Remakes

Hollywood is getting lazy. to many remakes. most of which are crap compared to the original. Ocean's Eleven(Rat Pack) and Gone in 60secs for example. the end of original O's 11 and the chase in 60sec. infact, i can't even think of a remake that was better than the original. some may look prettier, but i don't think pretty=better. can anyone think of any remakes that were better than the original?

Little shop of horrors. I saw the original, and while it is certainly hilarious in some places, I think that the musical version far exceeds it. Also Scarface; I don't think many people know that the Al Pacino version is the remake, but it's by far the better one. Good point though, too many remakes lately, and apparently most of them need to be in 3D for some reason. Apparently people can't watch movies anymore without shit jumping out of the screen.

I feel like I'm cheating here, but Evil Dead 2. It's basically a remake of Evil Dead and it's a lot better. But yeah, usually remakes are a lot worse - a lot of the time it's because a lot of the magic of the film comes from the time it was made and the nature in which it was made (Clash of the Titans being a great example). There are other remakes that are generally seen as better than the originals, like The Thomas Crown Affair and the Maltese Falcon (though I haven't seen either version of the latter).

Edit
Oh yeah, and Scarface as has just been said.

Now that i think about it, lazy is the wrong word. more like scared. like they're afraid to risk making something that hasn't been proven to make money. they usual screw it up by tring to make it 'better'.

Bruce Campbell + Sam Rami = Pure awesome.

i can't think of any all the reamakes i can thnk of are complete wank

Well if you can't think of movie remakes, how about remakes of british shows into american versions? There's quite a few of those. Fun fact, American Gladiators started out as a british show before it was adapted for the US market. The show 'Three's Company' used to be a british show called 'Man about the house'.

Good point on the TV shows. it doesn't always translate though. i think i remember hearing they tried to remake friends in england, but it bombed. and i like the british Office better than the american one. i also watched a columbian remake of married with children, it was pretty good. it was in spainish, but it had subtitles.

US remakes of British shows. In fairness, remakes can be for all sorts of reasons. It could be to update an old film for colour, effects, sound etc, it could be a different take on a classic story as with Alice in Wonderland, it could be translating a plot or certain ideas for a US audience, or it could simply be a shiny money spinner to plug an idea gap. As much as remakes often seem to be bastardisations, differences in taste do occasionally necessitate them, and the comparisons drawn are great adverts for the often brilliant originals; this is an avenue to new tastes or styles which US studios and networks won't take a risk on. How many Americans would have seen Ringu or The Grudge if not for the Hollywood versions, seen the Spanish 'Vanilla Sky' if not for hearing how awful the remake was, or read War of the Worlds, or like you say, seen the British version of The Office. The remake of the latter has done brilliantly in translating the ideas with American humour, but the original is still well regarded, launching Gervais' Hollywood and TV career. We're only just getting The Ricky Gervais Show, for Christ's sake.

The Maltese falcon, i thought was better than its predecessor

In the case of the new Alice in wonderland, i wouldn't consider that a remake. it's an original interpretation of an old story.

in most cases, i think movies are remade for pure exploitation of a proven money maker. any so called 'improvements' like CGI, big name talent, or 3D, are just efforts to squeeze a few more pennies out of the idiot masses.

which brings me to another thought; reruns labled 'premire', or 'first time on TV', just because it was a few years ago that it aired the first time. are people realy so stupid or unaware that they can't remember something that is only a few years old? for instance, i keep seeing comercials on the ScyFy channel for Riverworld. i'm not sure if it's a new version or a rerun. i can't find it anywhere on the ScyFy website, so that makes me think it's a rerun. what i don't get is the lieing about it. why do they feel it's necicary to say it's new when it's not?

Speaking of remakes, anyone looking forward to the new Nightmare on Elmstreet? I'm a bit mad that I have to deal with a non-Robert Englund Freddy, but it actually doesn't look horrible. I think with this they have remade just about all the big horror movies of yesteryear.

The Elm Street remake is something I completely understand; same with the Friday the 13th and Halloween remakes, too. All three series have a ton of movies in them, and the later ones really fucking suck, and for good reason. They had already done everything with the characters, so they had to do crazy shit, like send Jason into space. By simply remaking the movies, they are able to overcome that problem and show the classic killers in a new way, and hopefully produce more enjoyable movies featuring them.

Most other remakes, however, are worthless and made just to cash in. That point aside, it's amazing how often a remake will be made, but the majority of people won't know it's a remake. War of the Worlds (with Tom Cruise) was a good example of this. Honest to God, I heard people say that they were surprised/disappointed with the ending. I thought, "What the fuck? Do you have any idea how old the book is? There was even a movie version released a couple of decades ago. How could you not know how it ends?!" I knew the ending long before I even read the book or saw the original movie. It's common sense, isn't it?