web counter
 

Here We Go Again On Our Own

By Brian Prisco | Posted Under Seriously Random Lists | Comments (15)

Little-Shop-Audrey-II.jpg

Usually, I’m the first one to decry the despoiling of my childhood with the constant onslaught of remakes in Hollywood. Every week another classic from the 1980’s seems to be plucked from my nostalgic mind and parboiled for moronic Two Thousand Teen Decade consumption. They’ve also been snagging perfectly good foreign films and paring them down into Americanized versions. Sometimes, they don’t even wait more than a year or two, as is the case with the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo or the Let The Right One In debacles. It seems like Hollywood doesn’t have an original fucking idea in its empty little head anymore.

But then I did research. (I’ve been doing lots of research lately for the Litely Salted Trivia website which all of you are undoubtedly visiting every single day to get your asses handed to you by my beloved’s murderous Ghostbusters Quiz.) And I learned something interesting. IT’S HAPPENED BEFORE. Many of the classics from the 1980s are remakes. From foreign films released years earlier. Or from films that came out 20 or 30 years prior to them. And it’s not just hacks cracking them out. Oliver Stone, David Cronenberg, Stephen Frears, John Woo, Brian De Palma, Frank Oz, Steven Spielberg — they’ve all cranked out remakes. And some of them have gone on to be nominated for awards.

The following is a list of 25 remakes from the 1980s that you may or may not have been aware of. And believe me, this isn’t an apology or an excuse for them sullying the classics. It’s just food for thought to fucking choke on.

Bon appetit!

  • Xanadu (1980) based on Down to Earth (1947)

  • We’re No Angels (1989) based on We’re No Angels (1955)

  • Victor/Victoria (1982) based on Viktor und Viktoria (1933)

  • Vice Versa (1988) based on several films in 1916, 1937, 1948 of the same name.

  • The Toy (1982) based on Le Jouet (1976)

  • Three Men and a Baby (1987) based on Three Men and a Cradle (1985)

  • Scarface (1983) based on Scarface (1932)

  • No Way Out (1987) based on The Big Clock (1948)

  • The Man With One Red Shoe (1985) based on Le Grand Blonde avec une chausseure nomo (1972)

  • The Jazz Singer (1980) based on The Jazz Singer (1927)

  • Invaders from Mars (1986) based on Invaders from Mars (1953)

  • The Hand (1981) based on The Beast with Five Fingers (1946)

  • The Fly (1986) based on The Fly (1958)

  • Fatal Attraction (1987) based on the short film Diversion (1980)

  • Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988) based on Bedtime Story (1964)

  • The Killers (Die xue shuang xiong) (1989) based on Le Samourai (1967) and Mean Streets

  • Dangerous Liaisons (1988) based on Le liaisons dangereuses (1959)

  • Cat People (1982) based on Cat People (1942)

  • Brewster’s Millions (1985) based on Brewster’s Millions (1914)

  • Blow Out (1981) based on Blowup (1966)

  • The Blob (1988) based on The Blob (1958)

  • Always (1989) based on A Guy Named Joe (1943)

  • Against All Odds (1984) based on Out of the Past (1947)

  • The Thing (1982) based on The Thing from Another World (1951)

  • Little Shop of Horrors (1986) based on the musical based on Little Shop of Horrors (1960)










    Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance

    ← Pajiba Love | Kiefer Sutherland Career Assessment | In the End, We All Know What We've Done →









    Comments

    Wow, I didn't know some of those WERE remakes. I think the difference between now and then is the time between original and remake and the distribution of the original. In the 80's it was pretty damn hard to see an obscure foreign movie, even AFTER VHS arrived on the scene. Now, most anything Hollywood is trying to remake is already jsut as available as the newest "blockbuster". We've gotten so much more media savvy, at least those of us that really care about quality media, that the remake is just completely pointless out of the gate. But for the people that don't want to read subtitles, I guess it's a viable option. I don't agree but it's not going to go away.

    As for remaking hollywood movies I rarely see the point. The differences between the original Scarface and the DePalma version are huge. In that case it's not a big deal. Same with the more recent Casino Royale. But unless you are going to improve the original, or at least change it up significantly, just call your crappy flick something different.

    There was no reason at all The Fog remake couldn't be called "Death Cloud", change a couple of names, and be released with no connection to the far superior Carpenter movie. But they need that name recognition. It's just a cash register for opening weekend. There is no artistic intent. I concede some remakes are worth while but the vast majority are certainly not.

    Also, that Ghostbusters quiz was freaking ridiculous. Paranormal Psychology and Parapsychology should BOTH have counted.

    Posted by: TylerDFC at September 3, 2010 1:17 PM

    • The thing about the remakes by Stone, Cronenberg, et al, is that they were hardly cranked out, as you put it. Sure, the producers and studios financing them wanted to make a buck, but the films were so lovingly recreated (for the most part) by these filmmakers that you'd be hard pressed to identify similarities with their predecessors, beyond the superficial.

    Posted by: Jay at September 3, 2010 1:23 PM

    You forgot "To Be Or Not To Be", (1983), based on "To Be Or Not To Be", (1942).

    And Blow Out based on Blow Up? I've seen both, and that's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

    Also, "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" is much better than "Bedtime Story". Brando was into his Jive talkin' era. Ick!

    -Ralphie

    Posted by: Ralphie at September 3, 2010 1:47 PM

    Little Shop of Horrors stands on it's own.

    It's a film based on the stage musical.

    Not a direct remake of the Jack Nicholson B & W version.

    Call it an adaptation if you will...but not a remake.

    Posted by: PissBoy at September 3, 2010 2:21 PM

    The Thing is also a wildly different movie from The Thing from Another World - both were set in in the arctic, as a result both had the "people trapped with danger in the house" theme to them, but VERY different movies.

    -Frob

    Posted by: frobme at September 3, 2010 2:28 PM

    Actually, I believe The Thing is meant to be a sort of sequel to The Thing From Another World, not a remake.

    Posted by: The Other Agent Johnson at September 3, 2010 2:37 PM

    None of these are that big of a deal.
    if you put goonies on there, or breakfast club, or beverly hills cop, then i would be suprised.

    Posted by: Thirsty at September 3, 2010 3:20 PM

    "None of these are that big of a deal.
    if you put goonies on there, or breakfast club, or beverly hills cop, then i would be suprised."

    I'm not so sure a smart-assed African American cop raising hell in Los Angeles waaaay out of his jurisdiction would have really gone over well with audiences in the 1950's or 1960's. lol

    Then again, it might have been comedic gold.

    Posted by: EJ at September 3, 2010 4:11 PM

    You can't include Dangerous Liaisons without including Valmont.

    and how about Three O'Clock High as a remake/reimagining of High Noon?

    Posted by: LwoodPDowd at September 3, 2010 5:18 PM

    Actually Carpenter's THE THING is so different because it was much, much closer to the original source, John Campbell's classic story "Who Goes There?".

    Posted by: Pat C at September 3, 2010 5:30 PM

    "and how about Three O'Clock High as a remake/reimagining of High Noon?"


    And how about Outland (1981) as a remake of High Noon?

    Posted by: russmunki at September 3, 2010 6:50 PM

    le grand blond avec une chaussure noire.. and it's fucking awesome :)

    Posted by: SarahReznor aka Barkai at September 4, 2010 5:38 AM

    I'm not sure you can call Dangerous Liasons a "remake." The 80's Frear version was based on a play, based on the book, that had just been a big hit on Broadway. The 60's version was a more loose adaptation of the novel, especially since it was set in a modern (for the time) ski resort, with the main characters being married diplomats. So, they, and all the other versions, are based on the same material (even Cruel Intentions makes a point of being adapted from the novel, and not a remake off the 80's movie), but I wouldn't call Frear's movie a remake.

    Posted by: Rowen at September 4, 2010 6:26 AM

    to be fair, to come up with a list of 25 from the ten year period of the 80's you cover short films rxpanded into features, classic stories that have been remade over and again, foreign films given american treatment, adaptations of stage musicals and remakes of films more than two generations removed.

    compared to now, when there are remakes in every months releases.

    so it may be a bit of a stretch to say hollywood has always been this way.

    i'm not against remakes per se. it does get overwhelming when they come in floods, or hollywood's production dollars are engulfed in bringing tv show nostalgia to the big screen. i also don't like foreign to american remakes fresh in the wake of the original, which as far as I can see is a controlling attempt to steal revenue streams from the original work (though no one forces anyone to sell rights)

    maybe sometimes they are dry runs for newer talent that wouldn't have gotten greenlit without the "built-in" audience that a remake supposedly has.

    and as others have mentioned sometimes they are visionary works of love, like carpenters take on the thing.

    Posted by: idleprimate at September 4, 2010 5:07 PM

    I'm also not against remakes, as long as they try to improve on the original, or give it a different spin or update it to current audiences. Some of your examples have a 40+ years gap between the original work and the remake. In that particular gaps, there is significant social and technical changes to warrant a remake, if done right.

    What is worrisome today, is studios are throwing remakes of films still not dated, and for the most part, of inferior quality than the originals, in a clear display of lack of originality and playing safe with their investment.
    The lack of original ideas is clear for anyone to see in the recent trend of comic books adaptations. It's a good thing to the publishers of said comics, but bad for the moviegoers as those adaptations, have for the most part been pretty week.

    Is this going to change? Sure, just stop buying tickets or any other media of these movies. As long as they make a profit, they'll keep making them.

    Posted by: King Mob at September 5, 2010 9:24 AM