Editor’s Pick
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 10:46AM
Remakes and Reboots: The Good, the Bad, and the Humdrum
Unlike some people, I don't hate all remakes. Some movies can be reinterpreted by new writers or directors, adding new relevance for a whole new generation. The original Invasion of the Body Snatchers for example had one kind of meaning during the Red Scare era of the 1950s, and then the remake in 1978 had a timely tone befitting that decade. But then the additional remake in 1998, in my opinion, served no purpose and added nothing new.
Some reboots work, as can be seen in the constant new versions of the James Bond franchise, and some fail miserably. Others fall somewhere in between.
Two of the best recent examples of remakes that are actually good are Batman Begins and Star Trek. Director Christopher Nolan took the Batman franchise and gave it new life, putting the Caped Crusader into a believably gruesome Gotham City, blending a touch of realism with the fantasy superhero action, and reaching near perfection with The Dark Knight. J.J. Abrams revived the Trek franchise, which many skeptics had written off as dead. He managed to make a movie that was both fresh and nostalgic, accessible to new viewers while also enjoyable by longtime fans of the original television series and movies.
Many remakes, of course, completey fail. I wish someone could wipe from my memory the totally unnecessary shot-by-shot remake of Psycho that Gus Van Sant created. Why tinker with the Alfred Hitchcock classic in the first place? Another horrible example of terrible remakes has to be The Omen. The original was one of my favorites, but the reboot left me feeling empty. The cast, the music, the cinematography, the pacing, none of it measured up to the 1976 version directed by Richard Donner and starring Gregory Peck that continues to haunt me.
Then you have those remakes that just become forgettable. You can add all the recent horror remakes to this list. Tim Burton's new vision of Planet of the Apes may have had some slightly better makeup and special effects, but the story and new twist ending weren't an improvement at all and were most likely a step back. Steven Spielberg taking a stab at a War of the Worlds remake may have sounded like a great idea, but it came nowhere near surpassing the original classic. It could have explored some powerful themes about terrorism, but it just seemed like one of many other recent disaster flicks. And its focus on the H.G. Wells plot point of the aliens taking human blood had the potential to lead to some profound metaphor about AIDS, twisting the original film's "bacteria saviors" surprise ending, but the Spielberg reboot instead relied on a simpler, blander, and less memorable ending.
Hollywood will continue to remake movies of the past, but let us hope that they will do so with some thought and creativity.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Reverb
Timothy Liebe
JadeInTheATL
Victoria Lord
ronnierayjenkins
Indie Girl
Salon.com
Comments
I think Van Sant's Psycho lost something first by being in color. Hitchcock had the option to make the original in color and chose instead to make it black-and-white, which I think worked very well. Also, play revivals often have new staging and new blocking -- what did Van Sant's shot-by-shot remake offer (beside some subliminal shots of cows and whatnot that Hitchcock never intended). Yes, it was an experiment, but I didn't get it.
If there was, I missed that one. Generally, I don't like remakes, though I agree the '78 Body Snatchers was exceptional. But the whole prequel/sequel deal fascinates me. I never seem to get tired of them.
Bill: I don't mind a good sequel either. But enoguh with the prequels! LOL
Caroline: That's an excellent philosophy and I wish filmmakers would follow it. But sadly they follow the money, and that's more enticing. Remakes, even without anything new to add, seem to be an easy way to milk a tired franchise and get consumers to shell out some cash for what they've seen before, but since it's a reboot, it's "new". We're all a bunch of suckers. :)
But, we'll see.
The largest difference for me was the fact that Vince Vaughn LOOKS like the kind of guy who might be a serial killer - Anthony Perkins didn't feel nearly as huge and menacing, and therefore his reveal as the killer was more shocking. Under all of Vince Vaughn's characters, there's always an air of self-awareness, of confidence, that he can't shake. When he's playing an aggressive killer in roles like Clay Pigeons it works. But when he's supposed to be playing a completely brow-beaten mama's boy in Psycho... it just doesn't quite feel convincing.
Speaking of remakes, let me propose my #1 choice for "Movie I'd Love to See Updated and Remade": The Last Starfighter. Oh yeah.
Then you have the stories that crop up every generation or two, the excuse for which is to give the current crop of stars another shot at an old chestnut. As a kid, I enjoyed watching Gene Kelly as D'Artagnan, and my wife and I loved the 1970s Richard Lester-directed version (an amazingly strong cast and a different approach to the story), but the 90s one, with Charlie Sheen and Keifer Sutherland was lame. And Kevin Costner's alleged story of Robin Hood cannot possibly stand up to Errol Flynn.
Then, of course, there's Shakespeare, which really does involve re-imagining.
You touchThe Thing, we go.
Fear of sex, fear of contact with other humans, fear of the dark (and of "darkies"), fear of human kindness...it's the drumbeat of every horror movie of this era, and is in sync with the drumbeat of conservatives. And the reason the films are being remade is that Americans need to be made afraid again, since for one brief moment in the last election they had hope, and hope kills both King's income and Cheney's power. Remakes are big because there is no creativity in the field, since creativity would require imagination, which requires openness of mind.
The fan of Freddy Krueger in the last decade became the evangelical clinic-bomber of this decade. And the fans of current horror films will be the American Taliban stormtroopers of the next.
It is very true that horror movies feed paranoia and are often mysogenistic.
I still think the primary factor is money -- kids go to horror movies, even the ones that are rated R, and that equals box office success. Hollywood needs ideas -- first they were remaking Asian horror films like The Grudge and The Ring and many others, now they're pilfering Hollywood's own history, remaking Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Halloween, Friday the 13th, etc.
But it goes beyond horror. I mentioned science fiction and fantasy remakes as well. And there's talk of remaking The Wizard of Oz and countless other films as well.
I'm not saying your political indoctrination theory is without merit, just that I think the financial/business motivation suprcedes any political agenda.