Comments on: TMB’s 4 Rules Before Making A Remake

By: altaf

altaf — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 06:36:00 +0000

Very Useful Post Thank you For Publish

By: Gazza

Gazza — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:17:45 +0000

Say John,

What would your rules be for Hollywood remakes of foreign language films? I think The Departed has already been mentioned above already… which is nice, because I was starting to think that they’d made a rule that only asian horror films could be remade…

God knows the opposite’s been happening for years; but it’s actually really interesting seeing the stories adapted for local audiences. IMHO, that would be my no 1 rule for such remakes, the story should be able to be adapted well to suit western audiences. what say you?

By: Gazza

Gazza — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:40:25 +0000

In reply to Mr Stay Puft. ha ha, me likey

By: Wes

Wes — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 22:36:11 +0000

I think they should remake Eragon, i know it is not very old at all, but they slaughtered the book with the movie, they need to completely start over and do the actual story not the complete offstretch that came, the only redeemable part of Eragon was the few good actors like Jeremy Irons as Brom Or Ajihad portrayed by the talented Djimon Hounsou, if New Line would remake this properly they would make ten times what they put into it on the movie scores of fans would see it, we dont care if they have to split it into several films or a long film many fans will flock to a chance at a good representation, if the other books are to be made into movies, then the original must be remade

By: Cassidy

Cassidy — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:40:31 +0000

I would up that time frame to maybe 30s years… I think allot of knowing when and when not to remake a movie has mostly to do with intuition. Scarface and The Fly worked because the movies in which the were based have a completely different approach and aim. While the talks of a Nightmare on Elm Street remake and a Videodrome remake (while still in your legal time frame) just seem like bad ideas. In Nightmares case its because its a tired franchise that people of all ages are still being introduced to. While in the case for movies like Videodrome, Wicker Man, and Last House on the Left it just seems like these movies were already such a timeless and artful statement on there own and they are so connected to the creator that a remake would be pointless. This is also the case for the Psycho remake. And as far as their never being a Three Amigo’s remake, didn’t Tropic Thunder get pretty close?

By: Tramadol

Tramadol — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 12:09:10 +0000

Just like Merian C. Cooper did in ‘33, I too am adapting this fantastic novel into film form once more. But does it mean I am remaking ‘King Kong’? No! That has already been remade, and perfectly, IMO, by Mr. Jackson. I am merely re-adapting Lovelace’s novel for the first time since 1933

By: 220/221...WIT

220/221...WIT — Sat, 09 May 2009 16:30:56 +0000

A story is not a thing you can set in stone. Each generation takes away something different and adds to it in their re-telling. The rule #4 is key, the remake has to take one of the themes or ideas and relate it to current issues. Examples brought by Brian T were good; “The Thing from another World” -50s and “The Thing”-80s have the same premise, but completely different takes and social themes, where as “Psycho” was the same movie. Some movies can’t be remade as their surprise endings were the movie; “Psycho”-Norman is his mother, “Sixth Sense”-he is a ghost, and “PotApes”-he is on Earth. These movies probably would not be considered great without them and without the surprise, the storytelling is diminished. I thought someone would be remaking “Logan’s Run” by now; a culture focused on the young, socially isolated by tech, looking for the next big thing, seems more real now.

By: Clayton Van March

Clayton Van March — Sat, 02 May 2009 13:54:46 +0000

In reply to Clayton Van March.

John, I am sorry for not replying for so long.

Thing is, you never wrote the rules to Hollywood and what defines a remake.

And I love how you say that I cannot use semantics, but you do yourself. I love the irony, John. Thanks for the laugh.

By: sjp1966

sjp1966 — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:22:21 +0000

ooohhh does that mean Alien, Aliens and other such superb films can be remade. oh yes :)

By: Jen in Tenn

Jen in Tenn — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:32:02 +0000

My first and foremost rule that NO ONE FOLLOWS, but they SHOULD: remake a movie that was ALMOST great. There are SOOOOOOO many movies out there that you watch and say, “Wow, that was so close, but messed up by adding/omitting/diverting from this or that.” Movies that had a good premise or main characters or story but fizzled at some point. Take the ALMOST worthies and make them great! C’mon, I DARE YOU…. Take the challenge, moviemakers!

Taking a BELOVED movie and remaking it is just ASKING for failure 99.9% of the time.

By: John

John — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:11:11 +0000

In reply to Clayton Van March.

Sorry Clayton, but you’re incorrect.

It doesn’t matter what Peter Jackson says. If Peter Jackson says the movie was made without cameras and only used the power of his mind… that doesn’t make it true.

You’re over complicating the issue here. In the question of “is it a remake” all you have to ask is this:

Was a Lord of the Rings film made before?

If the answer is yes, then that’s it. End of discussion. You can try to use semantics all you want, but the bottom line is, it was MADE before. This one may be new, it may be really different… but it is STILL a remake. Period.

By: Clayton Van March

Clayton Van March — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:02:58 +0000

Hi! I agree that LOTR is not a remake. Whether John thinks they are or not, the main thing we should draw a conclusion from is what Peter Jackson, the film-maker himself, has said.

He has said countless times that his films aren’t remakes of the Bakshi film. He has said that his films were complete adaptions of the books. So therefore, PJ’s LOTR Trilogy isn’t a remake!

Even PJ’s ‘King Kong’ wasn’t a remake of the 1976 film, although the 1976 was a remake of the original just like Jackson’s!

I am writing a spec-script for an adaption of Delos W. Lovelace’s 1932 ‘Kong’ novel, the story that was adapted into film form, which, is now what we fondly know as the 1933 classic version of ‘King Kong’. But just like Merian C. Cooper did in ’33, I too am adapting this fantastic novel into film form once more. But does it mean I am remaking ‘King Kong’? No! That has already been remade, and perfectly, IMO, by Mr. Jackson. I am merely re-adapting Lovelace’s novel for the first time since 1933. None of the remakes have re-adapted the novel, no matter how much they took from it. My script will be the only re-adaption since 1933.

See, it’s all about the intention of the film-makers! Peter Jackson could’ve said, “I am going to remake that horrible Bakshi cartoon and make millions!”, but he didn’t. He said, “Hey! I’ve got a great idea! The children of today need the option to fall in love with Tolkien’s work! So let’s adapt LOTR to film-form! Bakshi? Who’s Bakshi?”. No intention to remake Bakshi’s film. Therefore, not a remake.