Why Would Anyone Remake This Movie? "Logan's Run"

But of course! Every film needs some kind of overly basic message that ruins any type of suspense nowadays!

Gaah...remaking "The Birds"...what next? I bet someone's going to remake "Killer Klowns from Outer Space" within the next couple years...

 

As a Hitchcock fanatic, I was very adamently against this.


That was until I read that it's going to be more of an adaptation of the short story rather than a remake of the Hitchcock flick. So I'll give it the benefit of a doubt.

 

The short story is even more pointless than the film; in the film, the birds show up and maul characters for no reason. In the story, the birds show up and surround a house for no reason. It rather went nowhere.

And this environmental message . . . yes, that's good. The birds need motivation . . . motivation, you understand.

Ignorance. Utter ignorance.

 

The birds showed up for a reason and it was all Tippi Hedren's character. She brings feminism to a small traditional town and is punished for it. She assumes a male personality for most off the film but when she reverts back to a "traditional" female role the birds stop attacking.

 

Let me get this straight; the Birds are politically non-correct?

 

The Birds was Hitchcock's weaker film. It was fub but it didn't have the suspense until the end of the movie.

Remaking it would be terrible, hell I bet Alan Smithee's Birds II would be better than the remake

 

Even a weak Hitchcock (and I would agree that this is one) is better than the sort of crappy remake this will be.

 

I just noticed this. Re-make the Birds as environmental/horror?!! I so hope this isn't true.

 

CGI will kill this remake if a weak script and wooden acting don't do it

 

Next: "Clash of the Titans" (2010)

Now granted, the original is fairly cheesy, and you had to buy Harry Hamlin as the son of Laurence Olivier, which is fairly unlikely. However, I can't see the remake being better.

 

It's got the potential to be better. The original had a certain cheesy charm, complete with some great Harryhausen animation, but it could of had a better script. Definitely some room for improvement there.

I think Anthony Hopkins would make a great Zeus; so would Ian McShane, for that matter.

 

Just cast Sean Bean as somebody and I'll see it.

Seriously, the original was a lot of fun; it's one of those movies that, while you're watching it, doesn't seem to rise above cheap corn, but it sticks in your mind.

There are moments I'll never forget; the gods crushing a clay figure to kill a soldier, the death of Medusa, the gorgon sequence . . .

 

Next: "Bell, Book and Candle" (1958)

The original had a great cast: Kim Novak, James Stewart, Jack Lemmon, and Elsa Lancaster, and looked good. But the pacing is extremely languid, and the plot does very little with the subject. The "Bewitched" remake basically tried central the idea, and died at the box office. Probably not a good idea.

 

I found the original to be quite flat.

 

Next: "Taps"

"Plot Synopsis: The story of a group of cadets who, after learning their academy is to be torn down and replaced with condos, seize the campus, refuse entry of the construction crews and ultimately confront the real military.

George C. Scott, Timothy Hutton, Tom Cruise and Sean Penn starred in the 1981 original."

The original was fine; what's the point of a remake?

 

Next: "The Boys From Brazil" (1978)

The first one was a giant train wreck, with miscasting (Gregory Peck as Josef Mengele!), campiness (Laurance Olivier as Simon Weisenhaal), and rotten accents (nearly all the cast but especially the creepy kid who played all of the 'boys')

The concept. Does. Not. Work.

The concent. Will. Not. Work. Ever.

 

Next: "The Taking of Pelham 123" (1974) Starred Walter Matthau. They are remaking it.

Why?

 

I think that this has the potential to be a good movie, provided that director and cast are good.

 

The best things about the original are:

1. The Soundtrack
2. Walther Matthau
3. Robert Shaw

If you can replace those three elements, your remake will be better. Otherwise, why?

 

I've never seen the original, but from what I read on IMDB, the bones of a good movie are definetly there. As I said, it all depends on whether or not they can get a decent director and cast.

 

There already is a remake of this film with Edward James Olmos & Donnie Wahlberg.

 

That I didn't know. The new one will apparently star Denzel Washington.

 

It should be half decent, then. He usually picks interesting projects.

 

I don't if it's Washington who's picking interesting projects, or if it's he who makes the projects more interesting by his presence. Given that just about every film he's ever been in has been made better by his presence, I'm inclined to go with the latter.

 

Generally, if not universally, true. "American Gangster" looks more interesting, though.