I hope none of you go see this....hollywood just chasing money...ruining awesome original films with cheesy re-makes.
Point Break Remake (2015)
- Thread starter Jysin
- Start date
Mist
Eeyore Enthusiast
- 30,362
- 22,120
McCheese
SW: Sean, CW: Crone, GW: Wizardhawk
- 6,888
- 4,245
Serious question because I see people tossing similar phrases to the quoted one around a lot here: how does doing a remake "ruin" the original film? The original film is still around and you can watch it anytime you want. It's not as if the remake is going to totally replace the original. If anything, I'd think a remake is a good thing for an older movie because it brings awareness back to the original; for example, I'm sure there are millions of younger people who have never heard of Point Break, but maybe they'll see this and think "Hmm, I wonder if the original was any good?" and go check it out.
I've always been a fan of remakes. I love the original Robocop, and the fact that they did a remake didn't hurt my enjoyment of the original at all. In fact, when I saw a trailer for the remake I got in the mood to go back and give the original another watch, which is something I never would have thought to do had the movie not been put back to the front of my mind due to the remake's trailer. I think it's neat to see movies reimagined in reboots/remakes.
Chukzombi
Millie's Staff Member
- 71,640
- 212,862
because its a kick in the dick to the art and nostalgia ascribed to such timeless classics. and as for sequels/prequels made 20 years after the original, when you introduce new poorly written canon it DOES diminish the original product. midichlorians for example, or making the highlander not a scot, but an alien from the planet zeist or whetevershitfuck it was called. tragedies like this can not be abided by.
Alex
Still a Music Elitist
- 14,496
- 7,409
Bad example. I can think of countless songs where the cover is much better than the original. Like. Almost every single Bob Dylan cover.
Chukzombi
Millie's Staff Member
- 71,640
- 212,862
a cover song's quality is only partly based off of the lyrics, it has much more to do with the artists performing it. you are also only getting writing+audio. a movie is writing+audio+visual+tone. there are more avenues to fuck up and because its mostly visual its much harder to replicate the "magic" of the original.
ohkcrlho
Silver Baronet of the Realm
- 6,906
- 8,940
So much of this....and i think there is a thread discussing which remakes are better than the original movies.
Nonetheless:
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
True. But I can think of plenty that aren't. This is more of the "but aren't" variety.
Music is different though. You may have an improv section within the song itself that differs but if the longer form, progression, melodies and harmonies aren't immediately recognizable then you don't have a coversong. There are a lot of tricks compiled over hundreds of years to vary it, but it still has to be recognizable. If it's not then you have some p-diddy travesty of a mash-up. Which isn't a cover song. It may be a song, but it's not the same song.
This is more like p-diddy since I doubt they'll be using the exact same script, costuming, sets, and locations. It reallywouldbe interesting to see a remake done like that. Exact same movie, different casting.
Interesting. I'm not saying it would be any good. It probably wouldn't be. But it might be. That's all a play is... and stage plays don't go bad after the first cast.
It's pretty amazing that things have gotten so bad in Hollywood that they have been reduced to doing remakes of really shitty movies.
McCheese
SW: Sean, CW: Crone, GW: Wizardhawk
- 6,888
- 4,245
How is it a "kick in the dick" to the originals? Like I said, they're still there for you to enjoy whenever you want. They aren't diminished at all by a remake. If you think a remake is really so awful, it should make you enjoy the original movie even more.
Sequels/Prequels are a completely different thing and shouldn't be talked about with remakes, because sequels/prequels can and do change the originals.
That's not the point. The point is that people love to say that remakes "ruin" the originals. If you were to paint your version of the Mona Lisa, it wouldn't have any effect on my enjoyment of seeing the real thing.
True, but I asked you if you would PAY to see my painting of the Mona Lisa. So let's say I open up an art gallery and charge you $100 (about what it costs now to take a family to the movies) to see all of my shitty renditions of Da Vinci's greatest works. You can't honestly tell me you would A) Pay to see that travesty B) actually think I was an artist (cause if I really was an artist I would do original art) and C) you are now exposing your kids to a shitty remake instead of the original, which, like you stated, is still around and obviously a million times better. Then your kids grow up liking jar jar binks and Midichlorians and you as a parent should be taken out into the street and beaten to death.
McCheese
SW: Sean, CW: Crone, GW: Wizardhawk
- 6,888
- 4,245
Of course I wouldn't pay to see something I don't think is worth the money. That still has nothing to do with "ruining" the original movies. There are plenty of remakes I've never paid to see, never seen, and probably never will see, but I still enjoy the originals just as much as always.
I agree. However, the problem here is Hollywood and greed. Instead of taking a risk on an original idea, Hollywood is more and more inclined to just shit out remakes of previously successful movies, banking on the fact that name recognition alone will at least garner them some modicum of financial return. As these studios become more and more reluctant to take risks, you have less and less of a chance of making the next Star Wars (which at the time was thought to be a huge risk and most people, including George Lucas himself, thought would wind up being a colossal failure).