h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Since there have been so many old films being remade, had sequels or prequels filmed lateley, I thought perhaps a thread was needed to discuss such films.

Films that have already been redone or upcoming ones are; War of the Worlds, Batman Begins, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, King Kong, The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe and I've _just_ found out that there's going to be a new Superman movie.

So what do you think of them? Should they have been left alone?

Just please, please don't let them remake Ghostbusters

The Transformers is being remade too

Film remakes can be better. The Maletese Falcon and Oceans Eleven spring readily to mind - I'm sure there are others.

B

Well I watched the oiginal Charlie and The Chocolate Factory when I was little partly because it was there and partly because it was a classic.
I have trouble feeling the same kind of fondness seeing the adverts for the remake.

Although maybe it's just because Jhonny Depp with purple hair and that top hat, frankly, scares me.

And I always thought the Umpa Lumpas (sp?) were just odd, somehow it seems they've made them odder.

Let's face it, the Gene Wilder version was crap.

I've heard very good things about the remake. Who better than Tim Burton to handle Roald Dahl's most deliciously twisted of stories?

B

The appeal of the original is usually that is it's the original and people love it.

The appeal of a re-make is usually that it's better.

I've heard good things about it too. But personally maybe one version was enough.

I've not seen all of the original Oceans Eleven, only odd bits of it. But I'm sure that the new one has much more pazzam (I swear, I'm not reading any comic books...) than the original.

I'm having trouble thinking of some good remakes. I can only think of bad ones. I never saw either of the films, but I'm told that the remade The Ladykillers wasn't a patch on the original.

The Gene Wilder version is brilliant! When they're in the tunnel and he's singing that song eerily

"Candy is dandy, but licqour is quicker"

Hitchcock remade one of his own films, The Man Who Knew Too Much. Most people accept that the second is much better.

Have you seen Gus Van Sant’s remake of Psycho? Every shot is exactly the same and not a line of dialogue differs from the original! The point being?

When it comes to films from your childhood, sometimes you feel they’re touching something sacred. I just hope they don’t touch Labyrinth. Or Dark Crystal!

didn't see the original Oceans Eleven(there was one?) But I'm not sure how anyone could do much better than the new one.

The second one, Oceans Twelve was a load of twaddle too. It's only redeeming feature was that Eddie Izzard was in it

The original had Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis and Dean Martin in it.

The original "Ocean's Eleven" was far superior to that godawful remake.

I haven't seen "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", but am really looking forward to it, as I hear it is MUCH truer to Roald Dahl's book, which I love, than the Gene Wilder film version.

I haven't seen a lot of recent remakes, but some other really awful remakes include "Psycho", one called "The Haunting" which was a ripoff of "The Haunting of Hill House", "The Manchurian Candidate", "The Italian Job" and "Vanilla Sky". (Don't ask why I wasted time on a Tom Cruise movie, but the original, "Abre Los Ojos" was brilliant, and I listened to the folks who said the remake was better. It wasn't. )

Some remakes I quite like - if technology is better now, then I say go for it. I can't stand watching black and white movies, so to remake them in colour suits all the people like me.

I do watch more subtitled films these days, but I still like watching the (normally) American remakes as well. When you're having to read subtitles, you miss things on the screen.

I can't see anyone improving, say, Gone With The Wind though.

Cutting it down to 2 hours and having less tripe would be a good start.

B

Remakes of The Italian Job and The Ladykillers? Pah! I'd quite like to see an authentic Victorian England setting for War of the Worlds too. For some reason many big budget films have their locations changed to an American setting, can't think why....

I'm not so keen on George Lucas 'remaking' or just faffing around with his 3 original Star Wars films either.


What about a remake of "Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy" though? That'd be good

Lx

It might just be me, but I don't really think of films like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and King Kong as re-makes. They're not based on the previous films, but other source material, and in both cases are meant to be more faithful than the other previous incarnations (although i haven't seen either yet). When there's a new film based on... urm... Pride and Prejudice (which there is meant to be soon i think. again) it's not thought of as a re-make of one of the many, many other versions.

i think it's sad all of the Japanese and Korean films that get remade almost instantaneously (such as The Ring or The Grudge). Do they think it's that hard to read subtitles??

bye

I think it depends on each individual film. Sometimes they get it right and improve it or make a differently entertaining film from the original, other times they get it oh so very very wrong; The Italian Job and Mean Machine spring immediately to mind there. The former being possibly the worst film I have ever seen (a list wihcich includes Tough Guys). I don't think remakes should be avoided or taboo though...I think the key thing to remember is that these films are 'remakes' not 'replacements'.

But reading <> just made me headbutt my monitor. Thems fartin words me boy. Think; Cheer up Charlie, Grandpa Joe in a nightie, We are the music makers and we are the dreamers of dreams, snozzberrys, Roy Kennear, Gene Wilder, Slugworth, Verucas I want a Golden Ticket song, the oompa lumpah songs, a fat kid stuck up a pipe, a slightly sinister candy man, Charlie Buckets school teacher, the I got a blueberry for a daughter! whine... the list goes on, awesome film

Small points :

1) King Kong' the movie *is* the source material. Having seen trailers for the new one I'm sure it will be a whizzy, typically professional Peter Jackson film. It will never touch my soul in the way the original does.

2) Batman Begins is not a re-make. Neither is the new Superman film, nor for that matter is Burton's 'Charlie and the Chocolate factory'. They are re-examinations of the original source material.

Some re-makes are better. Ocean's Eleven is a better movie in the re-make, though it lacks the sheer easy class of the original. The Maltese Falcon as Master B says.

Some are worse. Tim Burton did a pretty sh*tty job on Planet of the Apes, though it seems unlikely that was his fault, but rather more the studios. The American Godzilla is a pile of iguana poo of the most odious nature.

Some are simply pointless. Re-making a Japanes or Korean horror film because Americans (or indeed any other) audiences are too stupid to read sub-titles is a exercise in futility and dumbness that has NEVER improved on the original. As is re-making French thrillers, comedies or action comedies for the same reason.

Some re-makes, like Charlies Angels, The Mod Squad and Dragnet are just plain criminal and should be buried forthwith. I don't think it's much of a coincidence that these are all remakes of, at best, dumb tv shows.

The Gene Wilder version *is* crap, I'm afraid, as testified to by Roald Dahl himself, who really ought to have known.

During production Dahl considered the film not to be a true interpretation of his work and therefore dismissed it entirely. He was so disillusioned by it that I'm not sure if he even ever watched the finished product. Either way this does not mean that the film *is* crap. No matter how knowledgible or relevent the source, this is still just an opinion. And opinions are like bumholes. Everyone has one, and some of them stink.

My bumhole tells me that the Wilder version is an awesome piece of film and I stand by it.

What greater insult than a film give to a writer than to say 'we know better than you what this is about'?

Why bother to even *make* a film based on 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' if you're not going to bother paying attention to the man who wrote the book?

Hollywod onanism personified.