What I dislike about remakes

[Alpo]

A lot of people will get all upset when they talk about a movie being remade. "Ah, it's a piece of garbage!!"

 

In 1931 they made the movie THE MALTESE FALCON. Private eye Sam Spade, and the woman that kept changing her name, and the fat man, and the diamond encrusted gold falcon that was covered with black paint.

 

Ricardo Cortez played Sam (interesting Spanish name for a Jewish boy from New York) and the movie wasn't bad. Wasn't all that great though.

 

In 1936 they remade it. This time they called it SATAN MET A LADY. Sam Spade (renamed Ted Shane) was a con man. The fat man was a fat woman. The diamond encrusted gold bird was a ram's horn trumpet full of jewels. A whole lot of this movie was different than from the first one. And it wasn't as good as the first one. Sam/Ted was played by Warren William.

 

Then in 1941 they made it again. This time Humphrey Bogart played Sam Spade. And this is the one that everybody loves. And nobody seems to realize that it's a remake. Actually a second remake.

 

So just because it's a remake does not mean it's bad. Three Godfathers. John Wayne. I know it's a remake. The one before it had Boston Blackie and Andy Hardy's father the judge and Walter Brennan. And I believe that was a remake. I think they made it as a silent. But if they hadn't kept making remakes we would have never had John Wayne and Ward Bond and Dobe and Pedro.

 

But the thing that I really dislike about remakes is when you watch several of them and they have new scenes.

 

MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET. Natalie Wood, little girl. Edward Gwen (Edmond?) was Santa Claus. They remade it in the 50s. Thomas Mitchell (Dr Boone in John Wayne's STAGECOACH) was Santa Claus. They remade it in the sixties. Sebastian Cabot was Santa Claus. Both of those two were made for television.

 

In one of those TV movies, a friend of the lawyer had gone hunting and gotten a deer, and gave a roast to the lawyer, and Susan's mother was going to make supper with it. And of course they invited Kris. He replied that he appreciated the offer, but, "Venison? I couldn't."

 

When I bought 34TH STREET, 10 years or so back, I was eagerly awaiting that line. And it wasn't there. I couldn't figure why they edited it out.

 

But they didn't edit it out of the Natalie Wood version. It wasn't in the Natalie Wood version. I remembered it from some version I saw and thought that it would be in the Natalie Wood version.

 

And that is the trouble with remakes. You remember something happening, but it was in a remake, and you're watching the original and it's not there.

 

Annoying.

[Subdeacon Joe]

There are remakes that take a carppy movie with so-so actors but with a good story, plug in good actors who can deliver the lines and make you believe the story.  

Then there are the remakes that are done because the writers lack imagination,  or want to make a social statement.  Those tend to be garbage. 

 

Now, sometimes a remake is a good movie,  just not quite as good as the original because we keep comparing the two. For instance "The Shop Around the Corner" and  "You've Got Mail."  I  think "The Shop..." is one of the best movies ever made.  Perfect casting with great direction and editing.   "You've Got Mail" is pretty darned good,  but in my mind it doesn't come close to "The Shop... " when compared side by side.

 

Some are equally good.   Take 

"Ninotchka" and "Silk Stockings"  similar story,  with "Silk" making some changes to make the musical aspect plausible,  one a romantic comedy,  the other a musical romantic comedy.  Good casts, story, directing, etc.  Are you in the mood for a musical or not?

 

"A Christmas Carol" is one that seems to have endless remakes, some really good, some real stinkers.

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

The thing I hate about remakes, is that nowadays, whoever is remaking it wants to do it the way THEY think it should've been done in the first place. They put "their spin" on the story. Usually with some DEI thrown in, which ALWAYS detracts from the story. It usually winds up not being as good as the original because people LIKED the original. They want to see a remake with the original story, not a different story with the same name. 

Perfect for instance. "The Fantastic Four". The version from 2005 was fairly close to the original story. I don't know what is generally thought of it, but it was at least popular enough to get a sequel. The 2015 version though, OMG what a piece of crap. Literally the only things it had in common with the Source Material, (comic books) was the names of the characters and their powers. I watched it when it came out on cable, and once I did, I determined to NEVER do so again.  

[Subdeacon Joe]

15 minutes ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

The thing I hate about remakes, is that nowadays, whoever is remaking it wants to do it the way THEY think it should've been done in the first place.

 

That's always the case.  The director of a movie always makes it according to his own vision,  just as the actors portray the characters as they see the,  or as close as the director lets them. Can you imagine Elwood  P. Dowd played by John Wayne or Robert Preston?  Sean Thornton played by James Stewart or Clint Eastwood?  Good lord.....Robert Preston as Dirty Harry!   That'd be worth six bits to see!

[Alpo]

Douglas Fairbanks Jr was in a movie called THE PRISONER OF ZENDA. Made in the thirties - 37 I think. He had a copy of it, and liked to play it at parties that he threw.

 

Stewart Granger was at one of his parties, and they showed the movie and he thought it was a wonderful show. So wonderful that he convinced them to make a remake.

 

A line for line shot for shot remake.

 

So in 1952 Stewart Granger starred in THE PRISONER OF ZENDA. I've got both of them, and aside from the actors you can't tell the difference.

 

I was reading Patty Duke's autobiography. She was in THE MIRACLE WORKER, both times. The first time she played little Helen Keller, and Anne Bancroft played the woman that taught Helen - the miracle worker. In the remake Patty played the miracle worker.

 

She said there were ways that she played the scenes that were not the way she remembered. Because she didn't want to copy the way Anne did it. She wanted to do her own interpretation.

 

Then after the movie was made she rewatched the original, and all that stuff she remembered was not the way Anne did it. She said that as best as she could figure out, when she, as little actress Patty, would watch Anne do a scene, she would think to herself, "If I were doing that I would do it this way", and that's what she was remembering 20 years later. Not the way Bancroft played the part but the way Patty would have played the part. But since she thought it was the way Bancroft did it, she did it a third way, because she didn't want to look like she was copying Anne.

 

I believe it would be so much nicer if actors and actresses would concentrate more on "giving a good performance", and less on "doing it my way".

[Alpo]

1 hour ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

For instance "The Shop Around the Corner" and  "You've Got Mail." 

You forgot IN THE GOOD OLD SUMMERTIME. Judy Garland and Van Johnson remake.

[DocWard]

I suppose there is some validity to the point. At the same time, there are some movies where people agree they got it right the first time. I read they're planning a remake of the original Highlander movie. Why? It is considered an iconic cult classic for a reason. Shot on a relatively small budget, and with relatively few effects, it was the actors and their chemistry that brought the story to life. Now, I'm sure they can do amazing fight choreography and add cool CGI effects. Those don't make a better movie. Henry Cavill is not a particularly poor actor, based on the things I've seen him in, and I'm sure he'll do a fine job. They may surround him with other great actors. But that doesn't mean they will improve upon the first. I mean, Clancy Brown is the Kurgan.

 

Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but sometimes it is just imitation.

[Subdeacon Joe]

50 minutes ago, Alpo said:

You forgot IN THE GOOD OLD SUMMERTIME. Judy Garland and Van Johnson remake.

 

Oh yeah.....I think I've seen it once.  

[Alpo]

1 hour ago, DocWard said:

Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but sometimes it is just imitation.

There's a good romantic comedy from the 40s. Bachelor Mother. Ginger Rodgers and David Niven.

 

Then during the 50s, with the Communist witch hunts going through Hollywood, and apparently all of the writers were communist, they just remade old movies. They did this one with Debbie Reynolds. Debbie required that the romantic lead would be her husband, Eddie Fisher.

 

And because Eddie Fisher was a singer and not an actor, they turned it into a musical.

 

And it sucked canal water.

[Bailey Creek,5759]

Stagecoach, Red River.

[Cypress Sun]

Some remakes aren't so bad. Think of how many times Seven Samurai has been "remade". Several of them were pretty good!

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

Airplane! (1980) is pretty much a frame-by-frame remake of Zero Hour (1957). Same dialogue but with a punchline. 
 

 

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

9 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

"A Christmas Carol" is one that seems to have endleass remakes, some really good, some real stinkers.

 

This brings up the question of what is a remake. I think of it as a movie based mostly upon an older, usually successful well-made movie. Movies based on the same story, especially a classic story like A Christmas Carol, aren't really "remakes", because they're not remakes of an earlier film as such.

 

The best example among Westerns' is True Grit. Both are based directly upon the short Portis novel, which is practically a screenplay in itself. The Jeff Bridges movie is closer to the book than the John Wayne version, especially as to the ending, which is an important part of the original story. So I don't think of it as a remake, though it's sometimes called one.

[watab kid]

i liked the humphry bogart version and the natalie wood version , there are a few more as well but i cant think of them right now - there was a version of "leave her to heavan" that i recall liking - it was BandW 

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

16 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

That's always the case.  The director of a movie always makes it according to his own vision,  just as the actors portray the characters as they see the,  or as close as the director lets them. Can you imagine Elwood  P. Dowd played by John Wayne or Robert Preston?  Sean Thornton played by James Stewart or Clint Eastwood?  Good lord.....Robert Preston as Dirty Harry!   That'd be worth six bits to see!

Amazing!  I haven't heard "bits" being used in years except by me.  I often say something about it being "your two bits worth," or my wife's "two bits, four bits, six bits, a dollar."  She used to say that along with a little side step dance.

 

Thanks for the memory.  NOW, who knows the story of "bits" and the cutting up of "pieces of eight"?   I do, but do you? 

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

42 minutes ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

 NOW, who knows the story of "bits" and the cutting up of "pieces of eight"?   I do, but do you? 

Please uncle Forty, tell us a story!

[Alpo]

In order to make small change, the Spanish dollar would be cut into eighths, each one called a bit. They were worth 12 and 1/2 cents. So two bits was 25 cents.

 

That old high school football cheer - two bits four bits six bits a dollar, all for 40 stand up and holler! - translated to 25 cents, 50 cents, 75 cents, a dollar.

 

 

I recall a novel I read as a callow ute. It was taking place in the very beginning of our country. And people used money from all over the world. So you might have a English pound and a Spanish pisetta and a French Luis, and everybody knew basically what that was worth. And if they didn't recognize it's worth, they would weigh it.

 

So this guy is attempting to buy something and he's got a pocket full of money from all over the world, and one of the things he has is a bit. But it's been carried a lot and has been worn down some. And the seller looks at it for a while and says that he will allow 12 cents. That it was worn from handling so much it no longer had 12 and a half cents worth of silver in it.

Edited November 29 by Alpo

[DocWard]

9 hours ago, Abilene Slim SASS 81783 said:

Airplane! (1980) is pretty much a frame-by-frame remake of Zero Hour (1957). Same dialogue but with a punchline. 
 

 

 

It was intended as such. The producers purchased the rights to the film because it was so obscure (meaning they were cheap), to avoid any legal difficulties.

[Subdeacon Joe]

10 hours ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

This brings up the question of what is a remake. I think of it as a movie based mostly upon an older, usually successful well-made movie. Movies based on the same story, especially a classic story like A Christmas Carol, aren't really "remakes", because they're not remakes of an earlier film as such.

 

Interesting point.  Maybe "reinterpretation" rather than "remake."  Which leads to "How many movies are really original and not at least loosely based on or "inspired by" a book?"  If a writer/director/producer doesn't know of the book, only the earlier movie, is it a remake or an interpretation?

 

George Lucas was heavily influenced by The Seven Samurai in producing Star Wars.  And The Magnificent Seven is Seven Samurai transposed into an American Western.  Things get muddy real fast.

[watab kid]

remakes dont bother me so much as when they do it and alter the story so much you cant recognize it , 

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

Just compare the climactic gunfight in True Grit staring John Wayne to the same scene in the remake with, uhm, whoever it was.

Not only did he deliver one of the best lines in history of film in the worst way possible, but...   He doesn't even have a Winchester.

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

1 hour ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

Just compare the climactic gunfight in True Grit starring John Wayne to the same scene in the remake with, uhm, whoever it was.

Not only did he deliver one of the best lines in history of film in the worst way possible, but...   He doesn't even have a Winchester.

Jeff Bridges might as well have been saying, "Your mother wears combat boots".

[watab kid]

ill agree with that - it fell way short on many levels 

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

I'll weigh in....

 

Leaving Jeff Bridges aside (who was great, but that's a matter of taste I figure), True Grit is the story of Mattie Ross, who narrates the entire book. Kim Darby was totally, utterly miscast as Mattie, Hailie Steinfeld was perfect. John Wayne's Rooster was iconic; the rest was much less so. I believe that he definitely deserved the Oscar for his performance though.

 

One could go on, but the ending of the John Wayne version was a total departure from the book, which, after all, was written only a couple of years before. Mattie just has a bandage on her arm, all is well and happy; she'll be fine, and no doubt she and Rooster will have happy reunions!

 

The Charles Portis novel is great. Read the opening, and then the last lines at the end. Powerful, and captured by the 2010 version perfectly.

 

I've wondered why the first movie ended as it did. After all, the book was brand new, and was a big bestseller. I think movie audiences back then wanted unambiguously happy endings. More than that, I specuclate that John Wayne didn't want the actual more sobering ending for whatever reason. But that's just my guess, as I try to figure out why they did it that way back then.

 

I never had read the book until I had watched the 2010 movie. It is a great work. The later movie reflected it much better.

Edited Saturday at 06:35 AM by Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619