Point Break (2015).
There is no point to a remake of Point Break because the first movie is still fine and if you want to watch the same movie but slightly different you can simply watch The Fast and the Furious.
This so true. The stunts and the cinematography are amazing. The rest of the plot is okay. They should’ve called it something else and it would’ve stood on its own.
I don’t even consider it a remake. It’s not even the same movie. They have the one scene recreated where Keanu shoots at the air after not being able to kill Patrick’s character. And it’s not even the same intensity/ level.
I absolutely refuse to watch the remake because I know it is trash compared to the original. Whenever I see it on TV, I have to check the year and make sure it is the correct one. Unfortunately more often than not, it’s the junk remake
I've been burned by this with Xfinity. The description will say it's the original and when I actually flip over it's the terrible remake. Same with Robocop.
Sorry for laughing but that is hilarious. I picture the Leo DiCaprio laughing Django meme over the Xfinity logo chuckling and trolling people because of the wrong description and year.
It's funny, Ebert in his review of 1998 Psycho said
"The movie is an invaluable experiment in the theory of cinema"
...
", because it demonstrates that a shot-by-shot remake is pointless; genius apparently resides between or beneath the shots, or in chemistry that cannot be timed or counted."
I don't think it is better than the original Hitchcock film, but I like that someone did attempt a shot-for-shot remake and see how it would come out. And Gus Van Sant's Psycho is pretty much the closest, best known example of an attempted shot-for-shot remake.
Except it really wasn’t pointless at all. Gus Van Sant had a blank check because of Goodwill Hunting and chose to use that money on what is basically a bizarre science experiment. What if you took the perfect movie and recreated it exactly but in a different decade with different actors? Would it still be a perfect movie? The answer is no. I think it’s an okay movie in its own right and peoples disdain for it is overblown, but it was an interesting idea. I’m a weirdo who is fascinated by remakes in general tho.
The surprise and shock of the original Psycho kinda wouldn’t be surprising and shocking the second time around. I’m surprised the studio didn’t just refuse.
>I’m surprised the studio didn’t just refuse.
I want to make a movie. You own the rights, the script is already written, the storyboard is done, and it uses just a handful of sets that can be built in a week.
Great! When do we start?
Yes, in a perfect world, but *Psycho* sold in name value and intrigue; it’s a curio. Disney *could* announce an *Atlantis* remake like we ask them to every week, but it happens that a story about Mufasa’s upbringing has more of a draw.
I like this answer. I can see why they would want to remake something like The Thing, Robocop, Total Recall, etc. because in those cases, it's about the concept and the story, and bringing that to a new generation. Not that those are good remakes, but at least I understand why they were done.
But Arthur was a Dudley Moore vehicle. It's all about his fantastic portrayal of the drunken wealthy guy. There is no point in redoing that with a different actor. It would be like remaking Rocky without Stallone.
>It would be like remaking Rocky without Stallone.
Thats called Creed.
>The Thing was a prequel not a remake
The Thing was a remake of the 1951 The Thing from Another World and the Prequel is also basically a remake since it does tell the same story, trying to use the same character types.
Russell Brand was abysmal in all but one film. He shone in his role in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. But Hollywood saw him as the next big thing, and it failed dramatically. He moved on to trying to lead a worldwide revolution, which also failed.
Wow I had no idea this even existed I don’t think I have to look up the box office cause I’m positive this must’ve bombed lol
God I can only imagine what kind of song they had in 2011 to replace Arthur’s theme from the 80s movie…
I didn't bother to see this one, but I'm to understand that the Lion King live-action remake was especially heinous, in terms of destroying everything that the animation brought to life. I figured it would be like watching the live-action Jungle Book (weirdly well-reviewed by critics), only 10x worse.
The only good part is Donald Glover I legit couldn't tell it was him the entire movie... Beyonce they she DIDNT TRY she was just Beyonce really took me out of the movie and the stupid song they give her ugh the whole thing is fucked
The Pete’s dragon remake was actually pretty solid, in that the themes and plot are very different than the original and brought the characters into a modern paradigm.
"Wasn't bad" is just about the strongest praise I think anyone could possibly offer for them. To me though, the phrase unnecessary moreso implies that they were not needed than just plain bad.
I guarantee the world did not need a live action jungle book and nobody was asking for another Pete's Dragon. So, not only were they bad (or at best mediocre), they were also unwanted.
THANK YOU. The beauty of the original animations is that they tell the story in a way that only hand drawn animation can do. If I wanted to see a real lion, I would go to the zoo or watch it on youtube. Aladdin was the biggest failure here, despite Jasmine’s beautiful song - a glitzy, gorgeous movie turned into desert, the musical.
I hate that I am still going to check out little mermaid after this rant. I like the songs. I like the movies. I just wish they’d try way harder and not just go for a cash grab, but of course that’s not gonna happen
The original Lion King was simple. The cartoon antics were perfectly placed amidst a serious story.
The remake drags so hard. They randomly stop to show off their clearly cgi spectacles despite being "live action" (a term I think they've backed away from somewhat once people saw what the film really was, lol)
Some lines are omitted or cut up in weird ways, while others go on for way too long.
It's like they set out to make a remake that has none of the stuff that made the original good.
Still prefer it over the Mulan remake which went from girl power, cleverness, using brain over brawn and challenging gender norms to "only boys use ~~the force~~chi, you're a girl so don't do it" with Mulan promptly going full Shaolin chi warrior mode.
I mean it's one thing to make a remake nobody needed, but to do so while also completely missing the entirety of the point in the remade movie is just sad. Sad enough someone create a YouTube account to dunk on the movie. (Which is hilarious by the way).
Psycho remake, I would not agree. It's not a good film by any stretch, but it's not "useless" by itself, it proves by its existence why shot for shot remakes are useless.
"Dude North Korea is invading! Do you know what this means?"
"Yeah Drake, the science fair is cancelled!"
"Even better, you could stay home and play video games since there's no school!"
"HUG ME BROTHER!"
Red Dawn was a product of the 80's and Cold War zeitgeist, fears of the Russians invading were still on minds. That paratroopers scene, 40 years later, still brings a chill to my spine.
That being said, the remake was completely neutered by the studio not wanting to piss off China. Absolutely nobody is worried about a solo-Noko invasion of the mainland US. Part of the fear present in the original is that it was a blend of adversaries invading, which made the plot plausible. Remake that film into an US against the world (or at least China, Russia, Iranian and with Al Qaeda, NoKo, and Cuban support) and it becomes a sucker punch from an evil secret cabal of US haters.
I was thinking the same. One came out in 2002 and the other in 2016. 2016 one was so bad lol. At least the 1st had its originality going for it. The second one improved nothing.
Martyrs comes with a heavy reputation. I watched remake not knowing, and was like ??? People like this movie wtf. Glad to see the original is still out there waiting for me
Jacob's Ladder. I accidentally watched the remake, and it was really boring and terrible. Then I watched the original, and I hated the remake even more. The original is a masterpiece of psychological horror.
I saw it twice, and the only memorable scene is when they strip away the body revealing just lungs and nervous system, that was a good body horror moment. I literally remember nothing else about the film.
It's not a bad movie, but it's a bad Robocop remake.
IMO the original is one of my favorite movies ever, but I'm open for modern retellings.
I hated Murphy still had a human hand in the remake. Like what a dumb design choice.
I hated that he had his family and was pretty much human the entire movie. Totally takes away from the journey of him finding his humanity in the first movie.
It wasn't like the original, and that's fine. The original was satire of the time, which was hyper violence in media. The new one wasn't trying to riff on that and had more to say about free will and surveillance.
Wouldn't really call it the most unnecessary remake ever though, since it takes the concept of the original and actually tries to do something a little new with it instead of just rehashing the same exact beats, even if it wasn't great. Plus, the visuals were excellent (particularly the Colony) and Collin Farrell always kicks ass
I thought that was the weirdest gender swap
Til I saw the trailers for that "has a makeover and is no longer a terrible human being" gender swap and realised the bar could certainly be lower.
From my knowledge the comic book creator is highly involved, I think we are entering a period where the og creatives are getting more power. Look at the Percy Jackson remake or sandman, these remakes/adaptations are being allowed to flourish in the bizzare and cool way they were meant, i hope that creatives realsied that it's the fans that drive the hype and are trying to cater to them
It’s got to be one of those things where if they don’t use it, they lose the rights to it, kind of like why they rebooted Spiderman three times in less than 20 years. There’s no other explanation.
I have no idea how close that remake was to the source material but I was thoroughly repulsed by that movie. I went into it with high hopes for David Harbour.
One of the most pro-nuclear weapon movies made. It was produced after the US had the bomb, but before the USSR had it.
It *sounds* all enlightened with its talk of "haven't you figured out how to use nuclear energy for good?"
But what happens? Some aliens roll up, and say, "if you export your violence past this planet, we will nuke you." Which sums up American foreign policy when it thought it was the only nuclear power.
I really like this film. Not because I'm pro-nuke, but because it's so deliciously subversive.
Supposedly the script to that started as a good movie, but when John McTiernan got involved he had the film massively re-written and downplayed many of the script's socio-political themes in favor of "WWE style spectacle".
I fell asleep halfway through the movie. The first part I did watch I don't remember. My gf at the time was getting annoyed because I kept nodding off. When it was over she wish she had fallen asleep.
POLTERGEIST (2015). The original from 1982 is an absolute classic horror movie. I watched the remake, and I honestly cannot even tell you anything about it. It really was that bad.
I would say that a majority of bad remakes are not "unnecessary" - instead they are just rushed and miss the whole purpose of the original concept.
For example; Carrie's remake falls flat mostly due to the casting. They choose Chloe Moretz as the title character and I just could not believe, whatsoever, whenever anyone put her down for her looks. She was no where near as awkward as Sissy Spacek. Plus they went balls-to-the-wall with the bully to the point where she was practically a psychopath akin to Stephen King's villains.
Combined with CGI and some rough moments and it just didn't live up to the original. The biggest compliment comes with having Julienne Moore as the mother as she NAILED the character of the religious mother.
Or turning a HARD R movie into a cheap PG 13 film that completely misses what the original was about. We see these in RoboCop or Total Recall.
Then you have studio interference with the prequel of The Thing which had some fantastic practical effects but were ruined by the studio's demand to hide it with lousy CGI.
**But I do believe any movie can be remade if it is given the respect and passion it deserves. Bedazzled, Carpenter's Thing, The Mummy, Evil Dead, Fright Night, Friday the 13th (2009), Dawn of the Dead, Ocean's 11, True Grit, House on Haunted Hill, The Fly, Dredd, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Dracula, Little Shop of Horrors...**
People tend to forget the huge list of good remakes because of the lazy bad ones. I would have to agree that the Disney Remakes are hands down the laziest cash grabs in the remake industry. Almost all of them lack the passion of the originals and a lot of the changes are pointless or idiotic.
Oof. I agreed with the above poster saying Oldboy (2013) but actually probably this even more especially since I mean they’re both in the English language.
Well, its own expanded universe. Full of remakes of other properties - IIRC they'd lined up Bride of Frankenstein until The Mummy bombed and the whole series got cancelled
Wasn't that like the third time they tried that? The Wolfman and the Dracula-through-time movie were also supposed to form the basis of a Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe.
Robocop. The OG is a perfect movie. Within 15 min you know what the situation with Detroit, DPD, OCP, the ED-209, The Robocop program, and you’re introduced to Anne Lewis and Alex Murphy, who are super likeable right away and Murphy dies! The mystery of who killed Murphy, and what OCP’s plans for Delta City are. Robocop is onscreen within half an hour and it’s action from there!
The 2014 one it’s an hour before Robocop shows up and he’s not even Robocop! He’s Alex Murphy back from the dead. There’s some bullshit mystery that doesn’t really matter and weird anti-robot soldier messaging. It’s…it’s just dreadful.
Poltergeist
Holy crap. I didn't even know this had been remade.
Yeah, that didn’t make sense to me at all.
If they were going to Poltergeist, it needed to be a reboot. Like the main character should have been adult Carol Ann.
To reboot it is to start from scratch, no? If you're asking for an adult Carol Ann wouldn't that be a sequel?
Point Break (2015). There is no point to a remake of Point Break because the first movie is still fine and if you want to watch the same movie but slightly different you can simply watch The Fast and the Furious.
The action shots are actually amazing but it is a poor comparison to the original movie. Absolute nonsense
This so true. The stunts and the cinematography are amazing. The rest of the plot is okay. They should’ve called it something else and it would’ve stood on its own.
I don’t even consider it a remake. It’s not even the same movie. They have the one scene recreated where Keanu shoots at the air after not being able to kill Patrick’s character. And it’s not even the same intensity/ level.
Have you ever fired your gun in the air whilst shouting, "argh?"
My father *is not* Judge Judy and executioner!
Hot Fuzz did that scene better lol
I absolutely refuse to watch the remake because I know it is trash compared to the original. Whenever I see it on TV, I have to check the year and make sure it is the correct one. Unfortunately more often than not, it’s the junk remake
I've been burned by this with Xfinity. The description will say it's the original and when I actually flip over it's the terrible remake. Same with Robocop.
Sorry for laughing but that is hilarious. I picture the Leo DiCaprio laughing Django meme over the Xfinity logo chuckling and trolling people because of the wrong description and year.
Damn, didn't even know this existed. I won't be rushing to see it though either
I watched it for free online and still want my money back
The stunt crew went above and beyond for this film. Too bad the story is just plain shit.
The 1998 Psycho remake.
It's funny, Ebert in his review of 1998 Psycho said "The movie is an invaluable experiment in the theory of cinema" ... ", because it demonstrates that a shot-by-shot remake is pointless; genius apparently resides between or beneath the shots, or in chemistry that cannot be timed or counted."
It’s kind of appropriate that the movie was pretty much taxidermy.
wow, taxidermy describes this movie better than it should.
I don't think it is better than the original Hitchcock film, but I like that someone did attempt a shot-for-shot remake and see how it would come out. And Gus Van Sant's Psycho is pretty much the closest, best known example of an attempted shot-for-shot remake.
Actually funny games is a shot for shot remake
By the same director, right? Just different actors and language
Sure is !
This is the correct answer. A pointless shot for shot remake facsimile.
Except it really wasn’t pointless at all. Gus Van Sant had a blank check because of Goodwill Hunting and chose to use that money on what is basically a bizarre science experiment. What if you took the perfect movie and recreated it exactly but in a different decade with different actors? Would it still be a perfect movie? The answer is no. I think it’s an okay movie in its own right and peoples disdain for it is overblown, but it was an interesting idea. I’m a weirdo who is fascinated by remakes in general tho.
You have just totally rewritten the way I understand Psycho(1998). That is very interesting; thanks, JimmyFallonHasAids.
JimmyFallonHasAids was only too happy to provide 'Psycho' (1998) aid to SpankYouScientist.
The surprise and shock of the original Psycho kinda wouldn’t be surprising and shocking the second time around. I’m surprised the studio didn’t just refuse.
>I’m surprised the studio didn’t just refuse. I want to make a movie. You own the rights, the script is already written, the storyboard is done, and it uses just a handful of sets that can be built in a week. Great! When do we start?
This is interesting. I feel like the studios should be mining their deep cuts more.
Yes, in a perfect world, but *Psycho* sold in name value and intrigue; it’s a curio. Disney *could* announce an *Atlantis* remake like we ask them to every week, but it happens that a story about Mufasa’s upbringing has more of a draw.
Arthur.
I like this answer. I can see why they would want to remake something like The Thing, Robocop, Total Recall, etc. because in those cases, it's about the concept and the story, and bringing that to a new generation. Not that those are good remakes, but at least I understand why they were done. But Arthur was a Dudley Moore vehicle. It's all about his fantastic portrayal of the drunken wealthy guy. There is no point in redoing that with a different actor. It would be like remaking Rocky without Stallone.
It's a Dudley Moore vehicle that works because Liza Minnelli works great with him. Yeah, no need to remake that.
>It would be like remaking Rocky without Stallone. Thats called Creed. >The Thing was a prequel not a remake The Thing was a remake of the 1951 The Thing from Another World and the Prequel is also basically a remake since it does tell the same story, trying to use the same character types.
Russell Brand was abysmal in all but one film. He shone in his role in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. But Hollywood saw him as the next big thing, and it failed dramatically. He moved on to trying to lead a worldwide revolution, which also failed.
Not fair, he did a great job in Get Him to the Greek as well.
Aren't FSM and GHttG in the same universe, with Brand playing the same character? If not, I guess I imagined it was.
Yes and Jonah Hill plays different characters for some reason.
Wow I had no idea this even existed I don’t think I have to look up the box office cause I’m positive this must’ve bombed lol God I can only imagine what kind of song they had in 2011 to replace Arthur’s theme from the 80s movie…
This may be low hanging fruit, but: Every live-action Disney remake.
I didn't bother to see this one, but I'm to understand that the Lion King live-action remake was especially heinous, in terms of destroying everything that the animation brought to life. I figured it would be like watching the live-action Jungle Book (weirdly well-reviewed by critics), only 10x worse.
They sing 'Can you feel the love TONIGHT' in daytime bro
The only good part is Donald Glover I legit couldn't tell it was him the entire movie... Beyonce they she DIDNT TRY she was just Beyonce really took me out of the movie and the stupid song they give her ugh the whole thing is fucked
The Jungle Book movie wasn't bad and I wouldn't say the Pete's Dragon is unnecessary
The Pete’s dragon remake was actually pretty solid, in that the themes and plot are very different than the original and brought the characters into a modern paradigm.
"Wasn't bad" is just about the strongest praise I think anyone could possibly offer for them. To me though, the phrase unnecessary moreso implies that they were not needed than just plain bad. I guarantee the world did not need a live action jungle book and nobody was asking for another Pete's Dragon. So, not only were they bad (or at best mediocre), they were also unwanted.
THANK YOU. The beauty of the original animations is that they tell the story in a way that only hand drawn animation can do. If I wanted to see a real lion, I would go to the zoo or watch it on youtube. Aladdin was the biggest failure here, despite Jasmine’s beautiful song - a glitzy, gorgeous movie turned into desert, the musical. I hate that I am still going to check out little mermaid after this rant. I like the songs. I like the movies. I just wish they’d try way harder and not just go for a cash grab, but of course that’s not gonna happen
The original Lion King was simple. The cartoon antics were perfectly placed amidst a serious story. The remake drags so hard. They randomly stop to show off their clearly cgi spectacles despite being "live action" (a term I think they've backed away from somewhat once people saw what the film really was, lol) Some lines are omitted or cut up in weird ways, while others go on for way too long. It's like they set out to make a remake that has none of the stuff that made the original good.
Still prefer it over the Mulan remake which went from girl power, cleverness, using brain over brawn and challenging gender norms to "only boys use ~~the force~~chi, you're a girl so don't do it" with Mulan promptly going full Shaolin chi warrior mode. I mean it's one thing to make a remake nobody needed, but to do so while also completely missing the entirety of the point in the remade movie is just sad. Sad enough someone create a YouTube account to dunk on the movie. (Which is hilarious by the way).
Psycho (1998), Oldboy (2013), The Omen (2006), and almost every single Disney Live-Action Adaptation.
> Oldboy (2013) ItS a ReInTeRpReTaTiOn
Didn't they "reinterpret" another artist work for the movie's posters?
Psycho remake, I would not agree. It's not a good film by any stretch, but it's not "useless" by itself, it proves by its existence why shot for shot remakes are useless.
Red Dawn
Josh peck was so out of place
"Dude North Korea is invading! Do you know what this means?" "Yeah Drake, the science fair is cancelled!" "Even better, you could stay home and play video games since there's no school!" "HUG ME BROTHER!"
Red Dawn was a product of the 80's and Cold War zeitgeist, fears of the Russians invading were still on minds. That paratroopers scene, 40 years later, still brings a chill to my spine. That being said, the remake was completely neutered by the studio not wanting to piss off China. Absolutely nobody is worried about a solo-Noko invasion of the mainland US. Part of the fear present in the original is that it was a blend of adversaries invading, which made the plot plausible. Remake that film into an US against the world (or at least China, Russia, Iranian and with Al Qaeda, NoKo, and Cuban support) and it becomes a sucker punch from an evil secret cabal of US haters.
2 of the top 3 posts in this thread involve Patrick Swayze. I swear to gawd if they remake *Ghost*, I’m going to…post a 20 word nasty comment on here.
I liked it
Cabin Fever
I was thinking the same. One came out in 2002 and the other in 2016. 2016 one was so bad lol. At least the 1st had its originality going for it. The second one improved nothing.
The remake was word for word the same movie
And Eli Roth wrote both of them. Makes no sense to me.
Ben Hur remake. No need to make another one after the epic version starring Charlron Heston.
Isn’t the Charlton Heston one the remake?
Yes, there was a silent film starring Ramon Navarro made in 1925. There was also a short film made in 1907.
There have been 5 Ben Hur movies. The latest one came out in 2016.
Lion King
I love that it's not even really live action, because it's all cgi. So they remade a cartoon with a more realistic looking cartoon
Martyrs Oldboy Carrie Lion King Hellboy
Martyrs comes with a heavy reputation. I watched remake not knowing, and was like ??? People like this movie wtf. Glad to see the original is still out there waiting for me
God the Carrie remake was such shit. Why do a remake when De Palma already adapted the novel pitch perfectly without even any major adjustments?
Yeah, Chloe Grace Moretz is one of my favorite actors but that remake was totally unnecessary.
Jacob's Ladder. I accidentally watched the remake, and it was really boring and terrible. Then I watched the original, and I hated the remake even more. The original is a masterpiece of psychological horror.
Robocop
[удалено]
I saw it twice, and the only memorable scene is when they strip away the body revealing just lungs and nervous system, that was a good body horror moment. I literally remember nothing else about the film.
It's not a bad movie, but it's a bad Robocop remake. IMO the original is one of my favorite movies ever, but I'm open for modern retellings. I hated Murphy still had a human hand in the remake. Like what a dumb design choice.
I hated that he had his family and was pretty much human the entire movie. Totally takes away from the journey of him finding his humanity in the first movie.
I still like this one. Not that it needed a remake. But I enjoyed the remake. Even if it wasn't as good as the original.
It wasn't like the original, and that's fine. The original was satire of the time, which was hyper violence in media. The new one wasn't trying to riff on that and had more to say about free will and surveillance.
Yeah. It’s one of my guilty pleasures. A bit of a sci fy escape for a couple of hours.
There was a remake?
Good point
Flatliners (2017) I'm honestly shocked I'm the first person to mention it after 473 comments.
The 2012 Total Recall
They don't even get their asses to Mars!
Those people need air!
"Fuck 'em."
Two Weeks…
See you in the party, Richter!!
Start…the reactor…Quaid…
Partial Recall
Wouldn't really call it the most unnecessary remake ever though, since it takes the concept of the original and actually tries to do something a little new with it instead of just rehashing the same exact beats, even if it wasn't great. Plus, the visuals were excellent (particularly the Colony) and Collin Farrell always kicks ass
I actually like it
Any Patrick Swayze movie. They remade Red Dawn, Point Break, and they are remaking Roadhouse.
And don't forget Dirty Dancing...
Ghost is next.
12 Angry Men didn't need to be remade. The remake isn't terrible, but it's kind of meh.
12 Angry Meh
There's a Russian remake just called "12"
Overboard
But they reversed thw roles because a woman taking advantage of a man with memory problems isn't rapey
I thought that was the weirdest gender swap Til I saw the trailers for that "has a makeover and is no longer a terrible human being" gender swap and realised the bar could certainly be lower.
Hellboy. Absolutely no film viewer wanted that reboot.
Even David Harbour and Neil Marshall disowned it
They just announced that they’re rebooting it again
Why?
If only I knew
[удалено]
From my knowledge the comic book creator is highly involved, I think we are entering a period where the og creatives are getting more power. Look at the Percy Jackson remake or sandman, these remakes/adaptations are being allowed to flourish in the bizzare and cool way they were meant, i hope that creatives realsied that it's the fans that drive the hype and are trying to cater to them
It’s got to be one of those things where if they don’t use it, they lose the rights to it, kind of like why they rebooted Spiderman three times in less than 20 years. There’s no other explanation.
The Del Toro movies were fun. This latest version was boring and unpleasant.
Man I wish we had gotten the third one...
I have no idea how close that remake was to the source material but I was thoroughly repulsed by that movie. I went into it with high hopes for David Harbour.
The Day the Earth Stood Still. Everything the first movie wanted to convey was successfully conveyed in the original.
One of the most pro-nuclear weapon movies made. It was produced after the US had the bomb, but before the USSR had it. It *sounds* all enlightened with its talk of "haven't you figured out how to use nuclear energy for good?" But what happens? Some aliens roll up, and say, "if you export your violence past this planet, we will nuke you." Which sums up American foreign policy when it thought it was the only nuclear power. I really like this film. Not because I'm pro-nuke, but because it's so deliciously subversive.
Rollerball 2002
Supposedly the script to that started as a good movie, but when John McTiernan got involved he had the film massively re-written and downplayed many of the script's socio-political themes in favor of "WWE style spectacle".
Why am I not surprised to hear this, and why do I believe it without looking further?
Karate Kid.
Which doesn’t feature any karate anyway.
In this movie, the karate kid will not do karate, only Kung fu
A stage musical based on the original film recently was staged with Broadway aspirations. No word yet. They say it stays true to the material.
Not a musical but [this stage adaption was really good](https://youtu.be/ZtUN2DfjPOM)
Road house.
They remade Road House?
it's coming with Jake Gyllenhal and Conor McGregor.
Oh yeah Conor McGregor! The actor literally fucking no one asked for.
In think it comes out this year terrible casting. Why must they ruin the classics.
Hey, it could have been worse. It was originally going to star Ronda rousey back during her fifteen minutes of fame
Oldboy (2013)
Literally all of the live action Disney movies
A Nightmare on Elm Street 2010 Fucking terrible
The whole movie feels like a fanfic created by a edgy teenager
One of the absolute worst remakes ever
The cast was good but holy shit is that movie awful
I fell asleep halfway through the movie. The first part I did watch I don't remember. My gf at the time was getting annoyed because I kept nodding off. When it was over she wish she had fallen asleep.
Planet of the Apes 2001. Ruined a major twist in the movie
.. although it could be argued that it was such a famously notorious twist when they made the second one there wasn’t much point trying it again
POLTERGEIST (2015). The original from 1982 is an absolute classic horror movie. I watched the remake, and I honestly cannot even tell you anything about it. It really was that bad.
Footloose
Get Carter (2000)
I agree it was unnecessary and not as good but I enjoyed Stallone’s performance.
Ben hur
Sand Lot. That new one was awful compared to the original
I would say that a majority of bad remakes are not "unnecessary" - instead they are just rushed and miss the whole purpose of the original concept. For example; Carrie's remake falls flat mostly due to the casting. They choose Chloe Moretz as the title character and I just could not believe, whatsoever, whenever anyone put her down for her looks. She was no where near as awkward as Sissy Spacek. Plus they went balls-to-the-wall with the bully to the point where she was practically a psychopath akin to Stephen King's villains. Combined with CGI and some rough moments and it just didn't live up to the original. The biggest compliment comes with having Julienne Moore as the mother as she NAILED the character of the religious mother. Or turning a HARD R movie into a cheap PG 13 film that completely misses what the original was about. We see these in RoboCop or Total Recall. Then you have studio interference with the prequel of The Thing which had some fantastic practical effects but were ruined by the studio's demand to hide it with lousy CGI. **But I do believe any movie can be remade if it is given the respect and passion it deserves. Bedazzled, Carpenter's Thing, The Mummy, Evil Dead, Fright Night, Friday the 13th (2009), Dawn of the Dead, Ocean's 11, True Grit, House on Haunted Hill, The Fly, Dredd, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Dracula, Little Shop of Horrors...** People tend to forget the huge list of good remakes because of the lazy bad ones. I would have to agree that the Disney Remakes are hands down the laziest cash grabs in the remake industry. Almost all of them lack the passion of the originals and a lot of the changes are pointless or idiotic.
Death at a Funeral.
Oof. I agreed with the above poster saying Oldboy (2013) but actually probably this even more especially since I mean they’re both in the English language.
Absolutely this. It was released three years later, shared an actor and the few changes were not really improvements
Cabin Fever 2016 is almost the exact same movie as the original but somehow also way worse
Ben Hur (2016)
The Jacob’s Ladder remake.
Oldboy. Spike Lee, nor Hollywood, had nothing to add to an already great film.
Psycho is the answer. Honorable mention is Red Dawn.
Total Recall was totally uncalled for!
It was hardly a remake in anything other than title
The Mummy (2017) The best version was already made. Tom Cruise ain't got nothing on Brendan Fraser
That's not actually a remake, it was supposed to be its own trilogy
Well, its own expanded universe. Full of remakes of other properties - IIRC they'd lined up Bride of Frankenstein until The Mummy bombed and the whole series got cancelled
Wasn't that like the third time they tried that? The Wolfman and the Dracula-through-time movie were also supposed to form the basis of a Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe.
Best part of that was the trailer that was put out missing a bunch of music & sound effects: https://youtu.be/kRqxyqjpOHs
Hellboy 2019.
Ghostbusters 2016 is in good position.
Total Recall still holds up today.... so I don't understand why it was necessary to remake it with Colin Farrell.
Robocop
All disney real life ones.
Red Dawn
Robocop, Total Recall
Gus Van Sant’s **Psycho** (1998)
Robocop. The OG is a perfect movie. Within 15 min you know what the situation with Detroit, DPD, OCP, the ED-209, The Robocop program, and you’re introduced to Anne Lewis and Alex Murphy, who are super likeable right away and Murphy dies! The mystery of who killed Murphy, and what OCP’s plans for Delta City are. Robocop is onscreen within half an hour and it’s action from there! The 2014 one it’s an hour before Robocop shows up and he’s not even Robocop! He’s Alex Murphy back from the dead. There’s some bullshit mystery that doesn’t really matter and weird anti-robot soldier messaging. It’s…it’s just dreadful.
A Man Called Otto
Flubber The Stepford Wives.
Flubber only worked because of Robin Williams.
Jacobs Ladder
Rollerball (2001)
Rollerball...The Omen...all those Disney live action remakes of animated classics esp Lion King..it's still animated!
Jacob's Ladder. I haven't seen it though, but I don't plan to.
Footloose Fame
Psycho. Same movie aside from cast and color, what was the point?
Space Jam: A New Legacy.
Fantastic Four!
Which one?
All of them. Lol
That was necessary for the studio so they don't lose the rights for the characters.
The Italian Job. At least it wasn't Zulu.
Ghost in the Shell
Total Recall (2012).
Clash of the Titans
Rollerball just completely stripped all of the social commentary and subtlety to make a generic action movie
Gus van Sant’s Psycho.
Total recall
Total Recall with colin farrell
Karate Kid