Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Will making a remake diminish the value of the original? I highly doubt it. In any case, I don't really care. If you (people in general) don't like the concept of a remake, then don't go see it. But for some, it is always interesting to see how Hollywood reboots a film and whether it may actually exceed the quality of the original.

 Easy E wrote:
I actually do not mind remakes. I am interested in seeing a new group of talents spin on things.

For example, I am really looking forward to someone making a new version of the Matrix Trilogy to see how it has evolved. Maybe it is because I am old.

Matrix Remake... is that a thing?

Matrix will come after Bill and Ted 3....

http://metro.co.uk/2016/04/18/keanu-reeves-and-alex-winters-bill-ted-3-to-be-set-in-the-uk-5823945/

Eh, the Matrix was already a remake of an even better film: Dark City.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Eh, the Matrix was already a remake of an even better film: Dark City.

are you sure it was called dark city? because this doesn't sound right

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042379/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2
"Danny Haley's bookie operation is shut down, so he and his pals need money; when Danny meets Arthur Winant, a sucker from out of town, he decoys him into a series of poker games where eventually Winant loses $5000 that isn't his...then hangs himself. But it seems Winant had a shadowy, protective elder brother who believes in personal revenge. And each of the card players in turn feels a faceless doom inexorably closing in. Dark streets and sexy torch-singer Fran lend ambience. "

Not sure if serious, but just in case:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118929/

 Alpharius wrote:
Not sure if serious, but just in case:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118929/

That's the one, I remember watching the Matrix and think there was a fair bit of 'borrowing' going on, Dark City was a bit patchy and some the idea's didn't quite seem fully thought out, but still miles ahead of machines using humans as batterys despite clearly having tech advanced enough for nuclear or other future versions of power generation

Some of the same crew worked on both.

Dark City is the better story.
Matrix is the better animated comic book.

Matrix sequels had up to 4 script re-writes PER DAY (which is a mountain of paper, when you think about the number of copies they produced).

 Frazzled wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I was getting burned out on the super hero remakes (Spiderman and Fantastic 4 immediately come to mind, plus Punisher) but I've enjoyed some of the more recent re-makes.

I may be in the minority here, but I enjoyed Total Recall's remake. It diverged from the 80's movie pretty substantially, but after learning that it more closely matched the original source material (novel I believe) I was okay with the changes made.

Dredd was another good re-make. I grew up with the Stallone Dredd and it is fun, but it hasn't held up well. The new one was grim and dark in all the right ways.


I am sure it is coming sometime soon, but I dread a Back to the Future remake. I just don't see how the rapport between Christopher Lloyd and Michael J. Fox could be recaptured and it was their on screen chemistry which helped make that series of movies so magical. I fully attribute this opinion on my nostalgia for BttF, but I don't care. Those guys were gold on screen and I don't know who could replace them.

The newer Dredd was just grinding crap. Great actors but it was work to watch. You can't top campy 80s Stallone. I AM DA LAW! is cult humor classic.

Remakes are ok if they extend the story, but often just take the name for cheap bucks-especially recently. Certain classics can be remade with every generation putting its interpretation on it (Magnificent Seven is an example). Others, are a product of their times or actors and should not ever be d with (Stripes, Ghostbusters, African Queen).

The Magnificent Seven is a re-interpretation of Seven Samurai that uses the same basic scenario and characters.

A Fistful of Dollars is a re-interpretation of Yojimbo that uses many of the same shots.

The Grudge is a direct copy of Juon, simply substituting a popular American actress into the leading role.

Psycho is a complete shot for shot recreation of Psycho (the Hitchcock version) only it uses colour film..

I think people often misunderstand the purpose of remakes.

Remaking A New Hope and titling it The Force Awakens wasn't done with the goal of giving long time die hard fans the film they've always wanted (even though that's totally what they got, and they still complained proving again that fans cannot be pleased). The film was made to recreate the experience of the original film and present it to an entirely new generation of kids, and boy oh boy did that work out.

More often I see sequels as cash grabs (Independence Day Resurgence literally plays out like a Holly Wood block buster market check list), but many remakes more often seem to me targeted at trying to recreate an experience in a new way and give it to an audience that never had the same appreciation for the original when it first came out because they didn't see it.

That's what the new Ghostbuster's film was. The new Star Wars film. The new Magnificent Seven.

And of course, that ignores that many classic films are themselves remakes, or adaptations from other media.

Erm... The Force Awakens isn't quite the same there. While it heavily borrowed from A New Hope (rather deliberately) it's very much a sequel.

It's like Ghostbusters 2, which was the same movie as Ghostbusters. It wasn't a remake, it was a sequel, they just decided to use the same script.

Yeah... The Force Awakens was not in anyway shape or form a remake of A New Hope. It was a direct continuation of the same storyline.

 djones520 wrote:
Yeah... The Force Awakens was not in anyway shape or form a remake of A New Hope. It was a direct continuation of the same storyline.

Despite using a lot of the same store points.

 Skinnereal wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Yeah... The Force Awakens was not in anyway shape or form a remake of A New Hope. It was a direct continuation of the same storyline.

Despite using a lot of the same store points.

That doesn't make it a remake or reboot. Again - Ghostbusters 2 was basically just Ghostbusters 1, but it's a sequel.

The Force Awakens is a direct continuation and sequel. It doesn't replace any film in the series.

Given that a remake is just making something you've already made before again, and a sequel is just a film that is chronologically set after a previous film, the Force Awakens is both a sequel and a remake (chronologically set after the original but pretty much the same story told a different way). In this regard any distinction between a remake and a sequel is splitting hairs. JJTrek could be called a sequel (or prequel... seprequel?), but it's also a remake of TOS. You could call it reimagined too, but there's no meaningful distinction there.

The Force Awakens is totally a "Soft Reboot." Just like Jurassic World and the new Pirates of the Caribbean Film. Yes, it is a sequel, but it is basically the same film too.