Comments (19)

Add a CommentInappropriate or promotional comments may be removed.

Reply
Rick Taylor (2:36 PM on Wed Jan 16, 2008)

I wish they wouldn't remake this movie!

Reply
Rick Marshall (3:41 PM on Wed Jan 16, 2008)

These days, all good things must be remade, it seems.

Reply
Rick Taylor (4:30 PM on Wed Jan 16, 2008)

However, never are they 'better'.

Reply
Vinnie Bartilucci (1:45 PM on Thu Jan 17, 2008)

Hitchcock remade his OWN films a couple of times (39 Steps and The Man Who Knew Too Much come to mind) and they improved both times. There's a musical of The 39 Steps on Broadway now - the wife's seeing it next month.

Dori (the wife) is of the opinions that the films that should be remade are the ones that didn't quite work the first time. Cronenberg's The Fly was damn close to a better film than the original. The House on Haunted Hill took a big step up, though 13 Ghosts was just a chaotic mess.

On the whole tho, remakes are just re-hashes, because in point of fact if the filmmakers DO try something radically different, they'll be accused of not paying proper respect to the original.

I recall when Gus Van Sant was doing his Psycho duplication, a rumor was bouncing around that he was going to do the same thing Hitch did, and shock the audience by killing Norman. Alas, it never happened.

Reply
Linda Gold (4:32 PM on Thu Jan 17, 2008)

Vinnie,
Hitchcock's 1935 "39 Steps" is one of my favorite movies and he did not direct any of the subsequent remakes. As far as "The Man Who Knew Too Much", it's a matter of taste, but I much prefer the original which shows a great deal of influence from Hitchcock's days in Germany. Also, I'd rather see anything with Pete Lorre than something with Doris Day.
I am unable to come up with any other remake by Hitchcock but I may be missing something.

Reply
Rick Taylor (4:43 PM on Thu Jan 17, 2008)

I'm with Linda on this one. The 39 Steps is a great film. Nice cloak and dagger stuff.

Reply
Marilee J. Layman (7:34 PM on Thu Jan 17, 2008)

if the filmmakers DO try something radically different, they'll be accused of not paying proper respect to the original.

Like Tinman which was a quite reasonable variation on Oz.

Reply
Rick Marshall (7:46 PM on Thu Jan 17, 2008)

Funny you should mention Tin Man - I just began watching the first part today. I enjoy it thus far...

Reply
Elayne Riggs (6:54 PM on Wed Jan 16, 2008)

Oh, never mind being in the Evil Dead franchise - Klaatu Barada Nikto was immortalized long before that in an episode of the Monkees. Oh dear, did I just date myself?

Reply
Vinnie Bartilucci (12:37 PM on Thu Jan 17, 2008)

Oh, let's just go to the source of all knowledge...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaatu_barada_nikto

Reply
Rick Marshall (12:52 PM on Thu Jan 17, 2008)

You win THIS round! ... But I'll be back!

And, ummm... wow. I didn't realize it was used THAT often. Good find, Vinnie.

Reply
Marilee J. Layman (7:18 PM on Wed Jan 16, 2008)

Klaatu Barada Nikto was immortalized in fandom immediately. I can't tell you how many times it's been used in convention material or zines and such.

And why can't Jaden be her son? Because :::gasp::: it might imply she's part black? Geez.

Reply
Rick Marshall (7:33 PM on Wed Jan 16, 2008)

I hesitated before including that bit about "Evil Dead," knowing that there was bound to be an earlier reference kicking around, but then noticed that the same reference was made on the IMDB and Wikipedia pages for "Day the Earth Stood Still," so I felt it was digitally (if not socially) acceptable. The InterWebs have spoken!

Reply
Sean D. Martin (11:02 AM on Thu Jan 17, 2008)

And thus does mis-information become fact.

Reply
Rick Marshall (12:51 PM on Thu Jan 17, 2008)

Well, I think the entire nature of when something is really "immortalized" is pretty subjective, anyways. But heck, I'll argue about it for a few days anyways - that's part of the fun.

Reply
Sean D. Martin (4:55 PM on Thu Jan 17, 2008)

No argument from me, Rick. I agree that when something becomes "immortalized" is subjective. (Although I'll weaken my agreement in this case by saying I think a very solid argument could be made that it didn't take 30 years).

Reply
Sal Loria (11:27 AM on Thu Jan 17, 2008)

I agree that a remake should not be made of this classic. Loved this movie when I was young.

Reply
Rick Taylor (4:47 PM on Thu Jan 17, 2008)

They'll just throw a lot of CGI in it and call it a classic.

It was one of the films to preach global responsibility.

A nice, simple parable.

Patricia Neal's character a great positive female role model in 1951. A single Mom who, quite frankly saves the world.

Reply
Sal Loria (9:41 AM on Fri Jan 18, 2008)

Exactly. Realistically, this was a movie that should have been villified back in the day, but escaped bad vibes because it was that good of a movie.

As for CGI, it's a sad attempt to "upgrade" what has come before, and in most cases it doesn't work. 'King Kong' and 'Godzilla' were both movies that benefited from the current technology available to film studios, regardless of how sub-par the scripts and/or acting was.

Add a comment

Inappropriate or promotional comments may be removed. To create a clickable link, simply type the URL (including http://) and we will make a link for you. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags, but if you're into that kind of thing, you can use any of the following tags: b, i, strong, em, a (href only), p and br.

Click one of the three commenter types below. Member comments are added immediately once you confirm your email address. Anonymous comments are moderated by our editorial staff.

Email me

  

Comment Preview
Avatar
Anonymous (8:46 PM on Fri Nov 20, 2009)

Preview your comment here.

Read our comics -- for free!


Active Conversations

ComicMix Features

Articles by contributor

ComicMix Podcasts

this gets replaced with a player
Κ ΚΚΚΚ ΚΚΚΚ