Are the only ideas left just remakes?!

The first person that sees my views/\

Remastering is not remaking, that's like saying, remastering a CD so it sounds better is remaking the entire CD with different songs and lyrics...remaking a movie requires aspects of change to such storyline, and actors.

I have an idea...I will list a few movies, ones that may have a remake in the process as well or have had a remake...such as Evil Dead...is there a real need for a remake that takes Bruce Campbell out of the picture? My goal with this is to provide reasoning, other than money or flashy new CGI...
Here we go:

Silence of the lambs
Planet of the Apes
James Bond movies(any choice)
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles(First one)
Rocky
Terminator(only 1 and 2)
Alien
Aliens
ET
Ironman
Superman
Xmen
Indiana Jones:Raiders of the Lost Arc

I would call you guilty of your own red-herring. For instance, the remake in question will be set in Beijing (or at least shot there, but it will likely stand in for a location as exotic if it is not the setting of the story). A setting move that drastic automatically is going to upset entire story dynamics and create a much different product at the end of the day.

Yes, a kid will learn life lessons from an eccentric mentor, but that's about a bajillion other stories out there as well - and none of them "diminish" the film "The Karate Kid." There is clearly a new way to tell the story at play here, just from the little information on the project that has become available. Whether that is a good or bad approach has yet to be seen, but there is certainly no automatic indication it is bad.

The notion that the storyteller is rehashing or producing hack work in some greater way simply because they're willing to reuse a title is erroneous. And, Fun Fact, the original "The Karate Kid" film had to receive permission from DC Comics to use the title because of this. It does not automatically make the original film in any way diminished by the existence of a previous Karate Kid.

It is a best practice to judge a film only after it has been viewed, regardless of the similarities, surface or otherwise, it holds to other works.

I didn't say it was. In point of fact I was saying they were different, and that your "ain't broke don't fix it" applies better to one situation than the other.

And I am confused as to the point of your list...some of those movies have been remade, but most have not...and some movies on your list could arguably be called remakes of previous works...what is it you want me to take from that list, exactly?

Difference being, they aren't fixing the storyline, only improving how good it looks...I am merely talking about a complete remake.

The point of the list is simple, these movies, I want to know if you think they SHOULD be remade, I want to see what you think of the movie as if it needs to be remade and why, EXCEPT on the basis of better cgi or for money...

And they won't be "fixing" anything on the original "The Karate Kid." It will continue to exist as the same movie it always has been.

Posting the quotes of you saying "no such thing as shouldn't be" or my quote asking "what should be", isn't an answer...I asked in you're opinion if they should...it is a legitimate question, and I wanna see what your personal opinion is.

In my opinion, SHOULD they be remade? I don't even know what that means.

Would I personally want to remake them? Some yes, some no. There isn't a single film on the list that would make me feel it was worth getting upset over someone else doing a remake. By that same token, if none of the films on the list was remade ever again, I would also not be upset.

But, if some other filmmaker read "Silence of the Lambs" and said, "Damn, I wanna make my version of a movie out of this" then I might be curious to see what he did with it. I might not. It would depend on who the filmmaker was and what his final product looked like.

And, like I said, some of them have been remade (Planet of the Apes) and some of the films on your list actually are remakes (Casino Royale, which is technically on your list) and we still have the originals and there's no problem.

FTR, I find crappy sequels to diminish the quality of the originals much, much more than any stand alone remake...the prequels have ruined my ability to watch Star Wars, because the universe is connected and the stuff doesn't line up or make any sense. As opposed to the remake of Planet of the Apes, which, while a problematic film in its own right, is independent of the original and does nothing to impact my viewing of the original.

It was merely a question to see what you think should be remade, based on the quality of the storyline and whatnot.

I am not as much upset as I am dissapointed over the fact that, as stated by Deathshead, that it takes the "glory" to a sense, the original had created.




Now that I can agree with you, sequels in general have trouble living up to the original, some do better, some do worse, some are just as good. The prequels had too many things that, as stated, tried to connect stuff that didn't line up right.

All in all the thing that may bother me more, is tried to match up what was done in a similar aspect. Taking what was, and pretty much trying to make it the same with different actors. Now the aspect as put in Planet of the Apes where it was a seperate entity of its own, has it's own good aspects. Like Batman-Batman Begins. Both had their own high points. I enjoyed them both,(minus the couple horrible sequels to Keatons Batman).

It all goes back to taking away from the originals in my eyes. Puhaps that is what I am focusing on more.

While we're on the topic of remakes, I'd like to add in my own opinion on the subject.

People on this board in the past have said that movies should only be remade if the original sucked. Frankly, I totally agree. As such, I'm looking forward to the remakes of Troll and Plan 9 From Outer Space.

I also agree that remakes do not tarnish the quality of the originals. For one thing, I hated The Omen remake, but still love the original. Then there are remakes that, although rarely, completely live up to the original, such as King Kong (1933) and Peter Jackson's King Kong (imo).

Finally, to answer the question of this thread: No, not all the films H-wood is making are remakes, but it does seem that way. Needless to say, there are filmmakers that still have good original ideas, such as JJ Abrams.

I have been noticing for the past five years they have been putting remakes of old movies and putting out movies from old TV shows. I guess hollywood is running out of ideas.

They are making movies from comic books and graphic novels.

But the one I am waiting on is the new "Dark Shadows" movie with Johnny Depp and rumor is Tim Burton will direct. "Dark Shadows" is an old gothic TV show that used to be shown on ABC every afternoon from 1966 till 1971. They made a couple of motion pictures from the show in 1971 and 1972.

The movie was suppose to be release in 2010, but now I have read it might be pushed back until 2011.