When should remakes be made?

Many Wichitans will flock this weekend to see "King Kong," director Peter Jackson’s spectacular remake of the original 1933 classic.
When should classic movies be remade? Only when there’s a good reason to do so — or maybe simply when a director can pull it off. The original "King Kong," despite it landmark status, is obviously limited by the fairly primitive special effects technology of its time. Stephen Spielberg’s eye-popping version of "War of the Worlds" also updated the memorable 1953 version in a complementary way.
It’s fun to see directors of this caliber pay respectful homage to classics arguably in need of a fresh interpretation.
Some movie icons, though, seem untouchable: "The Wizard of Oz," say, or "Gone with the Wind." Directors go there at their peril.
Posted by Randy Scholfield

6 Comments

  1. flike
    Posted December 18, 2005 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    Thing is, I have always liked the original KK a lot. I’ve never found it scary, but I have always liked its B-movie yet mythical quality, seasoned by lots of suggestive imagery (memorable as one of the first in a long line of great B-movies of this type, which includes Planet of the Apes, RoboCop, more). Raising a B story to A-movie status is no mean feat, and if one can judge by this new film’s popularity to date then Mr. Jackson has pulled it off.

    That said, I’m afraid I lost interest in seeing this remake due to a trailer I saw on TV. In the trailer Kong jumped from the background to the foreground, and the move looked like it had been ripped straight out of an X-Box game. Yuck, cheap-o.

    I should perhaps have seen this remake before expressing an opinion on it, but I’m afraid that won’t happen. ;)

  2. Joe Williams
    Posted December 18, 2005 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    Word is that King Kong (this remake) is a complete box office flop.

  3. flike
    Posted December 18, 2005 at 10:17 am | Permalink

    If so, Joe, it just goes to show that one should always, always check before posting. ;)

    I could have sworn that I heard earlier this weekend that it had done something like $98+ million in its first few days. I am afraid I extrapolated from that to perhaps pre-judge Mr. Jackson’s success.

    I also admit that I can’t be bothered to check. ;)

  4. Joe Williams
    Posted December 18, 2005 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2005-12-16&p=.htm

    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/days/?page=wed&p=.htm

    It only made $30 million as of Friday. It was number 21 of Wednesday openers of box office numbers, even behind Pokemon!

    Costing over $200 to make? Yeah! It’s a flop!

  5. Jed
    Posted December 18, 2005 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

    We’ve had a rash of remakes lately, and most of what they add to the original can be summed up in two words- digital effects.Original ideas have always been at a premium, and especially so in Hollywood, where ideas are what make the money. Apparently, if you don’t have any ideas of your own, remake somebody else’s with digitized special effects.Unfortunately, the end result is usually a movie that’s flashier, not better. We need better movies, not just flashier ones, even if that means fewer movies. A megabuck budget isn’t necessary to tell a good story, just talented writing, acting and cinematography.

  6. XXX
    Posted December 18, 2005 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    Looks like Joe’s got it right. The news is reporting KK as a flop. And I heard it cost $300 million to make. Hollywood, like TV, is turning into a wasteland….Occasionally, they do put out a good one. If the critics pan a movie, I usually enjoy it. Is it them, or me? lolI saw “Aeon Flux”. The critics didn’t like it much, but I enjoyed it.