Movie Adaptations/Remakes!

Yun Lee

The Sculptor
Administrator
The Convergence Series GM
Staff Member on Hiatus
This is a topic that honestly fascinates me, and one that has been becoming more prominent lately, especially with the recent spike in remakes and adaptations we've been seeing left and right.

Now, adaptations and remakes have been around since, well, the beginning of cinema as we know it. Snow White, Frankenstein, Nosferatu...all adaptations of famous stories! (Although Nosferatu was an unofficial retelling of Dracula, hence the name change). But nowadays, with many of us now old enough to have a sense of nostalgia for old movies and shows (Ghostbusters, Transformers, etc.), so with newer adaptations/remakes of recent properties, they hit a bit closer to home than, say, another retelling of Dracula, which means opinions of newer adaptations are more polarizing than ever before.

So, the question I pose to all of you is this: What, in your opinion, makes a movie adaptation of any kind good? What makes it bad? Do you enjoy seeing movies/games/books/shows you grew up with remade or adapted, or would you prefer the source material untampered with? Should films stay 100% true to source? Should they deviate in any major way? Here's your chance to voice all your opinions on the subject below!
 
Sorry if using this font makes my post difficult to read. It's just a personal aesthetic choice on my part.

Anyhoo, as a fan of horror and science fiction I feel these are the two genres that are most often slapped with remakes and 're-imaginings.' Some better than others, others not even worth mentioning. I guess if I want to give a really good indepth response, I'll list some of the better remakes I've seen and some of the poorer ones.

Amazing ones/almost as good or even better than the original: The Fly, The Blob(1988), The Thing(1981)

The Fly starring Jeff Goldblum expands on the 1950s classic and although I feel Jeff Goldblum these days is better known for being eccentric/weird in a way that people like and can make funny gifs out of on Tumblr. He's aware of this and I can respect that he plays up this trait of himself. It shows that he's got a good attitude about himself and how he's perceived by those around him. But that doesn't mean he can't do serious roles and this is one of his finest examples. His character in this film is someone you can genuinely get behind and like.

He's interested in his work sure but it's less 'mad scientist muahahaha' and more like a child excited to see his hot wheels cars zip down the track he spent all day building. He's excited at the potential of what his experiments could possibly achieve. Even when he begins the transformation from man to fly thing, he's still optimistic and upbeat even as his skin starts peeling away and it grows discolored and tumors appear over his flesh. You feel for him in a way that I don't think you could for the original because you didn't see the OG Fly's appearance until the end of the movie as it was meant to shock you and likely did scare audiences back then. Throughout this film you see Jeff Goldblum's gradual transformation and you feel just as pained as his love interest does as there's nothing anybody can do to fix this or save him.

Except for, well, I'd highly advise you check it out and see the ending for yourself. It's one of the best.

The Blob remake from the 1980s is another amazing example of taking an old monster concept and running with it into the modern era and going all out with special effects and characters we give a crap about. You've got the lead who the town's authorities see as a trouble maker and a neardowell but as the movie goes on, you see that he's really not a bad guy despite what his rough and greaser-like exterior might make you think and I feel having a lead who's ostracized by most of his peers and doesn't look like a traditional hero(sorry steve mcqueen) is more interesting and thus makes for a more compelling film.

We even get an explanation for the Blob in this film that I feel ties in nicely with the late 1980s/cold war Reagan era setting. Instead of being an alien that happened to crash on Earth, the Blob in this film was meant to be used as a weapon against the Soviets only something went wrong and instead of staying in the sky like it was supposed to until it was to be used, it ended up crashing down and causing a storm of chaos among this small town.

It also helps that one of the most disgusting deaths in the film is one you wouldn't expect. There's a nice guy character who you think is gonna be the main girl's love interest/the hero to her final girl against the Blob. He ends up getting it worse than anybody with the Blob falling onto him from the ceiling and our heroine is left with little to do to save him but futilely reach out and grab his arm which simply falls off as he's consumed by the Blob.

This is also one of the few movies that had the balls to kill a kid(he gets reduced to nothing more than a skeleton!!!) and I respect it a lot for that.

It was also directed by the guy who wrote/directed(can't remember) The Dream Warriors, one of the best if not THE best Nightmare on Elm Street sequel so that should also motivate you to try and seek out this movie.

Now, we reach the last remake that I think is perfect and possibly even the best horror movie of all time. John Carpenter's 1981: The Thing. Based on the 1950s film The Thing from another world which itself was based on the 1930s book: Who Goes There?, John Carpetener gets a lot of mileage out of his cast and the setting. It's frightening enough being stuck with an alien that can murder you and take on your appearance with none of your friends being sure which of them is still alive and which one is a Thing. But add on the fact that they're stranded out in Antarctica of all places and it's absolutely horrifying.

The practical effects of this movie are a modern masterpiece and still hold up to this day, even better than some of the best CGI you can crank out in a triple A film these days. If you can believe it, ONE MAN did all the effects himself and he actually got threatened by John Carpenter to take a break or else he'd call the police and have them take him to the hospital to be tested for fatigue. His name is Rob Bottin and sadly he's retired these days but his legacy lives on in the cult fandom that The Thing has gained for itself, despite being panned at the time with people preferring to see Stephen Speilburg's E.T. instead.

There's a 2011 prequel that deals with the Norwegian camp and their discovery of the Thing. It's nice to watch if you want that backstory but the CGI really pulls this movie down and unlike the cast of the 1981 film, these characters mostly serve as cannon fodder to be killed off and that's no fun. Take it or leave it really.

Fun fact: Wilfred Brimely is in this movie and he does some solid acting! Good for him!

Good remakes: Friday the 13th(2009), Dawn of the Dead(2004), Texas Chainsaw Massacre(2003)

Friday the 13th(2009) was a nice return to basics after Jason had already fought Freddy, been to outer space, and got dragged to Hell. There wasn't much left for him to do. There were proposed plans for a Ash vs Freddy vs Jason movie but Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell didn't want to do it unless they were given lots of cash and no more Jason or Freddy films could be made as Ash would kill them off for good. New Line Cinema told them in legal and business like terms to shove it and that screenplay was instead turned into a comic(which had it's own sequel! Fun stuff!)

So, New Line Cinema in conjunction with Warner Bros made a remake that reinviented Jason's look and summed up Parts 1-3 with the story picking up after Jason obtains his hockey mask. Also, I just want to say that I love Remake Jason's look. The fact that they detailed the sweat stains on his shirt which he would have after sprinting across the camp grounds was a nice attention to detail that I really enjoyed. His sack mask in this film also looked badass and I have a store brand version of it(very difficult to see out of though so props to Jason's actor-Derek Mears-)

Jason in this film is once again a flesh and blood human, not a demon, zombie, or cyborg zombie demon. But he plays a lot differently here. He's got an elaborate tunnel system under Crystal Lake rigged with bells to alert him to any trespassers and as I mentioned before he runs in this movie. Like full on sprints and it's scary as heck having to consider facing off against Jason but for him to go against the grain and chase after you? That's scarier. Sadly, what brings this movie down and prevents it from being amazing is that the characters are pretty bland and unlikeable only serving to be killed by Jason. We do get some solid acting from Jared Padelacki(sorry if I fucked up his name) as a man seeking revenge on Jason and to find his sister who Jason kidnapped due to her resembling his mother.

There's also a lot of gratuitous fanservice in this movie and it felt sleazy and thus I felt it was poorly executed. Could have gone without it or at least wish it had been toned down. I'm watching a slasher movie not a low budget porno with terrible acting. Keep that out of my slasher films or do it right and not so sleazy.

All in all, a very good remake and one that really pays homage to the franchise and Jason as a character. The sequel would have had Jason stomping through the woods in winter which is something we'd never seen before. Sadly, I doubt we'll get a Jason movie in the forseeable future given the law suit going on atm that's pretty much killed the Friday the 13th video games out right now though the character lives on in amazing fan films like Never Hike Alone.

I hope we can see Jason on the big screen once again.

Dawn of the Dead is an absolute classic and one of the few horror films that famous critic Roger Ebert actually liked-a whole lot as a matter of fact-and even though the mall it was based in still stands to this very day, you would need screen shots and a lot of imagination as the Monroeville Mall has changed a lot since 1978. The message of American mallshoppers being zombies I still feel can be applied to today's society though less with malls and more with technology(says the guy who's constantly on his computer or phone) and I find that as a sign of a great and everlasting movie.

The remake knew it couldn't top the original and didn't try to. It wanted to do it's own thing and for the most part it does. It shows through brief footage in the opening, the zombie apoc causing chaos in other parts of the world and the zombies this time around are a lot more threatening and grotesque looking given the advanced makeup effects. They can also run which makes them scarier at least in my opinion. George Romero himself wasn't too fond on them running but you win some you lose some.

The characters for the most part are likeable and you root for them(except for Steve. Screw Steve) and the only thing I don't like about the Dawn of the Dead remake is that it ends on such a depressing note with all the characters you got attached to likely being devoured by zombies. That's a bummer. Still highly recommend it, just take it for it's own merits rather than comparing it bit by bit to the original. It did try taking it's own creative spin on things.

There have been a couple of TCM remakes and I'm none too fond of them. But the 2003 one still holds up pretty well and imagines Leatherface as a much more menacing figure rather than the simpleminded tool of a man who's used more as a living weapon/enforcer by his abusive family than as an actual character(which is reflected in universe as he wears his masks because he feels he can't properly express himself without them) There's still some traits of sympathy to Leatherface in this universe as he was born with a horrible disease that ate away at his nose and big chunks of his face.

But this isn't addressed in the movie at all and you'd have to read the comics and other supplementary material to figure that out. Still, adds a bit more to Leatherface as a character and that's always nice. The late R Lee Ermey gives it a hundred and ten percent as Sherrif Hoyt and you love to hate him. Wish he'd survived the movie to be honest, would have liked to see more of him in future installments had they continued with this particular remake series rather than rebooting it-again.-

Check this, the original TCM, and Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 and leave it at that in my opinion. The franchise is currently looking for a home right now and I'm hearing potential rumors of a tv show and ANOTHER remake. We'll see where Leatherface and his family pops up next.

Awful remakes: Day of the Dead(2008/2017), Nightmare on Elm Street(2010), Psycho(1998)

Day of the Dead-the original-was I feel George Romero's last great 'Dead' film before he started to run off the slippery slope. Land of the Dead was fun but Diary and Survival of the Dead? Eehhhhh, not so much. Day of the Dead reached the logical conclusion with the zombies eventually overruning humanity and taking over the majority of the surface with our heroes forced underground to try and think up some way to 'get them out of the deep shit they're in.'

There are some characters that I feel wouldn't work as well today given the slurs and sexist insults they make. It might have been okay back in 1985 but personally I'd rather not see that in a film in 2018 even if those characters are 'the bad guys.' You can make a character a bad guy without resorting to having them say foul shit like that. The Day of the Dead remakes take a big loogie and spit it all over the original. You have a 'Bub' expy who unlike the original who you felt sympathy for and praised him when he took revenge on the evil Capt. Rhodes at the end, this 'Bub' is a vegetarian in life so he's a vegetarian when he becomes a zombie. Yeah, makes a whole lot of sense. Nick Cannon does what he can to make the film enjoyable but he's killed off and thus can't save the film.

You also have a 'shock jock' DJ character who just adds nothing to the film other than being somebody you want to see get eaten.

The remake that came out recently isn't any better with the 'Bub' expy now being a 'super' zombie who's half human/half....zombie(not really sure what if anything the zombie half adds. I feel like being half human/half zombie sucks because you're smart but you're stuck in a decomposing and frail body. So where are the positives?) and is evil. I couldn't sit through the rest of it but really don't waste your time. Just watch Night, Dawn, Day, and maybe Land and call it quits after that.

I love the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise, I love goofy Freddy who uses the power glove and makes silly jokes. I don't like Freddy when his makeup looks bad and when it's basically a carbon copy of the original only Freddy's not allowed to make any morbidly funny jokes(gotta keep our dream demon serious) and has to speak in a growly Christian Bale batman voice. Jackie Earl Hayley is a very good actor and I feel that if the script were bette/hee was allowed to do as he pleased with the Freddy character, this could have been a lot better.

I also think that if they tried doing their own spin on things instead of practically being a shot for shot remake with minor differences here and there of the original, that could have helped too. Also, and please skip this if you're squeamish. I'll put a warning before I go on

*PLEASE SKIP PAST THIS PARAGRAPH IF YOU'RE A SENSITIVE PERSON LIKE MYSELF. IF NEED BE I CAN EVEN EDIT AND OR OMIT THIS SECTION UPON IT BEING POSTED*

The fact that they make Freddy into a conformed pedophile in this movie I feel adds NOTHING to the film other than to be gross and shocking. It's implied in the original series but it was never outright confirmed so as not to make people think they were trying to make money off exploited children. I really hated this part of the remake a lot and almost put off watching it entirely because of it. People root for Freddy and Jason because they wanna see them kill the bad main characters(because aside form the final girl they're usually shitty people) but I'm not rooting for Remake Freddy and nobody should.

*SENSITIVE TOPIC CONCLUDED*

Watch this only if you wanna do a binge of the Nightmare series, otherwise stay away.

Finally, the Psycho remake. Psycho was a phenomenal horror film that gave us a lot of the tropes and cliches we continue to use to this day. It's still parodied in various forms of media. The remake has a good quality and decent budget but as you watch it, you stop and think.

Why.

Why remake the movie shot for exact shot but just replace Anthony Perkins(RIP) with Vince Vaughn(who i liked in...dodgeball? That's about the only thing I've seen him in.) who is very tall. But not very scary, at all. Just watch the original.

Sorry that this got so longwinded but I hope this kind of post is what you were looking for. I enjoy remakes when they're done right and show proper respect to the source material. Most however are quick cash grabs or attempted ones anyhow and it pisses me off when franchises with potential for something new like the Nightmare series flounder because of poorly executed remakes like the 2010 one.
 
I'm in a strange place on this topic, there are certain stories and certain themes that I don't mind being remade, and there are other stories that I would like creators to leave to the original. I'm not sure what divides these two selections in my head, they just happen.

For example, some good remakes that I enjoyed would involve A Series of Unfortunate Events which got itself a movie with Jim Carrey and a Netflix show with Neil Patrick Harris and A Silent Voice.

With A Series of Unfortunate Events, I find the movie and the Netflix show better than the books, in my opinion obviously. The books feel a little bit slower paced, and while that can be a good thing, I don't think that it works for this story. I think that ASoUE (a shortened name I came up with now because I didn't want to type it out again) is better in a faster environment, like in the movie and the series. I also just find the character Count Olaf a bit more funny in the movie and series, and while I'm aware that his character is meant to be feared and hated, I don't think Jim Carrey count ever be hated, at least not by me.

In the case of A Silent Voice, I couldn't ever get into the manga, again, it was a pace thing, in the manga it takes everything a lot slower, and while that is the point in it, it sort of bored me after a while. While in the movie they had to hurry things along so it would be a movie and not a series in one sitting.

Some adaptations I didn't like though were Coraline, Paddington and Peter Rabbit. (the latter 2 being the movies that were created in the past 4 years)

Coraline, the book I adored, the movie I hated, I remember I watched the movie at a very young age, before I knew there was a book, and it terrified me, I have re-watched it recently after reading the book, and while it doesn't scare me anymore, I find it to be quite disappointing, it's a lot less creepy than the book and it misses out some key events, such as her finding the other father in the empty apartment and him explaining that the beldam took him there because he didn't do as she said, when she said it. It removed the tone of importance that the beldam holds in herself and in this world she created.

As for the Paddington and Peter Rabbit. I grew up reading and watching the cartoon forms of these movies, they are my childhood. The movies, I think, would be brilliant as standalone movies, however because I grew up reading and watching the original versions that hold a very special place in my heart, I think that's what ruins them for me, nothing can be as good as what I remember from being a little kid. That same idea are my thoughts for the upcoming Christopher Robin movie too.
 
Last edited:
I often hear the phrase ‘’the book was better’’ when discussing a movie adaptation with pretty much anyone who has both read the source material and seen the film in question and I think herein lies the biggest problem many adaptations face: They often try too hard to follow the source material beat for beat.

The most prevalent example of a successful movie adaptation from a novel, or a series of novels, in recent years has to be the Harry Potter franchise and I remember watching these films with a couple of friends who, afterwards, complained about all the little plot points that they had left out of the movies. However, I feel that this completely misses the point as the way we consume a film as media is completely different form the way we consume books. A film, especially one geared towards a somewhat younger audience, has to be concise as it is meant to be completed in one session. All actions should serve the larger narrative in a direct manner. A novel, on the other hand, can take its time on little diversions, it has more time to build up a world or a cast of characters as most novels are meant to be completed slowly over multiple sessions, often spanning days or even weeks of reading. The reader has time to really get invested in the material which is why many find them such good ways of escaping reality. However, this doesn’t mean that one form of media is superior to another, just that they have different aims and should not be compared on such a 1-to-1 scale.

What I find curious is how I hardly ever hear people comparing superhero movies to their source material. We’re at a point now where Marvel alone releases 3 of these films every year and most of them are highly acclaimed both by critics and in box office numbers. Yet despite all of them being based on comic books they don’t seem to borrow more from their origins than their characters and maybe, maybe, some small plot elements. Films such as Captain America: Civil war (2016) and Avengers: Infinity war (2018) might borrow their titles from famous comic books but they completely change up the story to suit the new format, and the reason people don’t seem to complain nearly as much about it as with other adaptations is because these movies are genuinely very good, not necessarily as adaptations but as modern-day action movies.

I think Netflix was on the right track with their adaptation of Death Note (2017) where they were willing to deviate a lot from the original manga in order to tell the story in a little over 90 minutes. However, they didn’t manage to find that all-important balance making it very unapproachable for anyone not familiar with the original works due to poor explanation while also alienating any fans of the original manga / anime thanks to all the changes. Aside from that the film wasn’t very good in and of itself but it was leagues better than most other anime adaptions.
And the sad thing is that I fear that Netflix and any other study will learn the wrong things from this flop. I think that we might see a sincere hesitance on changing any part of the source material in a movie adaptation (at the very least in similar projects) for a while to come while these changes are the exact thing that make the afore mentioned Marvel films so successful and genuinely fun to watch.
 
I personally think, to make an adaptation good (or at least watchable in some respect) you need to include the creator of the IP you're trying to adapt for say, a film. It doesn't have to be a huge role, maybe a consultant of some kind, so the final product can be as close to the IP as possible.
 
Back
Top