Movie remakes you'd actually want to see

[T'Pau]

Are there any films that have either already had a bad remake, or haven't yet had a remake, that you actually like to see?

[Graham Kennedy]

I'd kind of like to see a well done version of the War of the Worlds. I do love the 50s version, but I'd like to see one set in Victorian England, following the original story more faithfully.

The less said about the Tom Cruise version, the better.

[Mikey]

Plenty have had bad remakes... The Italian Job, Get Carter, Alfie, Flight of the Phoenix (I knew there was at least one without Michael Caine!). But there is no good purpose for a remake, ever. Either the original was bad, and should be left to rot; or the original was good and doesn't need to be remade. I can think of a remake that I enjoyed a great deal, but there was no real need for it because the original was as enjoyable.

[Graham Kennedy]

How about The Thing? I love the original, but the remake is a landmark in cinema.

[Mikey]

OK, two that I really enjoyed but didn't need to be done.

[Graham Kennedy]

Wow, you really think Carpenter's The Thing didn't need to be made because the 1950s one had already done the story?

Fair enough if that's how you feel, but I find it incomprehensible.

[Mikey]

No, I think it didn't need to be made because it didn't exceed the original.

[Graham Kennedy]

It replaced a monster that was more or less a standard Frankenstein ripoff with one that was one of the most original and technically groundbreaking movie monsters in history, at least to that point and possibly even to the present day.

If that doesn't qualify as exceeding the original, I'm not sure what possibly could.

[Captain Seafort]

But there is no good purpose for a remake, ever. Either the original was bad, and should be left to rot; or the original was good and doesn't need to be remade.

Starship Troopers. Although in that case it's more of a case of needing to be made into a film for the first time, given that the "original" was really a very good satire on B-movies and OTT propaganda with a poorly chosen name, rather than a proper film of the book.

[Graham Kennedy]

But there is no good purpose for a remake, ever. Either the original was bad, and should be left to rot; or the original was good and doesn't need to be remade.

Starship Troopers. Although in that case it's more of a case of needing to be made into a film for the first time, given that the "original" was really a very good satire on B-movies and OTT propaganda with a poorly chosen name, rather than a proper film of the book.

Oh god yes. Give me an actual film of the book and I would be soooo happy!

[Mikey]

It replaced a monster that was more or less a standard Frankenstein ripoff with one that was one of the most original and technically groundbreaking movie monsters in history, at least to that point and possibly even to the present day.

If that doesn't qualify as exceeding the original, I'm not sure what possibly could.

No it didn't. The Campbell story did, and the film remake followed it.

But there is no good purpose for a remake, ever. Either the original was bad, and should be left to rot; or the original was good and doesn't need to be remade.

Starship Troopers. Although in that case it's more of a case of needing to be made into a film for the first time, given that the "original" was really a very good satire on B-movies and OTT propaganda with a poorly chosen name, rather than a proper film of the book.

I don't believe that Heinlein's thematic content would come through in even a well-made film, though I agree that the extant film is hardly an adaptation of the book. There might have been one filmmaker who could have done it justice, but Truffaut died in 1984.

[Graham Kennedy]

It replaced a monster that was more or less a standard Frankenstein ripoff with one that was one of the most original and technically groundbreaking movie monsters in history, at least to that point and possibly even to the present day.

If that doesn't qualify as exceeding the original, I'm not sure what possibly could.

No it didn't. The Campbell story did, and the film remake followed it.

The short story is irrelevant, we're talking about the movies. The Carpenter Thing is a landmark in movie making. Its movie exceeded the original movie's monster by any sensible standard.

[Mikey]

The short story is irrelevant

It literally cannot possibly be irrelevant, as I'm one of the participants in this discussion. Having read "Who Goes There?" before seeing the remake has obviously affected the impact of the "monster," rendering it a very good rendering of a preconceived idea rather than unexpected and groundbreaking.

[Graham Kennedy]

No, the original story is irrelevant to a comparison of two movies no matter who is taking part in the discussion.

What I'm saying is that the Carpenter monster was one of the most original and groundbreaking monsters in movies, not in all types of fiction. The topic is about movies and remakes of them, not about the whole of fiction.

[Mikey]

I saw the movie and didn't find it groundbreaking. The reason for that is immaterial to the fact that my perception remains what it was. I'm sorry that I disagree with you, but it's really not meant as an offense.