patrick.net

One of the relatively rare exceptions is the (2001) Oceans 11 remake in my opinion. IMDb also gives it an even better rating (7.6) than the rather good (1960) Sinatra original (6.4).

One more point- doesn't it seem like remakes are increasing as a % of all movies? I guess this is inevitable as studios try to recycle good ideas...

They've come out with a new "Arthur." ugh.

Not with Dudley Moore?

Unless its batman where the movies got consistently worse (but the soundtracks got better), until the reboot in 2005. Reboots usually get a good response.

(the first)Batman (1989)7.6
Batman Returns (1992) 6.9
Batman Forever (1995) 5.4
Batman & Robin (1997) 3.5
Batman Begins (2005) 8.3
The Dark Knight (2008) 8.9

Yes. A reboot may be considered a type of remake. The *sequels* got worse (I might do another post on those), but for now remakes. Still the question of rating them remiains: Is it because the remake is (1) simply not very original so people think it deserves a lower rating or (2) the movie really is worse (standing alone even if the original version never existed).

My feeling is Sequels are normally rushed to release while the iron is still hot. So a bit less perfection go into all aspects.

But if the sequel is made by someone who is not being pushed by nervous investors and does not care when it's released so long as its perfect then the sequels can actually do better. (eg. Toy Story 2, Empire Strikes Back)

It's because the sheer lack talent all around for those involved. And for those old enough that was there when the Originals came out. It wasn't all that, its just all that there was. What we're talking about a time, when there were only three channels on a T.V.. The Dukes of Hazard wasn't "GREAT", there just wasn't the Hallmark Channel to switch over to, to watch "Touched by and Angel" instead.

@Grizz

OK. How about remakes though, which are often made 20 or 30 years after the original?

@Tenouncetrout

Good point. I look at IMDB.com and sometimes Reel.com for ratings...　How do you compare the originals to the remakes?

American in Japan says

How do you compare the originals to the remakes?

I flag them as such, and avoid paying anything to see them.

Maybe I'll catch it on Encore 5 to 6 years after its release, if it's a slow T.V. night.

Remakes almost always suck when compared to the originals. The only purpose of the remake is to mike an audience anyway. There are only a couple of exceptions like Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me which really was much better than Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery.

True Grit...the remake is rated better on IMDB (one of the exceptions).
(1969) 7.3=Very good
(2010) 8.0=Excellent

I think remakes bring time relevance to younger generations, and that's all.
My daughters hate to see a film older than ten years old. No matter how good it is.
I kind of understand, I remember when I was young I looked at movies made in 40's - 60's as somehow dated and thus inferior. Though I grew out of that, and can watch any good movie from any era.

So if it's done to bring it to a younger audience, yet they do a poor job of "updating" the subject.
Then what's the point? A dated movie younger audience wont watch, or a crappy remake no one wants to see?

> Though I grew out of that, and can watch any good movie from any era.

I am the same. I have a huge DVD collection of great movies from every decade from the 1930s on. Some are region 1 and some are region 2 (Japan and England).

Some remakes are not so good though. Many terrible remakes of television shows (if those count as remakes ).

To partially quote a supposed genius, I think that Hollywood "misunderestimates" the intelligence of its audience.

Remake is viewed as guaranteed franchise. Thus they can boof around with it as they wish to make it "hip" and current, but MUST have big star power actors. So they spend a bazillion dollars on overpriced actors and no real effort on the script.

Thus the wretched Star Trek 2009 which I hate to admit I paid money to see in a theater. An engine room that looks like a chemical plant? Scotty with a dwarf sidekick being kicked around transparent tubes which strangely loop all over the room? Blech.

I have to say though that Star Wars could use a reboot after George is dead.

Some have said that the Magnificent 7 is better than 7 Samurai, depending on who you talk to.

>They’re remaking RED DAWN.

What I can't understand is why studios remake movies that weren't that good to begin with!

>Some have said that the Magnificent 7 is better than 7 Samurai, depending on who you talk to.

Interesting. I belive you, although the majority that I know prefer Kurosawa's movie.

American in Japan says

Is this because the remake is (1) simply not as original so people think it deserves a lower rating or (2) the movie really is worse (standing alone even if the original version never existed).

I would say (2) is the primary reason.

Remakes are easy, the story is already there, and comes with a built in audience. I would wager that more often than not a high level of talent is not attracted when doing a remake. This leads to, on average, poorer quality movies.

There are of course exceptions to this.

American in Japan says

>They’re remaking RED DAWN.
What I can’t understand is why studios remake movies that weren’t that good to begin with!

I think because the "idea" is better that the execution was, and they think they can do better. These are probably the best kind of remakes.

Planet of the Apes anyone?

American in Japan says

Planet of the Apes anyone?

No. Please.