I'm not saying that a good remake doesn't exist, but that the percentages are tremendously against it.

Also, was The Thing really a remake? Or was it "let's use this title and this approximate background idea and make a completely different story/movie?". For example (even though this is based on a book and not another movie), the Will Smith "I am Legend" takes the title and a rough idea of the premise, and makes a completely different story (including a different ending that redefines what the title means).

Which was the exact point in the film where I went from "this isn't too bad." to " I ####ing hate this movie."


Thing thoughts:

The original, while a beloved classic, and a film I enjoy watching, seems to be a sci-fi film made by people that didn't want to make a sci-fi film.

John Carpenter's The Thing is closer to the source material. and possibly my favorite movie.

The prequel was okay, I didn't hate it.

And this is where things start to differ from my perspective. The Thing is a movie remake of a movie, whereas the what we were speaking of previously (Peabody & Sherman, The Addams Family, The Flintstones, etc.) were film adaptations of tv shows. My biggest problem with most of these is that a 30 minute tv show formula normally just can't sustain for 90 -120 minutes, necessitating some off-the-wall storyline in order to fill up the timeframe. My second biggest problem is the one that ignatz pointed out - these movies are made for kids, yes, but do we have to dumb them down for these kids in order for them to be enjoyable by them? I say thee nay.

Oh, hell yeah! I remember that.

Good point about The Thing. I guess it's not a good example.

Is the chick in your avatar simultaneously shooting one guy in the head and some other guy in the crotch as she jumps through the air?

Look at the angle on those Mausers!

Good points on all of this. And now I have nothing to add of any use, but I figured that "Good points on all of this" is not only a very long post, but only serves to make me look kinda stupid. Perhaps if I fill up the post like this people will assume I had something really intelligent to say, and, while I may not have countered your points perfectly, replied with something not only thoughtful, but though provoking. It's a darn shame that Lurker isn't in this thread. This post has him written all over it.

Now I want to go watch Addams Family (technically not an adaptation of a TV show, but an adaptation of both the show and the New Yorker cartoons both).

Yes.


And those are Lugers.

I was wondering if anyone was going to catch that. I'm impressed by your knowledge of German pistols. I thought Mausers sounded cooler for a possible LPC ATA.

Does she have a tail, or is that a holster?

That's a Holstertail™.

Oh and as far as good remakes go, consider that the movie that we think of as The Wizard of Oz was the second remake of that (the third version in total).

Virtually all Shakespeare movies at this point are technically remakes. I would not want to skip Brannagh's Henry V just because Olivier did it first.

Little Shop of Horrors is a musical remake. Does it count? The original is a cult curiosity, but the remake is pretty good.

The recent True Grit remake is better than the original.

Dawn of the Dead remake, while not as awesome as the original, has some terrific things going for it.

3:10 to Yuma was a great remake. The original is pretty darned good (and has a better ending) but the remake has a much better overall story, action, and acting.

Do we want a world without the Magnificent Seven? Or Fistful of Dollars?

Anybody out there like '67 Casino Royale more than the Daniel Craig version?

And then there's The Departed, The Maltese Falcon, The Man Who Knew Too Much and others.

One could argue that a lot of these aren't remakes so much as new adaptations of the source material, but in that case, there are hardly any remakes at all since most movies have source material.

What is this "we", Kemosabe?

That film, to me, departs so much from the source material as to be not worthy of having "Oz" in the title.

I appreciate its place in movie history, to be sure, but the acting is hideous and I find all the characters annoying.

And people complain about SpongeBob being too annoying to watch!!

Great points all.

I didn't know about some of those.

I think Smudge's point about TV remakes still stands, but I'm fine with going in this direction if I learn about more remakes I never knew were remakes.

You are dead to me. DEAD!

I will also join the ranks of the Legion of Wintremute's Unliving.

Also, I never liked John Wayne that much.

My impression watching the original True Grit and the remake, was that the Oscar noms were backawards.

The girl in the original was a better actor than the one in the remake, but the remake performance was nominated.

John Wayne was nominated for the original, but Jeff Bridges is a million times better in the role.