Remakes and sequels: how much is too much?

Joshua Smith5 said:That’s not very Christian of you, Henry Campbell5. 😢 Not that you’re probably too rational to be a Christian anyway, right?

Regarding the topic at hand: remakes, sequels, and all that stuff that bugs you—they'll keep filming them as long as they make money, and damn it, they're making money.

Movies and this sub would have died out long ago if they only focused on "high art." It’s a shame to rob people who love a good roast of their entertainment. Though, honestly, I'm finding it less and less entertaining lately...

I'm a Christian, I'm rational, but I'm not a believer. Logic pushes me toward doing good, and vice versa. If I sound wicked, it's only because I'm trying to do the right thing. 🙂
Anyway, enough about me, let's talk about my Batmobile.

John Peterson3 said:Why not? Even if everything comes down to money, why shouldn't we tell a solid story using today's technology?

- I'm really looking forward to Total Recall; it’s a great story with wasted potential if you strip away Arnie's constant shouting.
- Raimi's Spider-Man is absolute garbage where every female character just turns into a damzel in distress for Spidey to save. The casting is terrible. Forget about the love interest when you're dealing with Dunst's character.
- I haven't seen a decent Superman sequel since the Reeves era.
- RoboCop is one of those childhood favorites I'd gladly rewatch in high definition.
- Mad Max might not be a total reboot, but its post-apocalyptic world is so unique—there's no reason not to revisit it.

I have absolutely nothing against remakes of movies that are meant for entertainment anyway. The original always remains the original.

Yeah, you see what happens when we start nitpicking—that Mad Max could actually take place between the first and second films, so it's technically stuff we've seen, yet also unseen... I love those kinds of movies and I'm genuinely curious about the story regarding Humungus if they actually go through with it...

rowdyowl said:Actually, it's the other way around. Everything people claim to love—whether it's food, music, or movies—they love because marketing hammered it into their heads.

Very few people actually have an original thought. Most people are just programmed.

Exactly! That's why they pour endless amounts of money into research. 🤦

Eric Jackson5 said:Honestly, I think all these remakes and prequels are complete garbage. We have all these massive books, myths, legends, stories, fairy tales, real-life experiences, and screenwriters' imaginations—and then, at the end of the day, we just get sequels to existing movies. Making remakes and prequels is just nonsensical to me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if my memory serves, Lucas basically opened Pandora's box with that villain prequel (damn that Phantom menace and all that other junk that followed 😠).

If it had just stopped there, it wouldn't have been such a disaster, but he gave every idiot with zero inspiration a roadmap. Just go back to the past and call it a day 🙂.

I've always had a soft spot for remakes, prequels, or even sequels—provided they actually deliver. Why not? For instance, the X-Men prequel was genuinely great. On the other hand, I firmly believe certain films, like Tarantino's, should simply be left untouched.☕

Jeremy Kim57 said:I've always had a soft spot for remakes, prequels, or even sequels—provided they actually deliver. Why not? For instance, the X-Men prequel was genuinely great. On the other hand, I firmly believe certain films, like Tarantino's, should simply be left untouched.☕

If they’re good, fine—but 😂by the time you find out, the train has already left the station... the movie is already filmed, after all.
As for the bolded part, that's a bit of a stretch... unfortunately, they've remade much bigger icons than just Tarantino.🙄

Karen Smith9 said:If they’re good, fine—but 😂by the time you find out, the train has already left the station... the movie is already filmed, after all.
As for the bolded part, that's a bit of a stretch... unfortunately, they've remade much bigger icons than just Tarantino.🙄

I honestly think it’s going to be incredibly rare to find anyone capable of pulling off a quality remake of his work—and frankly, I doubt anything could actually top the original. Tarantino just knows.😁

Jeremy Kim57 said:I honestly think it’s going to be incredibly rare to find anyone capable of pulling off a quality remake of his work—and frankly, I doubt anything could actually top the original. Tarantino just knows.😁

Well, let's not forget the dozens of other legends out there who are light years ahead of him—honestly, he isn't even in their league. 🙄
At the end of the day, the guy spends his entire career citing them as influences; someone needs to tell him to bring that ego down a notch and get his feet back on the ground...

Karen Smith9 said:Well, let's not forget the dozens of other legends out there who are light years ahead of him—honestly, he isn't even in their league. 🙄
At the end of the day, the guy spends his entire career citing them as influences; someone needs to tell him to bring that ego down a notch and get his feet back on the ground...

Who says he can't touch them? 😬 You?
Look, everyone has their own taste. If you don't like him that much, that's fine. But, I guess since Jeremy Kim57 and I actually like her, I have to say I agree—it would be pretty tough to capture that specific atmosphere and dynamic any other way. There's really no chance.
It would probably just end up being some mediocre remake...
Take someone like Kubrick, who is generally considered a better director than Tarantino and isn't nearly as controversial... He relies so much on atmosphere and that predictable filming style.
There are plenty of other examples, too. But I don't think you should be such a movie snob and try to flex on a girl just because she doesn't share your opinion.

granitepuma said:Who says he can't touch them? 😬 You?
Look, everyone has their own taste. If you don't like him that much, that's fine. But, I guess since Jeremy Kim57 and I actually like her, I have to say I agree—it would be pretty tough to capture that specific atmosphere and dynamic any other way. There's really no chance.
It would probably just end up being some mediocre remake...
Take someone like Kubrick, who is generally considered a better director than Tarantino and isn't nearly as controversial... He relies so much on atmosphere and that predictable filming style.
There are plenty of other examples, too. But I don't think you should be such a movie snob and try to flex on a girl just because she doesn't share your opinion.

First off, Tarantino borrows heavily—he doesn't even hide it—so I don't really hold that against him; it's just that people tend to exaggerate when they claim he's truly "original" or that good.
Secondly, this whole comparison regarding Kubrick isn't even worth discussing.
Thirdly, wasn't the entire premise of this thread that remakes are essentially pointless? If so, then debating whether we need remakes of Tarantino or Kubrick feels a bit redundant, doesn't it?

The eighties were such a massive oasis of creativity, churning out endless low-budget action flicks, sci-fi gems, and horror classics. Unfortunately, those kinds of movies rarely get the remake treatment nowadays. Still, I think it would be absolutely fascinating to see some B-movie titles reimagined with a modern mainstream polish.

Gotcha 😛 In the meantime... I guess I'll be working on my spaghetti western : a man Named Cankala 🙂

I'm just sitting here waiting for them to drop some pathetic remake of the Godfather... -.-

Karen Smith9 said:First off, Tarantino borrows heavily—he doesn't even hide it—so I don't really hold that against him; it's just that people tend to exaggerate when they claim he's truly "original" or that good.
Secondly, this whole comparison regarding Kubrick isn't even worth discussing.
Thirdly, wasn't the entire premise of this thread that remakes are essentially pointless? If so, then debating whether we need remakes of Tarantino or Kubrick feels a bit redundant, doesn't it?

He truly is that talented and original, without any hyperbole 🙂 I don't think remakes are inherently pointless. For instance, in twenty years, we might see a remake of something like Harry Potter or Twilight simply because technology will have advanced so much. But Tarantino's films aren't built on tech—they rely on atmosphere and characters that drive the story forward. So, why would anyone bother remaking him? It seems nearly impossible. What would you even remake in Pulp Fiction? New dialogue? 🤷

If you really can't stand remakes or sequels, I guess the best thing you can do is just not watch them. That's probably the only way to actually reduce their numbers. At the end of the day, a Hollywood movie is a business—not just in Hollywood, but everywhere—so they basically just churn out whatever brings in the most cash. Unfortunately, the data seems to suggest there's a huge audience for this stuff. Luckily, there are so many other options out there, like original films, documentaries, international cinema, books, comics, TV shows, sports, or music... I mean, why waste your time on something you aren't interested in watching anyway?

Jeremy Kim57 said:He truly is that talented and original, without any hyperbole 🙂 I don't think remakes are inherently pointless. For instance, in twenty years, we might see a remake of something like Harry Potter or Twilight simply because technology will have advanced so much. But Tarantino's films aren't built on tech—they rely on atmosphere and characters that drive the story forward. So, why would anyone bother remaking him? It seems nearly impossible. What would you even remake in Pulp Fiction? New dialogue? 🤷

I wonder why we assume that counts as progress? Sure, technology has moved forward, but I guess we can only call it progress if it actually makes movies better. People always point to digital recording, CGI, and 3D as the big leaps. To me, it feels a bit like a trick being sold to generations raised on video games—it's the same tactic used in gaming, really. I think people had just as much fun playing 2D games back on the old Super Nintendo or Game Boy.

Jessica Gonzalez said:I wonder why we assume that counts as progress? Sure, technology has moved forward, but I guess we can only call it progress if it actually makes movies better. People always point to digital recording, CGI, and 3D as the big leaps. To me, it feels a bit like a trick being sold to generations raised on video games—it's the same tactic used in gaming, really. I think people had just as much fun playing 2D games back on the old Super Nintendo or Game Boy.

I completely agree. Technology doesn't make a good movie; it's something else entirely. No amount of special effects can save a bad film. Unfortunately, that's what's being pushed today. We're constantly being told that life is impossible without high-tech gadgets, so it makes sense why kids who grew up watching movies in the 80s or even the 90s find today's stuff lacking.

steelgull542 said:Raimi's work... prequels and all that... they feel like a "necessary evil" to introduce older films to younger generations using modern effects. Most of them fall short of the originals, though there are some just as good or even better... but I suppose that's mostly subjective. Remakes will keep happening as long as people are watching; after all, there's a sucker born every minute.

The new The Thing is, in my opinion, a completely unnecessary movie. I watched it just for the sake of it and felt it was a waste of time, whereas I consider the original one of the best horror films ever made... though I'm sure someone feels the exact opposite.

I agree regarding Tarantino; remaking him would be foolish, and hopefully, no one ever thinks to try it. But in 10 or 20 years, who knows? Maybe we'll end up watching Reservoir Dogs 3D. 😂

As for sequels, they mostly seem designed for a quick buck. In my experience, the quality of most trilogies drops with every new installment (with exceptions like Lord of the Rings), not to mention movies with five or more entries, like Saw.

Everything else is fine by me—I don't have to watch a remake if I'm not interested. However, I can't stand it when Americans make a remake of every single horror film produced outside the US, presumably so the public doesn't have to strain their eyes reading subtitles. For instance, with Rec and Quarantine, I went to see the latter without realizing it was a remake of the first, and I ended up feeling 😲 disappointed.

No, remakes aren't meant to bring anything closer to us. They exist solely to repackage the exact same thing for a new generation that's already been sold it once before.

And let's be real—the new generation doesn't give a damn about the classics anyway.

neonsurfer6 said:No, remakes aren't meant to bring anything closer to us. They exist solely to repackage the exact same thing for a new generation that's already been sold it once before.

And let's be real—the new generation doesn't give a damn about the classics anyway.

🤷 I didn't say they were bringing anything closer; I just meant they SHOW older films to a new generation by using modern effects.