at the time, they were also contemporary pictures of their life and time and should be viewed and valued as such.

I guess, like many other people of a certain age, that I've become jaded. 1951 'special effects' just don't do anything for me. The much-touted (at the time, 1950), Destination Moon, had lines wrapped around the block. Now, ho hum.



I'd like to take another look, however, at Rocket Ship X-M, which took advantage of the publicity generated by Expedition Moon. It had a good, second-level cast, including Lloyd Bridges and John Emery, but would probably be laughed at if it were shown in theatres today.



The ship, supposed to go to the moon, encounters difficulty, and veers off towards Mars instead. It's in black and white, and when they land on the 'red' planet, the projectionist inserts a red filter as the crew explores the Martian desert (probably Arizona or California). They find tantalizing hints of an ancient civilization, destroyed by atomic radiation (remember, this was at the height of the Cold War when we were sure Russia was targeting us), but not much is revealed. The 'Martian' men, because of an atomic war, have degenerated into wrestler-type brutes, but the 'Martian' girl the crew comes across is a looker--problem is, she's blind. I'm sure if I see it again, some late, late night, I'll think it completely ridiculous.



Whoever thought of PC's, microwave ovens, cell phones, or the world-wide Internet then? That's why I'd like to see When Worlds Collide made in a 'retro' format, using our modern technology, but it's never going to happen.



I mentioned The Shadow; then there's The Phantom; and my favorite, The Thirteenth Floor (if you're at all interested in computer-generated reality, this is the one to see). The opening sequence, set in 1937, was really something.

[homeguard]

Although I love the book so much I swore never to watch the movie. When forced by circumstance to see it I have to admit Tom Cruise's War of the Worlds sailed closer to H.G.Wells's storyline than the first made in 1953. But this apart can there be any excuses for most remakes? As the original's more often than not involve dialogue, why bother? The Americans are the only western country making movies en masse, and as the Bourne series showed brilliantly, they don't need dialogue. One thing I won't be watching if it ever surfaces is an American remake of A Bridge Too Far.



regards,

HG

[will.15]

name='homeguard' timestamp='1285609797' post='478051']

Although I love the book so much I swore never to watch the movie. When forced by circumstance to see it I have to admit Tom Cruise's War of the Worlds sailed closer to H.G.Wells's storyline than the first made in 1953. But this apart can there be any excuses for most remakes? As the original's more often than not involve dialogue, why bother? The Americans are the only western country making movies en masse, and as the Bourne series showed brilliantly, they don't need dialogue. One thing I won't be watching if it ever surfaces is an American remake of A Bridge Too Far.



regards,

HG

They won't remake that because it is about failure. Hollywood doesn't do failure anymore.

[moonfleet]

name='will.15' timestamp='1285610932' post='478061']

They won't remake that because it is about failure. Hollywood doesn't do failure anymore.

... and about the failers in the Hollywood system :

















Day of the Locust/J.Schlesinger (1974)

[Girard]

name='homeguard' timestamp='1285609797' post='478051']



One thing I won't be watching if it ever surfaces is an American remake of A Bridge Too Far.



regards,

HG

Isn't A Bridge Too Far one of those films which should never, ever be remade? I'm sure I saw it and must have been suitably impressed. As I recall, it had one of those mammoth, all-star casts, most of whom are as dead now as the real people they portrayed.

[will.15]

name='Girard' timestamp='1285617556' post='478097']

Isn't A Bridge Too Far one of those films which should never, ever be remade? I'm sure I saw it and must have been suitably impressed. As I recall, it had one of those mammoth, all-star casts, most of whom are as dead now as the real people they portrayed.

Actually quite a few are still alive. I'm doing this from memory, so I hope I'm not listing actors that weren't in it, but I believe it included Anthony Hopkins, Robert Redford, Eliott Gould, and Ryan O' Neil.



Okay, I looked it up. I forgot about Gene Hackman, Sean Connery, James Caan, and Michael Caine. Most of the big names in it are still alive.

[Kitty Whiskers]

Remakes really come down to the skill of the film maker.



Most are a monumental exercise in laziness and greed and thus tank. However, every now and then you get someone in movies who 'gets' the genre and fan base and does a great job. J.J. Abrahms 'reboot' of Star Trek worked (and I say that as a life-long Trekkie who was horrified at the very idea). A lot of time and slavish devotion to fans and the original integrity of the series went into the new Star Trek film and it payed off. Sci-Fi is a rich vein to mine - but it needs to be done by someone who respects the fans of the source material, not some idiot who thinks he/she knows better than Asimov, Wyndham, et al.

[zettel45]

I'll be interested to see if this remake works:



[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=522r5E_I3DI&feature=player_embedded[/media]



I'm a fan of the Coens' and it does look quite tasty. But then again their remake of The Lady Killers was one of the worst films I've ever subjected myself to.

[will.15]

You can't tell for sure from a trailer, but it doesn't appear to have the humor of the original, the comic byplay between Wayne and Darby was key for making the mvoie memorable. And the new version definitely doesn't have that great Elmer Bernstein score.

[Rowdon]

name='will.15' timestamp='1285681358' post='478254']

You can't tell for sure from a trailer, but it doesn't appear to have the humor of the original, the comic byplay between Wayne and Darby was key for making the mvoie memorable. And the new version definitely doesn't have that great Elmer Bernstein score.

I may be being unfair, but the Coens don't do humour, they do comic. They do LOL. Not the same thing.

[GRAEME]

When is a remake not a remake?



Can we never distinguish between new adaptations of books/plays etc. and actual remakes based on original movies?



For example: The Coen's True Grit is NOT a remake of the John Wayne "original" but a literary adaptation of the same novel.



However...



The Gus Van Sant Psycho IS a remake of Hitchcock's film.



Am I the only one to care about such things? Is it just me?

[will.15]

They say it isn't a remake. I've heard that claim before and sometimes the distinction is meaningless. The True Grit original is a fairly faithful adaptation. It follows the novel's plot without major alterations and the humor in the movie is also part of the novel.