Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
April 10, 2013
BoxOfficeProphets.com
If you do think it's okay, what do you think the rules and guidelines are that make it okay?
Brett Ballard-Beach: The simple (cynical) answer is that the people who hold the rights to the product are always free to do whatever they want with it; audiences are a necessary evil. (Sonic Youth once borrowed the quote "Once it leaves your head, it's already compromised.") If the creator - writer and or director, for sake of argument - of a movie holds the rights, that may be preferable, but he or she has the potential to muck it up just as much as if a studio or executive producer hold the rights and decides to re/make/boot/imagine/vision. I don't understand kowtowing to the fans, getting their permission, approval, etc. It seems to me it could mess with the artistic process, such as it may be
I may have once thought there were some movies (horror or otherwise) too esteemed to be redone (more on that in a second) but I have long since resigned myself or gained clarity on the subject, depending on your point of view - it doesn't offend me and I don't see why it should offend a fan, whatever the film or series may be. It would be preferable not to have a piece of crap that is in any way tangentially related to something that you hold in high esteem, but it doesn't and shouldn't lessen what you love about the films you love. But, you know, I still have the (small but real) fears that Before Midnight might not prove to my liking so I empathize with those who have a strong feeling of emotional investment that ends up, in their view, being betrayed.
Gus Van Sant's Psycho project is the case subject I would use as the nadir of "why the hell does this sacrilegious film exist?", but prior to that there were three sequels and a TV series, some of which I really like, so I ain't climbing the high horse (And the answer is that Gus Van Sant was the hottest name in town post Good Will Hunting, and this is what he chose to cash his commercial chips on.)
And, although it doesn't entirely redeem the project a) It provides an interesting view of Vince Vaughn's career in the late ‘90s and an entirely different direction he was exploring at the time, with a slew of small weird indie films mixed in with blockbusters. Looking back, he was a great choice; and b) for me the last four minutes (by which I mean the closing credit sequence) is the key to understanding the film. Every time I watch it, it never fails to freak me the fuck out. As crazy as it sounds, I always think something is going to happen.
Matthew Huntley: All I ask is they don't touch The Exorcist. They can keep imitating it all they want, but please don't attempt to remake the original. Like so many, it's fine as is!
Edwin Davies: Yeah, I think The Exorcist is the only one that would really, really piss me off, but then again that film has already endured two sequels (one pretty good, the other mindbogglingly awful) and two poor prequels without being diminished, so I'm sure it could withstand a bad remake or two. Apart from that, most of the horror films that I really love already have been remade, so I don't feel as if there is anything else that is truly beyond being remade, with the possible exception of stuff too weird and out there like Brian Yuzna's Society or most of David Cronenberg's stuff.
I think the only rule that people should follow if trying to remake a film is to try to make a new film, rather than just copy the earlier one shot for shot. Obviously it won't be original, but if it feels like a new take then it at least justifies its own existence somewhat. There's nothing worse than a horror remake that's little more than an update with no individual personality.
Max Braden: Like some other institutions, if you think about it objectively, even in a worst-case scenario a remake does nothing to lessen the quality of the original work. As long as we have access to watch the original movie, we can still enjoy it and come out agreeing that it's still the superior version. Gus Van Sant's Psycho is actually a good example of how even trying to photocopy a work of art just won't cut it - you almost knew in advance that the 1998 Psycho project was going to fail, but you still had to make it to further prove that the original was a classic. In the best case scenario of remaking a good classic, you might get to see your favorite new actor work with your favorite old material, or see a twist on the old material with better production quality. I'm not sure there are a lot of theatre audiences asking "Why are they doing Hamlet again this summer? We just had performances of it last year and the 200-400 years prior." Maybe some new audience member seeing a remake might inspire them to check out the original and enjoy it the same way you did.
That's the objective analysis. My subjective reaction to remakes is still to whine about them. For one, the career of a performer or filmmaker is very short and fragile. Any time or expense they were putting into a remake could have been put into some original project instead. And it bugs me when movies are updated but nobody really made the effort to make it fresh or interesting. If you're not going to do anything different with the plot or dialogue or cinematography, why am I bothering to watch when I could just go back to the original? And I get worried that a younger audience will allow an inferior remake to become imprinted on them because it was the first one they watched, and then reject a superior original because maybe the effects aren't good enough or the cuts aren't fast enough for their modern taste.
Horror isn't really my thing, so I'm biased against being moved too much either way about remakes. Plus I tend to have enjoyed really lousy ‘80s horror like Rawhead Rex and Critters. Remake those if you want, I'll still hold on to my memories.
Kim Hollis: Generally, I don’t mind remakes, but I’ve been really grumpy about this Evil Dead remake. I admit that I was in a very different place when the first film was released 30-some odd years ago. I loved horror movies then and I probably watched The Evil Dead (1981) more than a dozen times. I just can’t watch the realistic horror of the 21st century. It troubles me.