Movie Remakes or Regenerations

[C0278823]

How do you feel about Hollywood's persistent production of past television shows and hit movies?

[snook]

It's okay so long as something is added by the remake. It's understandable that film companies look for something that has already proved successful, since film making can be so hugely risky. But to take something and just remake it (like Psycho) scene for scene, virtually word for word, I don't see the point of that (which is why I've never bothered to watch the remake).

Some really good films have produced good remakes (naturally I can't think of an example!), but there are some candidates for the remake treatment that simply would never work. For example, since the story is so well known, and the characters, and the actors (whom you 'see' as the characters) in The Godfather, would it ever be conceivable that a remake of that film could ever work? Can you really see someone else being Michael, or Sonny? Not to mention Vito.

Oh, got one! Liar, Liar! (Jim Carrey) is a great remake of Nothing But The Truth (Bob Hope). They're both great visual comedians and make a great job of virtually the same story, but each film can be enjoyed on its own merits.

[vehelpfulguy]

To a certain extent this has always gone on, as technology moves on, and a new audience appears.

For example, Ben Hur was first made in 1925, then made again in 1959.

I have to agree though that the remakes of many old US TV programs into films has generally been a disaster, such as Sgt Bilko or the Beverly Hillbillies.

What made you think of this, Jim Carrey in Fun with Dick and Jane ?

[tonymclark]

I agree with vehelpulguy, remakes have gone on for dacades. You only have to look at The Magnificent Seven, True Lies and The Birdcage to relise that Hollywood doesn't just remake it's own films, but other country's.

[mata hari]

yes, but what about Get Carter II

and

The Italian Job II. ?

They just aren't the same thing as the good old english versions!

Michael Caine rules OK