Are there any times it is appropriate to remake a movie?

when you want to make money but don't have any good scripts lying around

>>80537232
yes. things that are so far into the public domain in one medium and transferring it into another

>>80537232
Any movie that 'needs' a remake must be shit in the first place

>>80537232
Nope

>>80537232
they remake the good movies, and 9/10 times are worse, usually much much worse

If Fincher's directing it. Otherwise not really.

File: biel2.jpg (509KB, 700x909px) Image search: [Google]

509KB, 700x909px

Yes, when you add Biel.

Why do they remake good movies.

If they would remake bad ones would they end up good/better?

>>80537232
all moviemaking is part of a cultural conversation. all movies reference, incorporate or parody earlier movies. a remake is simply more explicit about it. it's the least controversial concept in cinema.

only plebs are angered by remakes because they build their identity around movies from their childhood and fear that the remake will dilute the power of their totems. it's pure superstition, like when a savage fears cameras because they steal your soul.

Can someone explain WTF is going on with the dots?

>>80537232
All Quiet On The Western Front is the only remake that I can think of that wasn't shit, and that was like half a century ago.

fuck yourself

>>80538042
people remake bad movies all the time. tons of projects must have started as "X, but better". it's just that it's not advantageous to advertise your connection to a failure so you get a "spiritual" remake and not an explicit one.

>>80538292
you can also be angry at the shameless money grab attempt by piggybacking on good material while it adds nothing new. your whole pseudo intellectual theory falls apart if you dislike or criticize a remake of a movie you didnt like. which i do often.

..

>>80537232

I enjoyed this movie. It was nowhere near as good as the original, but I still thought it was decent.

>>80537232
how many failed threads are you going to make namefag?

>>80538497
that's true, there is more than one reason to irrationally hate remakes. in your case it's anger over somebody, somewhere earning money you don't think they deserve.

you don't mention any problems with remakes as movies, just the people you imagine to be profiting from them. they are "shameless", they want money, they're "piggybacking" and so on. all your feelings about remakes are actually just fantasies of evil parasites.

if you have any real problems with remakes as movies, as opposed to the imaginary vices of imaginary people, please post them.

but you won't because there is absolutely nothing wrong with the tradition of remakes.

KILLKID !!dwWfiBE+ah5 is an attention seeking cock sucker who's made multiple failed threads tonight.

If its a movie based on another source and the first try was shit like Green Lantern

If the first movie was just plain shit but the concept was still good like Godzilla

>>80537232
That movie exists only to satisfy the director and his wife's femdom kinks.

>>80538880
>>80538752
gj metaposting

Back on topic I'd rather see original movies that explore new territories of filmmaking, but that isn't impossible with remakes. I just can't think of any good ones, unless you include soft reboots like jurassic world or planet of the apes.

I believe >>80538822 is correct though, it's not like the market for remakes is the same as the market for movies in general, although the fan culture he is critizizing is the cause of remakes being bland cash grabs so it's a double edged sword.

>>80538822
first i think its irresponsible and shortsighted to critizese a movie separetaed from the conditions it was made, and the reasons and manner in which it was produced. The only thing that binds remakes as a whole is the fact that they are a remake. how can i judge remakes as movies without considering how they were made, without akwnoledging that they are remakes. The "tradition" of remakes is a commercial one and not an artistic one.

second you seem to be equating critizing or getting angry with an irrational emotional response. which is obviously not true.

>>80539127
fuck yourself namefag, how many failed threads have you made today?

>>80537251
This thread was over with this first post.

The rest of you are just wasting time.

>>80538413
3:10 to Yuma

>>80537546
>>80537414
>>80538537
you are like baby. watch this:

It would be appropriate to remake idiocracy every few hours until it stops being a documentary

File: download (13).jpg (7KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 275x183px

>>80537232

>t. When I actually liked the Total Recall remake.

>>80538413
The Fly
The Thing
Dredd
Invasion of the Bodysnatchers
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Cape Fear

>>80537232
1. When the original is terrible. But then again, there seems to be little point in remaking terrible movies, because, well, they are terrible to begin with, unless of course they're based off other material, such as novels, comics, or video games.

2. When people come around who would like to take a stab at the original material and bring a new take/vision to the table, of course implying they are creative enough to make it work. Not all remakes are bad. There have been many remakes that have been really good in fact, making the notion, or meme, that all remakes are terrible simply an excuse for hipsters to bask in their own smugness.

literally just finished watching the Psycho remake. talk about a prime example of why not to remake shit, jesus christ

>>80539187
the problem is that you consider the minor matter of how a movie is marketed to be its defining feature. i already said all movies are based on other movies whether they explicitly name the source or not. this is the "artistic" tradition of remakes as opposed to the "commercial" one. john carpenter would have just named his movie "the entity" if he legally couldn't use "the thing" or whatever.

and you can be angry all you want but please be angry at problems not fantasies. "the crew of this specific movie was not paid" would be a problem worth being angry about. "somewhere someone might be EARNING MONEY they DON'T TRULY DESERVE" is a paranoid fantasy in the style of the reaganite nemesis "welfare queen".

>>80537232
Never.

Doing a remake is an admission that you don't have anything better to do with ideas of your own

>>80539660
>watching the Psycho remake
for what reason?

>>80539841
while i disagree with you on the extend on how movies are all based on other movies, i see your point. i even like some remakes, but i find the practice most often than not does a disservice to the industry and to the people who watch movies.

>>80540393
call it morbid curiosity

>>80538413
Scarface