Remakes no one wanted.

[Gromit]

Someone has described Another Round as:​

Leonardo DiCaprio’s Remake of $21.7M Oscar Winning Movie That Nobody Wants.​

So I started to think of other remakes no one wanted.

Tom Cruise’s The Mummy has to be high on that list.

 

[Pickman's model]

Any op posted in bold opens a thread no one wants

 

[petee]

Someone has described Another Round as:​

Leonardo DiCaprio’s Remake of $21.7M Oscar Winning Movie That Nobody Wants.​

So I started to think of other remakes no one wanted.

Tom Cruise’s The Mummy has to be high on that list.

what's with the typeface dude

 

[gosub]

Italian Job,
Day of the Jackel,
Get Carter,
Ghostbusters

 

[Humberto]

The Producers

 

[ska invita]

all of them

 

[Sue]

Van Sant's shot by shot remake of Psycho. I mean why????

 

[Sue]

The Wicker Man.
Infernal Affairs.
Les Diaboliques.

(Loads of non-English language films tbh.)

Eta Realised I've given the originals not the remakes.

 

[Epona]

Van Sant's shot by shot remake of Psycho. I mean why????

Presumably being exactly the same as the original is enough for some people.
It's like someone doing an exact copy of a classic painting or something - yes it's very clever, but unless you're going to pass it off as the original and make a load of money, just why?

 

[Ax^]

ah tbf some people just won't watch black and white movies

id did not hate the remake as it was just a repeat of the original

 

[littlebabyjesus]

all of them

There is one exception I can think of. Hitchcock's remake of his own film, The Man Who Knew Too Much. The original does have Peter Lorre, but the remake is a much better film. It's just better made.

 

[ska invita]

at least the Psycho remake was an interesting experiment rather than a naked attempt to cash in

 

[agricola]

Living (the Bill Nighy remake of Ikiru)

 

[ouirdeaux]

Apart from Gaslight, where the remake was made four years after the original, I don't thnk I've seen any remakes. And it means I get them muddled.

No, there's no point, by and large. But that applies to a lot of life.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Apart from Gaslight, where the remake was made four years after the original, I don't thnk I've seen any remakes.

No, there's no point, by and large. But that applies to a lot of life.

I haven't seen most of those listed so far, and have no desire to, but as Sue said, Hollywood remakes loads of non-English-language films. You may well have seen some without realising.

 

[ska invita]

No, there's no point, by and large. But that applies to a lot of life.

no point wishing to remake your past either

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I've thought of another good one. Nosferatu. Original and Herzog versions both have their own charms. Both worth having.

 

[Lord Camomile]

Ocean's Eleven is far better than Ocean's 11, for a start.

It's one of those things that comes up from time to time, but can't bring any of the other obvious ones to mind right now.

 

[Epona]

at least the Psycho remake was an interesting experiment rather than a naked attempt to cash in

Oh don't get me wrong, I found it interesting.
In much the same way I find it interesting if someone manages to do a good job doing a forgery (although that is probably a weighted word) of a painting.
It's interesting.
In some ways, I'd rather see a remake doing something different, rather than a shot by shot, which is interesting but it's only at best a direct copy of the original, in which it either succeeds as being the same as the original, or it fails by getting something wrong - I'm not sure it's worth doing that really, in an artistic sense.

 

[gosub]

Thomas crown affair

 

[Sue]

There is one exception I can think of. Hitchcock's remake of his own film, The Man Who Knew Too Much. The original does have Peter Lorre, but the remake is a much better film. It's just better made.

The 1954 version of A Star is Born is much better than the 30s/70s versions.

Haven't seen the must recent one but Lady Gaga/Bradley Cooper are no Judy Garland/James Mason.

 

[Sue]

Apart from Gaslight, where the remake was made four years after the original, I don't thnk I've seen any remakes. And it means I get them muddled.

No, there's no point, by and large. But that applies to a lot of life.

Have you seen The Departed? Insomnia? The Ring? The Magnificent Seven? The Coen brothers' True Grit or The Ladykillers or Whisky Galore? Loads of things are remakes, some better than others.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The 1954 version of A Star is Born is much better than the 30s/70s versions.

Haven't seen the must recent one but Lady Gaga/Bradley Cooper are no Judy Garland/James Mason.

Looking that up, I think I've only seen the Streisand version. Probably an omission.

Four versions of the same film. I wonder what the record is?

 

[Sue]

Looking that up, I think I've only seen the Streisand version. Probably an omission.

Four versions of the same film. I wonder what the record is?

See the 1954 version. Seriously, it's great.

 

[belboid]

all of them

Tish and tosh to you, sir!

The Wizard of Oz was first filmed in 1925. There's a 1931 version of The Maltese Falcon. There are probably more recent ones too.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm also in a very small minority of people (who already knew the original) who think the Coens' Ladykillers is really good and worth having.

 

[gosub]

True grit is defo an improvement

 

[belboid]

There are many remakes which, by any disinterested standard, should be hailed as improvements on originals. Many of us will prefer the original essentially because we grew up with it. That's all. The following are all better, recent, remakes. I prefer some of the originals, but only because of a familiarity which has failed to breed contempt.

True Grit
Thomas Crown Affair
The Thing
West Side Story
Dracula
Casino Royale
His Girl Friday (okay, thats not so recent).

 

[rubbershoes]

The 1978 Invasion of the Body Snatchers is better than the 1950s original, and better than the two later remakes as well

 

[danny la rouge]

The Day the Earth Stood Still. Just no, Keanu. No.