Do people still think remakes are a good idea....

[krisvds]

Yep. I believe Burton was working on a Superman film at one time though. It never saw the light of day. Pity, I like his Batman films.

[LouCipherr]

Sam Rami did the Spiderman films. I do not think Burton was involved. Maybe if he was the director, then we may have had a better trilogy. Oops. I had a picture of Raimi in my head, but I typed Burton for some reason. No idea where the hell that came from. *smacks self on forehead*

[shootemindehead]

Did people ever really think that remakes were a good idea? Off the top of my head, I can only think of a few that were actually good. 'The Maltese Falcon', 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers', 'The Hills Have Eyes', 'Insomnia' 'A Fistfull of Dollars', 'The Magnificent Seven', 'The Fly' and I prefer the 70's 'All Quiet on the Western Front' to the 1930's original.

[AcesandEights]

I prefer the 70's 'All Quiet on the Western Front' to the 1930's original. There's a 70s remake?! Maybe I've seen it and already forgotten, but that doesn't seem likely. Damn... -- -------- Post added at 01:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:28 PM ---------- NVM, it's the version starring Johnboy. No wonder I never gave it a chance.

[MinionZombie]

The trouble with remakes - particularly the shitty ones - is that they often cater to the lowest common denominator, the cretins, the trolls, the morons, the popcorn fuckers, the douchenozzles, and so forth of society. The original movie doesn't change, but it's legacy is still affected as part of that legacy includes a remake - and part of the problem are people who didn't know there was an original movie, and then go on to slam the original (which is the superior film 99.9% of the time, bar a few instances of equal standers), and help to generally keep alive a segment of the cinema-going audience who are morons, who the studios insist on catering to. Another problem is that many remakes are ill-considered, or are made by people who don't know what they're on about. Yawn04 for instance, or The Thing 2011 as a very recent example of a flick made by people who don't know enough (the entire modus operandi of the creature was completely ignored - it was turned into a CGI brute that made as much noise and garnered as much attention as possible - totally unlike in JC's superior chiller). However, there are some good remakes ... some that spring to mind are: The Hills Have Eyes - the original was decent, but not great, and the third act of Aja's remake is superior to that of Craven's flick. The Toolbox Murders - the original has a great sleazy first 30/40 minutes, and then it dives right off a cliff to become the most boring and nonsensical load of all bollocks you've ever seen. Tobe Hooper's remake brought some plot consistency to things, and explored slightly different territory to make a better all-round flick - improving on a defective original. The Crazies - an 'equal stander' in my view to Romero's original. Hated the idea initially, then saw it and really enjoyed it. Each version does things better and worse than their respective sibling ... so it was a worthwhile remake. Which brings me to the key thing you need with a remake - for the original film to have been in need of something more. I keep saying it, but shit movies that didn't work the first time around should be remade. Drive-In Massacre is a fetid load of exploitation knock-off junk, but you could easily make a spiffing low budget throw-back slasher with that title that treads only some similar ground (i.e. the good parts, and none of the terrible portions of the original flick, which was a very sloppy affair indeed). The trouble for studios is though, that those sorts of movies don't have a name to them, and horror fans particularly are gluttons for punishment (so we are force-fed horse shit like the remakes of The Fog, or A Nightmare On Elm Street, which were just abominable remakes of superbly crafted originals). I'm guilty of the curiosity that feeds this remake machine myself, and even decent remakes (e.g. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) have their faults and never beat the original flick - never. We're perhaps moving away from "remakes" - everything's practically been remade - now we have "reboots", some of which are very successful and very wisely put together (e.g. Nolan's Batman flicks) - but others are termed "reboots" because the filmmakers know that they're making a remake, and remakes get such a deservedly bad rep these days. It's rare to get a decent remake, and common to get utter shite. ... Now, specifically on Smokey & The Bandit ... ... I've never seen it, but I want to. I have seen Cannonball Run (it was decent, but not amazing), so yeah, there we are.

[shootemindehead]

There's a 70s remake?! Maybe I've seen it and already forgotten, but that doesn't seem likely. Damn... -- -------- Post added at 01:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:28 PM ---------- NVM, it's the version starring Johnboy. No wonder I never gave it a chance. Give it a go, it may surprise you. It's got Ernest Borgnine and Ian Holm too. Unfortunately, the original has dated terribly. It's still a classic and daring for its time, but it suffers from the usual cinematic traps of the period. -- -------- Post added at 07:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:35 PM ---------- The Thing 2011 as a very recent example of a flick made by people who don't know enough (the entire modus operandi of the creature was completely ignored - it was turned into a CGI brute that made as much noise and garnered as much attention as possible - totally unlike in JC's superior chiller). I don't loath the 2011 'The Thing', like you. My take on the more "brash" thing is that it had never met humans before and didn't know how to handle them. We also don't know the "modus operandi" of the creature in either film. It's obviously an inteligent creature, but never makes an effort at communication. Perhaps it simply doesn't understand why the humans are resisting. It's also rather brash and reckless at the start of John Carpenter's version too. It makes a hell of a noise trying to absorb the huskies. But, I suppose it was rumbled cos the dogs copped on that all wasn't well. While it isn't a patch on the 1982 version, it isn't the dog that some people claim it is. (if you pardon the pun) The Crazies - an 'equal stander' in my view to Romero's original. Hated the idea initially, then saw it and really enjoyed it. Each version does things better and worse than their respective sibling ... so it was a worthwhile remake. 'The Crazies' is a good call. I actually prefer this much more than the clunky Romero one, which I've never been a fan of anyway. I had no hope for the remake at all either, but was humbled when I eventually saw it.

[LouCipherr]

The original movie doesn't change, but it's legacy is still affected as part of that legacy includes a remake - and part of the problem are people who didn't know there was an original movie, and then go on to slam the original (which is the superior film 99.9% of the time, bar a few instances of equal standers), and help to generally keep alive a segment of the cinema-going audience who are morons, who the studios insist on catering to. MZ, you are DEAD ON with that observation. I could not have said it better (or even close to as well). Now, specifically on Smokey & The Bandit ... ... I've never seen it, but I want to. ....aaaaand you're right back on my shit list! j/k MZ, but you MUST pick up the original Smokey & The Bandit - it's worth the watch.

[MinionZombie]

I've missed Smokey and the Bandit a couple of times on TV, but usually it's been on the afternoon on ITV or something, and I assume it'd be cut ... so I'd rather catch it on Sky Movies (uncut), but I'll keep an eye out for it. As for The Thing 2011, it's not that smart, because it uses the same 'romper stomper' attitude through the whole flick, and I'd say that just because it hasn't encountered man before, doesn't mean it hasn't encountered other (possibly even smarter) lifeforms before. So I'd say that stealth should always be in the creature's DNA, but at the very least, stealth is in the DNA of the JC flick straight off the bat. To me it shows a lack of skill at scaring the audience from the filmmakers. They dumb down the scares with loud noises and lots of CGI, rather than the genuine persistent chills of JC's flick, which still creeps me out to this day - even talking about it gives me a shiver that runs up my spine. So many remakes end up getting helmed by dopes, but occasionally you get a decent one (the aforementioned The Crazies 2010, or The Hills Have Eyes 2006 ... although those movies do have their share of 'boo scares', they also opt for horrific scenes and brutalism to bring some chills).

[AcesandEights]

Honestly, I could never be bothered to sit all the way through Smokey & The Bandit, and it was on a lot when I was growing up. Never held my interest or was anything I thought I'd enjoy.

[LouCipherr]

Honestly, I could never be bothered to sit all the way through Smokey & The Bandit BLASPHEMY!!

[shootemindehead]

...As for The Thing 2011, it's not that smart, because it uses the same 'romper stomper' attitude through the whole flick, and I'd say that just because it hasn't encountered man before, doesn't mean it hasn't encountered other (possibly even smarter) lifeforms before. So I'd say that stealth should always be in the creature's DNA, but at the very least, stealth is in the DNA of the JC flick straight off the bat. No, it isn't as smart as the 1982 version, however, if one is going to damn the creature for being less stealthy and secretive in 2011, then surely the fact that it never once tries to communicate with the humans has to be held against it too. To me it shows a lack of skill at scaring the audience from the filmmakers. They dumb down the scares with loud noises and lots of CGI, rather than the genuine persistent chills of JC's flick, which still creeps me out to this day - even talking about it gives me a shiver that runs up my spine. So many remakes end up getting helmed by dopes, but occasionally you get a decent one (the aforementioned The Crazies 2010, or The Hills Have Eyes 2006 ... although those movies do have their share of 'boo scares', they also opt for horrific scenes and brutalism to bring some chills). I don't know where the fault lies for the script. Was it the writers? Or studio interference? Did Universal insist on more BANG! with understanding that Carpenter's film flopped spectacularly at the box office due to the lack of umph. Or perceived lack of umph. I've heard that the effects were "CGI'd up" on the whim of the studio and that the work on the physical was sacrificed to the virtual. I also suspect that the studio had a hand in pushing not one, but two dollybirds into the script, where in reality females were very few and very far between in Antarctica in the early 80's. As it stands though, I don't really mind it. In fact, I've just bought the two of them on Blu-Ray.