Getting Remakes Right 

Nice

🤣🤣🤣🤣

This comment was great but I prefer the original

@@dezmundo1251 That joke was great but I prefer the original :)

@@benjammin8184 This sequel joke was ok... but I prefer the first one ;)

Great point

That's not how things work. You won't get somebody invest his money into something that failed before. A farmer doesn't plant the smallest potatoes from the last harvest, he plants the biggest. Always in hope to get even bigger potatoes in the future.

ZeroFPV Oh I know they won’t do it

+Juan Pablo Munoz A good example of where Hollywood did just that was with the "Judge Dredd" remake. It was a gamble, because many still had a bad taste in their mouth from the original. They pulled it off, though, and now the remake is considered a bit of a cult classic.

+George Sidiropoulos Yes, it is!

The 1999 The Mummy is also a really fun movie, while the 2017 one is not.

idk why the hell they had to do that sucky end in the second one though I just would have had anck su namun maybe hesitate and Imhotep get pulled in too far for her to reach him and look back at the good guys and just jump in after Imhotep or anck su namun get killed on the way to help him. leave it as a tragic love story for them that was always inevitable. i just hate that she ran away. its the one thing i hated that the bad guys cant have true love also.

maybe in 2017 they just wanted to take the story in another direction. I like all of them.

idk, mummies are classic horror villains, i've never ever enjoyed to the fullest the comedic take of the 90-00 saga.

@@scaccu Imhotep was scary enough in the 1999 movie. No, he isn't as scary as actual horror antagonists, but given the tone of the film... I found it enjoyable, anyways. It was one of my favorite films as a kid but I would have to rewatch it as an old one to properly rate it.

and all of them nouns :D

@@KaltatheNobleMind nothing more terrifying than a noun.

The Noun, coming soon. A remake of every thing.

The greatest remake of all time is probably 1963's Cleopatra.

Ben Hur (1959)

Yes. I saw it as a kid - well, maybe 14 or 15. It scared the hell out of me, and I loved Leonard Nimoy as an actor. He had such presence. I saw Nimoy on stage in Equus and I thought he was better than Richard Burton in that role . . . but I digress. Yes, the 78 version kicked ass. Well acted. Perfect film for it's time.

Some REMAKES that I LIKE are Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), Nosferatu The Vampire (1979), The Thing (1982), Cat People (1982) and Scarface (1983). However, THOSE are OLDER remakes, and not part of this shitty current Hollywood remake TREND, which I pretty much DETEST.

That's because a reboot is just a remake in different shoes.

tbh I think having sequels to old films is better than remaking them we already have some good examples like Creed and The Force Awakens

Sea boots

?

@@lespion7411 The Force Awakens is essentially a re-make pretending to be a sequel. It's the exactly same plot as A New Hope. It sadly doesn't have any of the strong characters.

Mala, now the Itchy is dead.

With any luck, the oncologist.

Exactly, then there's room for improvement. There's no point fixing something that isn't broken.

Jeff Bridges didn’t know why the Coen Bros. thought True Grit needed a remake until he read the book and realised how similar the book is to Coen Bros filmography.

I've said that for years but try and convience the stuido heads of that. I think they should be focused on movies that did middle of the road or fizzled but had a good core concept. Something a good director of today could really sink their teeth into and/or something people living today might not even remember or heard about.

Well take movies like The Fly and The Thing. Both were based on movies from the 50s, had generally the same idea (man turns into a demented fly-creature, alien can mimic people/animals), but presented them in different ways, making it more of a body-horror thing.

True and I for one am so glad they didn't do that little human head on a fly body thing. No matter how good the effects could've been there is no making that no look silly today.

Ricardo Cantoral Herzog also captures the same dreamlike feel in a new way.

what i like a bout the 83 scarface is it feels like the whole movies done a ton of blow before you seen it. its got all these intense highs and lows and its just a feverish mess its awsome. for a 3 hr movie it does not feel its length its not slow or plodding it just rams thru the station

yes, glad you mentioned this. Carpenter's remake of the 1950s one is an example of how to do a remake the right way

Also, the 2011 film is a prequel.

The final shot still gives me chills

Totally agree, although I wish it were shorter.

How is it underrated?

@@VicenteTorresAliasVits That is a very fair question. I think a more accurate way to phrase it would be to call it under appreciated. It was held in very high regards by critics and the movie going public on its release, but it does feel like it has been forgotten at times.

It's the best version, in my opinion. Really haunting, bleak and holds are a lot of truth.

That is not really a compliment. Just go out and buy a damn lava lamp then.

no hassle are you dumb?

Amazing that Ronnie Cox outlived him. Remember that line: 'We're young and he's old and that's life.'?

Great actor indeed. Albert Rosenfield will always be one of the best characters ever made for television, like so many other characters from Twin Peaks.

I don't think whether newer is better is something that keeps the executuves up at night or is of any relevance to them. Fact of the matter is, after a while, the commercial potential of a product is exhausted. You can't keep making money from selling fresh copies of The Mummy from 1999 any longer, even though people have favourable memory and feeling associated with that film, they had fun watching it back then, but aren't really compelled to pay for it again, it never had the kind of depth that invites repeat viewing. So to turn that positive emotion into new money, you need to make a new movie, and the executives don't care whether it will be crap, it only has to be good enough for people to part with their money once again, just once. Enough good stuff to make a 30 second trailer and then pad it out to a couple hours.

It is an inherently flawed way of thinking. Unfortunately, two facts will continue to perpetuate this: 1) love of novelty is hardwired into our psychology, and 2) most movies cannot avoid having a visual look strongly reminiscent of their time. Everything from the filming technology to shot selection to actor accents to fashion to special effects combine to make most movies feel 'of their time' and for various reasons most viewers are disdainful of that. It really is too bad that so many aren't willing to give old movies a chance, but at least there's a sort of perverse karma there, since in 50 years most of today's movies will have been dismissed and forgotten in the same way.

I don't think audiences are demanding remakes. Once in a while the desire to remake a movie comes from a director or writer (usually when the original belongs to a time that's become fashionably retro) - but for the most part it's movie industry executives that drive the endless cycle of remakes and reboots. They're always trying to minimize the studio's financial risk by coming up with concepts that are certain to succeed. If a movie was a hit the first time, then surely the remake will succeed as well.

It'$ $uch a my$tery....

Sometimes a remake happens because the studios think they have their finger on the audience’s pulse or they aren’t willing to take a risk on a project and decide to go with a “safe” bet. Other times it’s because the copyright is about to expire and they don’t want to lose the rights to whatever they’ve been sitting on for years.

unless they are not

execution trumps content every time.

That's how Obi-wan did it

Yes - for example, how many times have various Shakespeare stories been re-told?

So true overall. A strong case in point is the recent drama movie A Star Is Born.

Its because you hadn't gone to sleep yet.

I was really confused by this, as it's 7 pm. Then I googled London Time, and it makes more sense lmao.

@@Eirik_Bloodaxe duh

Futa?

Insomnia? Cause I'm never asleep before 3. Getting to sleep before 5 even when waking up at 8 is a rarity for me, but 3 hours is enough for me.

Indeed. TASM wasn't necessary. It just repeated ideas from the Raimi films with no real update. Homecoming was necessary in my mind.

The last one is way above the first 2. And not just because younger aunt May.

Raimi had the best Evil Dead

This mostly comes down to 2 things: money and control over the spiderman IP. Sony had to keep making the damn things to keep control over spiderman. Also, spiderman was one of the few instantly recognizable superheroes in the pre-mcu world, and so was at least a guarantee that they'd get their money back. At least with the merging back into the MCU there seems to be the possibility of broader, and newer stories. I do have hope for the animated Spiderman coming later this year, though. It looks fun.

@@ChrisHarperBooks yet another unfortunate side effect of our flawed copyright/IP laws.

I think a Fistful of dollars is a better example.

You raise a good point. But perhaps this doesn't quite overlap with our common conception of a 'remake' (even though it technically is one). I will just say that a cultural adaptation will often be more immune to many of the pitfalls outlined in the video. Due to its very nature of being adapted to a new culture it's already reimagining things and will be less prone to feeling like a rehash, and the fact that foreign movies usually have a smaller audience means that fewer people will be familiar with the original at all. This does bring up the interesting scenario of how audiences view the original if they see it after its adaptation (effectively making the original, foreign version the "remake" in their eyes). IMO the whole cross-cultural topic probably requires its own separate discussion to do it full justice.

Cross-cultural remakes work very well in the western genre but don't seem to be as successful in horror, even though there are many more examples of Japanese horror films remade by Hollywood.

the bruce willis remake is good too

@@Kevin_Street There's a very good reason for that. Japanese and Korean horrors have a very different tone to Hollywood's horrors. Hollywood focuses heavily on the monster and uses the story to make the monster seem more scary. The Asian horrors tell a story and use the monster to make the story more scary. The perfect example is the grudge. The original Japanese film is a story about a "curse" where people fall victim to someone else's problem (the grudge!). It starts off with a tragedy and the movie shows how this one tragedy goes on to affect everyone's life and by the end the entire town has fallen victim to the original grudge. It's a cautionary tale, and the monsters are metaphorical - they represent a grudge that is literally eating everyone up. Now move over to Hollywood. Well if you say "the grudge" you forget the original word and concept. You just think of the creepy kid and the hand in the hair. The horror is fully focused on this one character whereas the original is exploring the effects on an entire town. Both versions explore the story and the visual horror, but it's about how those things are used. It's the reason why the best horror movies are the ones where the monster represents an idea and isn't just a physical thing. It's easy to remember the graphic horror of The Exorcist and The Thing (my favourite horror movies) but they were used to support the story and the idea, not be the main spectacle on their own. Some recent western horrors have been able to do this well such as The Babadook or It Follows, but for the most part the west is too caught up in making a monster so they can sell toys or get royalties for jumpscares or something.

raven lord the hobbit could have been almost as good as Lotr if it had the same amount of prep but it ended up being rushed out and ruined by the studio. There’s a really interesting video series about it on RU-vid called The Hobbit A Long Expected Autopsy by Lindsay Ellis

Or potential masterpiece fcked by the studio.

BattMarn "Lindsay Ellis" pass.

raven lord The Hobbit was a far more complex scenario than just being a "cash grab". M

@Finn MacCool No...it really didnt.

@@jr2904 I'm the next step in human evolution? WHEEEEEE!!!! Yes. I am #actuallyautistic and I deem such a concept messed up and problematic.

@@gamehero6816 and borderline insulting on how they portrayed it (like you I am also on the Spectrum)

Oddly remakes were pretty common back then.

@@handsomebrick that was due to films being lost and destroyed rather frequently or not doing well with audiences, movies were added to and had reshoots frequently that occurred even after they were released. There's several different cuts of king Kong, with the original cut being completely lost.

Also consider that the film industry was advancing so rapidly in those years relative to today. I wouldn't really consider pre-WWII in the same conversation as modern remakes for that reason. Going from silent movies to talkies, B&W to color, all while throwing in new filming technology, directors exploring new shooting techniques, the Hays code, the studio system, and the societal upheaval of two world wars and the Great Depression and you have an atmosphere much more conducive to multiple retellings of the same story, that can each have their own spin on it.

Thanks for that. I wasn't aware of the 1931 version.

@@handsomebrick Until TV started buying feature films and especially before VHS many older films, even a handful of years old, were completely unavailable to the average viewer. Now, a film which is more than half a century old can be instantly available and far more "of the present" than a 5 year old film would have been in 1950. The explosion in the internet and media generally also means that a current audience can hardly miss the fact that a new film is a remake, whereas much of the audience in, say, 1965 might not have been.

When I saw a young Jeff Goldblum in the thumbnail I was getting ready for some hand dissolving action with my morning coffee.

@@cazazzadan "Better watch out, he eats chocolate bars"

Word unheard? Lol your name alone makes you less than human

He won't answer you anyhow, too busy snatching bodies. And snatches,

The X-Men reboots are better than the originals

Flintstones was great fun though.

@@GetToDaChoppa-k5r Didn't it kill Kyle MacLachlan's leading man status in movies? Or was it Showgirls that did that?

Barb Wire was a remake of Casablanca.

No way man the one staring Myra Binglebat and Peter Beardsley was definitive.

@@Edward_Plantagenet You win the internet.

eldospinks I couldn’t resist mate had to drop that quote while the iron was hot lol

@@HappyCynic Was it? I thought that was a gag? Like Sharknado being a remake of Jaws.

Do It Again by The Chemical Brothers

@@richkeyworth85 Thank You!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cin%C3%A9ma_v%C3%A9rit%C3%A9 probably because of this movement

@@larknix3111 Thanks! I think it's interesting to try and find where the change occurred. It's funny but it does seem a big chasm, dividing how films were and how films became and have stayed. And yet it happened in a short space of time. I think it's fair to say this occurred in the 60's. It's funny that even certain directors changed in this. Look at Kubrick's films all the way up to Doctor Strangelove. From 2001 onwards, the style and acting and presentation, inc editing becomes more naturalistic. Films like The Graduate marked a sea change, as did Midnight Cowboy. Westerns seemed to be one of the last hangover genres, with all of Wayne's films up to his last, The Shootist, in 1976, keeping that manner. And other films like Paint Your Wagon had that. On the whole though, Eastwood seems to have been instrumental in updating the Western, bringing aspects from the Spaghetti Westerns he'd made. And along with others like Little Big Man, The Missouri Breaks, and McCabe And Mrs Miller changed it for good. In fact I think the only hold-out was the Disaster movie, with Irwin Allen churning out the same style up to 1980.

John Stroud it’s basically “Celebrated” by wannabe “Gangster” rappers which most of them don’t any morales as it is.

Sharknado is my favorite Casablanca remake, but Barbwire's good too.

Thus, taking away any mystery for the next film.

A. Delta, the 1982 film is a remake of the 1951 film "The Thing from Another World".

But then they would've had to include the subtext of the struggle of corporate vs. personal identity! /s

The core concept of the new robocop is how to beat a human conscience and soul so that it fits the demand of the company that uses him. The struggle between corporate and personnal Identity is present throught Gary Oldman 's character who is at first driven by altruistic motivation but because of the pressure of his boss agrees to beat Murphy's identity and free will and make him a robot before finding a redemption. In a sense the scientist is the main character of the movie.

I'd say that the big difference between good and bad parodies is that good parodies, like Hot Shots! and Spaceballs, takes tropes from the original movies and makes fun of them while still being fun for those who haven't seen the original. Meanwhile bad parodies like Epic movie and Meet the Spartans just drops a bunch of pop culture references without context in between random gross-out jokes. I wish hack comedy makers would learn that disgusting things doesn't automatically equal funny.

That should be a separate video, but it's a good idea for a separate video.

Black Dynamite will always be my favourite parody, sometimes it's so close to its source material you almost forget it is a parody at all, it's more of a tongue in cheek love letter in many ways.

Great parody needs affection. Great parody Airplane! is actually very serious in its plot and script and its parody is a filter it is shown.

Yeah, it surpassed the original IMHO!

@@DOSkywalkR Because Tom Cruise's character wasn't as deformed as the original?

That was bad. Often when Hollywood remakes foreign films, they inevitably change the key ingredient that made the original stand out. The remake of Insomnia, while well liked for the most part, completely ruined the ending that made the original stand out. Same with that forgotten Kiefer Sutherland film The Vanishing, which took a great film and did a typical "Hollywood ending" that killed it. Or Quarantine changed the scariest part of the original [REC] which was the supernatural element- granted, building their marketing campaign on the final shot in the film wasn't such a great idea either...

They do that even when they remake Hollywood films, like The Omega Man.

The Vanishing's remake is even more baffling considering it was directed by the same person that directed the original but he decided to change the ending completely. I don't get it.

@@tylerskiss yeah I think that's more a problem with adaptations in general, and not remaking foreign films in particular.

Neither of the films is anything like the original story

That’s an example of the newer version being superior, in my opinion. I like old Battlestar, but it tried too hard to shoehorn in stuff like disco and other things that really date it badly for some episodes.

Right up until the disjointed unsatisfying ending. If only they could have kept it as fresh as the first few seasons.

After 70 years, the effects still looked awful to me. CGI is just not good.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that gets irritated when you hear a critic say that The Thing 2011 is a remake. It's something that the movie critic Mark Kermode has said about the movie. He also said that Samuel L Jackson's Shaft movie from 2000 was a remake, which it clearly is not, because Richard Roundtree's Shaft makes a couple of cameos in the movie, Samuel L Jackson is playing the nephew of 70's Shaft. It sometimes makes you wonder if they've actually seen the movie they're criticising.

Yes, it can certainly be irritating. With The Thing (2011), I saw the same "review" copied and pasted all around the Internet, saying it was a remake and making remarks that led me to believe the original author had not seen either movie. I actually enjoyed Shaft (2000), but luckily avoided the reviews at the time.

I view it as a direct prequel. Watching the making of etc, the goal of the writers and director was clearly to show what events led up to the 1982 movie.

@@Rod_Knee But the writers are not adding anything new, they are just adapting the concept nad hacking in plot events to make it a prequel. Much like The Force Awakens was a remake of 'A New Hope', same plot, same planet destroying plot device to fight, same start of a droids going to a desert planet with information a powerful enemy is chasing. It may be set years after the original trilogy and a type of sequel but it's still a remake.

You're right that neither movie added anything new to the narrative. However, I view The Thing 2011 as a prequel and The Force Awakens as an (inferior IMO) sequel. I'd have enjoyed both much more if either had added something new, but calling them remakes conflates them with movies like "The Big Sleep", "A Star is Born" etc. To me, it's like saying 1994's Scarlet was a remake of Gone with the Wind.

"Fun, too."

Why do you think he thinks that?

Exactly, it's comparable to the live action Disney remakes of animated movies that only exist because people are nostalgic for the old movies but are too spineless to publicly admit that they like animated movies.

Let Me In a fine take on the same source material. I love both movies and couldn't pick one as a favorite if I tried.

Each to his own. I thought it was totally redundant.

As a Swede it frustrates me to no end that whenever a Swedish movie reaches some kind of popularity abroad Hollywood has to do a remake just because they think Americans are too dumb to read or understand something from a different country than their own.

And people are never going to try watching subtitled movies if they just keep making English versions.

I thought of that recently myself, with the twist being that everyone wanted to become a pod person and share a collective consciousness, rather than resisting it and retaining individuality. Modern culture seems all about documenting and posting all the details of your life for the world to see and share. We used to value our privacy.

Eh, nice try at bandwagon mentality, but no. TFA and Star Wars are two completely different movie - the only similarities (that made a bunch of morons scream "rehash") are cosmetic.

So when JJ even admitted it himself, I guess he was lying

@@Strugen. Again, nice try, but it's like people trying to use a decontestualized bit from something Mark Hamill said to "prove" that he "hated" _The Last Jedi_ . Abrams never admitted to "remaking a movie & giving it a different name". Also, there's no need to rely on anyone's statements: _Star Wars_ 1977 was entirely Death Star-centered. Bar the death of his uncles, Luke basically doesn't have an arc: at the end of the movie he's the same guy he was at the beginning and, in fact, the only one who has something of a character arc is Han Solo - but that arc won't really pay off until _Empire_ so it's kind of irrelevant. In _The Force Awakens_ SKB is there just to have something to blow up at the end: Rey's journey, her character arc, her relationship with Finn and Han Solo and - marginally - KR are the core of the movie. Also, Finn has a character arc, so does Han and so does Kylo. But, because there is a sand planet, a spherical weapon of mass destruction, a protagonist wearing white-ish clothes and a bad guy in black robes, a bunch of internet morons decided they were entitled to call it a rehash.

@999SickBoy666 nice try for you nerd. You have been watching to many hello greedo videos or something

@@Strugen. So, you try (and fail) to talk about Star Wars, you get schooled because of your complete inability to produce even a single argument in support of your bandwagon-mentality based theory and you try to get out of it by calling people "nerd"? You should've told you were 12, I would've simply ignored you :-)