What Movie Remakes do YOU Want to See?

[Fragenstein]

So I was taken completely by surprise when I learned of the Total Recall remake. Honestly, the original wasn't that great. I enjoyed it at the time, but it's hardly a classic.

That's what I've always considered remakes to be; classic movies that were well done the first time and re-imagined for a more modern audience. Yeah, it's done for money, but I never really considered that bad movies could be remade as well.

So apparently anything can be remade. Is there anything you actually WANT to see remade?

Me? I'd like to see Vin Diesel cast as Mad Max. The first movie of what some people forget was a trilogy. I think he'd do well with the role. If so, then move him on to The Road Warrior as a followup. Go ahead and skip Thunderdome, however. That's okay.

Oddly enough, I'd also like to them take another shot at Knight Rider 2010. Mr. Diesel, again. It seemed to be his style, and not just because it involved a car.

Anyone else? I know we all like to see original material hit the screen, but we also know remakes are going to happen. Some of them can possibly be well done.

[Dr.Epic]

As Red Letter Media said, maybe a remake of Indiana Jones could be pretty cool if they get the right people involved in it.

[Fragenstein]

As Red Letter Media said, maybe a remake of Indiana Jones could be pretty cool if they get the right people involved in it.

Wow. Now there's a challenge. Who would be the right people? What changes in the scenes or pacing would you like to see?

It just seems like the whole movie (the first one, at least), fell together so well that it'd be difficult to improve.

[Dr.Epic]

Wow. Now there's a challenge. Who would be the right people? What changes in the scenes or pacing would you like to see?

It just seems like the whole movie (the first one, at least), fell together so well that it'd be difficult to improve.

I'm tempted to say Daniel Craig for Dr. Jones.

[Mx.Silver]

Highlander.

The original film has a good soundtrack, an interesting setting/gimmick and a fairly memorable villain. Unfortunately it suffers a lot from some rather questionable casting choices and performances (Clancy Brown is really the only one who works), underwhelming action scenes and a rather slapdash narrative that tries to cram too much into its fairly short running time. The end result being a film that doesn't quite work when taken as a whole, but which shouldn't be that hard to fix if handled by people who know what they're doing.
A remake would also be able to avoid having to deal with the franchise's infamously bad sequels (which have always struck me as being double weird since the film is clearly better suited to prequels). In fact if they're actually aiming for a rebooted franchise, it might be better to actually to set the film before the quickening of the first film.

The central premise to the film really has quite a lot of potential for good films and stories (not least because there's around 500 years of human history to play around with). Whether or not the remake that is supposedly in the works already will be able to pull that off though is another matter...

[Rake21]

Highlander.

The original film has a good soundtrack, an interesting setting/gimmick and a fairly memorable villain. Unfortunately it suffers a lot from some rather questionable casting choices and performances (Clancy Brown is really the only one who works), underwhelming action scenes and a rather slapdash narrative that tries to cram too much into its fairly short running time. The end result being a film that doesn't quite work when taken as a whole, but which shouldn't be that hard to fix if handled by people who know what they're doing.
A remake would also be able to avoid having to deal with the franchise's infamously bad sequels (which have always struck me as being double weird since the film is clearly better suited to prequels). In fact if they're actually aiming for a rebooted franchise, it might be better to actually to set the film before the quickening of the first film.

The central premise to the film really has quite a lot of potential for good films and stories (not least because there's around 500 years of human history to play around with). Whether or not the remake that is supposedly in the works already will be able to pull that off though is another matter...

I'm cautiously optimistic about this one.

On one hand, Ryan Renolds should be able to pull off a good Conner McCloud. The director is trying to use an all Queen soundtrack again. And it can't be the worst movie made in the franchise, because that would probably break a fundamental rule of physics.

On the other hand, the franchise has not done well outside of the original movie. Even the tolerable third movie and TV series are good only when compared to the other things that have been produced with the "Highlander" name attached.

[Emmerask]

Star Wars ep 1 -3 (without lucas directing, writing or in fact having anything to do with it).

Flash Gordon

[Mx.Silver]

I'm cautiously optimistic about this one.

On one hand, Ryan Renolds should be able to pull off a good Conner McCloud. The director is trying to use an all Queen soundtrack again. And it can't be the worst movie made in the franchise, because that would probably break a fundamental rule of physics.

Renolds is a decent actor (and hopefully can actually handle a sword reasonably well) but I'd still rather it actually had, you know, a scottish actor as Conner. Admttedly there aren't really any well-known ones who'd work, which is a problem for Hollywood's casting policies. True, I doubt he could be less convincing as a scotsman than Christopher Lambert but given that casting problems were fairly noticeable in the original (Sean Connery as an Egyptian who was posing as a Spaniard. Who the hell though that was a good idea?) it's not an enouraging sign.

On the other hand, the franchise has not done well outside of the original movie. Even the tolerable third movie and TV series are good only when compared to the other things that have been produced with the "Highlander" name attached.

Yeah, which is a shame because there is actually quite a lot of potential within the Highlander world (as it was in the first, anyway). For a start, you have about 500 years of human history to play around with (not focussing on Conner defeats the point of calling it Highlander, after all). Quite a lot happened in that time, and the immortals tended to do a lot of travelling there's a wide range of setting choices available.

Moreover, it comes with an in-built reason for conflict since the immortals are by their nature destined to fight each other, and be rewarded for being the last one standing. There's a lot of possible antagonist motivation there, besides the Kurgan's style of villainy (which works, but shouldn't be the default). Some immortals could be seeking the prize to use it to actively shape the world, whether for their own glory or because they think they could 'improve' it. Or how about an immortal who thinks that no one should get The Prize and is actively trying to prevent the Quickening by imprisoning and/or crippling other immortals (just what happens if an immortal loses a limb anyway? The original film never brings it up). There's even the possibility of a more tragic confrontation, where the antagonist isn't a particularly bad person but if forced into conflict because that's how immortals are.

That last point also touches on the fact there's also a fair amount of potential for depth present as well. Mortality is a pretty major element of the Human Condition, yet here we have an entire group of people who do not age, who are not bound by the handful of decades the rest of us have to live our lives by. How they deal with that and how that effects them is a fairly important question. Besides the difficulties it brings with human relationships, there are other matters posed by being static in a changing world. How does it feel to leave your homeland knowing that when you come back they may not even be speaking the same language? Can an immortal be said to have a home at all? Should they try and stay connected to the world or drift away from it? Should an immortal really think of themselves as being human?
Moreover these immortals, for all their power, also have notable limits. They may be immune to the random tragedy that can damage our lives (accidental death and illness) but they are fundamentally trapped bound by a particular destiny and forced to abide by certain rules that they cannot break. Exactly how much free will do they have? Is immortality itself a blessing, a curse, or simply what you make of it?
It's also worth noting that the immortals also open a way of exploring how much things change. A 'hero' of the classical Greek model would have very different qualities to what we would consider necessary to be one. A lot of moral standard that we take for granted today (our views on slavery, animal cruelty, egalitarianism, killing in general, etc) were not always held by our ancestors. It's likely at least some immortals would reflect this.

Now, it's not as if a film needs to be focused entirely on these sorts of questions (Highlander is an action film first and foremost) but being aware of them and acknowledging them to some degree is certainly an option. It's not as you can't make a decent action film that also touches on some deeper issues too and Highlander actually has plenty of possibilities in that regard. There's also quite a strong potential emotional element too, given that immortals will inevitably have felt a fair amount of loss at some point as their mortal friends and loved ones, should they have any, will likely only be temporary connections. Any relationships between immortals will also be over-shadowed by the fact that, eventually, there can be only one.



Of course, the franchise itself has seldom, if ever, even tried use any of this. In fact pretty much all the sequels and spin-offs seem to keep making a lot of really obvious mistakes.
1: being set chronologically after the first film. This is really rather stupid, given that at the end of Highlander there is only immortal left. There's really nowhere to go after that.
2: Violating the 'Rules'. It's not that hard to understand: don't fight on holy ground, there can be only one. Why would you bother changing this?
3: Forgetting Conner is the last immortal to be born. This is mostly a consequence of 1, but it really gets silly quite fast. I mean, what's the point of the Quickening if new immortals can just keep popping-up all over the place? The series is a particularly big offender in this regard. In fact, any reboot would probably be better off treating the series as being in it's own separate world.
4: Trying to explain too much. The origin of the immortals kind of works best when it's left vague. It's left unexplained because it doesn't need to be explained and unless someone has a really good explanation ('Aliens!' doesn't count) it should probably be left that way.
5. Being generally crap. Although they often manage to be far, far, worse than that.

Star Wars ep 1 -3 (without lucas directing, writing or in fact having anything to do with it).

Honestly, I don't think we ever really needed any Star Wars prequels to begin with. Pretty much everything that needs to be in Star Wars is in the original trilogy.

[Fragenstein]

Star Wars ep 1 -3 (without lucas directing, writing or in fact having anything to do with it).

Flash Gordon

I was tempted to mention Flash, myself. But I wanted to see if someone else would as well. Glad to see they did.

So who would play Flash? Can't be Daniel Craig this time. Flash is a young buck with long blond hair.

[Yora]

Star Wars ep 1 -3 (without lucas directing, writing or in fact having anything to do with it).

Didn't think of that way.

Instead of new interpretations of good movies, make second attemps at awful movies that could have been great.

Star Wars 1-3 are very big candidates for that.

[ThePhantasm]

Honestly, I don't think we ever really needed any Star Wars prequels to begin with. Pretty much everything that needs to be in Star Wars is in the original trilogy.

I absolutely agree.

[Mx.Silver]

Didn't think of that way.

Instead of new interpretations of good movies, make second attemps at awful movies that could have been great.

Star Wars 1-3 are very big candidates for that.

What, exactly, in the Star Wars Prequels that actually had potential? Because I can't see how you could create anything even remotely good about them without completely re-writing the script, the characters and scrapping pretty much all the designs.

[Emmerask]

If they would start at ep 3 and then go on from that it could be good ^^
With some additional story modification that gives a bit more depth to vader then just the "okay I kill kids now".

The most important thing however would be to get away from the lollipop feel all the new episodes have, I liked the old more gritty style a lot better.

As for the scraping everything, quite a few remakes pretty much only have the protagonists name and general universe/very rough storyline in common so redoing everything is not out of the question with a remake ^^

[Mx.Silver]

As for the scraping everything, quite a few remakes pretty much only have the protagonists name and general universe/very rough storyline in common so redoing everything is not out of the question with a remake ^^

Yes, but the thing is we already have something better with the same general universe and some character names. It's called the Star Wars trilogy. The only potential that approach leaves is for more Star Wars and given the landfill of spin-off books, comics and videogames that particular niche is already looking distinctly over-crowded.

[Hopeless]

A remake of the American Godzilla movie except projected as a trilogy where the first uses the script from the original except it breaks free of the bridge and all we know for sure is that Broderick & co have escaped is wrath... for now but it ends with radio broadcasts as the image goes to black wih frantic calls for help and sounds of it smashing it way out of Manhatten.

The second movie has the US Military hunting Matthew Broderick's character as we learn Gojira has spent the last three years demolishing the US before heading into the Pacific via San Francisco.

They want to use him to lure it to the centre of the desert so they can kill it with three nuclear warheads however its disappearance into the Pacific has insured they can't use their plan.

The French retrieve Broderick and reveal his old friend was responsible for luring Gojira into the Pacific and needs his help as another kaju has appeared off the Russian coast.

Broderick eventually figures out that the French nuclear tests didn't create the creatures they only woke them up and an American plan to persuade the Russians to nuke Gojira and the new monster is almost thwarted when Broderick warns them that their presence means there may be more lying dormant in the area.

The US set off a nuke making it look like the Russians did it for plausible deniability and watch in horror as two more monsters burst out of the water/ ground.

This movie ends with Gojira and Kaju#2 battling as #3 and #4 start roaming across the country with one heading for Japan and the other crossing into Korea...

The final movie we learn Korea used nukes to kill the one that penetrated their country but in so doing awakened a new form of Kaju that takes the form of worms that gradually grow in size as they disperse across the continent.

Broderick traces evidence found by the French and his own subsequent research and uncovers an ancient ruin with information on the Kaju... in Japan revealing the Kaju enter a sleep cycle every few years to allow the ecology to recover rather than empty their food source.
Using the information he has the UN deliver food supplies to large underground areas and draws the kaju in but this is when the worms appear however the Kaju pursue the worms inside the prepared chambers and are sealed within as video monitors reveal the worms are their preferred food source and once they finish eating they enter a suspended state of animation, hibernating as the source of the worms is located and sealed away for the next time the Kaju wake up.

Broderick reveals that the Kaju were the result of the Earth developing a means to combat an alien epidemic that takes the form of the worms which when consumed granted the Kaju the means to survive prolonged hibernation only to awaken when the worms were about to spawn once more, however the use of nuclear weapon tests accelerated the worms' growth cycle and awakened the Kaju nearest to them, Broderick reveals that Gojira was spawning children to help cover for the fact it was the only Kaju awakened and had the testing not happened the Kaju and the Worms might have appeared maybe in another few hundred years...

It ends with Broderick hoping humanity had found a way to spread out to the stars since he doubted humanity will have found a way to handle the worms without the Kaju and the Kaju might start treating humanity the same way it treated the worms for the same reason they created...

It ends with a televison crew encountering the spawn of the Kaju who this time weren't discovered in time...

[Ravens_cry]

In my opinion, it is very rarely a movie needs to be re-made in my opinion.
Now, sometimes the setting depicted in the original could have changed so much that a remake is justified.
Oceans 11 is a good example of this.
Planning a theft of a casino is a very, very different proposition now than when the original Frank Sinatra film came out, security is very different, so a remake made sense.
Sometimes the original is so flawed that a remake could be good as a kind of do-over, telling the subject matter better.
I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, though the Godfather part III might benefit from this.
Sometimes film-making technology has improved to the point where the story can be told much more effectively now.
A lot of superhero films are like this. Modern CGI has really opened up the doors to creating fantastic scenarios that actually feel real.
But a lot of the time, a remake just feels unnecessary.
For example I don't think a remake of Ben-Hur will be needed any time soon.
The gripping tension of the famous chariot race is still there, just as it was when it first came out.
It is still a highly effective film; an epic in the real sense of the word.

[Brother Oni]

[Snip Highlander suggestions]

A fair number of these points have been explored in the TV series, particularly the 'not so bad' Immortals forced into battle because 'there can be only one', and how to deal with the fact that your mortal lovers are well, mortal.

Even the original film handles the last point to an extent, exemplified by the song 'Who Wants To Live forever?'.

An indepth character study and exploration of the Immortal psyche (especially their adjustment from a mortal to immortal mindset) sounds like a bit much for a single film or even a series of films, especially since you have to fit in the requisite action scenes and sword fights in.

With regard to the new immortals popping up, I vaguely remember that there was a discussion between Watchers that the rate of new ones coming through had reduced dramatically (off the top of my head, throughout the whole 6 year run of the original series, I only remember 3 new immortals coming into being).
In any case, the new ones are often picked off fairly easily by the vastly older and more experienced immortals, thus making their impact rather minimal. Of course there's the problem of one of them doing what Xavier St Cloud did and start gunning down rival immortals and taking their heads while they were incapacitated.

Bringing it back to dismemberment, a couple of immortals have shown that those injuries can't be regenerated (St Cloud lost a hand to Duncan) or only with minimal repair (the Kurgan and Kalas with their throat injuries, Kalas in particular losing his singing voice).

[Dr.Epic]

I want a remake of Wanted that's actually faithful to the comics and not a generic antiheroes with guns movie.

[Zen Monkey]

The Ten Commandments, with less theatrical stage acting and better effects. The original isn't exactly bad, but is very much a product of cinema at that time and follow conventions that aren't used anymore.

[Telonius]

Metropolis. An amazing flick, way ahead of its time in many respects, but what's dated is really, really dated. Unfortunately I don't think there's a director alive today I'd trust to do it right.

[dps]

So I was taken completely by surprise when I learned of the Total Recall remake. Honestly, the original wasn't that great. I enjoyed it at the time, but it's hardly a classic.

That's what I've always considered remakes to be; classic movies that were well done the first time and re-imagined for a more modern audience. Yeah, it's done for money, but I never really considered that bad movies could be remade as well.

See, that's almost exactly the opposite of my opinion about what movies should be remade. This is what I had to say in the Movie Discussion Thread when the planned remake of Judge Dredd came up:

"The thing is, if they're going to be remaking movies or rebooting franchises, properties like Judge Dredd seem to me a good place to start. Don't remake good movies, because someone has already done a good job with the concept. Remake the bad movies that had a good concept, but were poorly done, and get it right this time."

[tensai_oni]

I agree with dps. Don't remake good movies, remake bad ones that had potential to be good but wasted it.

Metropolis. An amazing flick, way ahead of its time in many respects, but what's dated is really, really dated. Unfortunately I don't think there's a director alive today I'd trust to do it right.

Does Osamu Tezuka's Metropolis counts, since it's less of a remake and more an "inspired by"?

[Telonius]

Does Osamu Tezuka's Metropolis counts, since it's less of a remake and more an "inspired by"?

I probably wouldn't call it a remake based on the reviews I've read. (I've never seen it - really need to get around to it one of these days - so I can't say for sure). Re-interpretation or "inspired by," absolutely.

I generally agree with dps, but Metropolis is one of those exceptions. Even if the original movie is excellent, there might be certain aspects of it that just don't jive with modern audiences anymore. Silent movies are filled with that sort of thing. They were still figuring out the conventions of what people expected from film actors. At certain points, the acting - while perfectly good, even superb, for its time - just breaks the suspension of disbelief for a modern audience. It makes it hard to experience it as a movie, instead of a piece of cinematic history. In a case like that, a remake is warranted.

[Dr.Epic]

The Ten Commandments, with less theatrical stage acting and better effects. The original isn't exactly bad, but is very much a product of cinema at that time and follow conventions that aren't used anymore.

But they already remade it in musical form!

[Ravens_cry]

But they already remade it in musical form!

It even had Sir Patrick Stewart as the original Pharaoh!

[Fragenstein]

I agree with dps. Don't remake good movies, remake bad ones that had potential to be good but wasted it.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that we should remake classics. It's just that I understand why we do. A lazy and uninspired production system takes advantage of the existing popularity of a 30 year old movie and tries to make money by throwing around an updated version of it.

They expect a reaction of, oh... "Wow! It's Willy Wonka for MY generation! So cool!"

So who sat around a boardroom and said, with a straight face, that people wanted to see another Total Recall?

"Do you remember that one? Schwarzenegger was in it. Around the time people stopped caring about him except for Terminator stuff. Quaid, start the reactor?"

"Oh, what, that thing? I thought Robot Chicken came up with that. I remember, now. Yeah. Hooker with three boobs... Let's do it."


They're not calling it "We Can Remember it For You Wholesale". They're not calling it "Philip K. ****'s Total Recall". It's just weird. And it's unlikely to be any more true to the original source than the first attempt.

I don't know, though. I haven't seen it yet. It just struck me as weird that it'd be granted a second life. So how about Robot Jocks and Battle Beyond the Stars for our next remakes? 'Sounds about as randomly selected.

[LaughingGnoll]

I want a remake of Wanted that's actually faithful to the comics and not a generic antiheroes with guns movie.

Amen brother.

As to the Total Recall reboot, I feel like the only reason they even bothered to re-use the name was so that people who saw the original with Schwarzenegger might go see it. The original idea wasn't that bad, and I enjoyed the movie, though I wouldn't say it was one of the best movies ever.

Anyone ever seen The Terror? It was actually not terrible for the time period, and the story (though maybe a little trope-ish for modern standards) was interesting enough that a modern reboot could be very interesting.

Either that or the 1963 version of Dr. Doolittle. It was much better than the Eddie Murphy version.

[Aotrs Commander]

Personally, I rather against remakes and reboots, because I'm rather tired of the same story being told again and again with slightly different permutations. (I want that, I'll read fanfiction...!)

New adaptions of whole stories, I'm less against, provided sufficient time between is provided (e.g. LotR or some such).

New stories with existant characters (e.g. superheroes or the aforementioned Judge Dredd) I don't mind, either. (What I mostly object to is being subjected to the origin story again and again, when it really, REALLY is not important. One of the things I liked about Superman Returns was that it wasn't another reboot.)

Exceptions, of course, remain for movies with good concepts but dreadful executed.

Though I'm hard pressed to think of an example that would not be better served, rather than a remake, so such as a new, different story with the same characters and concepts (mostly because virtually ALL the good movies of the last, well, nearly a decade or so, have been adaptions of Things That Exist In Other Media.)

[Fragenstein]

Exceptions, of course, remain for movies with good concepts but dreadful executed.

Or is that... Dreddfully Executed...?

[Thiel]

Personally I would pay good money to watch a remake of the Sharpe tv series.
The original is okay, but it was let down by a small budget and the technology of the day. It failed quite badly at conveying the epic sense of scale and violence the books used.