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.
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.
I would consider Carpenter’s to be a sequel of sorts. It takes up after another crew has been already destroyed by The Thing. It gels well with the idea that the 50s movie is about post WWII paranoia (kill everything that looks different on sight). While Carpenter’s, while being a bit closer to the source material, is about cold war paranoia. Everything, even those who you trust the most, could be a shapeshifting monster. The movie even ends on a cold quiet unresolved and presumably eternal face-off.
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.
It could have been an acceptably decent movie if it wasn’t trying to be part of the GitS franchise.
Yeah, I think this is a pretty common phenomenon. In the same vein, Discovery could have been a fun sci-fi show if it wasn’t trying to be part of Star Trek.
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.
Yeah, this as well. I’m sure I would have enjoyed the Hobbit trilogy more if I’d never read the book. Still, there are such huge chunks of those movies that just feel like video game cut scenes—probably not the best example.
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.
The superhero movies would say otherwise.
They make the studios a lot of money with a very similar formula.
I was talking about disney remakes. Anyway what are the super hero remakes ?
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.
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.
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.
George RR Martin was a consultant on seasons that had not yet been written as books. He told the writers where he wanted the story in the books to go, and where to take the story in the show. I doubt it’s true, but a lot of fans were speculating that he made the end deliberately bad (Arya kills the Night King, Denarys goes crazy, Cersei and Kingslayer reunite to be crushed by the collapsing Red Keep, Bran becomes king) because he wanted the show to be worse than his next two books. @
LOTR was based on a trilogy that was finished looking before the movies were made. Starting a TV show and hoping the source material would be finished in time for the end was a, um, bold move.
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?).
The creators were in constant touch with GRRM. They knew where he intends to go. The ending we got could be done better if things were fleshed out over a longer period of 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.
I quite enjoyed amsterdam. It’s not better than everything everywhere but it’s still a good film
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
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.
