A few weeks ago, Sony Pictures announced their plans to reboot the successful Spider-Man franchise. They provided every enthuiastic reason and gave every excuse possible for their decision to go in a different direction with the franchise even though now the fans will never see Sam Raimi's vision of Tobey Maguire fighting classic villains such as The Lizard, the Vulture, or Kraven the Hunter on-screen.
When I first heard about the Spider-Man reboot, I was disappointed. I wasn't done with the franchise like I was with the Batman franchise after enduring how horrible Batman & Robin was. I was looking forward to Tobey Maguire returning as Peter Parker, to Dylan Baker possibly transforming into The Lizard, to John Malkovich possibly portraying The Vulture, to Anne Hathaway possibly being involved somehow, and to Sam Raimi making up for Spider-Man 3 by using villains he was familiar with and not caving to studio pressure to include a more modern villain like Venom because he's so popular.
Sam Raimi was smart enough to see why Spider-Man 3 was not as good as the previous two, especially Spider-Man 2, which was considered to be the quintissential comic book movie before The Dark Knight. The studio, however, saw the dollars, and they wanted to include a more modern character like The Black Cat (whom Hathaway and a number of other actresses from Julia Stiles to Chloe Sevigny to Eliza Dushku were rumored to portray). In the end, the studio and the filmmaker could not come to an agreement. Raimi walked, Maguire left with him along with Kritsen Dunst (no tears shed there).
However, the studio did what every Hollywood studio has done over since the success of Batman Begins. Start over, or using the official term, reboot.
Let's not confuse a reboot with a remake or even a reintroduction. There is a difference between the three.
A remake has the same basic plot line of the original film. The story may be tweaked to make it more applicable to the modern audience viewing the film, like Johnathan Demme did with The Manchurian Candidate, or the director can make their own interpretation of the film visually like Martin Scorcese did with Cape Fear.
A reintroduction involves taking an established franchise character and continuing the series after an extended period of time. The average time span between sequels is two to three years though that time span has lessened over the years due to the studio's haste to get a sequel going if a film has a stellar opening weekend and looks to have some staying power. A sequel becomes a reintroduction when the film character has not been on screen for at least seven years since the last sequel. Think the return of Rocky Balboa, John Rambo, and John McClain over the last couple of years. The Ghostbusters are also scheduled to return within the next couple of years.
A reboot is when the audience is expected to forget what we know about a film series, its characters, and all the stories that have been established and accept the new direction the series will take. It's a computer mentality. When the system crashes, reboot.
As with remakes, film studios are digging into their libraries searching for franchises to revive. Like a remake, a reboot as a built in audience who will go to the theater either out of loyality or curiosity to see what this new version of a familiar series will take.
Fortunately, more often than not and in contrast to the remkes, it's paying off.
The Batman franchise is back stronger than ever thanks to Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale. J. J. Abrams did what no one expected could have been done and made Star Trek relevant and exciting again. James Bond remains immortal on the silver screen thanks to Daniel Craig and the Brocoli family.
When the reboot works, it not only resurects a franchise but also improves it tremendously and makes us forget why it was dying in the first place.
Rebooting may be a common decision made by studios and filmmakers. However, like remakes, it's not novels. Reboots have been occurring for years. They've just been very subtle, almost unnoticeable, and generally limited to one genre.
The entire James Bond series is essentially a reboot. Each film series featuring the different actors who portrayed James Bond is different from the last. Sean Connery's films had a suave maturity. George Lazenby's one Bond film was more dramatic and realistic. Roger Moore's Bond films were marked by levity and camp. The two Timothy Dalton films reflected the uber-masculinity of the action films of the 1980s. Pierce Brosnan's Bond was a combination of the suaveness of the Connery films and the cheekiness of the Moore pictures. While the Bond films are supposed to be continuing adventures, they are not true sequels. Each story stands on its own with no references to past adventures.
The Bond film officially recognized as a reboot is Casino Royale because it delves into the origins of James Bond, something none of the other films have ever done before. The only film that ever alluded to James Bond's origins is On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which introduces us to Bond's wife who is essentially murdered. At one point, it was rumored the filmmakers would explain the different James Bonds in that each series focused on a new spy who adopts the name James Bond and the title 007. They were smart to go with the reboot.
The Jack Ryan series are also reboots. Patriot Games with Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan is a reboot of The Hunt for Red October featuring Alec Baldwin as Ryan. The Sum of All Fears is the official reboot of the series in that it explores the origin of Jack Ryan's early years in the CIA with Ben Affleck in the main role. Rumor is Paramount Pictures and the producers of the series, Neuce/Mayfield, are looking to do another reboot with either Ryan Gosling or Chris Pine as Jack Ryan.
The horror genre often reboots their series with the hopes of continuing it under new direction. Wes Cravem attempted but failed to reboot the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise with his life-imitates-art film A New Nightmare. The most rebooted franchise is The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. After three sequels, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: A New Beginning was produced featuring Matthew McConaughey and Renee Zellweger and portraying Leatherface as a crossdresser. Fortunately, this failed and led to the much more successful and satisfying The Texas Chainsaw Massacre produced by Michael Bay, who founded his production company on remaking and rebooting classic horror films. Rob Zombie's Halloween and Halloween 2 are essentially reboots in that he took a more humanistic approach to Michael Meyers by making him psychologically scarred by his upbringing rather than being the simple killing machine John Carpenter created or the demonically possessed being he became in the fourth and fifth sequels.
Generally, the studios and filmmakers also don't treat the audience as stupid or ignorant when they reboot. They know people are coming into the theater with background knowledge of the series and its characters. They learned their lesson from George Lucas, who asked us to no longer accept The Force as a mystical force but rather as the result of midichlorians. I can still hear the resounding groans resounding throughout the theater during the midnight showing of The Phantom Menace when Qui-Gonn Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi spoke of Anakin's midichlorian count.
Regardless of the economic intentions, it's actually admirable for studios to decide to reboot franchises rather than cast them off as a dead series. It shows that they are loyal to not only their product but also to the creators of the original series. Take the Hulk movies. Universal Pictures could have abandonned the series after the disappointment of Ang Lee's version, but they decided to try one more time. They even learned from their mistakes, entrusted the picture to talent who were familiar with the character as portrayed in the comics, and even paid homage to the classic television show from the seventies by having Bruce Banner exile himself and be on the run. The end result of The Incredible Hulk, a much more satisfying version of the film that captured the story and style of the comic and TV series.
However, will we see another one? Some consider The Incredible Hulk as unsuccessful. It made $2 million less than Ang Lee's film. Hopefully, with Marvel having more control and the plans for an Avengers movie, we'll see Edward Norton as Bruce Banner again and perhaps bring back Tim Blake Nelson's Samuel Stearns to become The Leader (he was the scientist who tried curing Banner and ended up having Bruce's blood seep into his head wound).
Then there are those franchises that the studios and filmmakers have no choice but to reboot when their star actor doesn't want to return. Such was the case with The Punisher films. The Punisher with Thomas Jane was a reboot of the low budget film from the 1980s starring Dolph Lungren. It was enough of a moderate success for the studio, Lionsgate, to go forward with a sequel. However, Jane declined returning, so the studio was forced to reboot once again with Punisher: War Zone with Ray Stevenson, who may have given the closest portrayal of the Marvel comic character but unfortunately was in the second-worst version of the film next to the Lundgren one.
If you think about it, Sony is in the same predicament as Lionsgate was with Punisher. They are forced to reboot Spider-Man due to "creative differences", which is the truth behind the decision, not this empty claim that the studio has decided to go in a different direction. Spider-Man was still a proven franchise that had not yet run out of steam or alienated its audience. No one was objecting to Raimi or Maguire returning, though there was some concern over Kirsten Dunst reprising her role as Mary Jane and rumors of a child with red hair being put in the story. Maybe it was a good idea Sony shut down the project before they ended up with Spider-Man Returns.
Reboot can also be a better choice over making a sequel, reintroducing a character, or doing a remake. The Superman franchise is a perfect example of this. For years, Warner Brothers debated over how to make the fifth Superman film. Initially, it was going to be a reintroduction of the character under the direction of Tim Burton with Nicolas Cage as the Man of Steel. In the early nineties, J. J. Abrams attempted to reboot the franchise and made very contested and controversial choices in changing the Superman mythos - Krypton never exploded, Lex Luthor is an alien. The studio eventually decided to reintroduce Superman by making a direct sequel to Superman II, attempting to establish a trilogy between Superman: The Movie and Superman Returns and asking the audience to forget the third and fourth films - as they would in a reboot. While it was satisfying and welcoming to see Superman flying on-screen again, the problem is that the audience is left unsure about what they are watching. Is this a sequel? A reintroduction? A reboot? Unfortunately, the problem afflicting Superman Returns is that it "jumps the shark" by introducing the son of Superman and Lois, which pigeonholes the sequel to go in a direction it can never change.
One of the problems facing rebooting Superman is that the character, the comic, the 1950s TV series, and the 1978 movie are so ingrained in the audience's mind that it will be challenging to create J. J. Abrams's script also created a lot of controversy and soured the audience to a reboot. However, now that we've seen Superman Returns, perhaps the audience is now more amenable to a reboot.
While the acceptance of a rebooted Superman is slowly being accepted, there are some characters film studios and filmmakers would like to reboot but never could successfully because the character is either too iconic or associated with the actors who portrayed them. No one but Clint Eastwood could ever play "Dirty" Harry Callahan. Bruce Willis is the only actor who could and should play John McClane. Mel Gibson and Danny Glover are Martin Riggs and Roger Murtaugh. Sylvester Stallone will always be Rocky Balboa and John Rambo.
Terminator Salvation answered the question last summer whether the popular franchise could ever be rebooted. It can't, and the filmmakers realized that, which is why even though the mythology was changed it was still treated like a sequel and even included a CGI younger Arnold Schwarzenegger to connect this film to the series.
A failed reboot can also call for a remake. Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes failed because the film was Planet of the Apes only in title and that the characters were simians. It completely deviated from the novel written by Pierre Bouille and the classic sci-fi film series of the late sixties-early seventies. A remake with the right modern day actor in the roles of Taylor, Cornelius, Zira, and Dr. Zaius could be successful.
The success of a reboot lies in three areas. First and foremost is the story. The screenwriter is faced with the challenge to retell a familiar story in a fresh manner. This is why many reboots explore the origin of a character, and they usually go much more in-depth than the films in the original series. Batman Begins explains how and why Bruce Wayne became the Dark Knight in a much more satisfying manner than the two minute montage Tim Burton included in Batman. Star Trek takes us back to the Enterprise crew's days in the Starfleet Academy. Casino Royale shows how James Bond earned his license to kill and his title of 007. However, not every reboot needs to retell the origin but rather gives the audience what they expect and want from a familiar franchise character. The Incredible Hulk provided the action and conflict Hulk lacked by including characters recognizable to fans of the series such as The Abomination.
The second element of success lies with the talent of the director. Christopher Nolan, J. J. Abrams, and Louis Lettier brought their unique talents to breathe new life into the dead franchises. Abrams, who admitted to being more of a Star Wars fan than a Trekker, injected the youth and vibrance of that made Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, and Han Solo so appealing and popular into his version of Star Trek. Casino Royale works because Martin Campbell is a talented filmmaker and he is familiar with making James Bond relevant to his audience, having done it before when he reintroduced the character with Pierce Brosnan as 007 in Goldeneye.
The final element of success lies in the casting. In many film series, the actor who portays the character is just as iconic as the character. Superman is Christopher Reeve. Obi-Wan Kenobi is Alec Guinness. William Shatner is Captain Kirk and Leonard Nimoy is Mr. Spock. Robert Englund is Freddy Krueger. The actor people associate with James Bond or Batman depends upon what era you were born. The casting must be perfect or the audience will not accept the reboot. Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, and Aaron Eckhardt make us forget about the actors who portrayed Batman, The Joker, and Two-Face. Edward Norton was a much more convincing Bruce Banner than Eric Bana. Zachary Quinto had the talent and enough of a fan base from Heroes, where he proved he could play cold-blooded and calculating, to pull off Mr. Spock. If you miscast the iconic character and make the audience miss the original actor, the reboot will fail.
So far, the most successful and one of the most brilliant reboots is of the Batman franchise. It was almost seven years between Batman & Robin and Batman Begins, and instead of reintroducing the character with another sequel, the studio decided to start over again and establish a whole new tone. Where Burton's film had a dark, gothic tone and Schumaker's a colorful, campy, cartoonish feel, Christopher Nolan's version of Batman is immersed in realism. Gotham City is real to us, and the presence of a vigilante like Batman, a terrorist like Ra's Al-Guhl, and an insane doctor like The Scarecrow are believable. They could exist. He further utilized the realistic motif by portraying The Joker not as some freak with bleached white skin due to exposure to chemicals (which was used in Burton's Batman) but rather as a lunatic who painted himself up as a clown.
This is why the Batman franchise is back stronger and more successful than ever. The studio respected the audience enough to bring in a talented filmmaker who gave the audience a Batman movie we want to see and can accept. The proof - Heath Ledger made us forget Jack Nicholson's iconic portrayal of The Joker.
While the Batman reboot is the most successful, the most brilliant of all the reboots is J. J. Abrams's Star Trek.
The reverence for Star Trek is practically religious. As with Star Wars, Harry Potter, and even the Twilight series, to tamper inapproprirely with Star Trek is heresy. If these fans don't accept what you do with their favorite characters, they will let you know by rejecting your film. Look at Star Trek V or Star Trek: Nemesis, which are all the Batman & Robin of both the original and the Next Generation series.
The fact that Abrams took on the task of rebooting Star Trek after his horrid experience with rebooting Superman shows he is as brave as he is talented. He obviously learned his lesson from Superman that the history of iconic characters cannot be tampered. He was also smart enough to recognize the fanatical devotion of the Star Trek fans and realized any mistakes he made could be devastating if they did not accept his vision. He followed the proper steps of a reboot - go back to the beginning, give the origin, make some changes and do something fresh, but don't forget the history.
The end result was a brilliant film that both rebooted a once-dead franchise while also maintaining the history established by the TV series, endless books, and six films. How did he do this? By doing the reboot through the story and its characters.
The whole motive of Nero, the villain in the story, is to go back in time to change history. In a sense, Nero is J. J. Abrams, going back through the history of Star Trek and changing everything. Nero performs the reboot. However, at the same time, Abrams neither asks nor wants us to forget everything we know, which is different for a reboot. He takes the motifs of time travel and alternate realities that are prevalent in Star Trek and creates an alternate timeline. The Star Trek universe we all grew up with and have known for almost fifty years still exists, and he shows the audience how much he respects them by including the Spock we all know. Essentially, Abrams has created two Star Treks - the one we are all familiar with and the one for the modern audience, and he has successfully allowed both to co-exist without any concern, confusion, or complaint.
I'm hoping the filmmakers of A Nightmare on Elm Street have paid attention to both the Batman and Star Trek reboots. The 2010 release is supposed to tell the origin of Freddy Kruegger. I'm hoping the filmmakers and studio will respect the audience by providing an origin that is both satisfying and respectful to the history created by Wes Craven. Casting Jackie Earle Hailey, who has become the go-to creepy actor thanks to his roles as the released child molester in Little Children and Roschach in Watchmen, was a smart move, for he is talented enough to possibly make us forget Robert Englund is Freddy Krueger.
I'm also hoping that director Marc Webb, who has been hired by Sony to reboot Spider-Man, will also show that same respect to the audience. I'm hoping his first film will include characters we hoped to see Sam Raimi give us (for me, that's The Lizard and/or Kraven). I'm hoping he follows Nolan's lead and brings a version of The Green Goblin better than the Power Ranger villain Raimi gave us. Maybe he'll be smart enough to do the "Death of Gwen Stacy" storyline.
The trend to reboot will continue, and it seems to primarily be occurring with comic book films. 20th Century Fox is looking to start over with the X-Men franchise by bringing original franchise director Bryan Singer to do X-Men: First Class. They've also announced plans to reboot Daredevil and Fantastic Four. A Mr. and Mrs. Smith reboot is in development. So is a new version of Moral Kombat. Conan is being rebooted with a new actor playing the role immortalized by Arnold Schwarzenegger, and 20th Century Fox may make a second attempt at rebooting the Apes franchise. A new version of Mortal With the purchase of the rights of the Terminator franchise by Pacificor, there is talk about attempting to reboot the series. However, they should consider what happened with Terminator Salvation before progressing with that idea.
IF I HAD CLOUT IN HOLLYWOOD...
Here's some reboots I would do.
1) The Alex Cross Novels - Morgan Freeman is not Alex Cross, the psychologist detective in James Patterson's hit novel series. The character is at least twenty years younger and more athletic than Freeman. While Kiss the Girls is an adequate film, Along Came a Spider falls very far from how good the book is. Restart the series with Roses Are Red and follow with Violets Are Blue, which introduces Cross's nemesis and former colleague Kyle Craig, The Mastermind (who, incidentally, is in Kiss the Girls). Follow with either Jack & Jill or do the The Big, Bad Wolf/London Bridges. As for casting, Terence Howard or Will Smith would be excellent choices. My vote is Terence Howard since Will Smith is too big of a star to carry on the role for a number of films. Then again, Howard dropped the ball with the Iron Man franchise.
2) X-Men: Bryan Singer's two films and the third film directed by Brett Ratner gave us what we wanted. We have seen most of the popular comic characters we've wanted to see on-screen. We don't need to see Wolverine or Storm or even Colossus for that matter. Now it's time to go back to basics. Adapt the X-Men: First Class comic. Focus on the original X-Men: Cyclops, Marvel Girl, Beast, Angel, and Iceman. Make this more like a Harry Potter or Percy Jackson style of story - young kids realizing they have special talents and are forced into heroic situations. Keep Magneto as the villain and bring in his Brotherhood as a rival group of young mutants. Maybe even include Mr. Sinister or Apocalypse.
3) Daredevil: There are actually two Daredevil films - the one Mark Steven Johnson made and the one 20th Century Fox released. The Director's Cut is much better and closer to the vein of the comic. It was also more welcomed by the audience. If Fox is now planning a reboot, retell the whole story about Daredevil. Look to the comics by Frank Miller, Joe Quesada, and Kevin Smith for inspiration. Edward Norton was once up for Daredevil, but now he's Bruce Banner/The Hulk, so that won't fly. I once heard a rumor about Hayden Christensen as the blind superhero. I could see it. If they need to include Elektra, maybe Megan Fox, Mila Kunis, or Elisha Dusku would work.
4) Superman - Start over. Start fresh. Look to John Byrne's Man of Steel and TV's Smallville for inspiration. Of course include Lex Luthor, but bring in Braniac or even The Parasite. It might not be such a bad idea to have Smallville end and let the show lead into the next Superman. That would broaden the already large audience the character has.
5) The Jack Ryan novels - The Sum of All Fears should have breathed new life into this franchise, but it didn't. Focus on the novels from the post-Cold War such as Debt of Honor, Red Rabbit, and The Bear and the Dragon, which are more about terrorism.
6) Charlie's Angels - The movies with Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, and Lucy Liu are reboots of the TV series. However, perhaps the time is right to reboot the film series. Lose the camp and cartoon and make it more of a grittier action film. It's about time we have a good female action film.
7) Planet of the Apes - Tim Burton attempted to reboot the franchise in 2001, and it would have been a good film if it wasn't Planet of the Apes. Charlton Heston's Taylor and Roddy McDowell's Cornelius are too iconic. Adapt the Pierre Bouillard novel. Dig up the script Rod Serling wrote and was supposed to direct and uncover the drafts that were attached to both Oliver Stone and James Cameron at one time. Bring this series back to its glory. Plus, the sequels are already there waiting to be rebooted as well.
8) King Arthur - A reboot was attempted by Antoine Fuqua starring Clive Owen and Kiera Knightley focusing not on the Middle Ages but rather the Roman legend of Arthur the Centurion. Adapt the stories of Lord Tennyson and Sir Thomas Mallory and turn it into a trilogy or film series.
Please share what film franchises you think should be rebooted.
- EMF, 2/12/2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Do It Again... And Again... And Again...
The Wolfman is being released in theaters this weekend.
Not re-released. We're not talking about the classic Universal Pictures horror film with Lon Chaney. This is The Wolfman 2.0. That's what it should really be called. However, the "2" at the end may make people think this is a sequel, which it most definitely is not.
It's a remake.
Then again, can you name any movie these days that's not a remake? Or not being remade? Or better yet, not considered for being remade?
Remakes - and reboots and reintroductions, for that matter - are to today's film industry what sequels were in the seventies, eighties, and nineties: potential hits with a built-in audience that is either curious or committed enough to go to the theater and pay good money to see a movie they may have seen before or heard about featuring different actors, directed by a different director, and maybe some better special effects.
It's not as if the slew of remakes have gone unnoticed by the audience. How many times have you heard someone comment, "Wow, they're remaking everything these days," or even question, "Why did they feel the need to remake that?"
That was the question that plagued me back in 1998 when filmmaker Gus Van Sant committed film heresy and attempted to remake Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. Van Sant had criticized other filmmakers for completely changing the visual direction or the story when they produced a remake. He said he wanted to film his version of Psycho shot for shot the way Hitchcock directed his version, and he also didn't change anything in the script. He defended his decision to remake the movie by claiming all he did was add color, which would bring in a younger audience who was not familiar with the film.
Didn't Ted Turner have the same mindset when he started colorizing all the classic black and white films airing on TBS and TNT?
You would think the commercial and critical failure of Van Sant's Psycho would have put the idea of remaking classic films out of the minds of studio heads, producers, and directors in Hollywood. Then again, look at today's multiplexes and also what's on the development and pre-production slates.
We can lament that the reason for so many remakes - or reboots or reintroductions - is the lack of creativity in the film industry. There is truth to that statement, but creativity comes with a high price tag for production in Hollywood. Ten years ago, a film had to break $100 million to be a blockbuster. Today, A film has to make at least $200 million, and even then it probably won't make its money back after above the line costs, production, publicity, and gross points. Making movies is riskier financially and more expensive than ever.
There is too much of a risk of no return to sink money into a project that is untested. Star Wars would have never been greenlit if it was pitched today. The Matrix and Avatar are anamolies.
From a business standpoint, it's a smart, cost-effective decision for film studios and producers to remake movies. Instead of taking a risk on an original concept, look into properties already owned, repackage the project with familiar or fresh talent, and maybe even rewrite the script to make it more applicable to modern times or tweak the problems that plagued the first production. Many remakes already have a built-in audience who are committed enough to see how a film they know well has been reproduced. What's greater is the curiosity factor of those audience members who want to see the new version or might have heard of the original but neither got around nor had the interest to see it.
Remaking movies are not a novel concept nor is the glut of how many films being remade a modern trend.
When motion pictures went from silent film to sound, many of the films produced during the infancy of the film industry were remade. For example, The Wizard of Oz was originally a silent picture released in 1925. When the grand production values balooned in the fifties, another surge of remakes were released. A number of these remakes went on to be more successful commercially and critically than the originals: An Affair to Remember, The King and I, Ben-Hur, Mutiny on the Bounty, The Ten Commandments. As the box office historically shows, there will always be an audience for remakes, and that's why Hollywood will continue to make them.
Some movies have been remade even more than one: A Star Is Born and Mutiny on the Bounty been remade twice. So has King Kong, and a third remake is supposedly being planned.
There are a number of remakes that are some of my favorite films, such as Martin Scorcese's remake of Cape Fear. There's a story that Alfred Hitchcock was offered this movie in the 1950s, but he turned it down because the family was too "perfect" for him. What Scorcese did was turn the script and shoot the film into the movie he believed Hitchcock would have made if he took on the project. The end result is a remake that stands on its own as an original piece of work.
Another remake I enjoy is Roger Donaldson's version of The Bounty with Mel Gibson, Sir Anthony Hopkins, and the late Sir Lawrence Olivier, which is the second remake of the classic film Mutiny on the Bounty. I enjoyed this picture because it combined the story of Fletcher Christen with Captain Bligh, intensifying the drama of this classic tale. Plus, I thought it was beautifully shot and well-acted. How could it not be with those actors (pre-Mel Gibson the Anti-Semite) along with a young Daniel Day-Lewis and Liam Neeson?
I'm a fan of both versions of the remake of King Kong. I enjoyed the 1976 version because it took place in a New York I knew and recognized. I was enthralled by the World Trade Center because Kong climbed up there and fell from the top of the towers. I also enjoyed Peter Jackson's version because Kong was not portrayed as a cinematic monster but rather a real silverback ape, which was mostly a legend when the original film was produced and not as fully understood when the 1976 version was released. Of all the versions, Jackson's Kong was most entertaining because it wasn't a monster movie like the previous versions. It had a sense of realism to it, and Jackson was also genius enough to pay homage to the 1933 version by keeping the story during the Great Depression era while also capturing the action of the 1976 version.
I'm not against remaking movies, especially if they're done right. However, I am against this idea of remaking a film just to remake it.
In the past, there seemed to be a cardinal rule or a gentleman's agreement that if a film was a classic or even a success that it would not be considered to be remade. Gus Van Sant was heavily criticized and his reputation as a filmmaker was damaged when he broke that rule/agreement by remaking Psycho. However, that was over ten years ago. Today, Van Sant would probably take no heat or flack for remaking Psycho because it would be expected.
Today, nothing is off-limits when it comes to remakes. It doesn't matter how much money the movie originally made, how much of a fan base it has, or how critically lauded the film is as a classic. If the studio owns the rights to the picture, it has a fan base, and it has the prospects to make money, it's going to be remade.
Look at what we've seen so far in the last 10 years: King Kong, The Amityville Horror, The Hills Have Eyes, Gone in 60 Seconds, The Italian Job, Dawn of the Dead, The Four Feathers, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Shaft, Fun with Dick and Jane, Man on Fire, Red Dragon, Four Brothers, Assault on Precinct 13, 3:10 to Yuma, Ocean's 11, The Bad News Bears, The Taking of Pelham 1, 2, 3, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Fame, The Longest Yard. That's just a few, and only the remakes of American films. As I write this, I keep thinking of another remake to add to the above list.
Then you have the foreign film remakes featuring American or English-speaking actors and higher production values: The Ring, The Departed, Insomnia, The Eye, The Grudge, Godzilla (yes, I'm counting that as a foreign film), Bangkok Dangerous, One Missed Call, Shall We Dance.
Here are some remakes we'll see this year: The Wolfman, Clash of the Titans, The Karate Kid, Red Dawn, Footloose, A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Crazies, Pirhana.
Here are some remakes that are coming: Fantastic Voyage, Sharkey's Machine, Conan, Back to School, Romancing the Stone, Death Wish, Robocop, Meatballs, Vision Quest, The Warrior, Total Recall, Poltergeist.
Like I said, I understand the economic idea behind remakes. These are all familiar titles and stories. However, I have to ask the question that's often asked when it comes to sequels - Is this really necessary?
I know. It's not SHOW business. It's show BUSINESS. Money needs to be made. However, like films and sequels, not every movie needs to nor should be remade. If you're going to remake movies, be smart about it. Leave alone the films that stand the test of time (The Karate Kid) or truly are not applicable in today's modern world (Red Dawn). Dig deep into the vaults of your libraries, look at both the script and the film, and really consider whether the movie needs to be remade.
IF I HAD CLOUT IN HOLLYWOOD...
Here are some movies I'd remake and what I'd do with them.
1) Jaws (1975) - Anyone who knows me knows this is one of my favorite films of all time next to The Godfather and Star Wars, and I would truly hate to see this remade. However, I know it's inevitable because the film looks too dated. However, if Jaws was to be remade, then adapt the book as Peter Benchley wrote it, which would make a good film in itself. If you go with the cinematic look of Brody, cast Gary Sinise in the role; otherwise, Ray Liotta looks more like these days the novel version of Brody; Topher Grace could be cast as Matt Hooper; maybe show respect to Spielberg by casting Harrison Ford or go with Michael Douglas as Quint. While remaking Spielberg movies seems to be off-limits, it's only a matter of time before this remake is announced, so if they're going to do it, adapt the novel.
2) Nighthawks (1981) - It would not be too difficult to take this underrated Sylvester Stallone.Rutger Hauer/Billy Dee Williams movie from 1981 and modernize it as a film about the War on Terror coming home to Manhattan. Cast Gerard Butler or Vin Diesel in the Stallone role and have either Christopher Waltz (Inglorious Basterds)play the European terrorist, or take a risk and make the terrorist Middle Eastern and cast Naveen Andrews (Lost).
IMDB Listing: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082817/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnvbtAoucPU
3) Tuff Turf (1985) - This is a little seen teen revenge/vigilante movie from the early 1980s that starred James Spader as a rich kid from Conneticuit whose family loses their money and is forced to move to a rough neighborhood in LA and crosses paths with the local gang leader after falling for his girlfriend, played by Kim Richards (from the Witch Mountain movies all grown up and hot here). Modernize the film in today's LA and cast some teen actor either from The CW or Disney, punch up the action, and you have an entertaining remake.
IMDB Listing: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090213/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYqVg8fy8R0
4) Boardwalk (1979) - This 1979 movie starred Lee Strassberg and Ruth Gordon as an elderly couple living in Coney Island whose neighborhood is terrorized by a local street gang. This was during the ebb of the urban everyman vigilante film that was popular in the seventies. If you watch this film, you might recognize elements that probably influenced Clint Eastwood's Gran Torino. However, this film is just as moving and dramatic, and wouldn't it be great to see an aged Robert De Niro or Gene Hackman kick the crap out of some young punks played by some rapper?
IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078886/
5) Jennifer (1976) - This is a low budget Grindhouse pic from the seventies they used to play on HBO that used to scare the crap out of me. It's about this poor southern girl from the Ozarks who gets a scholarship to attend an Ivy League school and is ostracized and tormented by the rich sorority girls. However, Jennifer has psychic powers over snakes, so she gets her revenge on them. This was one of those films that came out in the seventies following the success of Carrie, but mean girls and cliques are timeless, so why not remake this? If you're going to remake horror movies, remake the obscure ones.
IMDB listing: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077769/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPzOgY6UMRg
6) Night of the Juggler (1978) - Another from the 70s vigilante thrillers about an ex-cop who takes the law into his own hands when his daughter is mistakenly kidnapped by a psycho. Yes, it sounds like Edge of Darkness, but this is 70s grit. However, this one is adapted from a novel, so it can be changed for a more modern setting. James Brolin played the lead in the original. Kurt Russell would be excellent for this.
IMDB listing: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081230/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGZNBRQHtiw
7) The Swarm (1978) - Who is not afraid of the killer bees? Remember in the seventies how scared we were of them coming to America? I remember coming home from camp crying about the killer bees coming and wanting my folks to change the screens to windows because I heard they could wedge between the screens. Well, Africanized bees are here, and they have caused havoc. Imagine the havoc they could cause with great CGI effects of a swarm invading a town.
IMDB List: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078350/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpO4gvW6D3Q
8) The Fury (1978) - A great thriller by Brian De Palma, who basically continued with the genre of 70s films he created with Carrie. This had Kirk Douglas as a secret agent whose son, played by Andrew Stevens, had telekinesis and was manipulated by the government. He finds a girl (Amy Irving) with similar powers to help him find and free his son. The money shot was the continuous filming of John Cassevetes head exploding over and over and over and over and over. This would do well as a remake with either De Palma or Nick Casavetes directing.
IMDB List: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078350/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpO4gvW6D3Q
9) The Car (1977) - A classic horror film predating Stephen King's Christine about a muscle car possessed by Satan terrorizing the roads. Another ripe for remake using some modern muscle car.
IMDB List: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075809/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kNmZ0g66xo
10) Badge 373 (1973) - This was the "other" film loosely based on NYPD officer Eddie Egan, who was the influence of the character Popeye O'Doyle from The French Connection and French Connection II. A young Robert Duvall fresh off The Godfather played the cop who has to turn in his badge and takes the law into his own hands to avenge his partner's murder. Again, another one from the 70s vigilante drama.
IMDB: http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title.jsp?stid=17962
Trailer: http://www.tcm.com/video/videoPlayer/?cid=236693&titleId=17962
11) It's Alive (1974) - I always wanted to see this horror movie about a monster baby remade, but I guess it was already done as a direct to DVD flick with Amanda Seyfried, Oh well... good to know Hollywood and I have the same line of thought.
IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071675/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD9wL0ffxqY
Remake: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA3iusK4p78
Please feel free to suggest any other remakes.
- EMF, 2/11/10
Not re-released. We're not talking about the classic Universal Pictures horror film with Lon Chaney. This is The Wolfman 2.0. That's what it should really be called. However, the "2" at the end may make people think this is a sequel, which it most definitely is not.
It's a remake.
Then again, can you name any movie these days that's not a remake? Or not being remade? Or better yet, not considered for being remade?
Remakes - and reboots and reintroductions, for that matter - are to today's film industry what sequels were in the seventies, eighties, and nineties: potential hits with a built-in audience that is either curious or committed enough to go to the theater and pay good money to see a movie they may have seen before or heard about featuring different actors, directed by a different director, and maybe some better special effects.
It's not as if the slew of remakes have gone unnoticed by the audience. How many times have you heard someone comment, "Wow, they're remaking everything these days," or even question, "Why did they feel the need to remake that?"
That was the question that plagued me back in 1998 when filmmaker Gus Van Sant committed film heresy and attempted to remake Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. Van Sant had criticized other filmmakers for completely changing the visual direction or the story when they produced a remake. He said he wanted to film his version of Psycho shot for shot the way Hitchcock directed his version, and he also didn't change anything in the script. He defended his decision to remake the movie by claiming all he did was add color, which would bring in a younger audience who was not familiar with the film.
Didn't Ted Turner have the same mindset when he started colorizing all the classic black and white films airing on TBS and TNT?
You would think the commercial and critical failure of Van Sant's Psycho would have put the idea of remaking classic films out of the minds of studio heads, producers, and directors in Hollywood. Then again, look at today's multiplexes and also what's on the development and pre-production slates.
We can lament that the reason for so many remakes - or reboots or reintroductions - is the lack of creativity in the film industry. There is truth to that statement, but creativity comes with a high price tag for production in Hollywood. Ten years ago, a film had to break $100 million to be a blockbuster. Today, A film has to make at least $200 million, and even then it probably won't make its money back after above the line costs, production, publicity, and gross points. Making movies is riskier financially and more expensive than ever.
There is too much of a risk of no return to sink money into a project that is untested. Star Wars would have never been greenlit if it was pitched today. The Matrix and Avatar are anamolies.
From a business standpoint, it's a smart, cost-effective decision for film studios and producers to remake movies. Instead of taking a risk on an original concept, look into properties already owned, repackage the project with familiar or fresh talent, and maybe even rewrite the script to make it more applicable to modern times or tweak the problems that plagued the first production. Many remakes already have a built-in audience who are committed enough to see how a film they know well has been reproduced. What's greater is the curiosity factor of those audience members who want to see the new version or might have heard of the original but neither got around nor had the interest to see it.
Remaking movies are not a novel concept nor is the glut of how many films being remade a modern trend.
When motion pictures went from silent film to sound, many of the films produced during the infancy of the film industry were remade. For example, The Wizard of Oz was originally a silent picture released in 1925. When the grand production values balooned in the fifties, another surge of remakes were released. A number of these remakes went on to be more successful commercially and critically than the originals: An Affair to Remember, The King and I, Ben-Hur, Mutiny on the Bounty, The Ten Commandments. As the box office historically shows, there will always be an audience for remakes, and that's why Hollywood will continue to make them.
Some movies have been remade even more than one: A Star Is Born and Mutiny on the Bounty been remade twice. So has King Kong, and a third remake is supposedly being planned.
There are a number of remakes that are some of my favorite films, such as Martin Scorcese's remake of Cape Fear. There's a story that Alfred Hitchcock was offered this movie in the 1950s, but he turned it down because the family was too "perfect" for him. What Scorcese did was turn the script and shoot the film into the movie he believed Hitchcock would have made if he took on the project. The end result is a remake that stands on its own as an original piece of work.
Another remake I enjoy is Roger Donaldson's version of The Bounty with Mel Gibson, Sir Anthony Hopkins, and the late Sir Lawrence Olivier, which is the second remake of the classic film Mutiny on the Bounty. I enjoyed this picture because it combined the story of Fletcher Christen with Captain Bligh, intensifying the drama of this classic tale. Plus, I thought it was beautifully shot and well-acted. How could it not be with those actors (pre-Mel Gibson the Anti-Semite) along with a young Daniel Day-Lewis and Liam Neeson?
I'm a fan of both versions of the remake of King Kong. I enjoyed the 1976 version because it took place in a New York I knew and recognized. I was enthralled by the World Trade Center because Kong climbed up there and fell from the top of the towers. I also enjoyed Peter Jackson's version because Kong was not portrayed as a cinematic monster but rather a real silverback ape, which was mostly a legend when the original film was produced and not as fully understood when the 1976 version was released. Of all the versions, Jackson's Kong was most entertaining because it wasn't a monster movie like the previous versions. It had a sense of realism to it, and Jackson was also genius enough to pay homage to the 1933 version by keeping the story during the Great Depression era while also capturing the action of the 1976 version.
I'm not against remaking movies, especially if they're done right. However, I am against this idea of remaking a film just to remake it.
In the past, there seemed to be a cardinal rule or a gentleman's agreement that if a film was a classic or even a success that it would not be considered to be remade. Gus Van Sant was heavily criticized and his reputation as a filmmaker was damaged when he broke that rule/agreement by remaking Psycho. However, that was over ten years ago. Today, Van Sant would probably take no heat or flack for remaking Psycho because it would be expected.
Today, nothing is off-limits when it comes to remakes. It doesn't matter how much money the movie originally made, how much of a fan base it has, or how critically lauded the film is as a classic. If the studio owns the rights to the picture, it has a fan base, and it has the prospects to make money, it's going to be remade.
Look at what we've seen so far in the last 10 years: King Kong, The Amityville Horror, The Hills Have Eyes, Gone in 60 Seconds, The Italian Job, Dawn of the Dead, The Four Feathers, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Shaft, Fun with Dick and Jane, Man on Fire, Red Dragon, Four Brothers, Assault on Precinct 13, 3:10 to Yuma, Ocean's 11, The Bad News Bears, The Taking of Pelham 1, 2, 3, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Fame, The Longest Yard. That's just a few, and only the remakes of American films. As I write this, I keep thinking of another remake to add to the above list.
Then you have the foreign film remakes featuring American or English-speaking actors and higher production values: The Ring, The Departed, Insomnia, The Eye, The Grudge, Godzilla (yes, I'm counting that as a foreign film), Bangkok Dangerous, One Missed Call, Shall We Dance.
Here are some remakes we'll see this year: The Wolfman, Clash of the Titans, The Karate Kid, Red Dawn, Footloose, A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Crazies, Pirhana.
Here are some remakes that are coming: Fantastic Voyage, Sharkey's Machine, Conan, Back to School, Romancing the Stone, Death Wish, Robocop, Meatballs, Vision Quest, The Warrior, Total Recall, Poltergeist.
Like I said, I understand the economic idea behind remakes. These are all familiar titles and stories. However, I have to ask the question that's often asked when it comes to sequels - Is this really necessary?
I know. It's not SHOW business. It's show BUSINESS. Money needs to be made. However, like films and sequels, not every movie needs to nor should be remade. If you're going to remake movies, be smart about it. Leave alone the films that stand the test of time (The Karate Kid) or truly are not applicable in today's modern world (Red Dawn). Dig deep into the vaults of your libraries, look at both the script and the film, and really consider whether the movie needs to be remade.
IF I HAD CLOUT IN HOLLYWOOD...
Here are some movies I'd remake and what I'd do with them.
1) Jaws (1975) - Anyone who knows me knows this is one of my favorite films of all time next to The Godfather and Star Wars, and I would truly hate to see this remade. However, I know it's inevitable because the film looks too dated. However, if Jaws was to be remade, then adapt the book as Peter Benchley wrote it, which would make a good film in itself. If you go with the cinematic look of Brody, cast Gary Sinise in the role; otherwise, Ray Liotta looks more like these days the novel version of Brody; Topher Grace could be cast as Matt Hooper; maybe show respect to Spielberg by casting Harrison Ford or go with Michael Douglas as Quint. While remaking Spielberg movies seems to be off-limits, it's only a matter of time before this remake is announced, so if they're going to do it, adapt the novel.
2) Nighthawks (1981) - It would not be too difficult to take this underrated Sylvester Stallone.Rutger Hauer/Billy Dee Williams movie from 1981 and modernize it as a film about the War on Terror coming home to Manhattan. Cast Gerard Butler or Vin Diesel in the Stallone role and have either Christopher Waltz (Inglorious Basterds)play the European terrorist, or take a risk and make the terrorist Middle Eastern and cast Naveen Andrews (Lost).
IMDB Listing: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082817/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnvbtAoucPU
3) Tuff Turf (1985) - This is a little seen teen revenge/vigilante movie from the early 1980s that starred James Spader as a rich kid from Conneticuit whose family loses their money and is forced to move to a rough neighborhood in LA and crosses paths with the local gang leader after falling for his girlfriend, played by Kim Richards (from the Witch Mountain movies all grown up and hot here). Modernize the film in today's LA and cast some teen actor either from The CW or Disney, punch up the action, and you have an entertaining remake.
IMDB Listing: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090213/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYqVg8fy8R0
4) Boardwalk (1979) - This 1979 movie starred Lee Strassberg and Ruth Gordon as an elderly couple living in Coney Island whose neighborhood is terrorized by a local street gang. This was during the ebb of the urban everyman vigilante film that was popular in the seventies. If you watch this film, you might recognize elements that probably influenced Clint Eastwood's Gran Torino. However, this film is just as moving and dramatic, and wouldn't it be great to see an aged Robert De Niro or Gene Hackman kick the crap out of some young punks played by some rapper?
IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078886/
5) Jennifer (1976) - This is a low budget Grindhouse pic from the seventies they used to play on HBO that used to scare the crap out of me. It's about this poor southern girl from the Ozarks who gets a scholarship to attend an Ivy League school and is ostracized and tormented by the rich sorority girls. However, Jennifer has psychic powers over snakes, so she gets her revenge on them. This was one of those films that came out in the seventies following the success of Carrie, but mean girls and cliques are timeless, so why not remake this? If you're going to remake horror movies, remake the obscure ones.
IMDB listing: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077769/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPzOgY6UMRg
6) Night of the Juggler (1978) - Another from the 70s vigilante thrillers about an ex-cop who takes the law into his own hands when his daughter is mistakenly kidnapped by a psycho. Yes, it sounds like Edge of Darkness, but this is 70s grit. However, this one is adapted from a novel, so it can be changed for a more modern setting. James Brolin played the lead in the original. Kurt Russell would be excellent for this.
IMDB listing: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081230/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGZNBRQHtiw
7) The Swarm (1978) - Who is not afraid of the killer bees? Remember in the seventies how scared we were of them coming to America? I remember coming home from camp crying about the killer bees coming and wanting my folks to change the screens to windows because I heard they could wedge between the screens. Well, Africanized bees are here, and they have caused havoc. Imagine the havoc they could cause with great CGI effects of a swarm invading a town.
IMDB List: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078350/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpO4gvW6D3Q
8) The Fury (1978) - A great thriller by Brian De Palma, who basically continued with the genre of 70s films he created with Carrie. This had Kirk Douglas as a secret agent whose son, played by Andrew Stevens, had telekinesis and was manipulated by the government. He finds a girl (Amy Irving) with similar powers to help him find and free his son. The money shot was the continuous filming of John Cassevetes head exploding over and over and over and over and over. This would do well as a remake with either De Palma or Nick Casavetes directing.
IMDB List: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078350/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpO4gvW6D3Q
9) The Car (1977) - A classic horror film predating Stephen King's Christine about a muscle car possessed by Satan terrorizing the roads. Another ripe for remake using some modern muscle car.
IMDB List: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075809/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kNmZ0g66xo
10) Badge 373 (1973) - This was the "other" film loosely based on NYPD officer Eddie Egan, who was the influence of the character Popeye O'Doyle from The French Connection and French Connection II. A young Robert Duvall fresh off The Godfather played the cop who has to turn in his badge and takes the law into his own hands to avenge his partner's murder. Again, another one from the 70s vigilante drama.
IMDB: http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title.jsp?stid=17962
Trailer: http://www.tcm.com/video/videoPlayer/?cid=236693&titleId=17962
11) It's Alive (1974) - I always wanted to see this horror movie about a monster baby remade, but I guess it was already done as a direct to DVD flick with Amanda Seyfried, Oh well... good to know Hollywood and I have the same line of thought.
IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071675/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD9wL0ffxqY
Remake: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA3iusK4p78
Please feel free to suggest any other remakes.
- EMF, 2/11/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)