You know we’ve been talking about remakes, sequels, prequels and re-visualisations for sometime now, and the general view is that it’s a lazy practice resulting in some really poor and often totally crappy movies.
Yet we’re not giving a lot of credit here, because look at Batman Begins, Harry Potter, or Lord of the RIngs. These are some of the success stories. Then you have the contrast of the Matrix trilogy, Predator, Exorcist…the list could go on, and there’s the huge raft of movies that are in development that fall into these categories (Wicker Man anyone?), particularly Asian remakes (Infernal Affairs?), none of which look promising at all.
So we’ve all moaned and argued about it, but what actually makes a good remake, prequel, or sequel? What rules should film makers follow to be true to the original movie or franchise and make a successful movie? Is it “more of the same”, go back to the source material, keep the original characters? What?
If you examine the movies you’ve actually seen that fit in the realm of “successful coming from a remake, prequel or sequel”, then what can you see in them that makes them work? If you were to look at Batman Begins, what were the reasons that was successful and the previous movies weren’t? Okay, that’s a slightly obvious one, let’s take another couple of examples that are a bit more cloudy. The Godfather series where there is much contention, Indiana Jones, Lethal Weapon, all these series had stronger and weaker sequels…why were the good ones good and the bad ones bad? What are the rules to make a good one?
A remake can sometimes be much much better than the original depending on the time the first one was made. I don’t know about you guys, but when I watch very old action, thriller, sci-fi or monster movies, I always think of how much the new technology could vamp up the movie eg. costumes, sets, music,graphics, basically in all aspects. Then I wish they can do a remake.
I always lol when I watch a very old thriller and this sucky music always plays in the background, or you can actually see the costume zipper of the “monster”.
With regards to sequels, well I am a sucker for movies and when I watch a movie and they make a sequel, even if I know for a fact it will suck, I must go watch just to say I saw and I hated/loved.
I’ll say one thing about remakes, don’t do a shot for shot remake as per Gus Van Sant’s Psycho. I remember wathing the original in the morning and seeing the new one later that night in the theater and all I could think is why did I just pay theater prices to see the excact same thing, it just made no sense.
Yeah, Kath, i totally agree. One example is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. It had a very different approach to willy than the original, yet it was still enjoyable.
What constitutes a good remake for me is the same as what constitutes a good movie: good story, characters/actors, meaning, and at least some aspect of originality. Remakes are nearly always bad because they’re too hung up on imitating the original instead of telling the story in their own way. I only find remakes worthwhile when they try to show or say something that that the original didn’t.
Tremors 3 and 4 were strait to video releases, both featuring Michael Gross(Burt Gunner, the best character from all 4!). I also have an unfortunate addiction to sci-fi channel original movies. I truly am acursed!
Hey Brian, I ABSOLUTELY LOVED TREMORS! But after Tremors 2, I thought it was torture to watch the succeeding films. I really had no idea what happened to Tremors 3 & 4?
Well, I don’t particularly like remakes(War of the Worlds you pathetic piece of trash!). I agree with Tim and Simone on that one.
Unfortunately, I’m a sucker for sequels. Even if they suck more than my Hoover. I’ve seen every Tremors movie(Tremors 2:Aftershocks, Tremors 3:Back to Perfection, Tremors 4:The Beginning) and every episode of the first season of Tremors:The Series. See what I mean?
“Pudie, have you not heard of the script changes they are planning with the IA remake? Geez…doesn’t matter who’s on the project, an old Scorcese or not.”
I dont want an exact remake. I’m very confident they know what they are doing. Even with the changes to the script I’ve seen nothing to tell me this will be a bad movie. If it changes enough who knows if it will even be a remake any more!
I am with Tim on this one actually.
It’s the simplest thing to do really.
1.) Understand what was good and loved about the original.
2.) Understand what the audience thought was missing from the original.
3.) Have a good idea what they don’t want out of the original material.
4.) Give them steps 1 & 2, in a movie that is better, and completely different than the original.
Oh, and 5.) Spend less money and time doing it too… this rule tends to kill the other 4.
Q: What makes a good remake?
A: Not making one.
First – Horror films and comedy’s are excluded from this topic. The genres are too formulaic to begin with. The only way to combat the Rush Hour 3 phenomenon is simple: DO NOT SEE IT (Theater or DVD)! But comedies and horror films are usually cheap and easy to produce, so they are much more likely to have a sequel greenlit. But what about other types of films?
Of most importance is the creation of the world in which the story takes place. If the world is interesting, a story can be found and presented.
Worthwhile sequels need the stars/characters of the original as well as either an upgrade or sidestep in terms of actor/writer/director quality and possibly, genre. Producers must find a balance between the known quantity and the new experience/variable.
This, of course, requires a budget INCREASE. In Burton’s Batman series, to go from Nicholson to Pfeiffer/DeVito to Carrey/Jones is not right. To start with Jack and end with Jim is not the right way to go. A movie needs *STARS*, not fill-ins from last month’s tv movie-of-the-week or past year’s comedy sketch series.
The Planet of the Apes series consisted of five films, each with a smaller budget than the previous film. In #2, we wanted to know about the travels of Taylor and his hottie girlfriend. Instead we get 15 minutes of him after more than an hour of a look-alike. It reminds me of Highlander 2: Quickest Way to Easy Cash (How much was Connery ACTUALLY in that film?).
There also needs to be some character growth, in addition to the budget increase. I would argue that even though the genre was different, Ripley’s growth from the beginning of Alien (Horror) through her hibernation in Aliens (War/Western) was one of the BEST examples of character growth in ANY film or series (and even earned her an Oscar nod). Godfather 2 was also fantastic as we learned MORE about the Corleone family.
And be careful of the made-up trilogy. Our fixation on the triad is sometimes beautiful (LoTR, SW), but other times downright awful (Rambo/Karate Kid) and disappointing (Matrix).
Basically, if it’s not worth increasing the time or energy (Read: MONEY/BUDGET) then don’t do it. Either leave it alone or move it directly to DVD/TV (Series or On-Demand). Then, if it succeeds in series form, go for another movie (Whedon’s Buffy, anyone?) or other spin-offs.
Just some thoughts.
The difference between a good remake/sequel and a bad one is so simple it just adds to the insult that is the slew of weak ones out there.
The biggest curse of these movies is lazy re-tooling.
That is, the studio buying up cheap generic scripts by no-name no-interest writers, then calling in a script writer to “re-tool” it as an installment in a franchise movie or as a “remake”.
For example, the last two Hellraiser sequels started out life on paper as dull generic psychological thriller and dull haunted house slasher respectively. Dimension just called someone in to rewrite some scenes to work in some kind of connection to Pinhead and the Cenobites into that generic script. Result: Dull generic movies that are a shadow of their predecessors.
It works for remakes too. It’s embarassing how many “remakes” are simply obscure by-the-numbers genre-movie scripts that would otherwise have slipped under the radar into DTV obscurity but for some studio exec thinking “Hey, if we re-write the car-chase to feature Minis instead of Hondas then we can rename that crappy “LA Heist” script to “The Italian Job” and then people will go see it simply because we’re “updating” a classic movie.
Result: A remake that is ultimately a forgettable shadow of the original movie that 9 times out of 10 is simply trying to get box office trade exploiting the name of an old movie people love.
Compare that to something like Cronenberg’s The Fly, which took a completely different approach. Cronenberg took the chessy crappy old 50s movie and stripped it down and reworked it in to one of the most gruesome AND most intelligent horror movies of the last 20 years. Why did it work; because it wasn’t just a cheap genre movie trading off something else, Cronenberg made a movie that works not only as a visceral visual movie, but it also carried an INTELLIGENT script that worked as an allegory for terminal disease and death.
Ultimately the key to success is that remakes and sequels can work as long as they stop taking their target audience for granted and churning out lazy nonsense. The remake/sequel problem is just another symptom of the box office slump. Studio executives are being lazy about how they produce movies and as a result the movie-goers are starting to become
Point in case: Harry Potter. Made nearly twice the money that most number one movies have made opening weekend since the summer.
Why?
Name me one DAMN GOOD movie that had WIDE-SPREAD appeal that’s been released since say, Revenge of the Sith, that DESERVED to make good money. A movie that was completely unmissable at theatres that couldn’t wait till DVD?
I can’t.
People are finally saving their money for movies WORTH spending on in a theatre. But of course studios still blame piracy rather than a bit of introspection so the problem continues.
I want to add something here.
LOTR was different because they shot back to back, all at once. And, like Harry Potter, they are based on novels.
Great comments Darren. Agree with loads of what you said…in fact all of it!
Pudie, have you not heard of the script changes they are planning with the IA remake? Geez…doesn’t matter who’s on the project, an old Scorcese or not.
I think people give more than enough credit to lazy sequels because LOTR, HP and Batman Begins are the exceptions, not the rule and while they were certainly seen as money-makers, the source material in all three cases were particularly strong. The same could be said for Spiderman and X-men.
And frankly I don’t even think the Batman franchise counts since the “success” is pretty much 50/50, IMO.
Inferal Affairs doesn’t look promising? Huh? It has all the makings for a great remake. Absolute grade A talent. It’s Scorcese for christ sake! And the fact that he hasn’t seen the original is actually good in my book. It actually allows him to put his own spin on it and make it his own. A wink and a nod always takes me out of a remake. WHile the studio might be in it for money, when are they not? The actual talent involved isn’t really known for doing paycheck movies and make movies more to tell a good story. Which I think is what a remake should be. Respectful to the original by keeping it as good as the original. Dont tone it down for mass appeal to the US audience(*glares at Oldboy*).
As far as sequels go, I’ve always said that if you didnt have sequels laid out since the day you started making the movie then don’t make it. Never make a sequel cause your movie did good. And if you do then make absolute sure that the talent involved is just as talented as the previous movie. Aliens was a good example of a sequel done right. Everything after Aliens was an example of a bad sequel. Take something good, replace the good with some splosions! No. Darren hit it spot on. If you can’t raise the bar then don’t do it.
But I dont think they need to stand on their own. With LotR, the greatest trilogy ever, they are started right from where the left off and assumed that the viewer knew the story so far.
1) Remakes.
Remakes can only be good if they bring some new aspect of the mythology to the table while capturing the essence of what was before it. In the 80’s and early 90’s, this is what remakes did. Yes, you can count them on your hand, unlike today where they are a dime a dozen. Today they are used for ‘name value’ only- a brand name with a cult status. (“Dukes Of Hazzard” “Dawn Of The Dead”)
For example, “The Warriors”, which is currently getting a boost in awareness as the original is adapted to Xbox. There was a proposed remake which would throw out all the things that made the first movie what it was. Instead of a tip of the hat to Homer’s Odyssey, instead of threads of Hitchcock (Man wrongfully accused), now it will be (or would have been- I think the project died) a hip hop infusion with ‘Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon”…no wonder Tony Scott left the director’s chair.
Miscasting/bad acting happens a lot. (Dukes again, House Of Wax, Red Dragon- at least with Norton and Finnes anyway)
The bigger problem is that, for some unknown reason, acknowlegement of what came before the remake exists in “self awareness”. Most of this occurs in horror movie remakes and sequels, but most notably in films based off TV shows (“Bewitched”,” “SWAT”, “Starsky & Hutch”). When this happens, the audience yawns.
And then there’s the ultimate error: if it isn’t broke, why fix it? (“Psycho”)
2) Sequels.
Sequels work if they can not only match the bar set by the previous film(s) but also raise it. They must continue the story, the characters also have to grow. Aside from Mythology and acknowlegement of what came before, the story/plot has to be “stand alone” because there are only a few exceptions. If you can follow the story without seeing the previous film first, you got a winner. If it also makes you hunt down the previous film, you struck gold. Sequels don’t work when:
* the characters behave differently than we last seen them (like in Legend Of Zorro),
* there are one too many trips to the well when well is dry (Elm Street, Halloween, etc)
* the main characters are upstaged or pushed aside for new characters who hog the spotlight- not by scene stealing, but that’s what is in the script. (Matrix Revolutions, Blade Trinity)
* Self awareness…again. (“Halloween Ressurection”)
*Killing off main characters from previous film in opening act of sequel (okay, it’s been done enough where it might aswell be tradition, but that does not mean the concept is good. It still stinks)
*Bad acting/miscasting.
* Nobody cares anymore/contempt for the fans (“We made it for the fans!” I hear that a lot, but the fans are catching zzz’s). Franchise, brand name. No effort is put into production. One big chunk of cheese. Roger Corman and Charles Band combined could do better.
-Sealer out.
I’s complete mystery why anyone would get upset about Wicker Man remake….
That movie was so incredible sucky that it doesnt’ matter what kind of remake it will be , it can only be better.