Film remakes: do they ever succeed?

I agree with you guys, that the second version of "The Thing", by really fun director John Carpenter, was fabulous. Very good little sci fi flick, full of suspense, horror and surprises.
John Carpenter is a master of the genre. He's the one who also directed films like "Escape from New York", with Kurt Russell, "The Fog", the original "Halloween", "They Live", "Vampires" with James Woods, the remake of "Village of the Damns" with Christopher Reeves and a bunch of other good little sci fi and fantastic movies. And if you don't, you'll be interrested to know, Ryder, that the guy does his own music! He composes musical scores that are always perfect for the action of his films.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danthepoetman

I agree with you guys, that the second version of "The Thing", by really fun director John Carpenter, was fabulous. Very good little sci fi flick, full of suspense, horror and surprises.
John Carpenter is a master of the genre. He's the one who also directed films like "Escape from New York", with Kurt Russell, "The Fog", the original "Halloween", "They Live", "Vampires" with James Woods, the remake of "Village of the Damns" with Christopher Reeves and a bunch of other good little sci fi and fantastic movies. And if you don't, you'll be interrested to know, Ryder, that the guy does his own music! He composes musical scores that are always perfect for the action of his films.

---

That's really cool! i've always been a fan of his. I never knew he did his know scores though.. he is def an amazing talent..

Count me in the school of thought that the only movies which should be remade are those with great concepts but poor execution OR it has been a sufficient number of years since the original was made that the remake would be a significant difference and do the story justice.

You know the Mad Max remake/reboot whatever is coming soon. That's borderline bad because Mad Max has such a great cult following. If not for the fact that it's with Tom Hardy I'd probably be un happy myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyderMonroe

I liked the Bourne remake a lot but the original was still better imo.

---

Ryder, I think you and Mr. Blonde are talking about two different things, maybe? My interpretation is that he is referring to the Matt Damon version being better than the old version with Richard Chamberlain, and that you mean the remake from last year was not as good as the Matt Damon version. Is that right? I would also agree with both of those assessments.

I didn't even know about an older version! With Richard Chamberlain, Max? I have to see this eventually.

The Chamberlain version was very true to the book Dan. As a result, I am one of the only people who enjoyed it better than the Matt Damon version, which was apparently a better production.

What I remember about the Chamberlain version is that it was very long, containing nearly every sequence of the original book. So in retrospect it probably would not hold up very well to the Matt Damon version and was only enjoyable for me because I had just finished the book when I saw it on tv.

A book too! Who wrote it, do you remember, Broncofan?

Robert Ludlum. I was just a kid when I read it, so it might not be very good writing, but it kept my attention:).

Edit: Just read a review of the Chamberlain version. Apparently it was quite different from the book as well. So there goes that;

Thanks! I might just eventually try the book. Ludlum is not a bad writer in his genre.