Movie Remakes - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
- Thread starter Jer
- Start date
Bladderunner 2047
To me when it’s the original creator like George Miller with Mad Max you just say thank you and it’s exciting. Even that doesn’t always work though like Phantom Menace.
The Thing has kind of been remade twice because of the well known 80s movie but also an amazing stand alone X Files episode “Ice” is very much inspired by it.
I had the original vhs set and watched as a kid. Loved the first as a legit movie and the rest as camp.
For some reason I’ve always been scared of watching any new versions. Is the new movie the sixth one?
I barely consider the Jeff Bridges version a "remake" in the classic sense.
I see the second adaptation as exactly that statement -- it returned to the novel and adapted it anew rather than trying to redo the John Wayne version, which really wasn't an influence.
They're both great in their own way. The John Wayne version has a terrific performance from its lead and is one of the best "classic" Hollywood westerns. The new one has a terrific performance from Jeff Bridges (not quite good enough for Best Actor, though, somehow that year) and is one of the best modern, "gritty," neo-westerns produced in the past 20 years (up there with, oh, to name some examples of modern westerns, Unforgiven, Killers of the Flower Moon, No Country for Old Men, the new 3:10 to Yuma, and Hell or High Water).
I might be a heretic, but I didn't like BR2047 all that much.
It looks impressive. It is grand in its scope and ambitions.
It just doesn't have any of the thematic depth that made the original so great. The "brewing" rebellion of the replicants against us "normal" humans as a plot point made me roll my eyes. Some conventional Hollywood narrative like that (an oppressed people and a revolution) has no place in that universe.
I know Deckard is the purported main character of the original -- but far from being the most interesting one. The sequel just doesn't have anybody like Rutger Hauer's Roy Batty and Joe Turkel's Mr. Tyrell. Those two and their interactions are the real dramatic and thematic heart of the original classic.
I've praised Denis Villeneuve for his Dune adaptation because he seemed to understand the source material and its underlying themes so well and worked to bring them out in the films.
With Blade Runner... I'm not sure he really got it.
Fair enough on True Grit, though I'm basically considering it a remake as it's generally intended to tell a similar story, not a prequel, sequel, or take you to another part of that universe.
I thought BR2047 had some interesting things but was a bit of a snooze-fest. Every scene with Hauer in the original was so loaded with tension it was never matched or even close in 2047.
I agree with you it fits the "popular" definition. But it's kind of a weird case.
Most remakes are lazy cash grabs. They aren't trying to do something new with the source material, fix the flaws of an original, or modernize its tone and special effects (e.g., The Thing, etc.).
Most aren't intentionally forgetting an already classic adaptation (again, John Wayne won best actor for his Rooster Cogburn) and going back to an original novel and starting completely fresh.
The relationship between the two films is that of "siblings" or "cousins" rather than parent/child, which is the case for most remakes you are going to see nowadays.
And yeah, Hauer is awesome in the original. He makes Blade Runner what it is.
Way to ruin the movie! Netflix just mailed the dvd, so I guess there is no sense watching it now.
If you paid attention to the relationship between K and JOI you would know he absolutely understood the source material.
I got it just fine...
"A replicant and his AI companion can fall in love in a way that's indistinguishable from human love."
That's fine and all. But it's a small point compared to the original and a bit of a rehash at once. What eventually happens to Joi is foreshadowed too heavily, though, which I thought took the steam out of that plot because the whole time you know what's coming and its just as predictable as I thought.
The original tries to answer the deepest existential meaning of "what is it to be human." Romantic love is one component of that, sure, but the original goes at it at much deeper levels through Sean Young's character Rachael, Roy Batty/Mr. Tyrell, and through J.F. Sebastian and his befriending of Pris.
It's not bereft of interesting themes. It's just lacking in them or reusing the ones from the previous film where they were already done in a more memorable fashion. Maybe I hold the original against 2049, but when you're trying to continue the story and expand upon the themes of one of the oh ten best films ever made or something like that, you've got a tall order, and I don't think the sequel meets the challenge.
It's not a bad film. I'm glad I watched it. It just doesn't measure up to such competition.
King Kong in its original form has been remade twice. Both interesting in their own ways. The special effects for their time have been really good. Even the 2005 version is a bit dated at this point.
The monsterverse movies are remakes of old Toho Godzilla movies in many ways. A lot of homages present in them.
As far as the Road House remake, it was cheesy as hell but let’s not pretend the original was a cinematic masterpiece
The monsterverse movies are remakes of old Toho Godzilla movies in many ways. A lot of homages present in them.
As far as the Road House remake, it was cheesy as hell but let’s not pretend the original was a cinematic masterpiece
