RedRiver wrote:Since I contributed to this subject, I should clarify my position on PLANET OF THE APES. It's not that I flat-out oppose retelling that particular story. I'm not one who holds up a cross and says, Remake, be gone! But Burton's film offers little new, little exciting; basically no reason to see the movie. The Hammer horror films are basically the same stories as Universal's classics. But they're quite different, and intriguing in their own right.
We must have seen a different movie if Burton's film offers nothing new in relation to the original
Planet of the Apes. Not a single character is the same from film to film and the plot is entirely different. You certainly don't have to like the story, the direction, the actors or any of it, but as far as offering something new in relation to the original film, I can't figure out how it's not new. Burton's film has the same title and essentially the same twist ending, but, at least to me, the rest of the story is new. (I'll give you that Burton's take on the ending isn't exactly new, as the idea of the Lincoln Memorial turning into the
Ape-raham Memorial was in a
Jay and Silent Bob comic book years before). The Hammer remakes, however, do follow, more-or-less, the same plots as the original films. There is plenty new to them too, but let's face it, Hammer's
Dracula has Dracula. And Van Helsing!
To me, the early Hammer films are remakes; Burton's is a re-imaging with the same title. I'm happy with 'em all.
I'm even happy with Van Sant's
Psycho, which had a fair amount of publicity around the fact that it was a shot-for-shot remake. Van Sant had a copy of Hitchcock's film on the set to make sure that he got the set-ups exactly right. Even mistakes in the original, Van Sant didn't correct any because he was doing a shot-for-shot remake, and he was doing it on purpose. You can question the reason Van Sant bothered, which, as I said earlier, I think was as an experiment, but who knows? But given the publicity about the fact that it was a (say it with me) shot-for-shot-remake, saying that the film is a rip-off because it's what it was intended to be is, well, your prerogative, of course.
Myself, as I wrote, for me the experiment was enlightening as it allowed to see different actors saying the same lines but creating different characters. So yea, Vince Vaughn is no Tony Perkins. So what? Perkins is no Vaughn, either. And Van Sant is no Hitchcock. But he's a damn good director with some bonafide classics of his own.
But I am convinced. From now on I vote that Hollywood should not do any more remakes or re-imaginings. No stealing from theater or novels, either (especially the classics. Do we really need another
Three Musketeers or worse, another film from a Jane Austin novel?)
Who's with me? Vote early and often. (To vote, you are required to have a picture ID and original birth certificate.)
"Let's be independent together." Dr. Hermey DDS
senior moment. 
