• MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    ·
    9 months ago

    Here’s what people want… Good movies and good television. Yeah, originality is great, but remakes can be good too.

    I liked the remake of Infernal Affairs (The Departed), Scarface, Cape Fear, Ocean’s 11, The Fly, King Kong (Peter Jackson), True Grit, Judge Dread, and The Wizard of Oz (1939) was also a remake. The Fall Guy looks good too.

    For TV, there’s Battlestar Galactica, Westworld, Cobra Kai, Sabrina, and Wednesday, though different, could fit in there as it’s still based on another property.

    What people don’t want are obvious cash grabs.

    • Holzkohlen@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      I don’t think Wednesday should count as remake. Also I want to add The Lighthouse to your list of good remakes.

      • MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah, I was hesitant to put Wednesday on there. I guess I was going for stories/characters we’ve seen before vs. something completely original. Wednesday is more like Cruella. Both good, both original, but based on previous property.

      • The Menemen!@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Neither Kobra Kai.

        There was a Karate Kid remake and that showed how not do remakes. Kobra Kai was a continuation.

        Judge Dredd was also not really a remake.

    • Specal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      Honestly sometimes we’re fine with cash grabs too, aslong as they don’t require much attention. For example John Wick is a really fun and easy series of films to watch but you don’t need to have 100% attention throughout

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        I have to say, I recently realized there was a fourth and I hadn’t seen the third, and I didn’t care for those two. The first on was amazing. The second was good, but started introducing too much gun-magic the third and fourth had lost all the authenticity the first one was known for. The first everyone talked about how it was somewhat realistic and people moved and behaved in a believable way. In the third and fourth everyone is just running around using their jacket to block bullets while firing blindly but perfectly accurately. It got really dumb.

        • daltotron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yeah, you can kinda tell that as the series went on it started to be more and more a vehicle for really dumb stunts and action sequences. I feel like occasionally we get a movie or set of movies that are just cranked out by like, a production chock full of stuntmen. That’s fine, I suppose, it’s not unenjoyable, but I do much prefer something in the vein of Heat, or the original John Wick, rather than it’s sequels.

          A better comparison might even be, like, any Jackie Chan movie, since those are all just basically vehicles for stunt work, but I think a comparison between those and the John Wick sequels is kind of self-evidently not a flattering comparison, for the sequels. Jackie Chan movies tend to have better, mostly self-contained plots, they tend to have much better and more impressive action, and action choreography, even if it’s almost intentionally less flashy. Even though obviously most of the stuff in the Jackie Chan movies is unrealistic, it still feels more real, because it’s all been actually done, relative to the John Wick movies, which tend to be more full of CGI, and kind of less real as a result of them being kind of, ridiculous murderfests. They become ungrounded.

    • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      Hell some of those remarks are better than the original IMO the True Grit remake is infinitely better than the original one, mind you I dont like John Wayne movies and this aint even me being political I fucken love Clint Eastwood movies.

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        9 months ago

        The Battlestar Galactica reboot kicked ass where the original was legit campy and crappy. Reboots can be okay, but for one: stop rebooting a great and successful franchise, you already are up against a very high bar.

        • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          💯 the new Dune movies could be considered a reboot, but they’re light years better than the 80s movie, which was widely considered a disappointment by fans of the books and a financial failure.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            I’m seeing a resurgence of people liking the '80s version, but it’s mostly because of the camp, but also because it’s more accurate to the book, until the end. The miniseries is honestly possibly the best version, though most people don’t know it exists. The new one is by far the most interesting, and it sounds and looks nearly perfect.

            • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              The 80s movie is absolutely not more accurate to the book. Duncan Idaho gets shot with a gun, the Fremen had sonic blasters made from ‘killing words’, the Harkonnen had heart plugs, the ornithopters didn’t even have wings. I could go on and on, it went way off text.

              The latest movies are much closer to the books, the few changes make total sense for the format of cinema, they don’t radically change the tone or mechanics of the setting.

              • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                It follows the events better I guess is what I should say. The new one cuts a lot more of it out and adds a lot more that wasn’t there. The tone of the old one is totally wrong and the new one is more accurate.

                That said, neither are perfect. All of the adaptations make a lot of changes

      • Lesrid@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        I think it’s funny you use Clint Eastwood to prove you’re not politically motivated because he talked to a chair to entertain conservatives while John Wayne on the other hand was a Nazi. Like I get it, you can absolutely disagree with both it’s just funny the difference in egregiousness.

        • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          I like old Clint Eastwood movies in spite of my politics, my dislike of John Wayne movies is further amplified by my politics and the fact he was just an awful person overall. Seriously Waynes death was fucken poetry, getting cancer because he wanted to be Genghis Khan and promptly getting irradiated is fucken poetic.

          But yeah both Wayne and Eastwood are/were bastards, If memory serves me right they both said some pretty egregious shit about Sacheen Littlefeather at the 45th academy awards.