ernst tischler wrote:
"Into the Woods".

I'm afraid of that movie -- I saw two different productions of the play, and I loved each one.  But the original play is pretty "adult" in nature, and a move made by Disney is (I'm afraid) will be watered down.  Your opinion of the music is your opinion -- I happened to have liked the music both times I saw those two productions.

Sondheim had another play, called "A Little Night Music" -- it's the play that gave us the song "Send In The Clowns".  It was a perfectly charming play, about overlapping love triangles on a fateful weekend in the country.  I loved the play.  But then Hollywood made it into a movie, featuring Elizabeth Taylor, and they butchered it.  They cut out the roving chorus who tied things together.  And it had the worst editing:  it was like they shot the movie, edited together, then threw the edited movie out, and they picked up the scraps off the floor and used those pieces for the movie.  I mean, when two people are talking, you usually look at the one who's speaking.  It was awful!  It's one of my least favorite movies of all time.

But the play was charming.  So, I say, remake that sucker.

Tangent question:  What movies were the worst adaptions of a good book or play or TV show?

ernst tischler wrote:
"Into the Woods".

Looknsee Photography wrote:
I'm afraid of that movie -- I saw two different productions of the play, and I loved each one.  But the original play is pretty "adult" in nature, and a move made by Disney is (I'm afraid) will be watered down.  Your opinion of the music is your opinion -- I happened to have liked the music both times I saw those two productions.

Sondheim had another play, called "A Little Night Music" -- it's the play that gave us the song "Send In The Clowns".  It was a perfectly charming play, about overlapping love triangles on a fateful weekend in the country.  I loved the play.  But then Hollywood made it into a movie, featuring Elizabeth Taylor, and they butchered it.  They cut out the roving chorus who tied things together.  And it had the worst editing:  it was like they shot the movie, edited together, then threw the edited movie out, and they picked up the scraps off the floor and used those pieces for the movie.  I mean, when two people are talking, you usually look at the one who's speaking.  It was awful!  It's one of my least favorite movies of all time.

But the play was charming.  So, I say, remake that sucker.

Tangent question:  What movies were the worst adaptions of a good book or play or TV show?

Since you asked, "Into the Woods" may be among the worst moves made from a good play.  LOL

Seriously, being a movie made by Disney, and knowing about the play, I expected some good songs in the musical.  Aside from the "Into the Woods" theme song, all the other music, throughout the movie were just basic rhyme dialogue set to the same 4 and 6 note tune, over and over and over and over and over and over.

It is a great story, had a great cast....if they would have only been creative with the music.

ernst tischler wrote:
Since you asked, "Into the Woods" may be among the worst moves made from a good play.  LOL

Seriously, being a movie made by Disney, and knowing about the play, I expected some good songs in the musical.  Aside from the "Into the Woods" theme song, all the other music, throughout the movie were just basic rhyme dialogue set to the same 4 and 6 note tune, over and over and over and over and over and over.

It is a great story, had a great cast....if they would have only been creative with the music.

Haven't seen the movie -- if they messed with the music, well, that's disappointing AND it wouldn't surprise me.  Like I said, the play was adult-themed, and Disney tends to be more family orientated.

I hate it when Hollywood makes changes to broaden the appeal.  For example:  in the Broadway musical of "Little Shop Of Horrors", everyone dies in the end -- in the movie, they lived happily ever after.

On the other hand, "Chicago" was remarkably aligned with the Broadway version -- indeed, it might be word-for-word.  I didn't like the tiny bit of defiance in Amos (the cuckold'd husband, played by John C. Reily), but his lines were true to the play.  I liked that movie.

But I do like everything about live theater (except the ticket prices).

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
"The Shining" should have never been remade.  Although the second one wasn't bad, there was no real reason for it to be done.

Except for the fact that the Kubrick movie deviated so far from the book.

The mini series remake (that's the one I'm assuming you're talking about) is far more faithful to the book.

That's not to say that Kubrick's movie wasn't good.  Not at all.  It was a goddamn masterpiece.  But it just wan't Stephen King's The Shining.  Of course, if you sit an average 16-19 year old in front of The Shining, they'd be bored out of their minds in about 20 minutes.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
For example, The Rocky Horror Picture Show.  I think it's perfect as is.  Indeed, it was ahead of its time -- great music, distinct & deep characters, fun plot.  I'm listening to the music a lot lately.

Now you.

Um, there WAS a sequel to The Rocky Horror Picture Show, and it was written by Richard O'Brien also, and it was called Shock Treatment.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083067/

Good Egg Productions wrote:

Except for the fact that the Kubrick movie deviated so far from the book.

The mini series remake (that's the one I'm assuming you're talking about) is far more faithful to the book.

That's not to say that Kubrick's movie wasn't good.  Not at all.  It was a goddamn masterpiece.  But it just wan't Stephen King's The Shining.  Of course, if you sit an average 16-19 year old in front of The Shining, they'd be bored out of their minds in about 20 minutes.

2001 got them out in 5

ernst tischler wrote:
I recently wasted two hours of my life watching "Into the Woods".  There is a great storyline in there interconnecting familiar stories (Red Riding Hood, Jack and the Beanstalk, Rapunzel and Cinderella) with a different twist, but the same four and six note tune to all the weak rhyme lyrics killed the whole thing.

They should remake it, without the lame musical garbage droning on and on, and expand on the story a bit to smooth the connections and deepen the characters.

But, but.

But the critics (paid for by movie companies) are raving about what a good movie it is........ Say it's not so

John Photography wrote:
2001....   It is kind of a a classic so don't touch it

2010 ...... Please this one needs a remake .. I like it but keep thinking there's a ton of stuff they left out.

3001 ...... Yes make it please

2061 ..... is nice too.

Note to producer : no noise in space.

scrymettet wrote:

2061 ..... is nice too.

Note to producer : no noise in space.

Absolute peeve is noise in space....... Guns going off and pew pew pew.........

I'm not sure if I remembered it right but wasn't 3001 when we find the true nature of the aliens that made the monoliths?

John Photography wrote:

Absolute peeve is noise in space....... Guns going off and pew pew pew.........

I'm not sure if I remembered it right but wasn't 3001 when we find the true nature of the aliens that made the monoliths?

2061 is mainly a landing on Halley comet. An other book of the series

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
You might be able to do 'Looker' but the technology is almost mundane now.

'Looker' is one of my all time favorite movies.

I just happened to have seen it at exactly the right time in my growing up.  It actually still holds up today and almost predicted a future where perfection is necessary for selling products.  Except today, we just do it with photoshopped models instead of CGI.  But I imagine CGI will get there.

The stunt where the woman falls onto the roof of the car is still, in my opinion, the greatest stunt every captured on film.

Even today, I'm shocked when I see it.

Here it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ixjHZmAOpE

Oh, and that theme song is amazingly 80's too.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
I think it can be done with explosions, fast cuts, and funnier jokes.
And by the way... don't try to watch it now.  Beyond the nostalgia, the film itself is nearly unwatchable.  The production value is horrible.  I feel like it was made for $18 and everyone in Hollywood just sort of showed up, mostly drunk.

It would take one hell of a director to pull it off, but I want to see it done before I die.

Michael Bay might be the guy ........lol

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
I'd really love to see a modern remake of Creature from the Black Lagoon
http://moviepilot.com/posts/2014/07/13/ … nal,manual

And NOT an exploitation remake like "Humanoids from the Deep."

TIMELESS wrote:
Remake
Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind
Kind Kong at the new One World Trade Center

Since Spielberg, Wrote, and Directed CEOTK..and Owns...that will never happen..plus there is nothing wrong with the original...it is ranked in the top 100 best films ever made AFI.

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
"Jersey Boys'" needs to be remade.
The Clint Eastwood version is sloooow and boring, not nearly as fun and upbeat as the Broadway show.

Eastwood is old -- he's sloooow and boring pretty much all the time now. 

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
"Deep Throat" needs to be redone, only because nobody wants to see those funky 70's hairdos anymore.

I thought it was redone.  But I wouldn't know.

Wye wrote:
If the rights are available then I don't have a problem with any remake, reboot, sequel, reimagining or otherwise revisiting of any movie or other creative work.

The act of doing so doesn't destroy the original so I don't really see what the problem is.

Because some movies are so good and have stood the test of time to a degree that remaking them is an insult to the quality of film that was originally made. It's somebody saying, "Yeah yeah yeah...Citizen Kane was good but I could do it SOOOOO much better!". It's nothing but a director and a producer with a massive ego and some money trying to fix something that was never broken to begin with. It's also a lazy way out for people to just redo something that has been done rather than come up with something original for a change.

Some stories just don't need retelling.

Shot By Adam wrote:

Because some movies are so good and have stood the test of time to a degree that remaking them is an insult to the quality of film that was originally made. It's somebody saying, "Yeah yeah yeah...Citizen Kane was good but I could do it SOOOOO much better!". It's nothing but a director and a producer with a massive ego and some money trying to fix something that was never broken to begin with. It's also a lazy way out for people to just redo something that has been done rather than come up with something original for a change.

Some stories just don't need retelling.

I don't know what's so sacrosanct about movies that they are different than music or theatre in this regard. To think that there's no value in attempting to do something old in a new way is just silly. You can't insult a movie. And if someone is insulted because someone tries to retell a story they've already told then they're the one with the massive ego and should just deal with it (again,assuming the new person has the legal right to do what they are doing)

I don't see a remake of a movie any differently than a restaging of a Shakespeare play or a new arrangement of a Beethoven symphony. Every new attempt has value.