memes @lemmy.world

1y ago

Ghost in the Shell comes to mind

328 comments

Basically that's what they did with Ocean's 11. The original Frank Sinatra version was shit. But it was a good idea, a crew of super cool dudes get together to rob a casino.
They remade it and it was very successful.
The Thing has a similar origin.
But it's rare things like that happen because Hollywood execs usually need an existing property with good numbers to greenlight a movie.
- Funn enough Ocean's X is also the opposite example since they didn't stop just making more of the same.
- For a second I thought you were trying to say that The Thing (2011) is a better remake of The Thing (1982), but then I remembered that 1951 version exists.
- Original thing was pretty good.
  
  The one from the 50's, good as it was for the time, is now overshadowed in the popular consciousness by Carpenter's. Ironically, it seems like the former did quite well at the box office whereas the latter bombed and only over time has it grown in popularity.

Ghost in the Shell was an unnecessary remake of a fantastic original animation that was improved by the series that followed it. There was never a need for a live action version.
- Ghost in the shell was decent. They paid incredible attention to the art direction and casting ranged from perfect to acceptable. I can’t remember a single scene but their rendering of 90s retrofuturism sincerely blew me away. Maybe modern cinema has tainted me but it really wasn’t terrible.
  
  It could have been an acceptably decent movie if it wasn't trying to be part of the GitS franchise. As a GitS fan I hated it, but I wonder if it could have been more fun to watch if I was unfamiliar with the series. I remember thinking the same with a lot of movies based on books I hadn't read like Percy Jackson, the movie became a lot worse after reading the source material.
- I loved that movie! I thought they did an excellent job, and it gave us more cyberpunk content, which there is not nearly enough of.
- tbh I would have loved a well done live action version of GITS. With a Japanese cast, international subtitles, and a new offshoot plot that expands upon the original film. Bring in a remastered version of the original animation's impeccable soundtrack. I absolutely think it's possible, but it's far outside the realm of "make cheap movie make big money" that the majority of film studios operate on today

You mean take actual risks?????
No, none of that for my profit margin
- Movies are being made to mitigate risk. Take a polar thing and just do that again, that'll suck people in right???
  God forbid they do something new and interesting with the material, that can't possibly work.
  The only time I can think of where a remake ended up working out was with the recent planet of the apes movies. Where, you know, they took the premise and did something new and interesting with it. But even THEN, there was a completely different remake that failed to innovate outside of the last few minutes and those were confusing are best.
- But the remake doesnt make much money tho
  
  All that Disney live action remake bullshit somehow makes money otherwise they would have stopped.
  That said, I'm eagerly awaiting Netflix's take on ATLA
  
  The superhero movies would say otherwise.
  They make the studios a lot of money with a very similar formula.
- I mean, shit on production companies all you want.. but if I was selling a product and people were finding easier and easier ways to simply copy it for free then I might get a bit... risk averse..

Word War Z.
Have it actually be a mocumentary with interviews. Once people start talking switch to the scene. It is a collection of short stories. Would be fun.
Or make it a mini series.
- Personally I thought the book was good, but I don't think an adaptation to a movie format is the right move. Maybe a mini series would be best.
  
  Hmm, miniseries could work. I stopped reading the book because it felt like a screenplay. (And the movie is unrelated garbage.)
- Yeah I've never read the book but I've heard the movie was literally just a generic zombie movie that had nothing to do with the book.
  
  It wasn't even that it was a generic zombie movie, it was a particularly shit zombie movie.
- District 9 with Zombies.
  
  Please God yes
- There definitely wasn’t nearly enough of people talking switch in the movie.

Virtually every single bad adaptation can be directly traced back to studio interference.
Movies like LoTR only happened because the studios thought it would be a colossal flop, and so left the directors and producers alone.
If you want great movies, the studios need to leave the producers and directors the hell alone.
- Counterpoint: Game of Thrones. The studio would have been happy to give them a few more seasons to develop a better ending. It's the creators who gave up and phoned in the ending we got.
  
  George RR Martin is the creator of game of thrones, not the show runners.
  Oh wait, the original example was lotr, which also was based on books lol. Nevermind me, carry on.
  
  The only problem is that GoT didn't have any more source material, as Martin didn't finish the story (think he still hasn't?).
- Also, low bugets makes the directors extra creative. They need to make the most of what they have. In my opinion, a well written plot trumps special effects every time.
- Writing is the only thing that matters. I point to "Everything Everywhere All at Once" and "Amsterdam". The latter of which had 4x the budget.
  
  I kinda disagree with the writing being the ultimate decider on what makes a good story) movie. Directing and editing matters just as much, if not more so. Those two brings to life what is written on the page because sometimes it's hard to imagine what is described on the page.
  
  Because a bad effect, actor, or shot can only ruin a moment. A bad script ruins the story.
  
  I quite enjoyed amsterdam. It's not better than everything everywhere but it's still a good film
  
  Why not just read a book, then?
- For all the bad you hear about studios though, there are plenty of stories of movies that were saved by the studio because the director was off the rails and had no idea what to do. Here's a list with a couple:
  https://collider.com/10-movies-that-were-improved-by-studio-interference/#easy-rider-1969
  
  Most of these are a stretch. They didn't like psycho so they underfunded it. Hitchcock finances the movie, takes a pay cut along with the actors. Somehow this is positive interference....
- LotR also is going to stand out from now on, because at the time it was made, CGI was ok, and getting to be good, but they didn't trust it for crowds yet. SW Ep. 1 came out at about the same time, and the CGI crowds don't hold up. LotR had PJ directing and he wanted to use as many real people and real sets as he could, so that when they had to use CGI it wouldn't be noticable. You can see the difference looking at The Hobbit movies.
- I can't remember who it was, but there was a producer credited for greenlighting several classic movies in the 1960s and 70s. We're lucky if a producer or executive is good at spotting what makes a good story and have dependable crew to make it.

I'd go one further. Do longer run remakes for good source material that ended up with a bad movie.
Golden Compass Movie = bad
His Dark Materials limited series = fantastic
- Yeah, there are so many movies based on media with a deeper and richer source material than can be presented well in a 2-hour movie format. For example, the Ender's Game novel spent a significant amount of time on the progression of Ender's career at the Battle School and the movie only spent as much time as was necessary to show that he was good. A TV series could tell the parallel story of Ender's Shadow as well in the same season.
  A counterexample is that sometimes the TV series may over milk the source material and drag out which should be a shorter story. The first season of American Gods was awesome, but they kept dragging out the series way too much by stretching out the stories of minor characters and fumbled in the end.
  
  Just as long as we avoid giving money to Orson Scott Card...
- Do longer run remakes for good source material
  In that vein, I would go even farther. Cinema is a defunct, dinosaur medium, with built-in limitations. Anything worth making at all is worth making into a high-quality, high-production-value series.
  You know what's hilarious about that, though? The first people who would start shrieking that I'm going too far...you know who those people are? Film directors and obsessive fans of film directors. And yet, if I'm not VASTLY mistaken, directors always want to make a cut of every movie that's, like, 50 hours long.
  Motherfucker, that's a series. Make a series. This is the 21st Century. We all have perfectly good screens in our houses. Let go of your popcorn fixation and just do everything as a series. ESPECIALLY if you're adapting a comic book series or a novel, or series of novels.
  If we just assume, from the get-go, that everything will be a "TV" series (even the word "television" is a stupid dinosaur word, but I'll use it for convenience), we can also finally convince studios that they should MIX THE FUCKING AUDIO FOR PEOPLE TO HEAR IN THEIR HOUSES, WITH 2-CHANNEL SPEAKER SYSTEMS, RATHER THAN 872 CHANNEL THEATER SETUPS.
  I'm fucking tired of having to turn on closed-captioning for every goddamn thing I watch.
  
  Chris Nolan is slowly putting on lipstick while he writes your name on his list...
  
  I'm too lazy to comment on all the other stuff, but you can get your bog-standard 2.0 stereo from any encoded track. Strikes me as kind of funny to argument with future vs. past and then stick to 1930s stereo tech for film when it's become more easy than ever to set up a decent 5.1 system.
  
  Imagine actually thinking this
- Do longer run remakes for good source material that ended up with a bad movie.
  I immediately thought The Hobbit for some reason.
  God that trilogy was so painful.
  
  I immediately thought The Hobbit for some reason.
  God that trilogy was so painful.
  That doesn't count. There was a bunch of stuff in those movie that never happened in the source material.
- Oh good to hear, I just acquired his dark materials, but haven’t seen it yet.
  There are so many poorly executed great ideas. I’d love to see them redone, whatever format (tho complex stuff does tend to be better serialized… limitedly - end the story when it’s done, not when people give up on it because it fell apart)

They have. Dune would be one example.
- Shut your pie hole! The original with Sting was amazing!
  
  It was a solid B movie until the end. How do you decide to cut the fact that Paul becomes the emperor from the movie completely?
  
  Lol
- I will die on this hill I legitimately like Mr. Mayor and Picard better than the new one. It took me like 4 tries to get through the new one it is so slow and full of itself. I'm not sure what the line is for me between good slow and being a slog but the new one is so hard for me to pay attention to. I'd rather scroll through spaceship still shots with some space music in the background
  
  It’s adapting a book where sometimes a chapter is two people meeting in a room and having a short conversation, and you get to know what one person is thinking about the conversation at length, and then the same thing from the other person’s perspective, and then they leave the room.
  
  The new movie is not slow compared to the book though, in fact it feels like the book shown in a time lapse.

This is how we've ended up with 17 different attempts at the fucking Fantastic Four. Each one is shit, and EVERY director thinks that they've got the chops to make it work.
Hollywood...please....fucking stop. It doesn't get better. It's a cursed movie. Stop fucking trying to get the Fantastic Four to work. Just....put the poor thing out of its misery and let it sleep peacefully.
- Ehh, some of them were to maintain Fox license from Marvel. They were contractually obligated to put out a movie every X years or they lost control of it. Mostly they just wanted something cheap or weird out of the door.
  Now that Fox entertainment and Marvel have been gobbled by the mouse, it may not be a problem anymore. They sure got Reid Richards right in that doc strange film, even if he got obliterated on alternative earth.
  
  I still don't think he looked right, but I think it's impossible to make him look right.
- You know what would be a great Fantastic Four movie? A tongue-in-cheek film set in the 60s based on the original comics.
  
  Oh yeah, go full 1960's Batman Camp. Not sure who could play Mr. Fantastic, but whomever is picked should be told to emulate Adam West's complete deadpan delivery.
- Hollywood: "Wellll ok...but we'll need to do just one more to ~~earn more profi~~ close out the story"

Your aim: logic.
Their aim: capitalism.
:-(

I don't care what anyone says, the worldbuilding that was done for the 1990s Super Mario Bros. movie was awesome and if the movie had lived up to it, it would have been great.
Remember that when the movie was made, Mario was a plumber that jumped on mushrooms and turtles to save a princess and he had a brother named Luigi that did the same thing. That was pretty much the entire storyline they had to work with.
- Video game movies in the 90s were always shit.
  We had studios seeing green with franchises that had significant canon (remember, SMB, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat all had significant backstory in their manuals, but writers/directors who knew nothing of them except that it was something their kids/nephews were obsessed with.
  MK was the only one to actually use a good portion of that canon, and it was by far the best of the three. Though the soundtrack did a lot of work for it too.
  Super Mario Brothers would’ve been a fun movie if they didn’t try to tie it in with the game. It wasn’t canonical at all, and 8-year-old JasonDJ was quick to realize it.
  I’m more optimistic of video game movies now, now that the Gen X and Millenials that were molded by video games are in the directors chairs, and these are now major franchises with significant investment.
  
  Super Mario Brothers would’ve been a fun movie if they didn’t try to tie it in with the game.
  That is very likely, although I still think it would have had big problems. John Leguizamo isn't exactly a terrific actor. Funny guy, not a great actor.
  But the worldbuilding they put into it was pretty damn impressive and they had some great ideas. The whole parallel world where dinosaurs didn't die out but evolved into what look like humans but aren't quite idea was pretty cool. Or at least I thought so.

Looking at you, Dark Tower
- I can't believe we're in the universe where there's a Dark Tower film with the incredibly talented Idris Elba and it was so stupidly bad.
  
  Does he play Susannah?
- I heard a rumor that Stephen King gave Mike Flanagan the greenlight to do Dark Tower. Here's to hoping. That's one of the few things I want to see as a show rather than movies
  
  It is not a rumor.
  https://ew.com/tv/mike-flanagan-dark-tower-stephen-king-adaptation-update/
  
  Imagine the dude doing the Dune movies making Dark Tower.
  I'm dreaming. But it's a wicked cool dream.
- Should be a TV series. Start with The Gunslinger and work your way through the books, but also split up Wizard and Glass into small chunks to use as episode openers so there isn't suddenly a season long flashback with different actors.
  
  Funnily enough the movie they made was supposed to be the intro to a TV show.
  Trying to expand Gunslinger to bring in more backstory (and reeeeeeeally messing up the backstory) killed both the movie and the planned TV show. It's crazy how well their plan could've worked if they hadn't tried to fold too much into the "prequel". Dark Tower even has the built-in "out" that this is a different turn of the wheel.
  
  yeah it can't be a movie. Unfortunately my favorite character will never be accurately adapted and will lose her badassery. Better we wait for another time
- THERE'S A MOVIE!!?
  Yo, I am reading that series!
  
  Don't get hyped, it's mid at best.

Battlestar Galactica is a great example of something mediocre that was made great by a remake, but also something that might be greatly improved by another remake because the second half was so flawed.
- Whoever said, lets do whip zooms and shaky cams with tribalesque war drums for space combat was a genius. First two seasons of the show the feeling of dread was so good.
  
  So good. So damn good.
  Then they had a weird second half, an ending that explained nothing and left so many plots open and closed with a movie that was called "the plan" that revealed the cylons had anything but. I'm still mad just thinking about it.

Stanley Kubrick never really had an original screenplay. His movies are based from an already existing story. He reasoned that it's better to adapt a story that is good but not considered classic, because it means there is plenty to improve from such story.
I see you're emulating Kubrick's idea 😂
- That just blew my mind.

Like Dune? Like Dune.
- Nah the original was great. Idk but old shitty VFX do something for me.
  
  In my eyes, SFX still stands the test of time. Sure you can see CGI is shit, but models and custom made suits just scream style and dystopian nightmare. I love it and still watch it from time to time. Didn't watch the new one as it ads nothing to the story, at least from what I heard.
  
  The visuals were great, and the film has a hypnotic fever dream feel to it. Not sure it can be called a"good" film, but it's extremy entertaining.
  The new film has more gravitas and is much more loyal to the book, but it also doesn't add anything to the book and is just less interesting to watch (for me it was down right boring). I think it over-corrected the Lynch version.
  
  I liked the Lynch version.
- Or Dredd.
  
  Watching clips of that movie today. So good!

Dragonball Evolution was so shit that it drove Akira Toriyama out of retirement, which led to Battle of Gods, Resurrection F, Broly, Super Hero and an entirely new anime/manga series titled Dragon Ball Super.
It even technically is leading to Dragon Ball Daima, which looks like a serious effort to try and do the whole 'Goku is a kid again' concept that Dragon Ball GT fucked up 25 years ago.
- So he literally lives the plot to do many movies.
  We need you back..
  I'm retired...
  But "thing" has happened...
  ... Son of a bitch, I'm in
  
  Dragonball Evolution was a horrible Hollywood adaptation of Dragon Ball's original plot.
  Imagine that instead of making it the action-packed goofy parody of Return to the West that Akira Toriyama originally envisioned, you instead make Goku and Chi Chi US high-schoolers and Bulma some kind of secret agent.
  It's more like the movie was so utterly dogshit that Toriyama felt he had to personally step in and ensure the franchise wasn't going to die on that negative note.

I decided a few years ago to simply stop watching anything that was a remake, reboot, update or 'franchise'. Too many of them have used nostalgia and familiarity to compensate for shortcomings in storytelling. Even more cynically, leveraging intellectual property is all about money and business, whereas for me storytelling and art are about the human experience and spirit, so it's no wonder these IP films are usually so poor.
- It's also that Disney own almost all the known IP, and will roll it out time and again as a safe bet with predictable returns - art by focus group simply isn't a thing.
  Capitalism, baybee!
  
  Is this the innovation I was promised?

Some older movies that come to mind: Enemy Mine. Great sci fi premise that was ahead of its time. Just plagued with bad effects and limitations.
The Last Starfighter Not bad even for the day but I think it's a solid enough concept that could use a refresh. Set in the 80's to get the retro video game vibe. I think it could even be a multiple movie property.
Masters of the Universe It was a goofy premise with some interesting characters that were wasted. Even the updated animated series didn't do great. Or even go off in a space Western and do a Rio Blast movie.
Krull was really missing the visual elements to tell the story and it ended up cheesy and stilted (still holds some nostalgia for me though). It could still be a fun space fantasy.
- The last Starfighter, was supposed to be multiple movies. I loved the original, but I'd be down with a remake.
  Krull was bad, but I still loved it!
- The Last Starfighter Not bad even for the day but I think it’s a solid enough concept that could use a refresh. Set in the 80’s to get the retro video game vibe. I think it could even be a multiple movie property.
  If it were a Netflix production they could have little easter eggs in it like the arcade being the one in Hawkins (Stranger Things).
- Great post and right to the point of the OP!

Well they are taking another swing at Fantastic Four

How are our corporate overlord supposed to know what a good story is other than the success of a movie based in them?
- Ironically capitalism does not like to take much risk, nor do the large companies who are best able to take them. It also sucks that many things are switching to being ads supported, so there is further limiting of creativity. For example, Love, Death, and Robots is a really awesome animated anthology. It is something that does not try to have the broadest appeal; however, the customers are now advertisers who may not want to run ads on something with a narrower audience. Oddly it seems Netflix will be going down the path of YouTube battling that to keep the content adverts will buy space for, and YouTube trying to be independent of it with its premium. Strange world.
  
  Love, Death + Robots is amazing and everyone should watch it.
- They can ask chatgpt :D

I would love a proper remake of Eragon. That movie felt so rushed, like they just chopped the meat out of the story and gave us the bloody mush instead of the whole thing.
- They are doing a series right now.
  
  They are?? How did I not know about this?

They just make the same mistakes again or do something even worse, as proven by the Resident Evil 3 remake.

The live action GitS? It was aight, but could've been better. As a huge fan of the story I wasn't that upset. I just didn't like what they did with Major (made her weak), and also didn't like that Section 9 was getting cucked, no one cucks section 9
- The casting for the Major was just horrifying. She's supposed to look strong, capable, and no-nonsense at first glance, then you look again and realize her robot form is also conventionally attractive. In the 2017 movie, they flipped it around, entirely backwards. Obviously, your first impression of Scarlett Johansson is that she's attractive and feminine. Then you have to look closer and realize she's capable of fighting.
  That works for Black Widow. That's exactly what you want for Black Widow. It's not what you want for Motoko Kusanagi.
  
  Yeah, it was not the original major at all. She was more like a helpless child. In all of the other iteration she is a lethal tactical genius and a hardened war veteran.
  
  yeah personally i was hoping they'd give the role to margo martindale
- I thought it was great. The whole trans racial angle really worked in the philosophy of the original. I loved it.
  Also batou’s car holy shit that was rad

In the case of Dune that is just happening, which is an exception.
- ~~Jodorowsi's~~ Lynch's Dune was great in its own fever dream kinda way - don't get me wrong, I'm over the moon we have the new movie, and prefer part 1, but the older movies are a thing.
  
  They were probably thinking of the David Lynch version.
  
  Jodorowski never got to make his Dune.
  
  Jodo’s Dune was never made though, a fact that makes me sad everytime I am reminded of it. However, we have The Incal, The Meta Barons and The Technopriests which is great.
- It's not a remake, it's another adaptation of the same source material.
- If Denis Villeneuve is passionate about a story you let him make the movie, its pretty simple.

I’m assuming you’re talking about the live action movie and I would agree. I had such high hopes for it and they (Hollywood) dropped the ball. I think it’s also a lack of understanding the source material and trying to adapt something to have a wider audience and western audience. When you involve those two things you know you’re going to be kind stepping in it. That being said I do think the props and effects done by Weta Workshop really were definitely highlights of that movie. They far exceed the casting and story. I would love to have it redone but Hollywood is gonna Hollywood and at the end of the day they (Hollywood) will shit all over source material if they think it’ll make them a buck.
- They'll also shit all over the source material if they think it's beneath them. I'm thinking of the writers for Halo or The Witcher for example.
  
  I still can't believe they tried to cancel Cavil for respecting the source material on Witcher lmao, no wonder people ignored them.

Well, there's Dredd.
- Dredd was fucking awesome and didn't get the justice it deserved.
  I'm not a comic book guy by any means but that movie is great.
  Equally so is Constantine. (And the TV show!)
  Either of them have reached the levels of the worst, most generic Marvel movie.
  
  The original Dredd was better. It's meant to satire cops, not just be an uncritical action flick about a badass cop. If you strip Judge Dredd of its silliness and satire you're left with dust colored post apoc action, and Fury Road did a better job of that.
- I don't consider it a remake. The story is totally different.
  
  It's not a remake of the Stallone movie, it's a second attempt at making a movie based on the comics, which is exactly what OP is talking about.

Fantastic Four: nth Time's the Charm
- nTH +1 judging by the actors they just picked

Event Horizon but I feel that it would be a lot more in your face horror if they made it today.
- Excuse me? Event Horizon is perfect.
  
  Handrails.
  
  Hard agree. Don't touch my baby!
- Please don't touch that movie. It is great as it is.
- I too would like to see Event Horizon made with today's technology but I'm also 100% sure that it wouldn't be as good as the original. I'd still pay to watch it in the theater, probably twice, but the original was perfect.
  
  The reason why it works is because they're using puppets prosthetics and miniatures. It'll look like garbage if they remade it today (go watch the thing prequel for proof).
  Once the miniature workers unionized, the studios started to rely heavily on CG because they could make them work insane hours without OT. CG is really a symptom of a labor issue.
- Exsqueeze me they said Bad movie
  
  I just wanna see more warp/chaos stuff tbh.

And give it time! I don't want a do-over of a failed movie just a couple years later. The Ghost in the Shell movie was a disappointment, but don't just keep plugging away at it until something works.
- They did a sort of do-over for Suicide Squad relatively quickly and that was for the best.
  
  And now they've given the keys to the DC cinematic universe to Gunn so he can do it with all the movies.
- But the original Ghost in the Shell is perfect! I just rewatched it this weekend and it still looks amazing! Why remake that?
  
  I think they’re talking about the live action version (2017) version. But I agree the 1995 Ghost in the Shell animated movie is a fantastic movie. Funny thing is in 2008 they did Ghost in the shell 2.0 which add some cg to the original, it’s been a while since I’ve watched it, so I don’t know if they reuse the same animation from the 95 version or animated new stuff I really don’t remember to be honest. But ya oh 1995 animated Ghost in the Shell is amazing I was actually planning on rewatching it this week. (I did rewatch it and it’s exactly as good as I remember it.)
- Spider man, fantastic 4...

I'd like that
The dark tower
eragon
the hobbit
fantastic 4
- If you expected LOTR quality from the hobbit, that's simply never going to happen. Watch the LOTR behind the scenes...movies will never be made in that fashion ever again and it's very sad
  
  Please could you briefly explain why?
- I didn't mind the dark tower movie before since I knew nothing about the book series. I'm on Wizard and Glass now though and in hindsight... That movie was absolute trash and pretty offensive to the fanbase.
- I don't understand why they didn't do The Hobbit first.

Or roll with some story driven videogames. TONS of content compatible with the big screen, provided they put someone who actually knows the franchise in charge.
Mass Effect comes to mind.
Or a SW film focused on Revan or Kreia.
They already fucked up Halo with the TV series, but an unrelated movie could be good.
Half Life... jfc, Half Life 3 as a movie would be simultaneously such a slap in the dick and absolutely hilarious for not giving us a game. Definitely cinematic potential.
Elder Scrolls or Enderal.
Deus Ex.
Pooooossibly Legacy of Kain - admittedly hard to see them getting that one right as a movie, but it's a take on vampirism that I don't think anything comparable has made it onto the big screen. If it went well, it'd be a nice redemption after all the Twilight BS.
This has the potential to become a very long list, but that's the point: there is some KICK ASS content that the big screen hasn't ever touched, so rather than remaking old flops, bring on some adaptations!
- The biggest issue of most videogame adaptation flops is that they're not really inspired in the source material. But usually are a different original script with a paint coat of franchise. As a result they fail at being good as part of the franchise, but they also fail at being good as something original because they're dragged down by the expectations and precedent of the franchise the script is being forced upon. Halo being the biggest example, the writers and show runners even bragged how proud they were they didn't played the original games.
  Counter example, the Warcraft movie is actually good fun because the scriptwriters really knew the lore and understood what makes up WoW's essence. Part of the problem is producers don't take videogame as a serious art medium. Similar to the problem that animation has, where some producers don't think of animation as real cinema.
- Something based on Bioshock, either the first or the second, would be amazing as a movie, not just visually but because there's quite a human side to the story, from the tragedy that beffel those in what was supposed to be utopia and what was done to those who became Little Sisters and Big Brothers to the megalomania of its maker and even the whole wiff of Fascism in the politics of the place before it fell.

Ghost in the Shell was good, change my mind.
- Yeah, I'm not sure what OP is referring to.
  Maybe they mean that ghost in the shell didn't need a remake, but they did it anyways?
- I can't tell if op is talking about the original or the live-action remake

Battle Star Galactica anyone?
- I always remember liking the BSG remake.
- It's allegedly happening, but we'll see if it's any good. The Mr Robot creator is in charge of it.
  
  I honestly didn't watch the original but the 2000s series was a remake

Or yknow just come up with original material
- I hear what your saying. You are correct. Buuuut, I agree with OP too.
  Arguably, I would say do both. Partly for the academic side and partly because a lot of ideas exist that could do with some TLC.
  A version of After Earth that's less awkward maybe?
  I recently saw Iron Mask, a not amazing martial arts movie where Jackie Chan fights Arnold Schwarzenegger. That's the best part of the movie by far but if you could do more with that as an idea? Especially paying for more than one fight scene.
  Though, struggling to think of examples as my movie knowledge isn't too extensive. And it can be tricky to deal with 'didn't work but had potential' and 'cult classic/niche appeal'. Like I think the Five Nights At Freddie's movie is a mess but a really entertaining mess that I'm not certain how to 'fix' without removing from the gonzo camp they landed on, that I then liked.
- If you only want original material you need to go back in time several thousand years to when that's still existed.

Note: Without ruining the story in the process

A few months ago, I got the idea of looking for scripts of some movies I watched, liked the concept or some part of it, but disliked the overall execution, and doing a revamp of it. I have no idea of where to post my scripts, or if anyone would be interested in reading them, but your meme made me rethink and reconsider this idea. Thank you.

It's morbin' time

TV series too? Altered Carbon seasons 2 & 3 please!

Disney....if you're listening....The Black Hole... If you please

I think instead of this they should just start doing more high profile versions of what they already do sometimes, where they bring back movies that were already in the theater once for another go around, instead of just remaking everything all the time. I'd also give this a +2 if it was a movie that was old, and you have to rent instead of just being able to watch on some service. Like Legend (1985), or maybe Brazil (1985). Maybe there are some other movies from 1985, I dunno.
- That would be a great idea. Especially now, when theaters seem to go all or nothing with movies, there are too many times when I wait for the crowds to die down, it suddenly the movie is gone. There are too many times where there is nothing I’m interested in seeing, but they can spare a screen or slot for movies no longer in their prime
  
  I had a friend who produced cinema festivals. This idea of theatrical re-runs would be great for all audiences, except all distributors are greedy cunts. They would charge exaggerated prices for the licenses to run old movies, and would nickle and dime organizers. They essentially had to charge mad entrance fees and make all sorts of stuff along with the screenings (market stalls, fancy food, hall entertainment, etc.) to make the fees worthwhile. Also, huge swaths of most of the big companies catalogs are not available, so you wouldn't be able to buy a run of certain films even if they own it.
- Rent? Watch on a service? This is Lemmy. We’re pirates ‘round here.
  I can get you nice digital copies of laser disk, VHS, 35mm, DVD, Blu-Ray, or web. Why on earth would I wait for Hollywood to tell me when I can watch the Mouse and the Motorcycle again?
  
  I think a lot of people kind of hate the theater because it's still being used in such a way that it's resting more on it's laurels, than on it's merits. "Be the first to see the movie, without a stupid cam rip from a southeast asian country with subtitles and a watermark", sort of thing. Part of the experience of a theater is that, when you go and watch the new pop cultural phenomena, everyone oohs and aahs. Part of the theater experience is that you can go an watch a horror movie and hear the people in the audience scream and cackle about how stupid the characters are. I think that's a good part of the theater experience, in combination with all the dumb HDR IMAX high dynamic range 3D live active rumbling seats and scented perfume garbage they have sometimes. I would say, in many ways, we've kinda been hamstrung by a pretense that every movie has to be like, a big A24 arthouse scorsese film that makes you deeply ponder the nature of being. That is not a movie best watched in theaters. Best movie watched in theaters is gonna be something like john wick 4, or meals on wheels, or maybe even clue, something like that.
  Especially as cinema and the experience of theaters have evolved out of stage plays. The advantage of the medium of stage plays is that it's live, it can actively respond to the audience, play off of their reactions, and it can be different every time, with every troupe presenting a different interpretation of the source material. Cinemas, theaters, take that same format, and substitute the live performance for a pre-recorded tape. It's not impossible to strike at those same appeals, but it takes a lot of work on the filmmaker's part to really hit those same notes, and we're at the point where most filmmakers would rather not bother, and so audiences won't either.
  Basically, I'm just saying that movies, in the cinema, need to be seen as a more casual experience, I think that would help with the experience.
  Also the popcorn is a good appeal except like 90% of the time that sucks and is just a cheap vehicle for salt, to be paired with the drinks. Extortionist prices don't help either on that front, that shit needs to be gas station price at least, or else I'm gonna smuggle stuff in, and we all know the margins on popcorn and soda have to be insane anyways, so they should be able to charge like maybe five bucks for a medium soda and bag of popcorn.
- How about 1984 (1984)?

Why not games, too? Final Fantasy VIII comes to mind as one super deserving of a glow up, as well as YIIK, and especially Drakengard. All RPGs, of various flavours, with substance that just needs to be simmered right.
For movies? Fuck it, Sharkboy and Lavagirl.
- They said bad movies, not a fucking masterpiece.
  
  Morbius
- Ant Man: Quantummania has all the essential elements to be considered a remake of Shark Boy and Lavagirl

What is wrong with Ghost in the Shell?
- The anime is great. The recent remake is flashy but lacks the souls of the original. It wasn't as bad as some critical and box office perform made out, but when a remake is worse than the original, what's the point?
  
  I mean nothing is as good as the original Manga. But each has changed the story a little to make it interesting. The live action was above average in my book. Not talking Blade Runner levels but enjoyed it.
- The (live action) movie sucked big time.
  
  In what way?

OH MY GOD YES. Let's see, They Live (I actually really liked that one), Re-animator, Howard the Duck, and grave encounters series
- Would love to see a full-on MCU Howard Free Duck movie!

Wonder Park was a bland, risk-averse animated film in 2019. A little girl's imaginary theme park (and coping mechanism for her grief) actually exists. Remake it as an ongoing animated series.

I think the main thing here is that the original was such a flop that they don't want to repeat the error.
It's a hard sell to take an unsuccessful film (with admittedly a good underlying story/concept), and then convince the suits that this time will be different because reasons.
When they can remake an old hit, even if it's done poorly, most people will want to see it for themselves, if for no other reason than to join in on the chorus of hate. Those ticket sales are still sales. So whether people like it or not, they stand a good chance to turn a reasonable profit.
Meanwhile, films that did poorly, whether due to script issues, or poor execution of the underlying material or whatever, people will be more willing to let it pass them by unless they have it on his authority that it's good. Of course, not everyone will think this way, but it's the basis for judgement for most.
Additionally, by remaking a movie they can renew their copyright on the film, which is why, I believe that many of the older films are getting unnecessary remakes and sequels. Even if it's bad, it locks them in on copyrights for a while longer; so if they want to continue to profit from the property, whether through licensing, promos, merchandise, whatever, they can. The base point being: does anyone want to license this property? If not, the suits wouldn't care as much if the copyright expires.
Think about something like star wars. It had a pretty strong following at the first three films, even decades after the release, it was very likely that there were ongoing licensing deals. So to renew the copy rights, they remastered and rereleased it to theatres. Even if it flopped, it would have ensured they can continue their licensing deals for years to come. Since it didn't, they decided instead to expand the franchise and see if they can get more money from it, and they did. Which is how we ended up with the sequels and several spin off shows.
Simply put, it's just too risky to invest more money into properties to renew copyright when there's no interest in licensing the content in the first place. Many of the production companies are happy to let a property rot while they're collecting paycheques on licensing. It's all about the numbers.

I agree with the premise, but your example is, like, spectacularly bad. The Ghost in the Shell movie you're thinking of, the recent one? THAT WAS A REMAKE THAT NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE, IN THE FIRST PLACE.
The original is good. It didn't need a remake. You're literally talking about the opposite of your whole premise. They took a movie that was already good and made a remake of it, to make it suck, except for the fact that it had Scarlett Johansson in a very tight robot suit.
EDIT: nevermind! The title is an example of how it's currently done wrong. That makes so much sense, now that someone pointed it out.
- OP was mentioning GITS as an example of how it's currently done (wrong). The "instead of remaking great movies" part
  
  Oh...that makes perfect sense.

How many goes have that had with the hulk and spider man movies?

There are some really good movies I wouldn’t mind a modern rendition of.
Forest Gump, I think, would be an absolute winner. Whole premise could be redone every 30 years (yes it’s been 30 years) with great effect.
- Forrest Gump is so much a story about the time period, this would be a vastly different movie. I'd say just make a unrelated movie inspired by Forrest Gump, instead of trying to make it a remake and thus give yourselve unecessary restraints.
  
  This movie has a pretty similar premise https://m.imdb.com/title/tt2113681/
- Would new Forest live through the 90s-20s instead of the 50s-90s?
  I'm not sure it'd make a good story. The technology is what changed the world in the past 30 years. The 1960s were a super tumultuous time and make a good sorry.
  
  The events in Forest Gump reflect the book and run from 1951 to 1982.
  A modern remake would be more like 82 to 2013 or so. So we can talk about what happened with AIDS, since that was a pretty big point in the first one. We’ve got Challenger, OKC, 9/11, Desert Storm, Afghanistan and Iraqi WMDs. Columbine, Station Night Club, GMO food, Clintons Blowjob, …list goes on.
  Basicaly comparing Billy Joel’s “We didn’t start the fire”, with Fallout Boys.
- A sequel to Forrest Gump was written by 9/11 happened the day before it was turned in. The writers felt like the movie would be pointless after what happened.

In Time.

I wasn't sure if rollerball was big or not at the time.
But in todays age that could do with a remake. Dystopian movie, with world run by the corporations and humanity is kept satisfied with entertainment.
https://youtu.be/yku2CXuKKiU?si=5Z5lMJPLjHN1cYhF
- They're remaking it in real-time, all around you.
- Alita: Battle angel is pretty much a rollerball remake.

Downsized.
Actually use the cool idea of a dystopian future so expensive, it's more economical to shrink down to the size of a GI Joe and ditch the romcom shit.

His Dark Materials was like this. The Golden Compass was poorly reviewed, and I'm glad that the TV series were made.

328 comments