Sequels and Remakes

[Haunted hearse]

So I take it then that you believe that Bride of Frankenstein, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, Son of Frankenstein, Ghost of Frankenstein, House of Frankenstein, House of Dracula, The Mummy's Curse, the Mummy's Tomb or any others of the many sequels including A&C meet all the monsters should not have been made or weren't good ideas? 

color]

Yes, imagine how much poorer my life would have been, if there had been no "Mad Max beyond Thunderdome", Disney's direct to video sequels (Including that little known gem "Fox and the Hounds 2") "The Escape Clause" "Mummy 3", Tim Burton's "Dark Shadows" and "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", "The Haunting", "Thirteen Ghosts", and of course that splendid shot by shot remake of Psycho.

[Wolf Man]

Oh, no one is saying there aren't some real stinkers out there for sequels.  Lake Placid for example was actually praised by many critics and a surprisingly good movie for its genre.  Its sequels however were nothing but T&A movies with bad CGI special effects.  I agree also that Highlander was a great movie that suffered the indignity of very poor sequels.  It happens.  We all agree that we prefer to see them do the original justice in some way but I would still prefer that they try over not trying but also prefer that if they try then try to do it right.

I find it interesting though about Psycho.  When a film gets remade it is often criticized for departing to much from the original or source material.  Then when a film gets remade frame by frame it gets blasted for that too.  Sometimes, I feel the film makers can't win no matter what they do.

[Fester]

And that is pretty much the main issue in this discussion.

Slavish recreation of an original is pretty much the same thing as colorizing it a la Turner.

or

Make it too different, and the fans of the originals call sacrilege.

Where does one as a director or producer draw the line?  I really like the Jackson King Kong remake.  However, I still prefer the original.  It just feels better.  I cannot put my finger on it, exactly.  I know Jackson made his CG New York scenes as close as possible to the original-- mapping electronically from original photos and maps.  But it still falls flat for me.  I think what Jackson should have been looking for was a way to add a new angle to the story without killing the integrity of the original. 

If I could figure that out, I would be at my Hollywood mansion sitting poolside and having my people calling your people about a time to do lunch.  But here I am in Spokanistan typing this in a desperate effort to avoid mowing my lawn!

Now, the opposite of Jackson's solution to this dilemma arose with the "reboot" of Star Trek  There were so many changes that the movie worked, and worked very well.  Possibly this happened because the original Star Trek movie,  Kirk VS V'Ger was so abysmal.  Adding to that the sequels and The Next Generation movies, the franchise was so done over (or overdone?) that recreating it in a new direction was the only good option.  For me, who was expecting something along the lines of a Star Trek version of Muppet Babies  It was a very pleasant surprise.

Another remake that was so far from the original movie that it worked wonderfully in my opinion, was True Grit  I liked the original--for a John Wayne(tm) movie But it had very little in common with Portis' book.  The first True Grit was obviously made as a vehicle for Wayne and his screen persona.  (That would also explain why LaBoeuf was so lamely played by Glen Campbell.)  The Remake was so much closer to the mood and tone of the novel.  And it had a more realistic and logical flow to the story.

Dang! Now, I've gotta mow.

[Haunted hearse]

I find it interesting though about Psycho.  When a film gets remade it is often criticized for departing to much from the original or source material.  Then when a film gets remade frame by frame it gets blasted for that too.  Sometimes, I feel the film makers can't win no matter what they do.

You might be right about how the Psycho shot for shot remake has been maligned.  Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche really make you forget about Anthony Perkins and Janet Leigh.  Furthermore it was in color, so that makes the scene where Vaughn is playing with himself true cinematic magic!

[Wolf Man]

I too liked Peter Jacksons Kong.  Yes, it had a few silly moments but when you love a material then a film like this, really long, gives you all it can give you.  I went to see Ray Harryhausen not long ago and he was asked what he thought of Jackson's Kong.  He said it was very realistic but lacked the dream like quality of the original.  That it was too realistic.  Perhaps that was what you were trying to put your finger on.  As soon as he said it that did make sense.  Still, something I found humorous was the fans who claimed it took forty minutes into the film to see Kong.  And it did.  But, watching the original Japanese version of Godzilla recently it took exactly that long to see Godzilla and you don't hear anyone complaining about that.  One of the things I like about his film is that it really immerses you into the world of 1930's New York plus the adventure of the island itself.   I could watch so many of the scenes over and over again just for all those, what are considered by some to be too realistic details.  I love that attention to detail.  That is the greatest thing about a period film is that if done well it transports you to another time and place.   

Just a personal observation but I think many people are way too harsh on remakes or sequels.  I am like many that don't like the real stinkers, and would always prefer a really good take on the material but there are some, no matter how good the film is just get peeved about little details that aren't absolutely to "their" personal liking.  I respect those who choose not to see a sequel or remake because they do not wish to tarnish their view of the original.  That is their personal choice.  But why spend the money to go see it then run straight for the computer key board to bash the hell out of it.  Perhaps I am just optimistic but I try to view a film as a couple of hours of entertainment and not much more.  I enjoyed the recent The Thing prequel.  Not a perfect film by any means and I had to go back and watch Carpenters again just to refresh my memory but I enjoyed it for what it was a revisit of the story.  It also added a few more pieces to the puzzle.  Whether or not it was a great film or even a good film isn't going to ruin my life.  I enjoyed it, spent a few hours being entertained and because I have a life I did not feel the need to run to the computer to bash the crap out of the film.  Just to clarify, not saying anyone is doing that in this discussion.  That is not saying everyone shouldn't have an opinion.  Sure they do.  Express it.  Did not like the film because of "A" or "B" and move on.  Sometimes it just seems people become really obsessed with picking out  every-little -detail in order to bash a film to utter pieces.  If a person is that obsessed with how bad it is then simply chose not to see it.  That is a respectable position to take.

I enjoyed True Grit alright but surprisingly, even though I am a fan of westerns really did not feel the urge to buy it.  I still think one of John Wayne's best is The Cowboys.  Plus, I would love to see a remake of that one.  Would have been great to see Clint Eastwood do it, perhaps about ten years ago.  He is a bit too old now maybe. 

What other films would people love to see a sequel or remake?  True Grit got me thinking so now I am curious.   

[Fester]

"I went to see Ray Harryhausen not long ago and he was asked what he thought of Jackson's Kong.  He said it was very realistic but lacked the dream like quality of the original.  That it was too realistic."
That may just be it.
The whole feel of the original King Kong is different.  Maybe that was the weakness of the original.  Insanely detailed realistic images don't quite mesh with the unreal nature of a fantasy story.

"I enjoyed True Grit alright but surprisingly, even though I am a fan of westerns really did not feel the urge to buy it.  I still think one of John Wayne's best is The Cowboys.  Plus, I would love to see a remake of that one.  Would have been great to see Clint Eastwood do it, perhaps about ten years ago.  He is a bit too old now maybe. '
I liked the remade True Grit enough to buy a copy.  But the only reason I have a copy of the John Wayne version is someone gave it to me.  I've watched it maybe twice.
I could see a remake of The Cowboys, and I have to agree Clint Eastwood is undoubtedly too old now.  Some cast possibilities might include Sam Shepard, Robert Douval, Tommy Lee Jones, or Sam Elliott.

By the way, have you seen Blackthorn? Its a sequel of sorts.  Twenty years after his supposed 1908 death in Bolivia, Butch Cassidy decides to head home to the States. Sam Shepard plays Cassidy.  It is a fascinating movie, sadly pretty much ignored in the US.

[Wolf Man]

Wow, those are all good suggestions for a Cowboys remake.  Some fine actors.  No, have not seen or even heard of Blackthorn.  I will have to look into that one.  The history channel has done I believe several features on Butch Cassidy being still alive, that is whether he survived or not.   I did not know they made a movie about it though.  Very interesting.

[Caveman]

What other films would people love to see a sequel or remake?  True Grit got me thinking so now I am curious.   

I would give the green light to a project on The Island of Dr. Moreau.

[Wolf Man]

I would give the green light to a project on The Island of Dr. Moreau.

Wow, really?  Hasn't that movie been remade numerous times? 

Still, you never know if maybe they could turn out a better version.  Oddly enough, while my avatar speaks for itself, I never really cared much for that movie.  If they did make a remake though I would most likely see it. 

[Caveman]

Wow, really?  Hasn't that movie been remade numerous times? 

Those I know:

Island of Lost Souls (1932)
Blood Creature (1959)
The Island of Dr. Moreau (1977)
The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996)...this is where it hurts.

[Fester]

Those I know:

Island of Lost Souls (1932)
Blood Creature (1959)
The Island of Dr. Moreau (1977)
The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996)...this is where it hurts.

That last Moreau movie . . .Gag!   
Could Kilmer or Brando have been more awful? 
I mean, even if they tried?
About a 12 on the Creep-O-Meter.

Wolf Man.
I am quite sure Cassidy did not die in Bolivia.  I was raised in Utah and most of the Parker family still lives in the small town of Circleville.  His real name was Robert Leroy Parker. On several occasions, I spoke with his littlest sister Lula Parker Bettenson.  She always claimed that "Bob," her brother lived under an assumed name and died in the Pacific Northwest.  Lula never would reveal where he died.
The History Channel, while great entertainment has told enough whoppers that I rarely trust anything I see there.  I don't know what evidence they presented, but I have personally seen more than enough evidence to support his return to the USA.
Blackthorn was filmed on location in Bolivia, and it is worth viewing just for the scenery.  However, it is in my opinion, Sam Shepard's most powerful performance.

[Wolf Man]

It has been awhile since I saw that History Channel special but I do remember them mentioning a sister who said he survived and returned home.  Perhaps they got that one right but I know what you mean about the details. 

Have you see the Hatfields and McCoys miniseries or have been following it?  I only caught a few minutes of it on AFN but it looked decent.  I read a review where they said it was not very historically accurate but it looked like it was gritty and well acted from what I could tell. 

[Fester]

It has been awhile since I saw that History Channel special but I do remember them mentioning a sister who said he survived and returned home.  Perhaps they got that one right but I know what you mean about the details. 

Have you see the Hatfields and McCoys miniseries or have been following it?  I only caught a few minutes of it on AFN but it looked decent.  I read a review where they said it was not very historically accurate but it looked like it was gritty and well acted from what I could tell. 

Haven't caught it.  I'll have to check it out.  I know there is a spate of Hatfield/McCoy Non-fiction books released lately.  BTW, Bill Bettenson, Lula Parker Bettenson's great grandson has released a book called Butch Cassidy, My Uncle.  If I find and read it, I'll let you know what I think.

[Count_Zirock]

The original novella "Who Goes There?", originally published in 1938, was a lot closer to Carpenter's version than Hawkes' Carrot Man. Both were great films, though. Interestingly enough, George Clooney tried to mount a live TV production based on "Who Goes There?" after doing "Fail Safe" (2000). The project was abandoned after it was determined the special effects would be impractical in a live broadcast.

[Wolf Man]

I know what you mean Fester.  I could not believe when I searched Hatfield and McCoy's that there were so many films about them and then I was shocked I had never seen any of them.  I would love to hear how that book turns out if you do find it.  I received a phone call once from Hollywood out of the blue asking for stock footage of the James gangs last hold up.  The call came in the middle of the day and caught me completely by surprise.  I had to ask how they go my number because I was not listed anywhere and the guy said my card was being passed around as an historian and expert on the old west.  So what blew my mind was how in the heck did my card end up in the hands of a Hollywood producer.  I was running at the time a historical organization that conducted reenactments.  I was handing out my cards a lot to spectators but who knew that one of them would end up in the hands of a producer.  You just never know I guess.