Serious Slice: Ben and Chris Discuss Movie Remakes

Ben and Chris are getting a bit fed up remakes and reboots.  Do we need another Crow movie?  How many times can a Terminator ‘be back?’  Do apes make good wives?  Find out in today’s Serious Slice.

Chris: OK let's begin. Have you watched any reboots recently?

Ben: The last one I remember watching was Terminator Salvation.  I have to say, I wasn't very impressed.

Chris: Indeed, it hardly lived up to T2. Hell it didn't even live up to T3.

Ben:  It's one of the main examples why reboots should just be banned entirely.  It was definitely a project that had a lot of hard working people behind it but it just didn't feel like it had the same sort of love as the James Cameron ones.

Chris: And T3 had a female sexbot in it.

Ben:  Ah yes the Mostow directed one. I mean the idea of a sex bot always sounds great on paper. Then when they get loose and are never sexually satisfied...

Chris:  I agree, again we bring up Cameron but it's hard to deny he puts everything into his films.

Ben:  No you're right.  But his hand in modern effects are easily some of the most influential in modern times are they not?

Chris:  It could be argued that while the first Alien film was Ridley Scott's, it was Cameron who turned it into the franchise.

Ben:  My point is, maybe the name alone shouldn't be the life span of the film.  Maybe without the original creative minds the sequels/reboots should just be laid to rest

Chris:  Forget the effects, I'm just saying that great directors craft these great films and their memories spawn countless remakes and reboots made by lesser filmmakers.

Ben:  Not always.  Look at the original superman films.  They were classics.  They were then to be followed on, ‘sequalised’ from the originals years afterwards but with a different actor, different director.

Chris:  They were originals though

Ben: A competent one Bryan Singer who brought us X-men.

Chris: I'm talking about reboots and the reboot of Superman was a big pile of poo.

Ben:  But he failed because ultimately he wasn't the original talent behind the originals.   Yeah because the original creative talent wasn't there anymore, it stunk harder than Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes.  And that's saying something

Chris:  Not just that, it loses the magic of the original, as we've seen it before.  At least that film had sexy Helena Bonham Carter.  I've never looked at chimps the same way since.

Ben:  That was just the norm for me.  Who wouldn't want an ape girlfriend?  You'd never have to worry about farting in the room ever again.

Chris:  Yeah, I think farting would pale in comparison to the shit slinging. Tron annoyed me a bit, almost a clone of the original. But wait, it was in 3D!

Ben:  Let's not go into this again...

Chris:  Oops sorry.  It even had the main character being transported into an arcade ala the original.

Ben:  At least they tried something different and kept at the roots of the originally by bringing something visually creative.  Even if the plot was poor.

Chris: They could at least have updated it by having him sucked into an Ipad. That would also have metaphoric relevance.

Ben: Or a game phone..  They're popular now aren't they?

Chris:  They're just a Game Boy reboot if you ask me.

Ben:  And something's wrong with that, because?

Chris:  The main point of a reboot or remake is that they save the studios time and money.

Ben: The Crow reboot has me concerned....  I mean Juan Carlos Fresnadillo as competent a director as he is, he isn't exactly Chris Nolan.  He's a heavy back catalogue of shit to deal with and may well just be adding shit upon an already rotten shit.

Chris: Or a shit mountain if you will.  Let's not delude ourselves in thinking they're providing what the fans want. 

Ben:  Well it's about branding most the time though.  Rarely is the fans consideration taken into account.

Chris:  But do we need a Crow remake?

Ben:  Unless the film well and truly flops.  Then they suddenly start listening. And no, we need a good Crow remake or none at all.

Chris:  But do we? I was happy with the original.

Ben: If someone doesn't have some new amazing way to deliver it then they should leave it alone.

Chris:  Exactly.

Ben: It was brilliant.  It still stands the test of time if you ask me.

Chris:  Unless it's a new and better interpretation then what's the point?

Ben:  It's a money maker that's why they’ve been so many 'sequels'.  It's the one film I'd wish they'd leave alone.  It was so original at the time, being the youngster I was then I as well I was utterly taken it by the mood, the story, and the characters. And ever since then they just made cheap versions of that first film

Chris:  We need to raise the point that for every rubbish remake, the money spent could have been used to finance an original production. So they're also stifling creativity.

Ben:  They seem to forget that there was a graphic novel what it was based on.  But is there enough creativity out there? Better yet is there enough faith to put behind creativity?

Chris:  There could be a superb script out there that was nearly greenlit but instead the studio chose to go with Son of the Mask.

Ben:  From a studio's perspective, why put money behind a creative maybe when you can finance a generic money earner?

Chris:  And they do that because the studio heads are wimps. They're like grandmas at the betting table, only willing to risk very little and always going for the sure thing.

Ben:  They have to.  There's more money at stake...

Chris:  But remakes don't always bring in the cash.

Ben:  They do more than some creative originals, unless a director has made a name for himself somehow there's no chance.

Chris:  It's just that the studios are more likely to fund something that has already proved itself at the box office. But a remake also saves time in story/script development because they just copy the old version.

Ben:  It's a recognisable product the customer can relate to.

Chris: Exactly it's a product,  not a piece of artistic entertainment.

Ben: You can't say Hollywood isn't green.  They do like recycling.

Chris: And that's the problem. I'm hoping the next time Tron is remade, I might be able to actually enter the digital world myself. 

Ben: Think Nintendo are working on that So what's our solution?

Chris: One solution would be to stop paying to see remakes. Don't give money to studios for playing it safe. Give the original storyteller a chance. And for God's sake, don't buy Tron, which is out now on Blu-ray & DVD at all good stockists.

Ben: And definitely don't get it on Blu-ray to take advantage of its ground breaking visual effects!! We've established that they want to keep with recognisable names.  I think if a remake is made they should at least have a credible director involved i.e. Chris Nolan, albeit it doesn't solve anything.  Look at MCG and Terminator Salvation.

Chris:  At least Terminator Salvation continued the story arc of Terminator. It was more a sequel really.

Ben:  It shouldn't have been a sequel though.  I think that's the one time it should have been rebooted

Chris:  It's remakes that are carbon copies of the original I despise.

Ben: They've got carried away in their own mythology like the Matrix did

Chris: Take Nightmare on Elm Street.

Ben:  I enjoyed the sequels, even if they were camp.

Chris:  Freddy Kreuger must have been turning in his grave at that one.

Ben: The remake was okay if you ask me

Chris:  The sequels were good. But the remake was terrible.

Ben:  It just wasn't brilliant as it should have been.

Chris:  It was confused and just a lesser version of the original, never mind the fact that Robert Englund wasn't in it.

Ben: Nah, it was just a film what couldn’t be original anymore; it used up all its originality.

Chris:  The only reboot I want to see is Evil Dead. Oh yeah baby.

Ben:  No! Without Bruce Campbell? Are you mental? And no Sam Raimi? No way ho-zay.

Chris: Obviously Sam Raimi would be making it.  And Bruce Campbell would be in it, if he'd stop pretending he's too old.

Ben: You know they actually are remaking it, don't you?

Chris:  Yeah for the last seven years.

Ben:  Bruce Cambell is producing, they've been recent developments on it!

Chris: I was still in nappies when they announced that, damn incontinence.

Ben: So here's the question: should reboots and remakes be given the boot?

Chris: I think they should if Hollywood keeps producing modern updates of the original which are just simply an update. If the filmmaker at least attempts to put their own spin on it and it lives up to the original then I'm all for it. I like the idea of bringing classic films to a whole new generation but they should reflect the new generation and not just be a celebration of the original, which is what a lot of reboots seem to be.

Ben: And they need to have a good amount of time between them, unlike Scream 4.

Chris: Again the studios playing it safe.

Ben: I think a story rarely needs to be retold or carried on. And some just need to be left alone completely, Planet of the Apes being one, Dawn of the Dead being another.

Chris: You wouldn't see a book being rewritten would you? Let's have the Bible rewritten by JK Rowling.

Ben:  Jesus did have magical powers, didn't he?

Chris: Jesus defeats Satan with an Expelleosis. Expelleamus?

Ben: Don't you mean Jesus defeats 'he who shall not be named'?

Chris: What about Pride and Prejudice rewritten by Tom Clancy. Mr Darcy wouldn't be such a wet blanket in that one.

Ben: 1984 written by Darren Shan? That would be a cool one. 
I think reboots shouldn't be given the boot, but more a new pair of socks.  Or maybe some sandals?

Chris: Interesting analogy.

Ben: I try.

Chris: The problem is that they're the same boots but they've stood in dog shit. I thank you. So, there's no definite conclusion here is there?

Ben: I think there is.

Chris: Go on then dude, the floor's all yours.

Ben:  I would say to not just remake a film because it's a brand you can make money off. Because the money may go completely if people lose faith of the brand. Studios need to take faith in the creative industry.  Make money by cutting costs not originality, if they want recognisably brands then create them, if it's anyone job, it's theirs.  There's so much untapped potential out there.

My last word: Creativity.  It's compromised.  It's undiscovered.  It's also the future of film.

Chris:  I think there needs to be more risks taken in the film industry. It seems to be just remake after remake at the moment. And if it ain't a remake, it's a sequel. And if it ain't a sequel it's an adaptation. It is certainly not a golden age for original screenplays.

Ben: There are a few good films, but it seems very rare when we see them.

Chris: I once watched a TV programme about Hollywood execs.  Even when they are presented with an original screenplay they need to have another film to compare it to.  Say like Under Siege was obviously pitched as Die Hard in a submarine.  And that's what they like to hear. They only like originality if it is comparable to something which has gone before, preferably something that was a box office hit. Creativity is the only loser here. And if the money isn't put behind creative film projects then I can't see the remakes stopping anytime soon.  Maybe it's about time we saved Hollywood.

Ben: Two men mission?  Right here on MovieCake.

Chris: I'm ready.

Ben:  Let's do it. And I've been Ben Doran.   Stay classy MovieCake fans!

Chris: I've been Chris Curry. Have a good Easter everyone. And remember to watch Prince William's wedding, which is a reboot of Princess Diana's wedding.

Ben: A spiritual sequel to the Queens wedding.