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