Things That Need To Be Remade? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Starscream

2011-08-23, 08:26 AM

I've always thought it would be a good idea to remake bad movies instead of good ones. Like MST3K-fare bad.

1) Way cheaper to get the rights. Heck, the current copyright holders would probably sell them for a song and the hope that a remake will attract some attention to the original. In fact, I bet they would agree to it for free if you promised to bundle the original with the remake on DVD, and then give them a piece of those profits. A few of the more notable ones are even in the Public Domain. Can’t do better than “Free”.

2) Low bar. The worst film ever made is Manos the Hands of Fate (Yes, I know, you all have your own worsts. That's another thread. Besides, I’m right.:smalltongue:). It wouldn't take a very good movie at all to surpass the original by a mile. Hollywood loves low-hanging fruit, stuff that is practically guaranteed to work. Well, famously awful films like Manos already have cult-followings, so there’s an audience available and title recognition. And it’d be a great place to stick all those actors who have fans and attract audiences even though the critics hate them. Want to cast Megan Fox as the wife, (or heck, the poodle) to increase ticket sales? Go ahead. Critics still won’t hate it more than the original.

3) Some of those movies were actually pretty high concept. They merely lacked the budget and expertise to pull it off. Overdrawn at the Memory Bank was a pretty clever idea, actually. But it was poorly scripted, had special effects that you could reproduce on a Commodore 64, and only one actor with any skill. Give it to a good script doctor and add a few more decent characters actors, and with even a modest budget you could have something pretty good.

Kindablue

2011-08-23, 08:34 AM

Waterworld
The Butterfly Effect
A.I.

-Invasion of the body snatchers - IDK...it's been made 3 times - each remake inferior to the previous one, the original being a SCI FI classic.

I prefer the '70s version.

Kislath

2011-08-23, 09:10 AM

Plan 9 From Outer Space could really work with a remake. It mainly suffered from bad editing. Then again, it was made by splicing together two unfinished films, so it's kinda miraculous that it worked even as well as it did. Anyway, a few extra scenes here and there to smooth out the rough spots and add a bit of exposition could finally make this turkey fly.

The Space Giants and Spectreman could both profit from well done remakes. No small part of their appeal is the cheesiness, true, but modern audiences often won't give an old show like that a chance for long enough get past the visuals and into the storyline.

Cyrion

2011-08-23, 09:17 AM

Highlander II

Just pretend the original version was never made, and rewrite the script as a prequel following Connor or maybe a different character.

Starscream

2011-08-23, 09:23 AM

Highlander II

Just pretend the original version was never made, and rewrite the script as a prequel following Connor or maybe a different character.

They've done that. It's called "Every Highlander Movie After Highlander II".

Well, not all at once. Highlander III was still about Connor, but it took place largely in the past, and even the present day stuff was set before II. And it ignores II entirely.

Endgame was mostly about Duncan rather than Connor, but Connor was at least in it. Lots of flashbacks, but still not really a prequel. And it ignores II entirely.

Source was just plain awful. It takes place in the future (but not the same future as II), and only stars Duncan. And it ignores II entirely, despite being just as bad.

Basically the one thing every movie can agree on is "Zeist? What Zeist?"

Tazar

2011-08-23, 09:26 AM

The Godzilla series needs a new movie, not a remake. :smalltongue:

It's kind of scary how they're actually at the point where they can make the monsters actually look pretty damn good thanks to CGI. A new Godzilla movie that actually had a decent budget might be pretty awesome.

On the other hand, part of the charm is how bad they are, so I don't know.

Gnoman

2011-08-23, 09:58 AM

Radar

2011-08-23, 09:58 AM

The Witcher saga deserves a much better movie, then the one they made. It doesn't need to be re-made - it needs to be forgotten and an entirelly new movie should be made (or a proper TV series). I can only wish.

Plan 9 From Outer Space could really work with a remake. It mainly suffered from bad editing. Then again, it was made by splicing together two unfinished films, so it's kinda miraculous that it worked even as well as it did. Anyway, a few extra scenes here and there to smooth out the rough spots and add a bit of exposition could finally make this turkey fly.

(...)
I'd argue, that editing was the least of it's problems: downright awful directing (characters talking without even moving lips for example), hilariously bad scenography (airplane scene for example) and generally poor plot (the general idea could be made into a good movie though). It was as if the producers thought, that people would like to watch it, because it's a movie.

Sunken Valley

2011-08-23, 10:02 AM

Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief. Someone needs to do a true to book adaption. Same goes for Eragon and Dark is rising.

Golden Compass is perhaps the biggest offender of all. Someone needs to make an entire trilogy, peter jackson style, and not have the end of the first film completely cut...

Tirian

2011-08-23, 10:07 AM

It's kind of scary how they're actually at the point where they can make the monsters actually look pretty damn good thanks to CGI.

I think that CGI can kill the soul of a monster movie. Jaws was one of the scariest movies ever made because they didn't show the shark. The viewers were left to imagine what the giant shark under the surface looked like, and people's imaginations will always be superior to technology. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it can't be done lazily, expecting that CGI will cover up inferior directing.

For myself, I don't think much of anything NEEDS to be remade, because originals can and should stand for themselves. To give an example, the 1927 movie Metropolis is an amazing work. But modern moviemakers should be inspired by it to create their own stories about class consciousness in an increasingly technological world and man/machine dualism, not just parrot Fritz Lang's eighty year-old views.

Seraph

2011-08-23, 10:11 AM

I think Metropolis could definitely so with a remake, simply because there no longer exist any intact versions and the movie is simply degrading too much to really appreciate as much as it deserves.

2011-08-23, 12:06 PM

I think Metropolis could definitely so with a remake, simply because there no longer exist any intact versions and the movie is simply degrading too much to really appreciate as much as it deserves.No. Metropolis was a product of its time and place and much of its impact and subtext is derived from this. You couldn't possibly produce a remake that would do it justice unless you could somehow time travel back to Weimar Germany. Even if you could, the new film's message wouldn't resonate nearly as strongly today

Tazar

2011-08-23, 12:28 PM

I think that CGI can kill the soul of a monster movie. Jaws was one of the scariest movies ever made because they didn't show the shark. The viewers were left to imagine what the giant shark under the surface looked like, and people's imaginations will always be superior to technology. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it can't be done lazily, expecting that CGI will cover up inferior directing.

Well, yeah, but this is Godzilla. Nonsensical storylines and ridiculous-looking monsters wading through whole cities are kind of the point. Wouldn't be much of a Godzilla movie if you didn't see the monsters early and often. :smalltongue:

Godzilla movies aren't "horror" monster movies where you don't see the monster, they're "action" monster movies where the monster very visibly and deliberately vaporizes half of Tokyo as a warmup, and as such I think they definitely stand to gain from CGI.

Winter_Wolf

2011-08-23, 12:39 PM

I'm against good movies getting remakes and usually against reboots. It's the bad movies that need redemption. And there are so many bad movies out there.

But I really prefer if they just leave all those things alone and at least try to offer something new. I mean c'mon already, Star Trek has been done, Conan has been done, Fright Night, Nightmare on Elm Street, I'm sure the list goes on.

The first half and a little bit of 2011 I saw some decent movies, not a one of them a remake.

Traab

2011-08-23, 12:58 PM

The problem I have with remakes is that they are often a sign of laziness and greed on the parts of producers and such. They know that if they call a movie godzilla, or star wars, its going to bring in fans of the classic no matter what. Its taking the easy way out of producing a film, instead of reading a script for something new and taking a risk on it, they tack on a popular brand name and then no longer have to worry about whether it sucks or not. Even the crappiest remakes tend to make a profit just because of the classic lovers who have to go watch it. I know that isnt always the case, but thats the way it often hits me personally.

Reverent-One

2011-08-23, 01:40 PM

Any/all live-action Transformers movie(s).
EDIT: And I agree on the star wars prequels as well.

Yora

2011-08-23, 01:46 PM

Remakes are a difficult thing. Digital remastering and improving image and audio quality is one thing, but trying to recreate something with new technology because the original work looks outdated is something I really don't approve off.

However, what I really like is attempting to make new adaptations of existing stories.

Under those conditions: Star Wars Episode 1 to 3. :smallbiggrin:
The movies are, from a cinematographic viewpoint, dreadful. However the idea behind the characters and the plot are really interesting with huge potential. It's just that George Lucas is a horrible director. But with a different director and script, this could make for really good movies.
Is that guy who did The Empire Strikes Back still alive? Let he direct those remakes. I imagine it would be awesome.

While I think Metropolis is perfect as it is, as a fan of Post-Cyberpunk fiction, I would actually love to see a good director attempt a 21st century adaptation. Not trying to recreate the film, but using the premise to make a movie about society in the early 21st century. I think you could really do something interesting there.

And ROFL!, scrolling up to see if other posters had ideas I'd like to comment on, Star Wars was right among the first ones. :smallbiggrin:

Tirian

2011-08-23, 02:06 PM

No. Metropolis was a product of its time and place and much of its impact and subtext is derived from this. You couldn't possibly produce a remake that would do it justice unless you could somehow time travel back to Weimar Germany. Even if you could, the new film's message wouldn't resonate nearly as strongly today

Exactly. Even if you did make a "faithful" remake, to what end? Don't tell me what Fritz Lang thought, tell me what you think. Address these issues in light of today's issues and understandings. The Matrix trilogy, for instance, is far more illuminating than trying to remake a masterpiece of the past in speculating about mildly similar matters.

Dr.Epic

2011-08-23, 02:10 PM

They need to remake a lot of things. Old movies are fine but poorly made movies are not.

Things that should get a remake:
-Godzilla

Remember the last time they did this?

-Star wars Ep 1-3

Yes, but George Lucas can't be attached to this.

Third Matrix film too.

The Glyphstone

2011-08-23, 04:04 PM

Battlefield Earth - it couldn't be any worse than the original, could it?

Dr.Epic

2011-08-23, 06:49 PM

Battlefield Earth - it couldn't be any worse than the original, could it?

Yes: the fact it was so bad made it good.

Terry576

2011-08-23, 07:27 PM

Yes: the fact it was so bad made it good.

What movie did you watch? I stopped at 30 minutes in because it was so obviously awful.

Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief. Someone needs to do a true to book adaption. Same goes for Eragon and Dark is rising.

Golden Compass is perhaps the biggest offender of all. Someone needs to make an entire trilogy, peter jackson style, and not have the end of the first film completely cut...

PJaLT is one movie where you actually need to read the damn book to make a movie. You need a really good casting director, because Grover was not six foot and black. Nor was he freaking comic relief all the time. He was a ginger, and fairly short.

Golden Compass wouldn't be able to. There was so much controversy over one movie, and they cut out the ending where
Her best friend IS KILLED BY HER FATHER

So I doubt they'd be able to make movies where

Two of the main cast die
A twelve year old gets two fingers CUT OFF
They kill the equivalent of god
They fight angels
Angels are tortured
Dust/Original Sin is considered a good thing at the end
A MOTHER KIDNAPS HER DAUGHTER

It would go over badly.

Archpaladin Zousha

2011-08-23, 07:55 PM

-Star wars Ep 1-3
How would someone remake something like that? There'd be a nation-wide riot for even DARING to alter such beloved movies (I mean, I liked the prequels. Were they better than the originals? Hell no, but that doesn't make them bad movies.).

Tragic_Comedian

2011-08-23, 07:59 PM

The Avatar: The Last Airbender live action movie. I don't really think it's that filmable, but it could've been handled so much better.

Dr.Epic

2011-08-23, 08:02 PM

What movie did you watch? I stopped at 30 minutes in because it was so obviously awful.

The one where John Travolta says "While you were still learning to SPELL YOUR NAME, I was being TRAINED TO CONQUER GALAXIES!" How can you not enjoy it?

thompur

2011-08-23, 08:06 PM

How would someone remake something like that? There'd be a nation-wide riot for even DARING to alter such beloved movies (I mean, I liked the prequels. Were they better than the originals? Hell no, but that doesn't make them bad movies.).

No. The fact that they were bad movies make them bad movies. Actually, to be fair, except for the writing, directing, and a fair percentage of the acting, they were able to acheive mediocrity.

Plus, they did result in this musical gem (http://youtu.be/hEcjgJSqSRU).

Dr.Epic

2011-08-23, 08:09 PM

Were they better than the originals? Hell no, but that doesn't make them bad movies.

No, the fact they make no sense, have horrible acting and characters, and have an overabundance of CGI make them hated by almost everyone.

Terry576

2011-08-23, 08:10 PM

The one where John Travolta says "While you were still learning to SPELL YOUR NAME, I was being TRAINED TO CONQUER GALAXIES!" How can you not enjoy it?

Yes that one. It was awful. The acting was bad, the plot was bad, and the transition from pseudo-fake cavemen to Aliens made no sense.

thegurullamen

2011-08-23, 08:56 PM

I'm going to assume this isn't limited to movies.

TV Series:
Heroes -- Great promise, squandered badly and worse the longer it went.
Babylon 5 -- Original was good. Considering the only talent that would work on this project would be invested in it creatively, I think it's worth a roll of the dice.
Dresden Files -- Never saw it, but judging from word of mouth a remake wouldn't hurt.

Games:
Star Wars Battlefront -- Great game, but dated. Needs a current gen remake or maybe an MMO
Freespace -- where mah space sims?

Movies:
Prequel Trilogy -- Duh.
Green Lantern
Jumper
EVERY. LAST. VIDEO. GAME. MOVIE.

Seerow

2011-08-23, 09:01 PM

No, the fact they make no sense, have horrible acting and characters, and have an overabundance of CGI make them hated by almost everyone.

Just about everyone I know IRL (ie not from the internet which seems to universally hate the prequels a little more than it universally hates everything else) likes the prequels, I even know some people who prefer the prequels to the original. Hell, I met one unique individual who said Jar Jar Binks was his favorite character.

Dr.Epic

2011-08-23, 09:39 PM

Yes that one. It was awful. The acting was bad, the plot was bad, and the transition from pseudo-fake cavemen to Aliens made no sense.

Exactly! It's so bad it's good. The fact nothing about it is good, makes it good. The acting is hilarious and it has plot holes you could fly a spaceship through.:smallbiggrin:

Or are you one of those people who thinks Troll 2 isn't hilarious?

Just about everyone I know IRL (ie not from the internet which seems to universally hate the prequels a little more than it universally hates everything else) likes the prequels, I even know some people who prefer the prequels to the original. Hell, I met one unique individual who said Jar Jar Binks was his favorite character.

:smallconfused:Are, are you serious?

Tyrant

2011-08-23, 10:12 PM

No, the fact they make no sense, have horrible acting and characters, and have an overabundance of CGI make them hated by almost everyone.
Movies hated by almost everyone don't make nearly $850 million (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starwars3.htm) worldwide. On the third movie in the widely hated series no less. Sure, you can right off a big chunk of the success of The Phantom Menace due to nestalgia. But, for the third movie in to make that much money, you have to accept that the common internet opinion simply doesn't match reality. Some (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=indianajones4.htm) other (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=transformers06.htm) examples (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=transformers2.htm) of (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=transformers3.htm) this (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=newmoon.htm) phenomenon (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=eclipse.htm)

Dr.Epic

2011-08-23, 10:27 PM

Movies hated by almost everyone don't make nearly $850 million (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starwars3.htm) worldwide. On the third movie in the widely hated series no less. Sure, you can right off a big chunk of the success of The Phantom Menace due to nestalgia. But, for the third movie in to make that much money, you have to accept that the common internet opinion simply doesn't match reality. Some (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=indianajones4.htm) other (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=transformers06.htm) examples (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=transformers2.htm) of (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=transformers3.htm) this (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=newmoon.htm) phenomenon (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=eclipse.htm)

Are you trying to say box office numbers make a film good? Based on that, a film that doesn't make a profit has to be bad. Earning money doesn't make a film good. Having good characters, plot, concept, special effects and other such elements of film making make a film good. You can't just simplify it to profit=good movie. There are other factors involved. If a film has too many flaws to make it enjoyable, it's not enjoyable. The prequel series has too many flaws. And I would say the same about the examples you provided.

The Glyphstone

2011-08-23, 10:35 PM

No, he's saying that 'almost everyone hated it' is proven false by its box office returns. You're the one who's saying Battlefield Earth is worth watching because it's so awful, evidentally there are 850 million/cost of 1 movie ticket people who feel the same way about Episode III...

Dienekes

2011-08-23, 10:39 PM

Yes that one. It was awful. The acting was bad, the plot was bad, and the transition from pseudo-fake cavemen to Aliens made no sense.

Yes, and it is hilarious. Mind you, I love watching bad movies so there is that. Ahh Bad Movie Mondays, greatest night of the week.

Movies hated by almost everyone don't make nearly $850 million (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starwars3.htm) worldwide. On the third movie in the widely hated series no less. Sure, you can right off a big chunk of the success of The Phantom Menace due to nestalgia. But, for the third movie in to make that much money, you have to accept that the common internet opinion simply doesn't match reality. Some (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=indianajones4.htm) other (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=transformers06.htm) examples (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=transformers2.htm) of (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=transformers3.htm) this (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=newmoon.htm) phenomenon (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=eclipse.htm)

Popularity does not equal good. If this were true Godfather I and II would have made the most money out of any movies in history, and Titanic would have sunk.

Mind you maybe I'm misinterpreting you're statement that they're not widely hated to mean their good. Otherwise I think you'd be arguing that the Twilight movies were anything but a poorly acted, poorly choreographed, poorly transitioning, tangled mess. (Again, I do so love Bad Movie Mondays)

Now as to folks enjoying the Prequels, sure I'll admit some do. Some even claim their better than the Originals, sure. But I can't see anyone claiming they were good. The characters were bland, everyone except Ewan McGregor seemed to be phoning it in, the villains were laughable and non-threatening, partially because except for Sideous they had no time to develop, and the plot had holes I could drive through. And I am a terrible driver.

Dr.Epic

2011-08-23, 10:45 PM

No, he's saying that 'almost everyone hated it' is proven false by its box office returns.

And I'm saying no it's not. There are other reason why a film makes so much money besides it's good, and there are other reasons why people go to see a film other than it's good. Box office dollars are not a legit reason to argue a film is good. There are other things to consider like I said.

Tyrant

2011-08-23, 11:31 PM

Popularity does not equal good. If this were true Godfather I and II would have made the most money out of any movies in history, and Titanic would have sunk.

Mind you maybe I'm misinterpreting you're statement that they're not widely hated to mean their good. Otherwise I think you'd be arguing that the Twilight movies were anything but a poorly acted, poorly choreographed, poorly transitioning, tangled mess. (Again, I do so love Bad Movie Mondays)

Now as to folks enjoying the Prequels, sure I'll admit some do. Some even claim their better than the Originals, sure. But I can't see anyone claiming they were good. The characters were bland, everyone except Ewan McGregor seemed to be phoning it in, the villains were laughable and non-threatening, partially because except for Sideous they had no time to develop, and the plot had holes I could drive through. And I am a terrible driver.
My point was that "everyone hates them" is quite clearly wrong. This is the one case where movies can be compared objectively, and the evidence says a lot of people like these movies. Quality is subjective, ticket sales are not. My other point was that the general opinion of the real world is different than the internet hate machine. Online folks seem to have a real hard time accepting that there are real people who think the prequels were good movies. I don't care for Avatar, but I won't say everyone hates it just because I can find some people online who agree with my view of the movie.

And I'm saying no it's not. There are other reason why a film makes so much money besides it's good, and there are other reasons why people go to see a film other than it's good. Box office dollars are not a legit reason to argue a film is good. There are other things to consider like I said.
I never said the movies were good. Why do you keep trying to say that is what I am saying? I'm saying movies that everyone hates don't make north of $800 million. If you seriously think that is remotely possible, then there is no point in me trying to tell you otherwise. You could also look here (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0121766/) to disprove your statement. Movies everyone hates don't have a 7.8 with more than 200,000 votes. For a final attempt at clarity, notice I have said nothing of critical reception and have focused entirely on fan approval (voting, box office).

Starwulf

2011-08-23, 11:36 PM

Tazar

2011-08-23, 11:43 PM

Babylon 5 -- Original was good. Considering the only talent that would work on this project would be invested in it creatively, I think it's worth a roll of the dice.

B5? Really? Why remake something that's already amazing? :smalltongue:
Sure, some flashier CGI would be nice, but I honestly don't think that story could be told better than it already was.

Games:
Star Wars Battlefront -- Great game, but dated. Needs a current gen remake or maybe an MMO
Freespace -- where mah space sims?

Agreed! Although not so much remakes as just sequels.
What kills me is that the guys at Volition want to make another Freespace, they love the games, but they can't because useless Interplay still holds the TM.

Axolotl

2011-08-24, 02:49 AM

Golden Compass wouldn't be able to. There was so much controversy over one movie, and they cut out the ending where
Her best friend IS KILLED BY HER FATHER

So I doubt they'd be able to make movies where

Two of the main cast die
A twelve year old gets two fingers CUT OFF
They kill the equivalent of god
They fight angels
Angels are tortured
Dust/Original Sin is considered a good thing at the end
A MOTHER KIDNAPS HER DAUGHTER

It would go over badly.Look if Ichi the Killer can be made then there certainly nothing in The Northern Lights that would stop it being made. Sure the child protaganists would make it harder but there's nothing in it more objectionable than alot of films, with the possible exception of the atheist subtext with it's hammer-like subtlety.

Personally I dislike remakes on principle, there have been good ones certainly but generally they're just bad and pointless. The Day the Earth Stood Still for example, trying to update the message just resulted in a confused mess, the original was a cold war film trying to change the whole point of the film yet keep it the same film was just a stupid idea. Even films that don't have messages like Clash of the Titans, the remake still failed because it just didn't understand why the original film worked.Generally remakeing a film just makes the new film limited not only by the constraints of the original but it also sets up a comparison to a film that was good enough for people to want to make again, just tell a new story easier to make and more enjoyable to see.

However I will say I do think that readapting something can certainly be a good idea. I Am Legend leaps out as a book that really should have a good film adaptation, the three we've got are all decent films but they all seem to utterly ignore the book. A high budget version of Gormenghast would be pretty sweet as well. But even here I'd rather have adaptations of things we haven't seen yet.

Yora

2011-08-24, 03:41 AM

Freespace certainly doesn't need a remake. Get SCP with all the graphic updates and even FS1 looks like a completely new game.

What the series would need is a new game.

Aotrs Commander

2011-08-24, 08:38 AM

B5? Really? Why remake something that's already amazing? :smalltongue:
Sure, some flashier CGI would be nice, but I honestly don't think that story could be told better than it already was.

I concur. Trying to remake B5 would be an extremey bad thing to try and do, because the bar is set so high that the chances of failing to hit it would be extremely large.

And to be honest, I watched pretty much the whole of it a few months ago, and even season 1's special effects held up quite passably after twenty years, so I'd even debate remastering would be worth it.

I, personally, would like to see not so much a remake, but a new, updated series of Dangermouse (quick, while David Jason is still alive!) Dangermouse with a cast set and budget of a modern cartoon like, say Avatar or MLP:Friendship is Magic would be spectacular...

Kindablue

2011-08-24, 08:50 AM

I, personally, would like to see not so much a remake, but a new, updated series of Dangermouse (quick, while David Jason is still alive!) Dangermouse with a cast set and budget of a modern cartoon like, say Avatar or MLP:Friendship is Magic would be spectacular...

The guy from Gnarls Barkley?
:smalltongue:

Tirian

2011-08-24, 09:43 AM

The Glyphstone

2011-08-24, 09:53 AM

And I'm saying no it's not. There are other reason why a film makes so much money besides it's good, and there are other reasons why people go to see a film other than it's good. Box office dollars are not a legit reason to argue a film is good. There are other things to consider like I said.

My point was that "everyone hates them" is quite clearly wrong. This is the one case where movies can be compared objectively, and the evidence says a lot of people like these movies. Quality is subjective, ticket sales are not. My other point was that the general opinion of the real world is different than the internet hate machine. Online folks seem to have a real hard time accepting that there are real people who think the prequels were good movies. I don't care for Avatar, but I won't say everyone hates it just because I can find some people online who agree with my view of the movie.

I never said the movies were good. Why do you keep trying to say that is what I am saying? I'm saying movies that everyone hates don't make north of $800 million. If you seriously think that is remotely possible, then there is no point in me trying to tell you otherwise. You could also look here (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0121766/) to disprove your statement. Movies everyone hates don't have a 7.8 with more than 200,000 votes. For a final attempt at clarity, notice I have said nothing of critical reception and have focused entirely on fan approval (voting, box office).

This. You're arguing against a point he's never even attempted to make.

Karoht

2011-08-24, 10:39 AM

PJaLT is one movie where you actually need to read the damn book to make a movie. You need a really good casting director, because Grover was not six foot and black. Nor was he freaking comic relief all the time. He was a ginger, and fairly short.The film got me to read the book. Admittedly, I didn't know the series existed until the film came out.
Is Zeus always a jerkwad in these books?

Golden Compass wouldn't be able to. There was so much controversy over one movie, and they cut out the ending where
Her best friend IS KILLED BY HER FATHEREasily detailed in the opening 5 minutes of the sequel. The current ending was optimistic and happy. Then to have everything you think you know torn out from under you in the first 5 minutes of the sequel would really get the audiences attention. But, the content would immediately require an R or PG-13 rating, for a franchise aimed at a G to maybe PG audience.

So I doubt they'd be able to make movies where

Two of the main cast die
A twelve year old gets two fingers CUT OFF
They kill the equivalent of god
They fight angels
Angels are tortured
Dust/Original Sin is considered a good thing at the end
A MOTHER KIDNAPS HER DAUGHTER
It would go over badly.See, now we rail at how Hollywood takes the low hanging fruit and doesn't take risks or push boundaries much these days. This is a perfect example of that. It's a real shame that Scholastic (the people who picked up the book and film rights) got their hands on it rather than someone else.
Personally, I think The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass would be amazing films. It is a royal shame that they probably will not be made.

While I'm not a fan of the Harry Potter series of films (at least, not past the first) I have to say that I'm very glad that those didn't turn out worse. It would have set a TERRIBLE precedent around Hollywood.

2011-08-24, 01:03 PM

PJaLT is one movie where you actually need to read the damn book to make a movie. You need a really good casting director, because Grover was not six foot and black. Nor was he freaking comic relief all the time. He was a ginger, and fairly shortWho cares? Did the height or skin colour of a supporting character really spoil the film for you?

My point was that "everyone hates them" is quite clearly wrong. This is the one case where movies can be compared objectively, and the evidence says a lot of people like these movies. Quality is subjective, ticket sales are notThis assumes that everyone who saw the films liked them. People generally don't find out whether they've enjoyed a film until after they've seen it

Karoht

2011-08-24, 01:26 PM

Star Wars 1-3 Box Office
Skewed by...

Hype!
Each film was more hyped than the previous one. Sure, lots of people paid money to see it, very few actually walked out of Episode 1,2,3 with a smile on their face.
I was told that Mace Windu's fight seen was this great big elaborate lightsabre battle with something like a billionty-one other sith against him. That is not what I got. Even Samuel L Jackson made his scene out to be this grandiose and action heavy fight scene, and to my recollection it lasted on screen for all of 11 seconds.

Fandom and Fandumb
People would go see it no matter how bad or good it was, to see the continuation of the story. We all know the ending-Anakin Skywalker becomes Darth Vader. OMG spoiler alert. I think most of us were expecting to see him don the helmet and mask much earlier in the film, and just the notion that we would possibly see Darth Vader whuppin some ass was enough to get people to hold out to the bitter end.
See Harry Potter 7 parts 1 and 2 for a similar example.

The Hopeful
I saw Episode 3 on a pirated copy, and I'm glad I did. There were only a few things I was hoping to see. The first was Vader as Vader being a bad guy, and him and Obi Wan having that last climatic battle. I didn't really get that. The second was the death of Jar Jar Binks. I was seriously hoping to see him cut down mercilessly, possibly by Vader himself, or electrocuted by the Emperor.
To me, I got my money's worth.
But to others, who just couldn't wait to see it, they would pay the money to be there opening day, just to have that hope answered or dashed, rather than wait for DVD.

Ticket Sales tell you exactly how much of all of the above there are. They don't tell you how good it is. I would hedge a bet that Lucas's new cash grab, namely the 3D version of Ep 1-3 will have less than expected Ticket Sales. If such a thing comes to pass, what does that say about the film, or it's previous ticket sales?

Akiosama

2011-08-24, 01:41 PM

What needs to be remade?

Transformers.

To put it back to what it was, not what it has become.

Just my 2 yen,

Akiosama

Karoht

2011-08-24, 01:48 PM

What needs to be remade?

Transformers.

To put it back to what it was, not what it has become.

Just my 2 yen,

Akiosama

To back up my previous point (and make fun of myself at the same time) if Michael Bay makes a 4th Transformers movie, I will still go see it. To see what happens. With that faint hope that he might fix things. I know he won't but I'll do it anyway, because I'm a fan and I'm dumb.
And I enjoy the transformers movies but every single one of them leaves me feeling like they could have done SO MUCH MORE with them. Rant spoilered for ranty-ness
If you're going to force me to watch humans instead of robots, at least give the humans some sembalance of depth. The Sam character isn't the worst, but he had all kinds of potential to be a decent character. The fault with the films isn't the Transformers themselves IMO.

But I agree. Taking it back would be awesome.

Akiosama

2011-08-24, 02:07 PM

Karoht

2011-08-24, 02:25 PM

Oh, I don't mean like the first Michael Bay Transformers movie... I mean like the original Transformers who made boys cry at the movie theater when Optimus Prime died.

That Transformers.

Just ask Peter Cullen.

My 2 yen,

Akiosama
That Transformers, from 1986? Yeah, I want more of that. Not less.
But without Optimus Prime being dead and all.
Peter Cullen is awesome. And his Optimus Prime just keeps getting better with age.

Winter_Wolf

2011-08-24, 03:46 PM

The film got me to read the book. Admittedly, I didn't know the series existed until the film came out.
Is Zeus always a jerkwad in these books?

I think Zeus is a jerkwad no matter who's telling the story. He was a jerk when the Greeks were telling the stories. You know, one of those "the sky is blue, the grass is green, Zeus is an ass" situations. :smalltongue:

Karoht

2011-08-24, 03:50 PM

I think Zeus is a jerkwad no matter who's telling the story. He was a jerk when the Greeks were telling the stories. You know, one of those "the sky is blue, the grass is green, Zeus is an ass" situations. :smalltongue:I kind of figured. I just sort of hoped that in this modern book series that maybe he'd smarten up or someone would get their comeupance upon him. Maybe.
Though I should probably get around to reading the rest of that series.

Starbuck_II

2011-08-24, 03:50 PM

2) Low bar. The worst film ever made is Manos the Hands of Fate (Yes, I know, you all have your own worsts. That's another thread. Besides, I’m right.:smalltongue:). It wouldn't take a very good movie at all to surpass the original by a mile. Hollywood loves low-hanging fruit, stuff that is practically guaranteed to work. Well, famously awful films like Manos already have cult-followings, so there’s an audience available and title recognition. And it’d be a great place to stick all those actors who have fans and attract audiences even though the critics hate them. Want to cast Megan Fox as the wife, (or heck, the poodle) to increase ticket sales? Go ahead. Critics still won’t hate it more than the original.

That was an awesome movie. So bad it was great.

Why not remake The Room if you are remaking cult followings.

Kindablue

2011-08-24, 03:52 PM

To back up my previous point (and make fun of myself at the same time) if Michael Bay makes a 4th Transformers movie, I will still go see it. To see what happens. With that faint hope that he might fix things. I know he won't but I'll do it anyway, because I'm a fan and I'm dumb.
And I enjoy the transformers movies but every single one of them leaves me feeling like they could have done SO MUCH MORE with them. Rant spoilered for ranty-ness
If you're going to force me to watch humans instead of robots, at least give the humans some sembalance of depth. The Sam character isn't the worst, but he had all kinds of potential to be a decent character. The fault with the films isn't the Transformers themselves IMO.

But I agree. Taking it back would be awesome.

Say what you will about the Bay movies, at least they didn't kill Orson Welles and Scatman Crothers.

Reverent-One

2011-08-24, 03:53 PM

Say what you will about the Bay movies, at least they didn't kill Orson Welles and Scatman Crothers.

Hey, it's not the original movie's fault that Orson Welles and Scatman Crothers couldn't handle it's awesome-ness.

Karoht

2011-08-24, 03:53 PM

That was an awesome movie. So bad it was great.

Um... found this while reading up on the film...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manos_the_Hands_of_Fate#Sequel

Kindablue

2011-08-24, 04:05 PM

Hey, it's not the original movie's fault that Orson Welles and Scatman Crothers couldn't handle it's awesome-ness.

There should have been safety measures in place, is all I'm saying.

Akiosama

2011-08-24, 06:07 PM

Yeah, but at least it wasn't like Raul Julia.

To go out on Street Fighter with Jean-Claude Van Damme as the All-American Hero Guile?

*shudder*

My 2 yen,

Akiosama

The Glyphstone

2011-08-24, 06:10 PM

Yeah, but at least it wasn't like Raul Julia.

To go out on Street Fighter with Jean-Claude Van Damme as the All-American Hero Guile?

*shudder*

My 2 yen,

Akiosama

Julia chose that movie, remember? And it made him famous(er), as the only good part of an otherwise awful movie.

Aotrs Commander

2011-08-24, 06:15 PM

They did make DangerMouse 2.0. It was called The Powerpuff Girls.

I...just can't see how you could classify them that way. I am totally failing to see any connection between the two, aside from the fact they are both cartoons, and are parody/comedy (most of the time in the latter). The action and humour in both shows is very different. Aside from that, they are, as Edmund Blackadder would say, as different as two completely dissimilar things.

Danger Mouse was a loose (and at times surreal) parody of the British spy fiction genera (e.g. James Bond et al), with a wry and British sense of humour in the dialogue and characterisation (and expertly voice acted by David Jason (yes, that David Jason) and Terry Scott - it's all in the delivery).

The Powerpuff Girls was a more direct parody of the superhero genera (and/or magical girl anime) - as well as many other things on occasion and was significantly different in tone; in that is was wa-haaay more violent, far less surreal and with a different sense of humour.

It's like saying My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is Spongebob 2.0 - aside from the board strokes of being slice-of-life and comedy, there's really nothing similar between the two.

Starscream

2011-08-24, 06:53 PM

Um... found this while reading up on the film...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manos_the_Hands_of_Fate#Sequel

::Reads link::

::Calmly gets up and walks to kitchen::

::Pours glass of water::

::Returns to computer::

::Drinks from glass::

::SPIT TAKE!!!::

That will either be the most awesome thing ever, or the most disappointing. There's really no room for middle ground, because if it is merely bad it will be a colossal disappointment indeed.

Akiosama

2011-08-24, 07:01 PM

Julia chose that movie, remember? And it made him famous(er), as the only good part of an otherwise awful movie.

Maybe, but it still killed him... and didn't really improve the movie too much. :smalltongue:

I mean he acted well, but the part was horribly written, so....

A tragic end to a good career.

My 2 yen,

Akiosama

Kindablue

2011-08-24, 08:31 PM

A tragic end to a good career.

I don't think you could say the same about Welles, unfortunately. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i7ycxiog40)

Tirian

2011-08-24, 09:50 PM

I...just can't see how you could classify them that way. I am totally failing to see any connection between the two, aside from the fact they are both cartoons, and are parody/comedy (most of the time in the latter). The action and humour in both shows is very different. Aside from that, they are, as Edmund Blackadder would say, as different as two completely dissimilar things.

They're not without similarities. They are both sly commentaries on current events with witty dialog that appeals to both high and low humor that gives it cross-generational appeal. Another thing that is somewhat similar is the reluctant narrator.

Most specifically, the connection is that Craig McCracken grew up watching DangerMouse and set out to make a show that had the same vibe except with higher production values and even more social subtext. Someone just making DangerMouse again would likely be as disastrous as, well, making Underdog or Dudley Do-Right again.

Tyrant

2011-08-24, 10:19 PM

My attempt to explain why it is illogical to believe a movie that made nearly $850 million is "hated by almost everyone". Spoilered for length and because at this point it is really a side discussion to the main discussion at hand.

This assumes that everyone who saw the films liked them. People generally don't find out whether they've enjoyed a film until after they've seen it
True. But, most people don't go watch part 2 and 3 if they disliked part 1. Looking at the box office, there was a backlash after part 1 and the sales for part 2 saw a noticeable drop. However, they saw a noticeable increase for part 3. This is why attempts to claim everyone hates the movies don't work. People obviously had a reason to watch part 3 in noticeably greater numbers than they did part 2.

What I am being asked to believe is that a very large number of people went to watch these movies. Then, they somehow all disliked them (yes, I know "everyone" is hyperbole). However, they failed to tell anyone this and let the people they know go watch movies they thought were awful. And they themselves went back to watch the movies again in noticeable numbers. So, either a noticeable number of people actually do like these movies or everyone went to watch them all at once before word got out that they were bad (because people seem to not have any problems letting other people when they dislike movies) and they came back for two more movies. There's nothing I can say that will change someone's mind if they believe the latter of those two.

I ran the numbers. The average ticket price in the U.S. in 2005 was $6.41 (http://www.natoonline.org/statisticstickets.htm). Revenge of the Sith made $380,270,577 (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starwars3.htm) domestically. That comes out to 59,324,583 tickets. There is some flexibility in that number I'm sure, but it gives us a rough number to work with. So, either 1/5 the entire population of the United States went to watch Revenge of the Sith, possible but highly unlikely, or there were a number of repeat viewers (which, to me at least, implies that they liked the movie).

Star Wars 1-3 Box Office
Skewed by...
Skewed doesn't give you $800+ million worldwide. Hype and fandom can only accomplish so much.

Hype!
Each film was more hyped than the previous one. Sure, lots of people paid money to see it, very few actually walked out of Episode 1,2,3 with a smile on their face.
I would love to see anything at all that can back that up. I also find it very hard to believe RotS was more hyped than TPM aka The First New Star Wars Movie in 16 years following on the heels of the rerelease of the OT. This is exactly what I am talking about. A whole lot of "I didn't like it, a lot of folks online seem to agree with me, therefore everyone doesn't like it" all the while with nothing to back up these statements while the actual evidence is to the contrary.

I was told that Mace Windu's fight seen was this great big elaborate lightsabre battle with something like a billionty-one other sith against him. That is not what I got. Even Samuel L Jackson made his scene out to be this grandiose and action heavy fight scene, and to my recollection it lasted on screen for all of 11 seconds.
And here is exhibit A. You were somehow misled and letdown, so naturally everyone else was too.

Fandom and Fandumb
People would go see it no matter how bad or good it was, to see the continuation of the story. We all know the ending-Anakin Skywalker becomes Darth Vader. OMG spoiler alert. I think most of us were expecting to see him don the helmet and mask much earlier in the film, and just the notion that we would possibly see Darth Vader whuppin some ass was enough to get people to hold out to the bitter end.
See Harry Potter 7 parts 1 and 2 for a similar example.
This would produce either a flat box office between the movies, as only fans are watching them because they are apparently the only ones deluded enough to do so, or it would create a downward trend as non fans jumped ship after being burned by either TPM or AotC. That isn't the trend. RotS has a noticeably higher box office that goes way beyond inflation. That means more tickets were sold beyond a doubt. That implies either more people went (which itself implies they saw something they liked in one of the other two) or more people went repeatedly (implying they liked the movie).

The Hopeful
I saw Episode 3 on a pirated copy, and I'm glad I did. There were only a few things I was hoping to see. The first was Vader as Vader being a bad guy, and him and Obi Wan having that last climatic battle. I didn't really get that. The second was the death of Jar Jar Binks. I was seriously hoping to see him cut down mercilessly, possibly by Vader himself, or electrocuted by the Emperor.
To me, I got my money's worth.
But to others, who just couldn't wait to see it, they would pay the money to be there opening day, just to have that hope answered or dashed, rather than wait for DVD.
So, again, you had problems with the movie. That means all of nothing in comparison to the general outlook on the movie. Either that or everyone else couldn't figure out the pretty simple math of "Ep.1=bad, Ep.2=bad, Ep.3 probably also=bad so maybe I should wait for the DVD" I am not in the camp that believe everyone other than myself is an idiot, so I give no weight to that argument.

Ticket Sales tell you exactly how much of all of the above there are. They don't tell you how good it is. I would hedge a bet that Lucas's new cash grab, namely the 3D version of Ep 1-3 will have less than expected Ticket Sales. If such a thing comes to pass, what does that say about the film, or it's previous ticket sales?
I would love to know where anyone said ticket sales is a sign of quality (which is itself highly subjective). No one is making that argument no matter how many people say otherwise. I am saying that movies don't make nearly $850 million when "everyone hates them". That's not how reality works.

Low ticket sales can say a lot of things. They can say that people are no longer falling for the 3D gimmick. They can say a lot of people don't see a reason to pay to watch a movie in a theater full of rude people when they can watch the same movie, that they already payed for (possible in multiple formats), in their own home on their own schedule. It could even say the bad economy is a factor. It can say vitrually anything, about the current situation. It says nothing about the previous ticket sales.

If anyone wants to see the counter argument to most of these claims, they only have to look at Green Lantern. Poor fan reception and poor critical reception were enough to overcome the rumored $100 million marketing budget. No amount of advertising or hype could've saved that turkey. It had marketing going back to last year and it was released during the summer of the comic book movie. Thor, Captain America, and XMen have all managed to be successful so it can't be comic book overload. The movie just didn't do it for audiences and the box office clearly reflects that. Star Wars has a large built in fan base, but movies that are considered awful by a majority of people who watch them don't make the kind of money Revenge of the Sith made.
As for the topic, I am okay with remakes in principal. I do agree that I would rather see movies that had promising concepts but poor execution be remade than see classics get remade. If more well known movies are going to be remade, then I want to see a new spin on it. At least take the story and put it into a new setting and/or time. That's for specific stories anyway. If we are just talking general plots, then there is going to be a lot of remaking anyway. I do think there are some movies though that just wouldn't work being remade because the world has changed. I also think there are times when a sequel is better than a remake. I can also see the argument that some time should pass before a remake and that Hollywood needs to stop remaking foreign movies just a few years after they come out. I know it's a novel idea for Hollywood, but they should just give the foreign movie a wider release in the U.S.

Chess435

2011-08-25, 12:12 AM

The Super Mario Bros. movie.

That is all.

wayfare

2011-08-25, 01:33 AM

The Prophecy should be remade. It should still star Christopher Walken.

Tazar

2011-08-25, 02:17 AM

I mostly enjoyed Episode I, didn't really like Episode II until the end, and liked Episode III a lot.

Not everyone may not enjoy them as much as the original movies, but don't mistake that for hatred.

Saintheart

2011-08-25, 02:39 AM

The Prophecy should be remade. It should still star Christopher Walken.

I might point out here that this beautiful little gem of a movie was written by Gregory Widen -- the same guy who wrote Highlander. What exactly did Widen do in a past life that condemned him to make cult first movies that never get the recognition they deserved?

(I mean, c'mon. Aragorn was freakin Satan in that one.) :smallcool:

Velaryon

2011-08-25, 02:46 AM

However I will say I do think that readapting something can certainly be a good idea. I Am Legend leaps out as a book that really should have a good film adaptation, the three we've got are all decent films but they all seem to utterly ignore the book. A high budget version of Gormenghast would be pretty sweet as well. But even here I'd rather have adaptations of things we haven't seen yet.

I wouldn't mind seeing Gormenghast remade with a higher budget and a better cast (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers was excellent, everybody else was... not).

As a general rule, I am not a fan of remakes. If they must be done, I would rather that bad movies get remade, so that they have a chance to become good or at least decent movies. I do not see the point in remaking a movie that was already good, because the remake never lives up to the original.

So with that in mind, I would remake:

the X-Men films
the Star Wars prequels
Minority Report (a remake would have the benefit of not having Tom Cruise)

Probably more, but that's all that I can think of now.

Avilan the Grey

2011-08-25, 02:57 AM

I would say NO to ALL TV series. The reason is twofold:
1. It is basically impossible to recapture the exact same feel as the original and
2. (as an opposite to 1) most remakes are for some reason made "darker and edgier", or filled with "irony" (see Bionic Woman, V, Battle Star Galactica etc, all which I felt rated between "Oh God no!" to "Why did they bother"). My feeling is: There is NO NEED (other than Money Dear Boy) to ruin remake any TV series. Ever.

Now, movies: With movies you usually have a different starting point. I don't mind movie remakes; sometimes they are even better than the original (or at least better than the previous remakes)

One example is Peter Jackson's King Kong which is not only miles better than the other two remakes, but actually better than the original.

So... Movies I want remade:
Weird Science (just because! :smallbiggrin:)
The Brothers Lionheart
Patton
Ben Hur
A voyage Under the sea
Jurassic Park (with updated Dinosaurs (yes that means both T-Rex and Raptors covered in feathers etc. And I know they are making a fourth one!)

Kato

2011-08-25, 05:39 AM

Serpentine

2011-08-25, 06:16 AM

An Oz reboot would be excellent. Make no mistake, the original Judy Garland film is a masterpiece. But not only did it cover only about half the book, the many sequels never got a decent rendition (Return to Oz was good enough, I guess, but didn't really connect to the first film due to different creative visions.) The only "problem" is that even schoolchildren are familiar with the classic to the point where a reboot would have a lot to live up to.That would be pretty great. Not as a "remake" per se, though, but as a whole new adaption of the books. From what I've heard, there's a lot of material there. I really ought to read them sometime...
Although, a dark full-blown horror version of Return to Oz could be pretty cool if they did it right.
Jurassic Park (with updated Dinosaurs (yes that means both T-Rex and Raptors covered in feathers etc. And I know they are making a fourth one!)While trying to think of remakes I'd like to see done, Jurassic Park did occur to me. But... I don't know. The original was great. I think maybe what I really want to see is another movie like it...

A decent Dungeons and Dragons movie would be nice, but again it wouldn't exactly be a remake.

I think, given appropriate love and care, it could be nice to see some of the original Twilight Zone given a modern take. Many of them had very good premises but were impossible to take seriously because of the low budget and terrible props (the gremlin on the plane had little shoes. Adorable little shoes, people).

I'm not sure it really counts as a remake because bugger that load of rubbish that was the TV show, but I would love to see a good version of Animorphs. I think the only way it could be done is anime: it has the right target audience, it can be properly gory as Hell, it can handle the deeper ethical themes, it takes care of the special effects problem... Yeah. I think there needs to be an Animorphs anime, and I will cry if there isn't one before I die :smallfrown: Trouble would be making sure it's not too "animey" - the chibi stuff and silly overreactions would be awful in it, and it'd be a shame if all the characters were the standard anime pretty-boys. Although after seeing the Deltora Quest anime I'm feeling much more confident that it could be done, and done well.

dehro

2011-08-25, 06:40 AM

movies?

nothing.

ever.

if you liked it the first time around, no ammount of updated CGI is going to make it any better.
if you didn't like it, what are the chances you're willing to give a second attempt the benefit of the doubt?
if it was crap the first time around, it's most likely going to find new ways to be crap during the remake... on top of the old ways.

I have watched my share of movies, and a few of them remakes.. I have yet to find a single movie where the remake was markedly better than the original.
(this of course does NOT take into account different movies centered around the same subject..say, different versions of the arthurian legends, or the 7 samurai/cowboys..for example..I treat those as separate movies, not explicit remakes)

Saintheart

2011-08-25, 07:46 AM

Movies (technically): Dragonlance. Do it in frigging live action this time and don't be stingy on the cast list. Or if you can't do it on the silver screen, A Song of Ice and Fire determines conclusively you can do it on the small screen instead.

TV series? Redo V. Seriously. Although the "Diana" of the piece looks like an alien, that's mostly because she looks anorexic. I want my red suits, two-strokes-removed-from-a-Nazi-symbol, and Leonardo Cimino as a Holocaust survivor (okay, the last one's going to be a lot harder without a Resurrection spell, and I've got a feeling if we did that his character at least would be miiiighty annoyed.)

The Glyphstone

2011-08-25, 08:43 AM

I'm not sure it really counts as a remake because bugger that load of rubbish that was the TV show, but I would love to see a good version of Animorphs. I think the only way it could be done is anime: it has the right target audience, it can be properly gory as Hell, it can handle the deeper ethical themes, it takes care of the special effects problem... Yeah. I think there needs to be an Animorphs anime, and I will cry if there isn't one before I die :smallfrown: Trouble would be making sure it's not too "animey" - the chibi stuff and silly overreactions would be awful in it, and it'd be a shame if all the characters were the standard anime pretty-boys. Although after seeing the Deltora Quest anime I'm feeling much more confident that it could be done, and done well.

That'd actually be quite cool.

H Birchgrove

2011-08-25, 09:01 AM

There's a great anime version of Metropolis, though it's very different from the novel and the original silent film.

My suggestions:

Judge Dredd
Flash Gordon
The Spider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spider)
Doc Savage
Dune
Starship Troopers
The Puppet Masters
I, Robot
The Long Ships
Prince Valiant

Julia chose that movie, remember? And it made him famous(er), as the only good part of an otherwise awful movie.
Wasn't he already dying, before agreeing to be in the movie?

Serpentine

2011-08-25, 09:04 AM

I, RobotWhat? :smallconfused: I can't understand why you think that could use a remake. Or do you mean one that's actually based on the book, rather than just incorporating a few themes and stuff? Cuz... Honestly, a movie based on the book I, Robot would probably be kinda boring...

The Glyphstone

2011-08-25, 09:06 AM

H Birchgrove

2011-08-25, 09:10 AM

What? :smallconfused: I can't understand why you think that could use a remake. Or do you mean one that's actually based on the book, rather than just incorporating a few themes and stuff? Cuz... Honestly, a movie based on the book I, Robot would probably be kinda boring...

I wouldn't mind it as a TV-series. Then again, Sin City has proven you make a film with various plots going on, and that's kinda like what I want to see (but SF rather than neo-noir).

Serpentine

2011-08-25, 09:10 AM

I enjoyed I, Robot quite a lot. And... well, it wasn't actually written as a book adaptation. They just added the name and a few themes and features from the books. Although I think Asimov would have strongly disliked a lot of the themes in it - Letting a robot ignore its laws? The super-computer killing people "for their own good"? I don't think soI also think he would have recognised his own themes in it, and even appreciated their use.
There was also that "picking out the odd robot out in the crowd of other robots" scene which turned up in the book. The movie's version was much more entertaining, even if the book's one was cleverer...

edit: But the stories in the book are so... academic. Beaurocratic, even. They could make a pretty good movie or TV show, but it would definitely not be a remake of the movie I, Robot. It'd be an entirely different beast altogether.
Although a show only loosely based on Asimov's stories - maybe all of them - about a robot psychologist who goes around solving robot-related mysteries and stuff could be kinda cool.

Karoht

2011-08-25, 10:05 AM

Reboot needs a reboot.
(Totally kidding)

Actually, they have new Reboot material coming soon, according to Gavin Blair at CCEE. I can't wait to see what they have in store.

A game I would love to see a remake of was Nights into Dreams. There was just something about that game that really spoke to me. Updated graphics would really be all it would need, and it would lose nothing from such a transition.

But staying in the realm of TV/Film, I have to say that modern Babylon 5 film would be remarkably cool. If done right. I'd be fine if they recycle one of the earlier works with just a better cast and cinematography, let alone updated visual effects. But the bar would be high. Intimidatingly high.

Serpentine

2011-08-25, 10:35 AM

"The Howling Man" episode of Twilight Zone could use a remake, if only to give Satan a form that doesn't look like a cheap Halloween costume.

Thufir

2011-08-25, 11:24 AM

Yeah - as much of a travesty as the actual I, Robot movie was...it's probably the best Hollywood can do with what really amounts to a short story anthology/collection (never been clear on the difference between those).

The original stories could work as a series of short films, maybe. Not as a full-length film though, you're right.

On Star Wars: I enjoyed the prequels. I enjoyed them less on repeat viewings, but they're still fun. Also now I can mentally insert the Darths and Droids (http://www.darthsanddroids.net/) dialogue in place of what the actors are actually saying.
That said, yeah, they could be better. But if we're remaking Star Wars, I'd be inclined to remake the originals as well.

In general, whiel there are things I have issues with, they're not necessarily big enough to merit complete remakes. Or, sometimes they are, but I don't really care enough to really want a remake.

Oh, there is one though: TV series, Hex. Interesting ideas, good pilot episode, went steadily downhill from then on.

Akiosama

2011-08-25, 11:36 AM

I'd also say Firefly, except I think that ship has sailed, and sadly, shouldn't come back. I'd much rather lament the fact that the show is only 14 episodes and a movie, than to be angered over a poor reboot.

That, and certain characters are dead, now, and if they just continued the show from where Serenity left off, it wouldn't be the same.

But damn, such a short life to what could have been a very promising show.

Then again, I like Castle, too, so it's not all bad.

As for Star Wars, if there's ever a remake, which I hope there won't be, I'd hope they drop I-III, since they really botch the continuity of the whole story created up to that by IV-VI, and go with IV-The Last Command. It would be great to see Timothy Zahn's Heir to the Empire series as VII-IX. I think I'd heard rumors that's what it was plotted for, but that the age of the cast left it as a novel-only option.

My 2 yen,

Lieutenant-Adept Akio

Karoht

2011-08-25, 11:49 AM

Star Wars is kind of in a cycle of regression. The only room they have to work with is prequel material. Hence Kotor being what, 4000? years before the events of episode 1.

I'm pretty sure they'll make a prequel before that, and one day, a prequel before that. Eventually there will be a prequel where there are dinosaurs with lightsabers.

In fact, can they just make THAT game/movie already? That would be pretty awesome, and might get me interested in Star Wars again.

Tyrant

2011-08-25, 04:42 PM

On Star Wars: I enjoyed the prequels. I enjoyed them less on repeat viewings, but they're still fun. Also now I can mentally insert the Darths and Droids (http://www.darthsanddroids.net/) dialogue in place of what the actors are actually saying.
That said, yeah, they could be better. But if we're remaking Star Wars, I'd be inclined to remake the originals as well.
Despite my comments earlier, I can see the merit behind remaking the prequels. But, I agree with Thufir that if that comes to pass, then they need to remake all 6. That way they all look like they are from one universe (keep the look of the OT, make the PT into something that could become that in 20 years). But, if that were to somehow ever happen, there need to be more movies. They need movies that actual cover the Clone Wars. I don't know if it would be an Episode 2.1 kind of deal or a Clone Wars Ep. 1-3 kind of deal. Either way, make them all together so they can be released in rapid succession. I would favor 6 months apart so you could release them all in a short time. The other thing is that we need James Earl Jones to be recorded saying every word in the English language in varying emotional ranges in case he doesn't live long enough to voice Vader again. Alternatively, don't change Vader's lines at all.

A really out there idea would be to have the whole thing animated (I would prefer anime to western animation, and absolutely not Clone Wars CGI) and just use the voice track from the OT for the OT and the PT where possible with rerecordings to fill in the gaps (and give Christopher Lee a lot more screen time).

As for Star Wars, if there's ever a remake, which I hope there won't be, I'd hope they drop I-III, since they really botch the continuity of the whole story created up to that by IV-VI, and go with IV-The Last Command. It would be great to see Timothy Zahn's Heir to the Empire series as VII-IX. I think I'd heard rumors that's what it was plotted for, but that the age of the cast left it as a novel-only option.

My 2 yen,

Lieutenant-Adept Akio
And this is the other piece of the puzzle. If you remake the 6, may as well go ahead and make 7-9 and base them off the Thrawn Trilogy. Just be sure to hire someone to make sure the lore and script don't contradict one another and clean up the prequels so they line up with Zahn's books. If all that works, make some KotoR movies.

Rogue Shadows

2011-08-25, 05:16 PM

Hmm...movies I'd like to see re-made...

...Hell, that's easy.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51F42FV5YML._SL500_AA300_.jpg

Hawriel

2011-08-28, 08:05 PM

The "Connan" movie I just saw.

Karoht

2011-08-28, 08:15 PM

The "Connan" movie I just saw.Not good huh? Yeah, I've been hearing mixed reviews on that one.

dps

2011-08-28, 08:25 PM

They need to remake a lot of things. Old movies are fine but poorly made movies are not.

Things that should get a remake:
-Godzilla - I'd rather see the Matthew Broderick version un-made.
-Invasion of the body snatchers - IDK...it's been made 3 times - each remake inferior to the previous one, the original being a SCI FI classic.
-Star wars Ep 1-3
-Blair witch project[ - I think you would need a very different approach from the original.

I agree with Ricky S's general sentiment, that good movies don't need to be remade (though there are probably some exceptions). But I also agree that his list is a bit odd.

Godzilla: Most of the appeal of the original was its cheesiness, and the fact that it was fairly original. Obviously, a remake wouldn't be original at all, and if you try to be deliberately cheesy, it usually is just plain bad.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers: Agree, the original is a classic, and past remakes haven't been an improvement, so what's the point of trying again.

Star Wars Ep 1-3: At this point, I think Lucas has completely lost sight of what made episodes 4-6 good in the first place, so you'd have to remake them without his input. And that's not going to happen. Plus, you'd have to change so much that, in order to be good, I don't know that the results would even be remakes. More replacements, I'd think.

Blair Witch Project: Agree that you would need a different approach--essentially, the "fake documentary" approach can only work the first time--after that it sort of becomes self-parody (or is seen as self-parody, because doing it again destroys the necessary suspension of disbelief needed to enjoy it as straight horror). And without that gimmick, you're just left with an extremely sparse, undeveloped, generic horror flick.

thegurullamen

2011-08-28, 08:35 PM

That'd actually be quite cool.

Cannot help but agree. To the tune of knowing how to invest a couple million dollars should I ever win the lottery.

Alternatively, someone should just contact K.A. and get a Kickstarter project going. I'd support it.

dehro

2011-08-29, 02:48 AM

more importantly, I feel the need to point out that if you really have to remake a film, you should at least wait a couple of decades before you do it, and even then it's not necessarily a good idea.

for instance, what's the point of remaking this film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_at_a_Funeral_(2007_film)) into this film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_at_a_Funeral_(2010_film)) only 3 years after the first one came out, especially so when they're identical (except for the "black" angle in the second one) to the point that one of the main characters is played by the same actor??
seriously...what is the problem with american audiences and hollywood's need to americanize even things that their audience could really relate to with the slightest of efforts, if an effort is required at all??

Serpentine

2011-08-29, 04:08 AM

Oh geez. Lets not get into the unnecessary American remakes of perfectly good non-American movies. This is, after all, a thread for things that need to be remade :smallwink:

dehro

2011-08-29, 05:25 AM

Oh geez. Lets not get into the unnecessary American remakes of perfectly good non-American movies. This is, after all, a thread for things that need to be remade :smallwink:
my bad
then again, it reinforces my pov that nothing ever needs to be remade :smalltongue:

KingofMadCows

2011-08-29, 06:17 AM

Planescape: Torment, using the exact same script with all dialogue given voice overs by the original cast.

A live action movie version of Batman Beyond.

Star Wars I - III written by the people who wrote KotoR 2 with Palpatine being the main protagonist.

Terminator 3 with James Cameron at the helm and Gale Ann Hurd as producer and William Wisher as a co-writer.

Gnoman

2011-08-29, 06:30 AM

Avilan the Grey

2011-08-29, 01:08 PM

Planescape: Torment, using the exact same script with all dialogue given voice overs by the original cast.

It can't be done; since it will not be a turn based isometric 2D game it will cease to be an RPG and be dumbed down for the 360 kids and the developers will have betrayed true RPG-dom for ever and deserves to be killed in horrible ways.

Haven't you paid attention? :smallwink:

H Birchgrove

2011-08-29, 05:05 PM

Terminator 3 with James Cameron at the helm and Gale Ann Hurd as producer and William Wisher as a co-writer.

I rather want to see film version of either Demon with a Glass Hand or Soldier, preferably both (but not at the same time).

Starbuck_II

2011-08-29, 06:52 PM

Going beyond movies, there's a host of 80's PC/C64 RPGs that really suffered from the limitations of the era, but still were extremely innovative. One notable example is Wasteland, which was a major inspiration for the Fallout series, just to show how successful this sort of think can be.

Would we put all of the game in it this time? Back then they put most of the games dialogue/info in the manual.
So that game fully in itself would be great.
Maybe update graphics a little (keep it turn based version).

Gnoman

2011-08-30, 08:58 AM

That's one of the serious limitations I was referring to. For a more detailed example of other kinds of flaws that were endemic to games of the era, Star Command is an excellent example. There's no way, for example, to determine any of a weapon's stats directly in game, including price. Weight can be laboriously detrmined by inspecting your characters, price can be determined by how much your money goes down when you buy it (again somewhat laborious), but that's about it. Nobody really had figured out a way to do multiple characters at once yet, so your party moves as a single entity in ground combat (which makes a lot of otherwise very good party combinations very difficult to do). The list goes on, but this is a good example of the sort of thing that can be done.

Obrysii

2011-08-30, 09:00 AM

I would like to see Star Wars: Rogue Squadron for N64 remade for the 3DS.

Robert Blackletter

2011-08-30, 01:04 PM

Karoht

2011-08-30, 02:42 PM

I properly going to be hunted down and killed for this but Twilight needs to be remade into a t.v series. Now before you start the hunt let me justify, I've only seen the first two movies (tried reading the books, but hated the writing style so quit the first one about a third of the way through.) but the thing that struck me most was the need for development, the two leads are two dimensional, the girl extremely so. The school friend receive no development and are basically clique. The vampire family seem to have a interesting back story which we hear little about, and there the unexplored hooks, such as dose Bella love Edward at all or is it a mazering effect and not love at all? all these could be fixed simply by giving it to a good writing team and letting them develop a series. O.k you can now start the hunt.On the note of poor film, I would agree with you, on the basis that it can be done better.
However, you can't fix poor writing in a novel by turning it into a TV series.

That is the extent of my negative response.

Robert Blackletter

2011-08-30, 03:07 PM

On the note of poor film, I would agree with you, on the basis that it can be done better.
However, you can't fix poor writing in a novel by turning it into a TV series.

That is the extent of my negative response.

Nicer then I thought the response would be so yea! I would argue that any adaptation in to another media needs rewriting and that stage should allow you too iron out the weakness, of course if the author tries to keep to tight a control then....

Karoht

2011-08-30, 03:16 PM

Nicer then I thought the response would be so yea! I would argue that any adaptation in to another media needs rewriting and that stage should allow you too iron out the weakness, of course if the author tries to keep to tight a control then....

At that point though, one would argue that the book should be rewritten first.
I'm just of the mind that you can't fix poor source material.

If the books are poor, odds are any adaptation attempts will likely be poor as well. Though there might be a real life example where I am completely wrong.

Archpaladin Zousha

2011-08-30, 03:31 PM

:smallconfused:Are, are you serious?
I know I didn't mind Jar Jar all that much. I found him relatively easy to ignore, and he became a lot more dignified in the other sequels. Granted, part of that was the fact that he was demoted to an extra, but still, I like to think government work mellowed him out a bit. I mean, the klutziest you can get with paperwork is a paper cut, so putting him behind a desk was probably the most sensible thing to have done!

Starwulf

2011-08-30, 03:45 PM

I know I didn't mind Jar Jar all that much. I found him relatively easy to ignore, and he became a lot more dignified in the other sequels. Granted, part of that was the fact that he was demoted to an extra, but still, I like to think government work mellowed him out a bit. I mean, the klutziest you can get with paperwork is a paper cut, so putting him behind a desk was probably the most sensible thing to have done!

Ya know, I'll be honest, I've never been able to understand peoples abject hatred towards Jar-Jar. I LOVED Jar-Jar, thought he was perfectly hilarious. That might be because I was a stoner back in the day when I first watched it, but I've watched it since then(and I'm not a stoner anymore), and I still think he's quite funny ^^

dehro

2011-08-30, 07:15 PM

I properly going to be hunted down and killed for this but Twilight needs to be remade into a t.v series. Now before you start the hunt let me justify, I've only seen the first two movies (tried reading the books, but hated the writing style so quit the first one about a third of the way through.) but the thing that struck me most was the need for development, the two leads are two dimensional, the girl extremely so. The school friend receive no development and are basically clique. The vampire family seem to have a interesting back story which we hear little about, and there the unexplored hooks, such as dose Bella love Edward at all or is it a mazering effect and not love at all? all these could be fixed simply by giving it to a good writing team and letting them develop a series. O.k you can now start the hunt.

mmmh so..you hated the books and didn't like the movies either..then..why insist?

also, jar-jar spoke to my inner child enough for me to find him rather funny and an unobtrusive addition to the plot... so no, I have never really understood the hatred towards them..especially so when the biggest recurring objection I seem to find is that it does nothing but pander to the younger demographic..and here I was thinking that these movies, despite their growing cult status, always were mostly meant for children.

McStabbington

2011-08-30, 10:36 PM

mmmh so..you hated the books and didn't like the movies either..then..why insist?

also, jar-jar spoke to my inner child enough for me to find him rather funny and an unobtrusive addition to the plot... so no, I have never really understood the hatred towards them..especially so when the biggest recurring objection I seem to find is that it does nothing but pander to the younger demographic..and here I was thinking that these movies, despite their growing cult status, always were mostly meant for children.

Jar-Jar didn't struck me as more than merely unfunny until I learned a bit more about filmography. You see, the beauty of early Lucas works was that it was deliberately mining the past and evoking the feel without necessarily bringing all the ugly stuff that went along with it. So we could have a heroic adventure film, but instead of having the sexist portrayal of a helpless damsel in distress who invariably finds herself tied to the railroad tracks, we have a scrappy woman who can drink, is actively sexual without being punished for it, and whom can handle herself in a fight (let's leave Temple of Doom out of this for the moment).

But Jar Jar Binks? He's an alien Stepin Fetchit. I'm being totally serious. When Lucas mined the past for a character to serve as comic relief, he came up with a character with bulging eyes, prominent lips, a Jamaican accent and is funny because he is stupid, clumsy and unless he succeeds by accident only survives because the white heroes save him. Instead of trying to fix some of the bad things about comic serials of the old days, like their racism, Lucas took a racist characterization of African-Americans straight from said films, did not change the characterization, but did add a patina of CGI.

So Jar Jar? Yeah, I hate hate hate that character. So much so that while Jar Jar does not, by any stretch of the imagination, exhaust my reasons for hating the series, he is by himself reason enough to make sure that my children never ever ever see the prequel trilogy. In my house, they don't exist.

Xondoure

2011-08-31, 04:28 AM

Starwulf

2011-08-31, 05:24 AM

Jar-Jar didn't struck me as more than merely unfunny until I learned a bit more about filmography. You see, the beauty of early Lucas works was that it was deliberately mining the past and evoking the feel without necessarily bringing all the ugly stuff that went along with it. So we could have a heroic adventure film, but instead of having the sexist portrayal of a helpless damsel in distress who invariably finds herself tied to the railroad tracks, we have a scrappy woman who can drink, is actively sexual without being punished for it, and whom can handle herself in a fight (let's leave Temple of Doom out of this for the moment).

But Jar Jar Binks? He's an alien Stepin Fetchit. I'm being totally serious. When Lucas mined the past for a character to serve as comic relief, he came up with a character with bulging eyes, prominent lips, a Jamaican accent and is funny because he is stupid, clumsy and unless he succeeds by accident only survives because the white heroes save him. Instead of trying to fix some of the bad things about comic serials of the old days, like their racism, Lucas took a racist characterization of African-Americans straight from said films, did not change the characterization, but did add a patina of CGI.

So Jar Jar? Yeah, I hate hate hate that character. So much so that while Jar Jar does not, by any stretch of the imagination, exhaust my reasons for hating the series, he is by himself reason enough to make sure that my children never ever ever see the prequel trilogy. In my house, they don't exist.

And that is what I call reading waaaay wwaaaay to in-depth into movies. I mean, I understand if that's your thing and all, but I personally don't watch movies to dissect them to see exactly what kind of current or past events they reflect. I don't look for hidden tidbits of racism or anything like that. I don't even have those kinds of thoughts in my head when I go to see a movie. I go to see movies for pure entertainment. For fun, as a way to relax and spend time with family and friends. Dissecting them is, well, in a word, boring.(again, to me. I know film students and the like enjoy it, else they wouldn't be in it, but I just don't understand that point of view. It's just so alien to me).

so, having said that, I don't see Jar-Jar as racist as all. I just see him as funny character who is rather dense at times, but has his decent moments here and there. he helps add a bit of tension by the heroes having to rescue him from dire situations, despite the fact that they are annoyed with him.

HFool

2011-08-31, 07:18 AM

And that is what I call reading waaaay wwaaaay to in-depth into movies. I mean, I understand if that's your thing and all, but I personally don't watch movies to dissect them to see exactly what kind of current or past events they reflect. I don't look for hidden tidbits of racism or anything like that. I don't even have those kinds of thoughts in my head when I go to see a movie. I go to see movies for pure entertainment. For fun, as a way to relax and spend time with family and friends. Dissecting them is, well, in a word, boring.(again, to me. I know film students and the like enjoy it, else they wouldn't be in it, but I just don't understand that point of view. It's just so alien to me).

so, having said that, I don't see Jar-Jar as racist as all. I just see him as funny character who is rather dense at times, but has his decent moments here and there. he helps add a bit of tension by the heroes having to rescue him from dire situations, despite the fact that they are annoyed with him.

I dunno, that's seems like something that might hold a bit more weight than just looking way to deep in a movie. I mean, this wasn't just a minor blow back or something that just surfaced on like three blogs 2 years ago; I remember reading quite a few articles and hearing reports from major news networks about it, and I can see some pretty substantial merit to the accusation. If the McStabbington is right (and maybe has some sources on Lucas' thoughts) than that's a lot worse than just being perceived as annoying. And even if he's not, I can still see it as setting a pretty messed up example to kids who are latter on exposed to those characters and see it in a more positive light than it ever should be.

hamishspence

2011-08-31, 07:29 AM

I believe people have pointed out that it wasn't just Jar-Jar, but Watto the Toydarian, and the Nemoidians as well.

Dienekes

2011-08-31, 12:01 PM

I'm sorta with Starwulf in part. I don't read the racism in Jar-Jar. Sure when pointed out I can see the parallels, but it doesn't really phase why I dislike the character.

I hate him because he wasn't funny. Really, at all I didn't laugh when he was on screen I just got annoyed. I believe I wrote a write up on this site cataloging my reaction to Jar-Jar through the movie. I started up hopeful for a character who could be over the top funny like C-3P0 and ended with me raging at the gungans for promoting the incompetent buffoon and hoping that the droids would destroy him.

Also, he had no point in being there in half of his scenes. Why was he brought to Tatooine? He's a swamp creature, by logic he should be the last person who wants to spend any large amount of time in the desert. Plus why would anyone bring him? He's a stupid, noisy, klutzy incompetent when you're trying not to be noticed.

Robert Blackletter

2011-08-31, 01:40 PM

mmmh so..you hated the books and didn't like the movies either..then..why insist?

I disliked the movies? Don't get me wrong I wouldn't say they are good movies but enjoyable in a bland way. Why would I like to see a remake? I think the story and the characters have potential and would like to see it reliese. As for the books, I don't get on with the style it was written, I can't comment on the stories as presented within as I have not read enough.

Karoht

2011-08-31, 02:50 PM

so, having said that, I don't see Jar-Jar as racist as all. I just see him as funny character who is rather dense at times, but has his decent moments here and there. he helps add a bit of tension by the heroes having to rescue him from dire situations, despite the fact that they are annoyed with him.I get your earlier point about it being lighthearted and all (or maybe that was someone else) but to me, it just made me feel like Ep 1-3 was more of the kind of plot you would see on a saturday morning cartoon show. And not the good kind like Ghostbusters, I'm talking the new stuff like powerpuff girls.
The character shoehorned into the plot for reasons that make zero sense, and overall just made me feel like I was the completely wrong audience the film was trying to reach. Which is sad because I really liked Ep 4-6.

Fun story. Remember when Lucas re-released Ep 4-6 in theaters?
The theatre I went to watch them in was pretty eclectic. So when the curtain rose for Return of the Jedi, I was surprised to see, just below the curtain, an orchestral band. I'm not sure if they were highschoolers just dressed nicely or the Calgary Philharmonic Orchestra, but wow. That opening theme never sounded so good as it did that day.
And they also played the closing theme. After the credits they did the mos eisly cantina theme. Priceless.

Rogue Shadows

2011-08-31, 03:35 PM

I'm talking the new stuff like powerpuff girls.

A show that started in 1998 and ended in 2005 is "new?"

Also, I liked the Powerpuff Girls...

Karoht

2011-08-31, 03:43 PM

A show that started in 1998 and ended in 2005 is "new?"

Also, I liked the Powerpuff Girls...
Fine, new-ish stuff, Mr Pedantic. Wait, wasn't PPG new or recently new when Ep 1-3 came out?
Also, I don't watch new cartoons. I'm really not their target demographic.

EDIT: I didn't mind the odd episode of PPG, but when I go to see a film, I expect better. Unless that film is the PPG film. In this case, we're talking about Ep 1-3 of Star Wars. The bar was higher, they failed to hit it.

Starbuck_II

2011-08-31, 04:06 PM

Ya know, I'll be honest, I've never been able to understand peoples abject hatred towards Jar-Jar. I LOVED Jar-Jar, thought he was perfectly hilarious. That might be because I was a stoner back in the day when I first watched it, but I've watched it since then(and I'm not a stoner anymore), and I still think he's quite funny ^^

Totally this. I loved Jar Jar.
The actor who did him used his real voice/syntax too. So it wasn't a paraody of a race, but a guy with a funny voice.

Karoht

2011-08-31, 04:14 PM

Totally this. I loved Jar Jar.
The actor who did him used his real voice/syntax too. So it wasn't a paraody of a race, but a guy with a funny voice.It might not actually be a parody, bit it's still a character reinforcing a stereotype.

Even then, his speech is not the only thing that annoyed people, as already stated.

Ninjadeadbeard

2011-08-31, 11:13 PM

Personally, I wanna see a remake of the "Pirates of Dark Water". Good show, good premise, cancelled too early.

Seerow

2011-08-31, 11:27 PM

Can I suggest a book series here?

Cause if so, the whole set of Midkemia novels since the end of the Serpentwar need to be remade. Preferably with a whole lot more awesome.

H Birchgrove

2011-09-01, 04:29 AM

Personally, I wanna see a remake of the "Pirates of Dark Water". Good show, good premise, cancelled too early.

Good call.

I'd dig a return of Swat Kats: The Radical Squadron, now that we have a new ThunderCats series.

Karoht

2011-09-01, 12:20 PM

If we're going to talk about book remakes, I have one I would like to see, but I know I'll get crucified for suggesting.

Lord of the Rings/Middle Earth's Entire Saga
*DUCKS*

Hear me out.

One thing that makes Lord of the Rings a compelling read, is how much experience of modern warfare of the time that Tolkien expressed in his stories. The fact that he could take lessons from WWI and still express them in a medieval-inspired fantasy is really something.

So I've been curious for some time now if the story or major elements and themes from it could be used as a context to express something similar in the same or similar backdrop.

IE-Express modern warfare such as more urban combats in conflicts like Afghanistan/Iraq, but in a steampunk-inspired fantasy, with the same major story elements as the original works.
Now, the above is probably the worst example I could think up. But you get the idea.

Lord of the Rings in space = new space opera epic similar to Star Wars? In fact certain parables have already been drawn between the two. Gandalf = yoda, Vader = Nazghul with more development, Sauron/Saurmon = Emperor Palpatine, Gondor = Imperial Senate, Mordor and Orcs = Imperial Forces, Uruk-hai = Clone troopers, and the list goes on. And on.

Then again, I had the same thoughts about Chronicles of Narnia.

PS-It's okay if I'm completely off-base on this, even I'm pretty sure that I am.

Xondoure

2011-09-01, 01:18 PM

Pretty off base yeah, you want an updated or sci fi Lord of the Rings and you only have to look… anywhere.

Also Kenobi=Gandalf Yoda=Galadriel/Elrond. :smalltongue:

McStabbington

2011-09-01, 03:09 PM

Personally, I wanna see a remake of the "Pirates of Dark Water". Good show, good premise, cancelled too early.

That's actually an excellent call. I was getting too old for Saturday morning cartoons when that first came on, but it still roped me back in. That and The Real Ghostbusters are the only two cartoon shows that still stand out for me years later.

The Glyphstone

2011-09-01, 03:15 PM

Good call.

I'd dig a return of Swat Kats: The Radical Squadron, now that we have a new ThunderCats series.

Swat Kats was awesome. And if The Wiki That Shall Not Be Linked is to be believed, it was cancelled because the head honcho felt it was competing too effectively with Captain Planet.

Starbuck_II

2011-09-01, 03:17 PM

That's actually an excellent call. I was getting too old for Saturday morning cartoons when that first came on, but it still roped me back in. That and The Real Ghostbusters are the only two cartoon shows that still stand out for me years later.

What about a new robocop series reboot?
There was the cartoon and the real life series. Both were decent, but I liked life action more.

But Pirates of Dark Waters was excellent.

Karoht

2011-09-01, 03:21 PM

I wanted to be a Ghostbuster when I grew up. That was going to be my chosen profession. That is how awesome that show really was.

It had a fantastic animation and visual style, along with compelling story, occasionally the bit of educational material about other cultures and their beliefs of what goes bump in the night, and above average animation for the times. It was a winning combination. I'd give up limbs for a remake even HALF as good.
But would it be too much to ask for a remake that was even better? Just a hair grittier, a bit more mythos, a tiny bit more character development (really, just a smidge more, especially about Winston and Egon and maybe even Jenine) and maybe the odd multi-episode plot from time to time? Thats really all I'd be asking for. More of the same, same quality level, same comedy level, but just a bit more gritty and just a bit mor depth.

I am asking for too much aren't I?

Oh, remake of Bump in the Night. Stop Motion and Claymation are much cheaper and easier to film these days. It's doable. But I think they're missing a critical voice actor, if memory serves me. I forget which member of the cast passed away. So doubtful we will see a remake. Sadface.

H Birchgrove

2011-09-01, 06:14 PM

Swat Kats was awesome. And if The Wiki That Shall Not Be Linked is to be believed, it was cancelled because the head honcho felt it was competing too effectively with Captain Planet.

Interesting. The Other Wiki claimed it was because the executives thought it was too violent, but that could have been the "official" reason.

Not saying that one explanation would contradict the other, though.*

* Not sure if I worded that sentence properly.

BTW, Robocop: TAS? If Swat Kats was too violent... I mean, the intro (http://youtu.be/X_tRjuiObl4) is implied nightmare fuel! Think of the children! :smalleek: :smalltongue: (Doing it intended for young adults could work.)

However, I would watch a re-make of the animated Rambo: Force of Freedom (http://youtu.be/eliQEStzhu4) for the heck of it. :smalltongue:

The Glyphstone

2011-09-01, 06:17 PM

Interesting. The Other Wiki claimed it was because the executives thought it was too violent, but that could have been the "official" reason.

Not saying that one explanation would contradict the other, though.*

* Not sure if I worded that sentence properly.

It's elaborated further on the Screwed By The Network page.

H Birchgrove

2011-09-01, 06:30 PM

It's elaborated further on the Screwed By The Network page.

I'll check it later, then. :smallsmile:

I realised that newer versions of He-Man: Masters of the Universe and Thundarr the Barbarian (or a new animated Conan) would be nice if they could be watchable without the cult and nostalgia glasses on. YMMV.

Sarco_Phage

2011-09-01, 06:35 PM

I believe people have pointed out that it wasn't just Jar-Jar, but Watto the Toydarian, and the Nemoidians as well.

I didn't see any racial stereotypes in Jar-Jar, but Watto? Watto was just outright insulting.

The Nemoidians weren't so bad, but they were still full-on "Yellow Peril" type villains.

thubby

2011-09-01, 06:46 PM

a lot of horror movies and sci-fi would benefit enormously from modern effects.
ones that stick out:
terminator 2
aliens
the exorcist
almost anything that relied on miniatures.

mind you, they'd have to glue themselves to the original writing.

trinity blood always felt rushed and incomplete. NGE needed one, but it seems they're working on that.

Fawkes

2011-09-01, 07:01 PM

McStabbington

2011-09-01, 11:40 PM

The Searchers is actually the first movie that comes to mind when I think about possible remakes. While it's good, it's also overrated (it's not even John Ford's best Western; that title that belongs to The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance) and it's crippled by the comic elements Ford threw in to lighten up the script. To be fair, it's easy to see why in 1956 you would need to lighten up a script that bleak, but today Mose Harper and the section about the accidental marriage just feel so very, very wrong. A contemporary version could go all the way down the rabbit hole.

The key would be a credible Ethan Edwards. I could see someone like Ed Harris or Viggo Mortenson pulling it off.

Fawkes

2011-09-02, 12:19 AM

Honestly, I wouldn't mind seeing Jeff Bridges do Wayne again.

Elrik

2011-09-02, 12:50 AM

Blair Witch Project.

I think they could make it a bit better this time around. I thought it was an intriguing movie but I didn't find it too scary.

H Birchgrove

2011-09-02, 07:29 AM

I wouldn't mind seeing more remakes of classic westerns, a la True Grit and 3:10 to Yuma. It just needs to be done right. Good ones to pick would be The Magnificent Seven, The Searchers, High Noon, Stagecoach, and maybe the Wild Bunch.

As long as not every single re-make is a darker-and-edgier deconstruction, I'm cool with that.

Maybe it's time for a reconstruction (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Reconstruction) of the Western genre?

The Searchers is actually the first movie that comes to mind when I think about possible remakes. While it's good, it's also overrated (it's not even John Ford's best Western; that title that belongs to The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance) and it's crippled by the comic elements Ford threw in to lighten up the script. To be fair, it's easy to see why in 1956 you would need to lighten up a script that bleak, but today Mose Harper and the section about the accidental marriage just feel so very, very wrong. A contemporary version could go all the way down the rabbit hole.

The key would be a credible Ethan Edwards. I could see someone like Ed Harris or Viggo Mortenson pulling it off.

I thought the greatest problem with The Searchers is that it treats Native Americans as Yahoos (even if it probably wasn't the worst offender)...

ThunderCat

2011-09-02, 08:38 AM

a lot of horror movies and sci-fi would benefit enormously from modern effects.
ones that stick out:
terminator 2I think the quicksilver look, as used in T2, is one of the earliest forms of CGI which still works practically unchanged today. And since that's the only real special effect in T2 except for the explosions, a sequel seems a bit superfluous. I agree with others (that I've seen) though.

I second The Bothers Lionheart and Cutthroat Island suggested earlier as needing remakes.

Karoht

2011-09-02, 12:28 PM

a lot of horror movies and sci-fi would benefit enormously from modern effects.
ones that stick out:
terminator 2
aliens
I still look at those two films (and Terminator 1) as James Cameron's best work (if you take Avatar out, as that is a very split opinion).

And as far as all the effects worked, they were absolutely amazing for the time. The models and animatronics were a sensation. I think the only thing that modern effects could do to it would be to just touch up the T-1000's effects (and there isn't that much to touch really), and maybe fix up the T-800's battle damage just a bit.

As for aliens, because they used such awesome suits for the critters, along with amazing animatronics, it gave a very real feel. Remember Alien Resurrection with it's CG critters? Yeah, those didn't look as cool. BUT, compare to the AVP aliens... if they were to use those effects on the Aliens film, yeah, that could be an excellent touch up. But they would have to keep it as gritty as it was. That was the big sell for Aliens, IMO.

Fawkes

2011-09-02, 02:02 PM

As long as not every single re-make is a darker-and-edgier deconstruction, I'm cool with that.

Well, The Wild Bunch already is a darker-and-edgier deconsctruction. :smallbiggrin:

Aotrs Commander

2011-09-02, 04:11 PM

Speaking of old cartoons, how about one of my top three: Centurions?
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szjcCB8m3G8)

That, out of all the 80s cartoons, I thought, has aged about the best (yes, even compared to at least the early episodes of Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors and Transformers): unlike most of the others, I found that Centurions was actually better than I remembered, twenty-five-odd years on.

(For those of you not familiar I liken it to the cartoon equivilent of an action movie. It wasn't deep or heavily reliant on characterisation, but what it was was written with a bit of clever thought. There were not nearly so many plot-holes as in many of the cartoons of similiar age. The heroes occasionally took a few injuries - not just as plot-points, but occasionally just in the rough-and-tumble of the fighting, showing even Doom Drone Strafers got lucky once-in-a-while.

There were no cute child/animal sidekicks; okay two of the characters had pets (and oranutang and a dog), but they were actual animals - with a bit of artificial intelligence boosting - but they were treated as such, and they didn't have plot armour, either. In one episode, when Doc Terror invaded Skyvault, they actually blew up the orangutang! The "cute animal sidekick" actually got hurt! In a cartoon! She was injured with bandages and everything!

And, notably, the series' villain actually posed a real threat to the world. Whereas Miles Mayhem appears to have spent millions making things like giant vacuum cleaners to rob banks of probably less than it cost to make the machine, Doc Terror's plans tended to involve killing off half the planet with some induced natural catastrophe and cyborging the rest.)

A new, updated version up to the standards of the more modern serious cartoons (e.g. Justice League, or even CGI like Clone Wars) could add a little more depth and characterisation (and even allow people to actually get killed occasionally, to drive in Doc Terror as a real, credible threat) and would be spectacular. Heck a live-action film would be stunning (though in truth it would probably suck, because they throw it at some numpty like Michel Bay or something, true to form...)

Serpentine

2011-09-03, 12:47 AM

a lot of horror movies and sci-fi would benefit enormously from modern effects.
ones that stick out:
aliens
The only - the one and singular - scene from Alien I could see as benefitting from better effects is the scene where the baby alien scuttles away. That looked... a little silly.

Sarco_Phage

2011-09-03, 12:51 AM

I would only be amenable to a Centurions remake if they retained Max Ray's legendary pornstache.

Also, if all three remained hard-bitten combat veterans with square jaws and lined faces.

Avilan the Grey

2011-09-03, 01:52 AM

I am very wary of remaking certain classics such as Ghostbusters because I am 100% they would be ruined because of "Darker and Edgier!".

Dienekes

2011-09-03, 02:06 AM

I am very wary of remaking certain classics such as Ghostbusters because I am 100% they would be ruined because of "Darker and Edgier!".

Mind you I love a well done darker and edgier show. I'll take new Battlestar Galactica over old any day of the week for instance. Or the Dark Knight over Batman and Robin (ok that's not exactly a fair example). Also, how does that ruin a movie? The movie is the same, they just took the concept and made a darker clone of it. Feel free to ignore if you want, while I will probably eat up the new.

Also a darker and edgier Ghostbusters? Isn't that just any horror ghost movie? That'd be a pretty silly thing to make darker and edgier. Though, thinking about it a gritty look at ghost hunters could be a pretty cool premise if done well.

As to what can be remade: the works of Dickens. Ok, before the pitchforks come out, I love Dickens I just think he has some pacing issues probably due to the installment nature of his writing. If I could teleport him to the present and give him all the funds he needed to write the stories in one go I think the relatively minor problem would be solved.

Gnoman

2011-09-03, 09:37 AM

As to what can be remade: the works of Dickens.

That gets done all the time.

Aotrs Commander

2011-09-03, 09:56 AM

I would only be amenable to a Centurions remake if they retained Max Ray's legendary pornstache.

Also, if all three remained hard-bitten combat veterans with square jaws and lined faces.

Well, obviously. The presense of Max's moustache is a deal-breaker!

And you mean all five. (And Crystal. And Shadow and Lucy.)

I am very wary of remaking certain classics such as Ghostbusters because I am 100% they would be ruined because of "Darker and Edgier!".

I agree. I'm really not fond "darker and edgier" because it is always used as an excuse or adding melodrama and people shouting at each other and being miserable and/or angsty a lot more (which I do not, and never have, found even remotely entertaining), and killing off characters for no other reason that to shout "look, we're killing characters off! Look how mature (sic) we're being!" Now, granted, some writers are capable of doing something with a more serious tone and pulling it off, but they seem to be much in the minority in the current media climate.

Karoht

2011-09-05, 08:57 AM

I am very wary of remaking certain classics such as Ghostbusters because I am 100% they would be ruined because of "Darker and Edgier!".Just my opinion, but I feel Ghostbusters is actually a genre that might benefit from it. The first season of The Real Ghostbusters was pretty dark and edgy for the times. The bogeyman episodes gave me serious nightmares. And he was a cartoony exagerated villain.

As later seasons progressed, it got lighter, which made it too silly to take seriously anymore. The suspense and atmosphere was totally gone. And that was when the show went downhill.

So a darker and edgier remake of this particular genre might not necessarily be a bad thing. It's one of those shows that actually lends itself to being darker and edgier.

Any remake of Ghostbusters really just needs to stick to the formula. 4 guys cracking jokes and having bad stuff happen to them like being slimed, as the source of humor. Bad breath jokes aimed at Gozer's dogs and such. Venkman making fun of Vigo while he's trapped in a painting, but as a clever ploy to get his eyes to follow the camera from every angle. That sort of thing. Now add a palpable atmosphere of really really bad stuff, creeky floorboards, malfunctioning lights, strange winds that snuff out candles, a hand on a shoulder that isn't there when someone turns around, that sort of thing.
Imagine the Ghostbusters trying to stop something like the coming of Gozer, but with the tense atmosphere of a japanese horror film. With amazingly well timed jokes and one liners that don't detract from the atmosphere-o-creepy. Or when they're going up the building to face gozer, instead of watching stuff happen outside the building, look inside to unspeakable horrors climbing out of the walls while the team goes up the stairs.

If the bumped it up to an R rating, you just might have an excellent scary but fun movie.

Aotrs Commander

2011-09-05, 04:44 PM

Just my opinion, but I feel Ghostbusters is actually a genre that might benefit from it. The first season of The Real Ghostbusters was pretty dark and edgy for the times. The bogeyman episodes gave me serious nightmares. And he was a cartoony exagerated villain.

As later seasons progressed, it got lighter, which made it too silly to take seriously anymore. The suspense and atmosphere was totally gone. And that was when the show went downhill.

So a darker and edgier remake of this particular genre might not necessarily be a bad thing. It's one of those shows that actually lends itself to being darker and edgier.

Any remake of Ghostbusters really just needs to stick to the formula. 4 guys cracking jokes and having bad stuff happen to them like being slimed, as the source of humor. Bad breath jokes aimed at Gozer's dogs and such. Venkman making fun of Vigo while he's trapped in a painting, but as a clever ploy to get his eyes to follow the camera from every angle. That sort of thing. Now add a palpable atmosphere of really really bad stuff, creeky floorboards, malfunctioning lights, strange winds that snuff out candles, a hand on a shoulder that isn't there when someone turns around, that sort of thing.
Imagine the Ghostbusters trying to stop something like the coming of Gozer, but with the tense atmosphere of a japanese horror film. With amazingly well timed jokes and one liners that don't detract from the atmosphere-o-creepy. Or when they're going up the building to face gozer, instead of watching stuff happen outside the building, look inside to unspeakable horrors climbing out of the walls while the team goes up the stairs.

If the bumped it up to an R rating, you just might have an excellent scary but fun movie.

The early episodes of Ghostbusters were definately among the scariest (as they were penned, after all, by Michel J Strs..Strys... Michel J Babylon-5-Guy); my personal highlight was Mrs [somebody's] neighbourhood, which I and my mate first watched with all the curtains drawn, but in daylight, after school, and it scared the crap out of us. Watching it again on DVD, I was like, "why was I scared of this, this isn't too ba-

*Venkman gets possessed*

-oh. Right. Now I remember..."

A decent (i.e. Shakespearian comedy, humour with very serious elements) take on it would work. However, "darkier and edgier" generally seems to mean a buzz-word meddling execs (or equally deluded writers) meaning that everyone should act like a jerk and shout at each other a lot (punctuated by random character deaths, so show how "real" it is. "Darker and edgier" is the bane of this couple of decades, like "cool" and "hip" (etc) was to the 90s (and lest we invoke the Dark Age of comics...)