Remakes: Pros and Cons

Posted by torgette on May 12, 2008 at 1:36pm in About Movies

Remakes are popular movies and sometimes the remake is hard to catch if you've never seen the old movie it came from.

What movies do you think should have never been remade? Which do you think were better than the original?

Tags: movies, old, remakes

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by B-Independent.com on May 12, 2008 at 2:16pm: I'm actually a big fan of this one too, as well as a number of other classic lit remake/reimaginings from that same time period, like SHE'S ALL THAT and CLUELESS. Not only was I often the oldest one in the audience, but I was often the only male....

I think the only one from that era that I didn't really care for was ROMEO AND JULIET....always seemed like Baz Lurman was just pullin' his pud...; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Aaron on May 12, 2008 at 10:46pm: What story did Clueless come from?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by B-Independent.com on May 13, 2008 at 1:42pm: CLUELESS is from Jane Austin's EMMA; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jo17ie on May 13, 2008 at 9:50am: You mean She's The Man?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by B-Independent.com on May 13, 2008 at 1:48pm: SHE'S THE MAN is a reworking of 12th NIGHT. SHE'S ALL THAT is a reworking of PYGMALION (also turned into the mucial MY FAIR LADY).; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by torgette on May 12, 2008 at 2:17pm: Aha! I saw that in "10 Things..." Ripping off Shakespeare is popular, West Side Story is Romeo and Juliet. Scotland PA (funny indy flick with "Bad Company" songs as the score), was MacBeth. Even "Shakespeare in Love" is taken from Twelve Night, except no one tried to cover it up much in that film.

I think ripping off a little Shakespeare when it comes to the human condition, is ok. He practically wrote everything about there was to write about it.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by B-Independent.com on May 12, 2008 at 2:30pm: Shakespeare seems to lend himself especially well to interprutation. I believe in the last 15 years there have been 4 different nationally releases versions of HAMLET, including one with Ethan Hawke set in the modern Corporate world.

Back in the 90's when the teen lit craze was all the rage, I wanted to pitch MUCH ADO set at a summer camp, preferably one for the arts so I could justify the musical numbers.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Whatchawatchin on May 12, 2008 at 2:30pm: True. I also get frustrated that they insist on making everything weighty and serious because it's Shakespeare. Shakespeare had a wickedly sharp sense of humor and he was writing for the masses, not just the educated. Alot of his stuff is pretty bawdy. Everyone thinks of this stuffy, obnoxious bard where I think he'd be laughing his head off and pleased that people were still getting his humor.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Slappy on May 13, 2008 at 7:08am: Yes sometimes I think that all directors should have to read any variation of Shakespeare made easy they have the original Shakespeare on the left pages and modern translations on the right page. Maybe just maybe then they will understand that he was not all drama.

10 Things I Hate about you is one of my all time favorites. Overall that is more the way I thought of Taming the Shrew anyway, not to mention I absolutely adored Heath Ledger.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Microwaved on May 13, 2008 at 7:24am: I think the problem with Shakespear is teachers don't know how to teach it.

How do you teach something that talks about sex, murder, ghosts, interracial love, premarital sex, suicide, whores, revenge, death, manipulation, gore, incest and sex, sex, and more sex?

Really Shakespear isn't taught correctly. You're told to read Romeo and Juliet and then discuss the themes of star crossed lovers, not the other shit that's happening in it and then watch that movie from the 70's. I think kids should read it then watch Tromeo and Juliet to get a real feel for what Shakespear was bringing to the stage.

The other problem that's not addressed is what the theatres were like when Shakespear was working. The orange sellers in the crowd, weren't really selling oranges. The audience sitting on the stage and interacting with the actors. You needed to make it a visceral experience or you got literally thrown off the stage.

Shakespear should be saved for college when the rest of your horizons are expanding, like that one night with your roommate. You both were drinking and happened to be in your bra and panties. You swear you're not a lesbian but you just wanted to see what would happen if you touched her there....; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Moviebunny on May 13, 2008 at 1:50pm: There's no reason why Shakespeare shouldn't be taught in High School, in fact that's the perfect age. The issue might be that students are no longer used to working to understand material, and examination of the text is often hampered by the iambic pentameter. But when explained in modern English, and presented with some imagination, most students discover they like Shakespeare.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by NetflixJunkie on May 13, 2008 at 1:53pm: High school is where I first read much of the Shakespeare I have taken in: Henry V, Much Ado About Nothing and Macbeth to name a few.

Please just let it be a teacher who actually understands the text, else students will run screaming.; ▶ Reply to This