Some things are just better left alone. I was talking to my friend (C.K.) the other day about the movie, or should I say, remake, of Clash of the Titans. She and I like to consider ourselves movie buffs. We often debate over what constitutes a film versus a movie. I often try to convince her that every movie is a love story of some sorts. Recently, we discussed the remaking of Clash of the Titans. I'm sorry. I'm just not interested. Some things, movies, television and cartoon series are just better left alone. They're for Saturday mornings when we were kids, waking up bright and early to escape into our very own land of television "make believe." We watched as we dug through the cereal box against our mother's wishes to obtain the "valuable prize" inside. This was our special time. Now days, just because we have the technology, cgi and multi-million dollar budgets, many of our childhood favorites are being recreated or remade. Some have been improvements. But, most have been just plain blasphemous towards their originals. So, with that, I have compiled a slideshow of Originals vs. Remakes. You be the judge. (Images: IMDB & Wikipedia)
12 Comments
Lauren Strec said:
Great blog! This entry is on today's "Hot on ChicagoNow:"
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/hot-on-chicagonow/2010/03/hot-on-chicagonow-march-5-2010.html
Steven M. Johnson said:
Lauren: Thanks for the compliment & plug on "Hot on ChicagoNow." I'm honored to be mentioned by a host as "Hot" as you. You are a great match for "Hot on ChicagoNow."
Brian 'Wiz' Ray said:
I don't know that you are positioning these things quite right. Like the Batman movies are better than the television show because they skewed closer to the original comic book and had much better technological advances to work with, not to mention budgets, in the same way the Addams Family Movie is so much better than the television shows. Now if you want to compare something on a closer set of parameters, take a look at A History of Violence with Viggo Mortenson and Out of the Past with Robert Mitchum, which one of those do you think is better? Or maybe the Mission Impossible Television Show, vs, the Tom Cruise movies? Well The Women and The Women, not they should have known better than to touch that. How does The Wiz, compare with The Wizard of Oz (not even slightly, they should not be mentioned in the same week as each other.
One the other hand, there are some movies begging to be remade, like Arsenic and Old Lace (I can actually see Martin Lawrence in the lead, because he has a nice rubber face). ANd they should take a real shot at the Wild Wild West and let a little person play Dr. Lovelace (Like that dude from The Station Agent).
Now what old or older movies do you think deserve an updated sequel?
Steven M. Johnson said:
Wiz: As far as Batman, I agree. That's why the "remakes" won that clash. But, big budgets & technology didn't help the Speed Racer or Godzilla remakes. I did forget about the Addams Family. But, again, I preferred the original TV series because of it's time period and originality. I'm Surprised the Munsters have never been dug up.
Mission Impossible TV series beats out Tom Cruise and the mega budget. The Wizard of Oz vs. The Wiz is tough for me. Because they both appeal to me, but on different levels. It's like comparing Charlie Brown with Fat Albert. One is a classic I grew up on, and the other connected with me on a cultural & racial level.
As for Arsenic and Old Lace. I think Eddie Murphy would be a better counterpart for Cary Grant (Mortimer) than Martin Lawrence. Eddie could bring more sophistication with the comedy like Cary did. Unless you meant his psychopath brother Jonathan? But even then, I envision someone a little bigger in size than Martin.
So, you didn't like Will Smith and Kevin Kline in the 1999 remake? I agree again. I thought they/it were a little too silly. Maybe a remake with a little harder edge, like the newer Bond films would suit Wild, Wild, West better.
Finally, I liked "A History of Violence," but must admit, I haven't seen "Out of the Past." But I do like Robert Mitchum, one of my favorites is "The Night of the Hunter." I'll have to get back to you on "Out of the Past." Thanks for the info.
Brian 'Wiz' Ray said:
Actually, I like the Speed Racer movie, it was decent, and you have to admit, there was not a lot of character and story to work with there, I watched Speed Racer every day after school and pretty much tolerated it. I have never liked anime that much, they remind me of dubbed Kung Fu movies "Eh. Right."
The Wiz sucked. There is no way around it. Maybe it would have had better weight if Stephanie Mills played the lead and not Diana Ross, but the whole re-imagining of it was bad and wrong. And Fat Albert does not even begin to pretend to be anywhere near the level of sophistication of Charlie Brown. Fat Albert was constantly condescending to its audience. As you can see, not that big a fan. But it does have one of favorite cartoon jokes of all time Russell: You're like a teacher in the summer time, (beat) no class.
I'm sorry, even as a black man, neither The Wiz or Fat Albert connected with me on a cultural level. Racially speaking they were a kind of black I was not or at least did not see myself as.
I really mean that Martin should play the lead. It is not a matter of sophistication, Martin has enough of that, but more importantly, he has a rubber face, which Cary Grant ran to full effect in Arsenic and Old Lace. The brother Johnathan could be played by Tiny Lister or Michael Clarke Duncan. The two aunts well there are more than enough elderly black women in Hollywood, so lets just say anyone except Tyler Perry. But I digress.
The Wild Wild West was too cartoonish and really needed a white lead. Let's face it Will Smith was a bad choice on too many levels. I like Daniel Craig as Bond, but I really enjoy Dame Judy as M.
You'll like Out of the Past, it is one of the best noir there is. Its cool to watch Kirk Douglas go all Jimmy Cagney. And Jane Greer shows what makes good noir great.
jack Frapp said:
What is it with Johnny Depp and all these weird characters he plays??
jess
www.total-anonymity.us.tc
Steven M. Johnson said:
Jack: I hear you. From the Mad Hatter, Willy Wonka, Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood to Sweeney Todd. Tim Burton/Johnny Depp collaborations always seem to equal strange, weird but interesting and entertaining characters.
Dionne Williams said:
Have done it again :)
Viniciusdm said:
Gene Wilder cannot be topped for the role of Wonka. Hands up winner!
Steven M. Johnson said:
Viniciusdm: Exactly. Like I said, Depp was good. But, Wilder's creepy/comedic wins. Would have been interesting to see how Jim Carey would have played Wonka. Not in an "Ace Ventura" way. More in a "Cable Guy," "Lemony Snicket's (Count Olaf)" way ... maybe.
Raq said:
The remakes don't bother me too much, if only because I don't put too much stock in the inherent value of the "original." First, as another poster mentioned, many of the original films are already inspired by comic books, popular myths, or novels. But what I think they do, and what I think the remakes do as well, is over new interpretations on the same themes from different perspectives. I, for one, love the idea of taking Alice from a jail-bait pedophile's fantasy to a kick-ass warrior chick. And second, I think that one of the things that makes popular culture so pleasurable is the constant renegotiation of themes and content. The original Clash of the Titans is one of my favorite movies, but let's be real: it's a god awful movie. Let's not even get into the wretched claymation Pegasus, ok? Personally, I'd like to see what aspects of the gods vs. humans story the new film might be able to elucidate now that it's not burdened with the shoestring budget.
Steven M. Johnson said:
Raq: I agree with everything you said in the cases of some originals vs. remakes. Batman for example has a sentimental place in my heart for corny, campy youth TV. But, it's various reinterpretations are definitely more interesting and entertaining. But again, the availability of big budgets and writer's new interpretations of old content does not excuse Hollywood's lack of originality just to exploit box office & merchandising revenue. I much rather see new ideas (Avatar, Matrix) where the mega budgets can be used to amaze and astound.
Other remake exceptions are the timeless horror classics like Frankenstein, Dracula and Wolfman. Bram Stoker's (Dracula), Mary Shelley's (Frankenstein) and the new Wolfman movies are good reinterpretations of their original counterparts. But, the three Brendan Fraser Mummy remakes are garbage. Not made to creatively reinterpret the Mummy horror classic. But, to make money through it's silly, goofy, dialogue/acting and big budget special effects.
Fine. So remake Disney's Alice in Wonderland. But, I don't need to see a 2010 "suped-up" version of Jason and the Argonauts. I still like the cheesy claymation of my Saturday morning escapes.
Reinterpret but don't ruin.
Leave a Comment?
What your comment will look like:
said: