General - Remakes Of Older Films

[ChristineCB]

Originally Posted by mel walton "His Girl, Friday"...

I've seen the original '30s version, and I love HIS GIRL, plus the mid-70s version with Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau.

All of these have more positives about them in their own right, and this always gives me hope for any Remake - a "good story" can be done over and over again IF the filmmakers want to make a good film.

And when they don't, when they merely add color, Sony Walkmans or profanity, it still ranks as the most pathetic waste of effort, and the filmmaker enjoys that stain for all time.

[penfold]

Originally Posted by Kalab In reply to Carlin, In 1956 Alfred Hitchcock remade his 1934 film, 'The Man Who Knew Too Much', this time with James Stewart and Doris Day. Any others?

Yes, but it's pretty obscure. Thomas Bentley directed a silent version of the scandalous play 'Young Woodley' in 1929, starring Sam Livesey (Roger's Dad) as the Headmaster cuckolded by the Prefect...however, by the time the film was ready to show, sound films were completely in, and there was no market for the film...so he immediately remade it, ignoring the Informer/Blackmail option of dubbing or adding a sound reel , still with Sam Livesey as the Head but with an otherwise completely different cast. This was the version that hit the cinemas, and the silent version was never released, and assumed lost....who would release a silent film after a sound film was out in 1930??
The Kodascope Library would. I don't think anyone realised, but the 'Young Woodley' that appeared in their catalogue of (still silent) home-use 16mm releases in 1932 was the silent version...complete and uncut. A pristine copy has just this last year or so been acquired by the BFI and copied for posterity...it was shown in public at the Nottingham Silent Film Weekend, just last week....it wasn't at all bad, not a classic, but not bad.... better than the sound film it seems....and always nice to see something thought lost to the years.

[christoph404]

Originally Posted by ChristineCB I've seen the original '30s version, and I love HIS GIRL, plus the mid-70s version with Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau. All of these have more positives about them in their own right, and this always gives me hope for any Remake - a "good story" can be done over and over again IF the filmmakers want to make a good film. And when they don't, when they merely add color, Sony Walkmans or profanity, it still ranks as the most pathetic waste of effort, and the filmmaker enjoys that stain for all time.

I heartily agree with the comments regarding remakes, why bother indeed, you cant catch lightning in a jar twice! I think part of the problem is the way films are made nowadays in terms of cutting and dialogue special effects etc. I think todays audiences are so used to seeing the impossible depicted on screen with the aid of CGI that audiences have stopped using their imagination, everything is there for you to see and I also think modern audiences of the 19 to 25 age group generally don't have the patience to listen to dialogue or tolerate character developing scenes etc. I often leave the cinema dissapointed after watching any modern day mainstream film let alone remakes. I also think the original films have a nostalgia value that is always missing in a remake, but most of all remakes always seem to totally lack the charm or imagination of the original. War of the Worlds is quite a good example of how millions and millions of dollars and state of the art CGI still falls well short of producing a result as impressionable as the original.Actually as I write this reply ,in the background on my TV is the Donald Sutherland remake of Invasion of the Bodysnathchers!!! another mistake! I guess filmakers today feel the need to bombard the audience with dazzling visuals and effects, fast cuts and roving camera movements, its just too much, I really dislike films with CGI now unless its very stylized as in "300" another remake!! I still prefer the original with Richard Egan! Actually while listening to the audio commentary on "Zardoz" director John Boorman jokes that he would like to add the disclaimer that as well as "no animals being harmed in the making of this film" that also "no CGI was used in the making of this film" !! he has a good point. Filmakers of the past were obliged to use their imaginations and be inventive and provoke our emotions in more inventive and subtle ways, this doesn't seem to be the case nowadays, I would say that often less is more, after watching recent remakes of King Kong, War of the Worlds, Wicker Man I have decided to boycott all future remakes and will avoid completely! those remakes were just awful, I mean what a huge waste of money! and Im not just talking about the price of my cinema ticket!

[Kalab]

Originally Posted by penfold Yes, but it's pretty obscure. Thomas Bentley directed a silent version of the scandalous play 'Young Woodley' in 1929, starring Sam Livesey (Roger's Dad) as the Headmaster cuckolded by the Prefect...however, by the time the film was ready to show, sound films were completely in, and there was no market for the film...so he immediately remade it, ignoring the Informer/Blackmail option of dubbing or adding a sound reel , still with Sam Livesey as the Head but with an otherwise completely different cast. This was the version that hit the cinemas, and the silent version was never released, and assumed lost....who would release a silent film after a sound film was out in 1930??

A similar thing occurred with the film "Hells Angels". The advent of sound caused Howard Hughes to remake the film and scrap the silent version.

[ChristineCB]

Christoph, I didn't like the Tom Cruise WAR OF THE WORLDS because Dakota was either a Ph.D Nuitrionist or a Shrieking Mimi. I hated her, I hated hearing her shriek - she was given all the personality of a dentist's drill. The 'son' was terrible. Cruise was a deadbeat dad. There wasn't a single likeable human in the film - well, maybe the garage mechanic. Other than that, I still vote for the Martians to "kill 'em all" in the first minutes and let us watch the CGI scour the Earth. I'm sure it wouldn't have been any more distasteful than seeing the actors.

WICKER MAN, same way. I didn't like anyone in the film. KING KONG was too filled with unbelievable CGI events despite the wonderfully realistic dinosaurs (oh yeah, like we'd really KNOW what "realistic" dino's were - I just wish they could speak with an English accent - I'd be even MORE pleased!! yeah... right...)

I don't give up on Remakes, however, but I know I degrade them if they aren't trying to do something better. King Kong tried, but the CGI didn't do it for me.

When they aim for "realism" and then have any slip into cartoonishness (Roadrunner & Coyote, or King Kong tumbling with T-Rex's down a never-ending canyon - gee, which is more realistic?), I degrade the CGI even more harshly. Or perhaps it's proportionately degraded, compared to the costs and goals of the two 'directors'. Chuck Jones or Peter Jackson? Hmmm... I KNOW the Chuck Jones stuff will be around another 50 years. I'm not sure about Peter Jackson's cartoons.

FRONT PAGE/HIS GIRL FRIDAY/FRONT PAGE - very different actors in each one, same basic story. "Good is good" - remakes don't need to be bad.

It's the Jessica Rabbit Syndome.

"The filmmakers just make them that way."

[christoph404]

yes i would agree with that too, the characters in the remake of War of the Worlds are quite dislikable,true,true, I was rooting for the aliens and hoped that perhaps they would change the ending and have Tom Cruise getting vapourised like the other useless hapless humans in the film.
Actually I have remembered a remake which I enjoyed and that was "The Lady Vanishes" with Cybill Shepherd and Elliot Gould, I think that was from the seventies, perhaps remakes are more succesful if they are not effects movies...mmm..

[Kalab]

Originally Posted by christoph404 yes i would agree with that too, the characters in the remake of War of the Worlds are quite dislikable,true,true, I was rooting for the aliens and hoped that perhaps they would change the ending and have Tom Cruise getting vapourised like the other useless hapless humans in the film. Actually I have remembered a remake which I enjoyed and that was "The Lady Vanishes" with Cybill Shepherd and Elliot Gould, I think that was from the seventies, perhaps remakes are more succesful if they are not effects movies...mmm..

I think an honorable exception to the generally poor run of remakes must be 'Dawn Patrol' remade in 1936 with Flynn, Niven and Rathbone. How could it fail with a cast like that?

Of course, the remake itself was an old film, and the original version a silent so this would favour the remake. Let's hope they don't do it again with computer generated dogfights and Kevin Costner in the Flynn role! Maked me feel quite ill to think of!

[hankoler]

I dont think anybody has made a remake of "The third man",can you imagine it it colour , and who could play harry lime like orson welles,nobody i think.

[batman]

Originally Posted by Kalab I think an honorable exception to the generally poor run of remakes must be 'Dawn Patrol' remade in 1936 with Flynn, Niven and Rathbone. How could it fail with a cast like that?

I love that film...the verbal sparring between Flynn and Rathbone is marvellous and the way Flynn says 'right' to antagonise Rathbone is priceless. The footage used from the Barthelmass version fits seamlessly in with the newer stuff and the cinematography is flawless. A marvellous film.

Bats .

[ChristineCB]

Originally Posted by hankoler I dont think anybody has made a remake of "The Third Man". Can you imagine it it colour, and who could play harry lime...?

Dear Friend Gus could! He could use Keanu SurferDude as Harry and Freddie Prinz Jr as Holly. Throw in Hugh Grant instead of Trevor, use an iPod in every few scenes, and dump that original music and find some cute gangsta tuneys.

Gus should be able to do it just as well as he did with Psycho. It'll draw dozens during it's first month.

[Kalab]

Originally Posted by batman Originally Posted by Kalab I think an honorable exception to the generally poor run of remakes must be 'Dawn Patrol' remade in 1936 with Flynn, Niven and Rathbone. How could it fail with a cast like that? I love that film...the verbal sparring between Flynn and Rathbone is marvellous and the way Flynn says 'right' to antagonise Rathbone is priceless. The footage used from the Barthelmass version fits seamlessly in with the newer stuff and the cinematography is flawless. A marvellous film. Bats .

Glad you like the film, I think it is Flynn's best. One flaw however, right at the start it dates the action as 1915 - much too early in that war for the aircraft the Squadron is shown flying. 1916 or even early 1917 would be more appropriate. Strange error to make, it seems such a simple thing to get right. Nevertheless it remains one of the best WW1 flying movies.

[Windthrop]

When it comes to remakes 'The Four Feathers' comes to mind. The Korda 1939 version easily trumps the three remakes. Worst of all is Korda's own remake 'Storm over the Nile' - most of it is medium and long shots from the 1939 original with a new soundtrack and some of the sequences look stretched to fit a wid screen - awful !

[penfold]

Originally Posted by Windthrop When it comes to remakes 'The Four Feathers' comes to mind. The Korda 1939 version easily trumps the three remakes. Worst of all is Korda's own remake 'Storm over the Nile' - most of it is medium and long shots from the 1939 original with a new soundtrack and some of the sequences look stretched to fit a wid screen - awful !

Mind you, the 1939 version (My favourite too) is itself the fourth version !! There were three silent versions, in 1915, 1921( featuring a young boy called Roger Livesey) and 1928, the one I've seen; the '28 version is fine too, featuring a lot of location footage, from the team of Merian C.Cooper and Ernest Schoedsack, part-way from their journey from adventure documentaries to epic features, from Grass, A Search For Life, via Chang to King Kong.... it also has Faye Wray and Clive Brook, both of whom are fantastic, of course....

[hankoler]

The film schindlers list . Can anyone tell me if this film was made in B/W to make it more realistic. (i havent seen this film by the way, i was told its in B/W.)

[Nick Dando]

It's in monochrome with just one small splash of colour. The use of that tiny patch of colour is devastating and certainly would not have worked if it was done in a fuller colour scale.

Nick