Image Credit: Everett CollectionIf we’re to believe today’s big news, then Bill Murray may very well be sitting at home at this very moment in front of a fireplace with a cup of Swiss Miss and the script for Ghostbusters 3. That’s a pretty exciting thought…for about five minutes. Then the inevitable concerns arise — concerns like, is this really a good idea? Do we really want to check back in with Dr. Venkman, Dr. Stantz, and Egon after all these years? What if they’re…well, what if they’re not funny anymore? Wouldn’t it be better if we let certain cherished memories stay pure and untarnished?
Movie lovers of a certain age have had to grapple with these thorny questions a lot lately. I’m talking about folks like myself who spent way too much time in darkened multiplexes during the ’80s. Recently we’ve seen Indiana Jones dusted off and yanked out of a mothballed crate just so he could battle Boris and Natasha-style Russkies, piggyback on a motorcycle with Shia LaBeouf, and try to hunt down some preposterous crystal knickknack left behind by space aliens. Space aliens!! Come on!
We’ve seen splashy new incarnations of Reagan-era horror chestnuts like A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, and Piranha. They’ve been recast, rebooted, and, in the last case, even tarted up with 3-D. But did any of them improve on the original? Jerry O’Connell’s severed manhood aside, I’d argue no. And I’d take it a step further: They probably tainted my memories of the originals, at least a little. I know these movies aren’t really made for me — or for the folks who were at the scene of the crime the first time around. The new target demo is teens and twentysomethings who either aren’t familiar with the originals, or don’t consider them sacred texts. But Hollywood’s been defiling the vault for so long now that it’s time we finally cried “Uncle!”
A while back, I reviewed the DVD of the new Karate Kid in EW and said I liked it (I actually did). I got a lot of heat from letter writers protesting that Ralph Macchio’s Daniel-san was better than Will Smith’s kid. And you know what, they may be right. But the thing I loved was the passion of the objections. It made me realize that I’m not alone — that in remaking beloved ’80s properties Hollywood is touching a sensitive nerve for a lot of people, even if Jackie Chan’s Miyagi got me choked up.
The fact is, most ’80s remakes aren’t great or are entirely unnecessary. Or both. Take Tron. The original Tron wasn’t a great movie, but it probably should have been left alone. Why? Because even if the original wasn’t a masterpiece, it had snowballed into something significant and seminal for a lot of people over the past couple decades. It had become a nerd touchstone — a lovably flawed harbinger of things to come, the ghost of special f/x future. I mean, have you seen the photos of that dude who wore that Tron get-up at Comic Con a while back (at least, I hope he was at Comic Con)? People don’t dress up in futuristic luminescent sci-fi gear and walk outside the house like that because they don’t care.
A lot of folks who grew up with The A-Team loved it…even if most of them would admit, when pressed, that it wasn’t a terribly good show. And guess what? It was turned into a not terribly good movie! Congratulations, Hollywood! Keep aiming high! I loved the original Clash of the Titans. I mean loved it! The feta-cheese f/x, the Kraken, Olivier as Zeus, Ursula Andress in her gauzy diaphanous gown, all of it. But I felt like I was walking to the gallows when I went to see the remake. It was just another sacred scrap of my youth that was being stolen, repackaged and resold so someone else could get rich. Studios don’t care much about fans like me (and I suspect some of you reading this). If they did, we wouldn’t be assaulted with Terminator: Salvation, Wall Street 2, and all of the other titles now inching through the pipeline like The Thing, Footloose, Red Dawn, and RoboCop. I love the original versions of all of those movies. They mean something to me. Especially John Carpenter’s The Thing. So believe me when I say that I hope — I pray — that these remakes are good. I’m not rooting to be disappointed. But I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t expecting to be.
Einstein famously said that the definition of stupidity (or was it insanity?) was making the same mistake over and over again and expecting different results. That means I’m either stupid or insane to keep going to these ’80s remakes hoping they’ll be as good as they were the first time around. So far, Tinseltown’s batting average with me has been pretty low. But deep down, I know I’ll keep repeating the same mistake hoping for a different result.
What about you? What do you think of all of the ’80s remakes? Have there been any that you’ve loved? And what do you think about the idea of Ghostbusters 3?
I have huge doubts that ghostbusters 3 would be any good. Im sure that they all plan on remkaing Goonies and Teen Wolf and all that, but, the reasonthey were so good back then was the story/movie had to rely on real things not all CGI like nowadays.
Plus some of the stories were SO not politcally correct, as to be so fun to watch. Something that in today’s movies, they would never allow.
Mark my words, there will be at least one white chracter replaced with a black person or asian.
Teen Wolf is becoming a show on MTV. I’m only 20, but I’ve seen a lot of these great 80s movies. Some of these remakes are just laughable. I think some stuff needs to be left alone.
I’m 20 too and a huge eightys fan! I agree somethings need to be left alone. Like anything John Hughes the Holy Grail of 80s films. Because even those films have the same meaning. And I dont need a remake with Taylor Laughnter or any disney star.
WTF is wrong with diversity? What they really need is a female Ghostbuster.
You said it! Lets also make one of the 4 main Sex in the City characters a guy! Replacing beloved male characters with a new female version has been done to death, and most not very successfully. Don’t worry. That being said, I’m sure Hollywood is already planning on it.
Sarah Jessica Parker isn’t a man? Just kidding. A year can’t seem to go by without someone needing to put SJP in her place by reminding the world she isn’t sterotypically attractive.
HD – your comment just reminded me of when Christina Aguilera hosted SNL, and did a spot-on impression of Samantha… admitting she was actually a dude.
Actually the rumor has been for the past year that Ghostbusters 3 will have a female busting ghosts, or two if rumors are true. They’ve been talking about Ghostbusters 3 since 1996 & its about time that its made. It can’t be any worse than Ghostbusters 2, that movie mostly sucked. GB3 was supposedly going to star Chris Farley as a new ghostbuster, which would have been a good fit as the original Ghostbusters was written with John Belushi as one of the stars, but both he & Farley died before the movies could be made. I had heard that the Farley Ghostbusters movie had a script nearly complete when he died, but I don’t know if its true or not.
Tim – they *did* make, “Sex in the City,” with guys. It’s called, “Entourage.”
Ted, you idiot–they’re not remaking Ghostbusters, they’re making a sequel. Not. The. Same. Thing.
I would love to see “The Golden Boys” or “Designing Men”.
pass
Designing Men!! I would totally watch that.
Right, because there are no black or Asian people in those films.
You’re spot on about CGI. Today, the rule seems to be: if a movie doesn’t contain any form of CGI, it isn’t really a movie. Give me stop-motion anytime.
You mean like replacing Ernie Hudson with a black person???
Yeah, just like – oh, wait.
I’m glad someone said that before I did.
What a strange comment.
Firstly, like Dave says, there is already a black Ghost buster; sure they butchered his part but he was there.
Second you think it’s a problem to have “black or Asian” people in movies now? To accept that for some reason pre-90s films liked to pretend that non whites either didn’t exist or were just thieves? It aint PC to check when you hire extras to walk down the street in the background of say a busy west London street and think, Hold on, there are black, Asian Oriental, (I know some Americans don’t like this word, but many others have no issue with it, it’s widely used here in the UK and I’m about 1/8th Chinese so there.), in London so maybe just hiring 300 white extras is a bad idea.
PC for PC’s sake is annoying and counterproductive, but let’s not think that makes it ok to do the “wrong” thing.
In addition to Ernie Hudson playing the 4th ghostbuster, there was also an Asian character in Goonies.
And the best character at that!
His name was “Data” and he stole the movie. That kid was also in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
I won’t watch any of these unless there are a lot more gay people. One of the new ghostbusters better be gay or I’m walking out.
Hey kedo – don’t the door hit you in the a s s on the way out
I’m being serious. Statistically speaking, if there was a remake of the Goonies, one would be gay. You know, not the main character but definitely one of the kookie sidekicks galavanting in the back. And there better be one. Or I’m not watching. That wouldn’t be fair. Or right. Or fair.
Oh, and you know the 2012 or 2013 version of Teen Wolf couldn’t be in that shower scene without a 4 minute unnecessary disertation on how seeing Lemonade change after the game made him feel.
Holy moley, I just realized something. They can’t remake Teen Wolf; they use the word “f@g” in it. Remember in the garage? When Michael J. Fox is going to tell Stylz he’s a werewolf? So that scene won’t work, since in the 80′s it was bad to be a “f@g” and now it’s awesome! So Teen Wolf is out. So we avoid one bad remake anyway.
Most of the kids in Goonies were 12, Kedo. One of my friends didn’t even realize he was gay until he was an adult…probably because he was focusing on his studies and not his love life as all children should regardless of orientation. Let kids be kids.
I also think it would be quite unfair if they remade Fast Times at Ridgemont High and used a *girl* in the very famous, oops I mean, highly sexist “climbing out of the pool scene.” We need to expand and open our minds and that had better be a red speedo clad young chap, or I’m staging a sit-in until Obama orders it changed. Which he will since it’s his job to give everyone what they want.
Aly, that has to be the most naive thing I’ve read in a long time. Some of the kids in the Goonies were clearly 14 to 16 and that’s soooo the age where we need to push this agenda on the crowd once again. Why can’t that cave kissing scene be two guys? What’s wrong with that? You’re a closed minded hater. 14 to 16 is clearly the ages where we can make that a huge deal, according to the CW anyway. And Goonies II The Return of Chunk.
Aly, you should also be aware that your comment “let kids be kids” is hate speech. What’s wrong with gay kids? Letting kids be kids means gay kids can’t be gay kids? All kids need to be straight? You imply that being straight is being pure and innocent and there’s something wrong with being gay. Gay kids are not pure and innocent? The nerve.
P.S. This is all sarcasm, but it’s all 100% factual. You think Hollywood is going to miss a chance to push this agenda?
Anyway, kiddo’s, I think it’s clear our classics from the 80′s shouldn’t be touched for the simple reason of the word “f@g” in Teen Wolf. That’s great stuff. You see, back in the 80′s, if your buddy was acting like a “f@g”, you called him a “f@g.” Or “Qu&er” and he punched you in the arm. There will be a gay kid in a new Goonies, or at least one that certainly doesn’t have a problem with it. Leave 80′s movies where they belong for the simple fact that I don’t need Teen Wolf figuring out he’s not only a wolf, but a gay one at that. Man, I miss the good old days.
they could remake moonstruck because i mean the main male character is played by a gay guy
Good point Mr. Razastein; remake Moonstruck, so the 56 people who liked the first one and the 35 people who will like the remake can enjoy it in all it’s glory. However, Moonstruck is not exactly “Breakfast Club” when kids didn’t want to be gay. Is there a gay kid in that? No. You think they’d miss that little opportunity now to let us once again know how hard it is to figure out at the ripe old age of 17 you’re gay in the heart to heart library scene? Leave 80′s movies alone!
Let’s take PC to the PC level and remake ‘Brokeback Mountain’ with a white male and a black female.
I think Brokeback Mountain just proves the point of what’s important in movies now, versus what was important in movies in the 80′s. In 1986 Brokeback Mountain would have been shown in some back alley, dark cinema and now we are all teary eyed about how beautiful their love was. Gag.
I am not a gay basher but why does everything have to have gays in it? Go make new movies with gays and leave classics alone. GAys want everything just worry about your gay porn and leave the real movies alone.
Did you recently read about Vince Vaughn’s character saying something about “being gay” in a recent movie trailer and they immediately had to take it out because of how offensive it was, even though what he said is how almost every guy talks. Yes, everything has to have a gay element. It’s tough; your movie has to appeal to the everyday guy, but you can’t talk like an everyday guy because you can’t offend the gay Hollywood elite. Therefore, leave 80′s movies since it’s not worth the risk UNLESS you show the real 80′s where we would get into fistfights over being called a “f@g,” a word we used on a regular basis.
Get as grip Kedo. I said let kids be kids, not let straight kids be straight kids. Also, you assume I’m straight. And you know what they say about assumptions.
To say “let kids be kids” is hate speech is a slap in the face of any victim of real hate speech. Sexuality shouldn’t be a concern of children. Our society forces kids to grow up too soon as it is. That was my whole point. I don’t care if they grow up to be straight or gay, I just don’t think dating and sex are something 12 year olds should be concerning themselves with. The more children see children dating in books and on TV, the more they think that is what they should be doing rather than bettering themselves intellectually in school. Clearly the only hater around here is you. Stop throwing around words like hate speech so loosely. You lose credibility running around crying wolf all the time.
Sorry I’ve been so sarcastic and such an a-hole in my posts. I’m just so upset about the size of my weiner. It’s very, very small.
That’s OK, cuz I’m really stoopid.
Thank you Chris for properly writing “raises the question” instead of the idiotic misuse of the phrase “begs the question” that so many EW reporters use mistakenly.
I recently saw the original “Karate Kid” for the first time on cable. Maybe I’m young and cynical, but it was a pretty dorky movie, almost like one of those “very special” episodes of a sitcom. I think some people who grew up in the 80s are just longing for their childhood because there is no way that movie could be considered a work of art.
I grew up in the 80′s and I thought that the original Karate Kid was a dorky movie. I actually liked the remake better. Let’s face it: kids/teens are not the most discerning audience, and a lot of the movies from the 80′s (and now) are crap. There have always been crap sequels and remakes, some of which were done only a couple of years after the original (back in the 30′s and 40′s). The vast majority of movies are crap and always have been. That’s why the gems sparkle so much in comparison. But unlike so many of my 80′s era brethren, I don’t think any of them are sacred cows. Except Fast Times at Ridgemont High.
I think it could be good but I say use today’s technology to ‘de-age’ the stars. Rather than have another ancient sequel that has all the same people real old, and feels disconnected, use the computers to make this film look like they are in the 90′s!
Ahhhh The Goonies starring…Justin Bieber..and thanks to movie magic he will be playing ALL the roles
I freaking can’t wait for a new ROBOCOP!!!!!
NA NA NA NA NAAAAA NA NA NA NA. NA NA NA NAAAA NAAAA NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
1) This is a sequel, not a remake, it will be an entirely new squad with a couple OGs along for the ride.
2) There already was a black ghostbuster, his purpose in the movies was to be the black ghostbuster
3) You can bet they will have a hot minority girl ghostbuster (two birds one stone).
Great post. Second part had me rolling. As for the third part – so true. I can see them putting Grace Park from Hawaii Five-O in that role.
Oh and the hot minority girl ghostbuster will also be a lesbian (three birds one stone) BOOYAH!!
These movies are important memories for people so let them stay the way they are.
What’s worse, adding a minority or female supporting characer or the white-washing we see in films like 21 and Prince of Persia.
The problem is that all the movies made nowadays are almost perfect, and by perfect I mean the visuals and therein lies the problem. The movies of my youth were not always about the eye candy, or the perfect shot and I think that is why I/we hold them dear. it wasnt all cgi, or being so anal that you produce the best looking product, it was about people making movies within the company, not the companys employees making movies. yah know?
The last Ghostbuster movie can’t be the anemic part 2 so at least give them a chance to end things on a high note.
The second film is actually pretty good.
No, it real isn’t a good movie. In fact, I don’t think ghostbuster 3 can do any worse. The original on the other hand remains a seminal comedy classic.
The 2nd film is hideous.
No, I’ve got to disagree with you on that one. The first one was cheesy and funny. The second was more like limburger and not funny.
The 2nd movie feels phoned in by everyone involved except Peter McNichol. It was strictly a quick cash grab by the whole cast, trying to cash in on the first movies huge success. Anyone remember the horrible Bobby Brown song for that movie? It made the original Ghostbusters song sound reasonable.
The second film WAS GOOD. Not as good as funny as the first, and certainly darker, but still a good movie. Deal with it.
I liked the second one. Peter McNichol stole the show. I hope they find a way to bring him back, only maybe this time possessed by GOOD spirits.
“Where were you born?”
“The upper west side.”
Classic
That line is really lame. Wasn’t funny when I saw the movie in theaters, isn’t funny now.
HE IS VIGGO!!! You are like the buzzing of flies next to him!
Ghostbusters 3 is the perfect sequel. Technology has improved, and if they focus on the originals training the new generation, the movie has the potential to be awesome. I’m very excited. Really there should have been more sequels in the 90s, but I’d rather wait 22+ years than never get one at all.
Yeah, I would love to see some cameos from the GA or GH crew…
Honestly, the aliens in Crystal Skull are much more believable than melting faces, magic rocks, and 700 year old knights of the other Indiana Jones movies.
Now I resent your comment putting down Raiders, but I do appreciate the opinion. Especially when people moan about the refrigerator scene but have no problem with the raft falling from the plane in Temple of Doom. Come on, people, really?
It may be because Comedy Central aired it round-the-clock. But I think I enjoy Part 2 almost as much as the original. And I like the Bobby Brown theme song, as well!
Louis: “Your Honor, ladies and gentleman of the audience, I don’t think it’s fair to call my clients frauds. Sure, the blackout was a big problem for everybody. I was trapped in an elevator for two hours and I had to make the whole time. But I don’t blame them. Because one time, I turned into a dog and they helped me. Thank you.
Lois: “Very good, Louis. Short but pointless.”
I’m with you. I enjoy me some “Ghostbusters 2″ (Peter Macnicol is hilarious in it!)
oh, mr. holloway…you make me
@ lettergirl
The joke would’ve worked even better if I hadn’t misidentified “Egon” as “Lois”. (I honestly couldn’t tell you what I was thinking with “Lois”.)
I have to object to the ATeam comment–I thought the movie was good and was close to the TV characters–I enjoyed it! Clash of the Titans-both the original and the remake were garbage; Carpenter’s version of The Thing was a remake of the original and it was very good. I’ve like the sequels to the Terminator, except for that last one which was garbage (I blame entirely on McG). GB 3 is not a remake of the original – it is a continuation of the story which I’ve enjoyed as well. Hopefully, they can make it good.
Actually, despite the use of the first movie’s Font and title “Thing”; John carpenter’s film was actually a seperate, and more faithfull, adaption of the book (novella) “Who Goes There”.
Like you say ghost Buster 3 is what it says, part 3 not a remake.
I loved the A-team growing up. I added it to my netflix queue recently. It wasn’t as good as I remembered. I wasn’t in line to see the movie.
Bill Murray in anything!!!!
except garfield
Im sure this will probably be bad. But they are still gonna get my ten bucks because i loved GB and want to see what they did. But then i shell out the money for the Twilight movies, not because they are good, but to see just how bad they are. It’s an expensive form of rubbernecking.
Ghostbusters 2 was one of the worst movies I’ve ever paid to see. What need is there for a third?
Because there is a loyal and dedicated fanbase who loves the idea of Ghostbusters. This franchise never should have ended in 89!
Worst? I can think of a thousand films that are worse than GB2.
Agreed. But II was pretty godd@mn awful. Lame plot, weak performances and zero laughs. It’s the kind of movie that makes you sit back and ask yourself what the hell were they thinking when they made this…?
A: $$$
I’m not against remakes just on principal.
My main problem is that the majority of movies being remade these days are being remade out of sheer laziness. The instant brand recognition of properties like “The Karate Kid” “A-Team” and “Ghostbusters” saves writers from actually coming up with an original idea.
On the other hand, why not remake something like “The Running Man.” I enjoy the original quite a bit, but that thing was WAY ahead of its time and could probably use a take on Stephen King’s story that doesn’t have Ahnuld’s fingerprints all over it.
This would be an interesting remake. Something a lot closer to the original book would be great to see. Watching the movie recently did tarnish my fond childhood memories, but I also remember thinking that the book was a far better story than the movie that it was turned into.
Which wouldn’t be a remake, it would just be a different, hopefully better, film of the book. adaptions of books or plays are not remakes. Nobody calls Hamlet or Henry V or A Christmas Carol movies remakes of the dozens of other movies of those stories.
There’s a great movie in there.
therealeverton-
Obviously, you’re technically right in that repeated adaptations of books (as would be the case with “The Running Man”) or plays aren’t remakes. They’re just different takes on an original work
However, I wouldn’t COMPLETELY absolve them of the stench of laziness that a lot Hollywood remakes bring with them these days because these new adaptations or “reimaginings” (or whatever you want to to call them) are trading more on the name-brand familiarity of the original movies than they are on whatever the original source material is. (I’m thinking less of Dickens or Austen, and more of stuff like “Planet of the Apes”, “True Grit”, etc.)
@ Mr H.
Well said again Mr H, but you’re not seriously accusing the Cohen bros of lazy filmmaking are you? Sure it may make getting the money to make a Western, given that they are still considered box office poison, but there was a different story to be told by adapting the book, and they told that story well. Plus let’s be honest, the main target audience for cinema going is still 15 – 25. Even if it was 20 – 40 you’re talking about a film that was out before almost all of your target demos were born, and that they may have never seen or heard of.
Planet of The Apes was a studio being greedy, the treatment of Burton and the release schedule, budget etc proves that and ruined what could have been a great film. Burton & the cast weren’t in it just for the cash (See poor Tim Roth who turned down a role in the Harry Potter movies for the chance to work with Burton on what should have been a great movie). But Charlie & The Chocolate factory had a story to tell. The book was not well served by the Willy Wonka movie, as you can tell by the fact that they even removed Charlie from the title. Now that doesn’t mean you have to like the Burton version (I know a lot of Americans have a big, nostalgic, love of the Wilder version.) but you cannot read the book and “objectively” say that the Burton version is not much more faithful to the source than the Wilder version; even down to the poems.
@therealeverton-
Certainly not accusing the Coens of lazy filmmaking. I believe that THEY believed they had something new to say with their version of “True Grit”, which I liked (though didn’t love). I think Burton, on the other hand, would probably be well served if he tackled some fresh material, even though I actually really enjoyed his take on “Charlie.”
My previous comment was aimed more at the studios who are much more likely to give someone like the Coen Bros. $40 million to make a movie based on a well-known property than they are to give someone like them that same amount of money to fund an original idea or one of their cinematic larks. (I can understand that thinking – it’s not my money, and it’s the safer bet. But it generally doesn’t result in adventurous filmmaking.)
@ Mr H,
Yeah Burton does seem to have become the go to guy for modern versions of previously filmed books. That despite, or probably because of, the way Fox ruined his attempted Planet of The Apes update. His version certainly contained elements from the novel not seen on the Charlton Heston movie, but too much studio interference, not least on the release schedule harmed that movie.
On the other hand I finally got to see a decent and faithful film of Charlie & The Chocolate Factory, which was one of my favourite books growing up, The work he and Elfman did in translating the songs in the book to the screen was outstanding.
Anyway, back on track. Like we both say there simply has to be a certain amount of sequel, equal, redux, adaptation in the movie industry. First people have to recognise that this has ALWAYS been the case; it isn’t a fad or a new thing for the 21st century it’s been there in lots, if not all, of the world’s movie industries since day one. “People like this book?”
“Yes”,
“Great if I spend $500,000 of our company’s money at least I know we have some chance of getting back. There’s a proven audience for this.”
The films that you love are very often paid for by the films you hate.
You may remember that almost exactly this time last year I was asked to write about the perceived “trend” of remakes for SyFy .co .uk. I said pretty much the same things then as I’m saying now, and that people were saying 10, 20 and 30 years ago. The only difference is it was our parents or grandparents commenting then, watching their old shows and movies and books getting new films and new TV shows. Most of us had no idea we were watching remakes until we were told as much. I assure you it’s the same now. A large chunk of Karate Kid 2010′s audience will have known nothing or next to nothing about the 4 (FOUR) KK films that preceded this one.
You’re right, in as much as it can encourage less creative filmakers to stand on the shoulders of better people, but it can also get you classic films.
“The films that you love are very often paid for by the films you hate.”
LOVE that.
Oooh! Anyone know George Lucas’ Lawyer? I need to trademark that line ASAP!
I guess this is a bad time to mention that I’ve already stolen it.
Karate Kid 2010 was superior to the “original” in almost every respect. First of all it actually had martial arts that weren’t terribly slow over choreographed and just unconvincing. secondly Jaden Smith’s performance was superior to Ralph Macchio’s in both dramatic and physical terms and finally it’s hard for anyone to be objective about such a cult favourite as Mr. Miyagi, and he was very well played and very likable, but Chan’s Mr Han was also likeable, also very well played and he didn’t resort to beating up children to save Dre. The “message” of Karate Kid 2010 was stronger, better and more effectively portrayed.
Plus a cameo of Michelle Yeo hypnotising a snake is always worth some bonus points!
Now it may be easier for me to see these improvements because I was never a massive fan of the original, (I couldn’t take the lame Martial arts seriously at all), but if you can’t t the least acknowledge that the physical aspects of the newer version are superior then you need to see a doctor; Why? Because you’re suffering from rose tinted past-a-vision. You can’t help what you personally like more, but you still have to be able to see things clearly.
Everton FC is the greatest football club in the world! Why? Well they have won a lot of trophies, League titles, cups, European trophy; they treat their fans and community and ex-players extremely well and lots of other things, but really because they are MY club. But I know that technically there are actually 3 English teams who are better, because they have won more trophies than Everton; so we’re really only the 4th or 5th best football team ever (out of over 100 English clubs).
The trouble with people who think older “original” versions are always better is they don’t view things objectively.
I can’t see why anyone would prefer the original Karate Kid to version 5.0 but as long as they’re objective so be it.
We’ve been re-writing and remaking etc stories for millennia. To use another film from the article, Clash of The Titans is an interpretation of several of the Perseus myths as well as the coming to power of the Olympian gods. Those stories have been told and retold with parts added and removed for centuries. Hell there isn’t even a Titan in Clash of the Titans, either version.
Answer this question:-
Which version of Romeo & Juliet is considered the best? The original, Or William Shakespeare’s interpretation?
I think you have a really good point when you talk about “rose tinted past-o-vision.”
I would only add that people get especially afflicted with that condition when you’re talking about a movie, TV show or whatever not just from their past, but from their childhood or formative years. (I can’t speak directly to “The Karate Kid” example because I haven’t seen the new one.)
Then again, when you’re younger (especially if you’re a kid) “objective quality” isn’t at the top of the list. It’s more about memorable images, catchphrases and storytelling than it is whether the original “Karate Kid” provided an accurate portrait of martial arts.
Nail on the head Mr H. When it’s anything from the childhood or Teens, that makes an impression then people have very hard time “letting go”, or seeing anything else as in any way equal to the original. But it’s the unrealistic memory of the “item” more than the actual item that is held up for comparison.
I studied BCKO (a form of Karate) as well as Wing Chun and other forms of Kung Fu, I also saw a lot of Hong Kong Martial Arts films, so when I saw the original Karate Kid I just couldn’t take a lot of the “fighting”, (if any of it) seriously. I enjoyed other aspects, but I never took to it like so many others. The problem was that the rest of the film wasn’t complelling enough to me. Even if it had been I don’t see how I could have viewed it as in the same class as the 2010 version. So I both felt a better experience was had watching the 5th Karate Kid, but also was able to compare the films in my head objectively. I thought more was learned, and gained from “jacket-on, Jacket Off” than “Wax On, Wax Off”; there was more responsibility put onto what we teach our children and, again, the fight choreography was simply on another planet. I also found the acting, overall, of a higher dramatic standard. That’s not a dig at Pat Morita who was magnificent in the original; I’m talking the entire cast.
My daughters (at the time 5 and 10) have been getting “training” from me in various forms of Kung fu for a while now and they loved this film, my oldest daughter couldn’t finish watching the original, partially because she found the fighting , literally, laughable.
I like your point. Though Chan did beat up kids in the new karate kid. And they were younger then the kids in the original
Aha, no he didn’t. It was a magnificent use of his unique, Keaton & Lloyd inspired martial arts skills. He stops the “gang” from continuing their beating of Dre WITHOUT punching any of them. He basically gets them to beat themselves up; making them miss him and hit each other or kick / punch hard objects; getting them caught up in their own clothes etc. Dre even comments on how amazing it was that he got them to defeat themselves. Also the children were of a very broad age range; from around 11 – 17 I would say.
Sorry I forgot to say thanks/
Cheers……
“Keaton & Lloyd inspired martial arts”? Wow. That’s an amazing line. Hard to believe anybody could say that about Jackie Chan with a straight face.
Jackie Chan has often cited Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd as inspirations for his work, so, no, that statement is not a joke.
Two words: Karate Kid. There was no karate to be seen.
And objectively speaking, Ralph Macchio delivered a better performance than Jaden Smith. Why? Because Macchio could act.
Macchio could act? You’re joking, right? Then again, if he doesn’t actually talk with an uber-whiney voice and walk like a duck in real life, perhaps he can act.
Actually there are 2 scenes where Karate is used / practiced by Jaden Smith’s character.
But yes, the filmakers did themselves a diservice by cutting out the line where the “bully” actually calls Dre Karate Kid… “…it’s the karate kid” he laughs.
@ Brett
@ Juke
Indeed Juke, Macchio is not an amazing actor and whilst he worked well with Pat Moriata, he was not any better than Jaden in this and even just taking Karate Kid and Pursuit of Happyness he’s had 2 performances that best anything Macchio ever managed.
In a film like this you have to take into account the physical performance as well as the “dramatic” one. J Smith’s physical performance was far superior, and for me and many others his dramatic performance was excellent; certainly nothing to lead to accusations of poor acting skills.
Well. the original felt more real to me. Wasn’t crazy about the new one but really didn’t matter, wasn’t that big a fan of the original. But before you slam people for prefering the original, how about slamming Smith & co for calling it The Karate Kid in the first place? I mean, since he was learning kung fu, y,know?
@ Terry
I’m not slamming anyone for liking the original. I state that I can’t understand it, but that people like what they like. I slam people for having a go at the new version just for the sake of it. Nostalgia is powerful thing; just treat the new version objectively.
Again no one has been slammed for preferring the older version, simply for attacking the whole thing just for the sake of it, just because they don’t like remakes or redux. I’ve come across people who were saying the new version was going to be rubbish, or not as good as the 80s one, before they even saw the new one; that aint right. What’s wrong with saying, “yeah A Fistful of Dollars was pretty good, but I just prefer Yojimbo”; or even vice Versa.
@ Brett
What Patty said. Plus if you ever watch some Harold Lloyd, or Keaton you’ll see the influence for yourself. Project A and Shanghai Noon are full of “homage” to Keaton & Lloyd
John Carpenter’s “The Thing” was already a remake, you dope.
Great point!
A remake that was an improvement, which kind of disproves your whole article.
THNAK you for pointing that out. Where do they hire people like this who don’t know of what they write?
As has already been pointed out here, it was NOT a remake. It was a second adaptation of the original novella on which the first “Thing” was based. Similar to the Coen Bros.’ new adaptation of the novel “True Grit.” Not a remake.
Saw the True Grit remake, it was okay, but wildly overpraised. Not sure if it was the fact that this was a bad year for movies or what, but I thought it would be better. As far as the Thing remake, Carpenter himself has used the dreaded r word, but then he isn’t a pretentious ass like some of these directors.
@Brett, even though it wasn’t exactly a remake of the earlier “The Thing,” I think the point is still valid. There are tons of great SF stories, novellas, and novels by Campbell and a host of other authors. So why did they make a second movie based on the same novella? Probably because someone was familiar with the first movie. So even though it’s not exactly a remake, it’s still a part of that lack of imagination (or perhaps fear?) that causes remakes.
“Not sure if it was the fact that this was a bad year for movies or what, but I thought it would be better”
It’s January 11!!
Ghostbusters 3; as long as it’s good, funny and involves a bunch of younger people doing the main busting, then so be it. GB2 was not good at all.
Like the revamped ghostbusters cartoon where there was a guy in a wheelchair,goth chick, and Mexican. I can’t remember…
I hate to be the one to point this out, but Hollywood has never been exactly known for it’s originality. Movies are constantly being re-made; has no-one else seen “High Society” the awful 1950s-era re-make of the almost flawless 1930s film ” Philadelphia Story”?
My point is that no matter how dismayed we may be about our favourite films being re-tooled or bastardized in some way, it is pretty much inevitable.
Ghostbusters 3 will in fact be a sequel and not a remake.
Yes, but the idea of the “update” for a new generation and such a drastically changed style of filmmaking is the same, whether it be for a sequel or a remake. Think INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL or the STAR WARS prequels.
Doesn’t mean GB3 shouldn’t exist. If you hated IJ4 or the SW prequels, don’t see GB3. But don’t deny fans who want to see GB3 the opportunity to see it.
Jesse, you make yvo’s point. Nobody with half a brain would call any of those movies “remakes.”
@Julie but they *are* a “sequel or a remake”, which is what Jesse said.