Actually Good Remakes/Reboots

[Something Amyss]

The biggest schisms didn't come until after Gene Roddenberry died. DS9 "betrayed" Roddenberry's utopian model of the future, which a lot of people would say is the whole point of Star Trek.

It was also quite stupid, given that his "utopian vision" involved thrusting hundreds of civilians into harm's way at a moment's notice. Hence my theory that the Enterprise wasn't so much the flagship as it was Starfleet's "B Ark." It would also explain why everyone in TNG was so damn incopetent. Roddenberry had some reeeeeeeally bad ideas.

While Niners put an emphasis on deeper more complex characters (and character relationships) with darker, more mature and intricate storylines.

And some of us really didn't care.

While both of the shows that followed DS9 certainly have fans Voyager was frequently dumb and could be said to have betrayed the Trek vision in its own ways[footnote]Janeway would violate the prime directive all the time, unless the plot said she'd decided to follow it that week so they'd stay lost and the show could keep going.

Trek was frequently dumb before then, even under Roddenberry's eye. I know this is about the division of the fanbase, but I don't get why they suddenly drew the line at this show being dumb when TOS and TNG were, also. The hammy, corny, stupidity was half the fun. How else could Shatner get work?

Enterprise was canceled before it finished the story it was telling.

Being terrible probably had a little to do with that.

Add to that the fact that 3 of the last 4 pre-reboot Trek movies were just awful and it's not hard to see why opinions might differ on which is the "best" version of Trek and how far back we have to go to get to it.

But that's sort of my point. Even if one doesn't like the reboot, or thinks it reeks of Abrams taint, it's inane to think that removing him (or anyone, really) will somehow bring us back to the ham of the original, or the bland, annoying Mary Sues of the Next Generation. Trek has changed, it's not going back, and that has nothing to do with Abrams.

But the reboot doesn't really deliver on anything most older Trek fans would like. Not the hopeful vision of the future, or the exploration, or the darker and mature storylines with deep characters. Basically it turned Trek into another generic action franchise.

I know quite a few oldschool Trek fans who would argue that point. And further the point that these are just a long list of spurious complaints by a fanbase who likes to make spurious complaints. I've seen less pettiness from Dave Tennant Who fans, who got mad that Matt Smith held a gun and the Doctor would NEVER CARRY A GUN!

 

[bificommander]

Space Battleship Yamato 2199. It was still delightful space-opera schlock, but the visuals got a badly needed update.

XCOM Enemy Unknown/Within. Thank god for a user-friendly interface. Now if only there was a difficulty setting between Normal and Get-One-Shotted-While-In-Full-Cover-Bullshit.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

The Thing (1982) was a remake and it was fantastic.

Star Trek (2009) was good. Not the best viewing ever, but better then at least half of the other Star Trek Films. Haven't seen Into Darkness.

Dredd was a great action flick that seemed to channel comic fiction with "The Raid" style action.

The 2nd punisher film was miles better then the first film and as far as I'm aware they are entirely unrelated (like Ang Lees Hulk is to the current Avengers Hulk).

Finally, just because I'm currently replaying it, I want to mention a game:

Resident Evil Remake for the Gamecube. Damn... that's how you remake anything. Aside from the graphical improvements which have aged really well, they pretty much perfected the classic "tank control" formula and made it one of the most intense Resident Evil games there is. Some little changes mixed into a lot of familiarity created huge surprises at points and the completely new additions blended seamlessly with the familiar content.

An absolute treat for any fan of the original and a great starting point for anyone curious about origins of the series. While I still recommend the original PS1 game just to see how much the series evolved over the years (and for its comically bad acting), Resident Evil Remake stands on its own and rises above most of the series. Personally it's my favourite in the franchise and I always wished they would give the same treatment to Resi 2.

And while I scoff at HD remakes (that don't at least throw an entire series at you like the MGS HD remake) there has been news that the Resi Remake is getting a HD facelift and will be released on all current and last gen machines. Not sure about PC, but fingers crossed.

EDIT: Still on the subject of games.

X-Com enemy unknown was a great reboot to a classic. While it loses some of the originals nightmarish charm and has some head scratching issues, it's a fantastic TBS game in a time where TBS games feel ignored and forgotten.

 

[V4Viewtiful]

The Thing (Kurt Russell one), despite flaws the Nolan Batman movies. Dredd, Scarface, The Fly.
There a bunch of other remakes I know i've seen but I can't recall. Oh loved Invasion of the Body Snatchers
TMNT 2003 I know you alluded to films but this revitalized the franchise.
Transformers: Fall of Cybertron, there hasn't been that much care to the franchise in years.

Conan, Robocop and Total Recall compared to he originals are bad.
- Conan has no style and you can never beat James Earl Jones or that snake scene.
- Robocop takes till near the end to get to any action and lacks the cleverness, or satire while having no real sense of danger. And isn't detroit getting scarily close to how it was in the old film (from what i've been told)? Seems more relevant now than drones (not saying the film doesn't need to be about that just that it loses something).
- Total Recall was joyless and had needless changes, like that woman who was 2 characters instead of one and when the first version was at least cleverly ambiguous as to whether or not he was in the real world or not that atmosphere was ruined
And why so much bloody CGI? The Robots getting constantly destroyed is so boring and has no impact.

 

[V4Viewtiful]

The 2nd punisher film was miles better then the first film and as far as I'm aware they are entirely unrelated (like Ang Lees Hulk is to the current Avengers Hulk).

you mean the first 2000 film with Travolta? I'd agree. the other one is alright but goofy.

 

[Shiftygiant]

Scarface
John Carpenters The Thing
Dredd
The Fly

 

[Ratty]

The biggest schisms didn't come until after Gene Roddenberry died. DS9 "betrayed" Roddenberry's utopian model of the future, which a lot of people would say is the whole point of Star Trek.

It was also quite stupid, given that his "utopian vision" involved thrusting hundreds of civilians into harm's way at a moment's notice. Hence my theory that the Enterprise wasn't so much the flagship as it was Starfleet's "B Ark." It would also explain why everyone in TNG was so damn incopetent. Roddenberry had some reeeeeeeally bad ideas.

Well Picard didn't like having families on board. Though that was part of his very ham-fisted "arc" that had him grow to not hate children. Mostly by learning to love noted Mary-Sue Wesley Crusher. Bringing families onboard in TNG was a goofy move but the intent was to show that this new Enterprise was on a peaceful mission of exploration and scientific discovery. And that it wasn't meant to be a warship. The next Enterprise showed the influence of the Dominion War by being smaller and sleeker, presumably leaving the family at home while the war was fought.

While Niners put an emphasis on deeper more complex characters (and character relationships) with darker, more mature and intricate storylines.

And some of us really didn't care.

Well yeah. We're not all Niners. And much as some Trekkers would hate to admit it I'm pretty sure most fans of the franchise are just people who like the occasional space adventure now and then.

While both of the shows that followed DS9 certainly have fans Voyager was frequently dumb and could be said to have betrayed the Trek vision in its own ways[footnote]Janeway would violate the prime directive all the time, unless the plot said she'd decided to follow it that week so they'd stay lost and the show could keep going.

Trek was frequently dumb before then, even under Roddenberry's eye. I know this is about the division of the fanbase, but I don't get why they suddenly drew the line at this show being dumb when TOS and TNG were, also. The hammy, corny, stupidity was half the fun. How else could Shatner get work?

It's true all the shows have their dumb moments[footnote]I think TOS "Bread and Circuses" is some of the worst Trek ever made. 20th century ancient Rome and space Jesus? Really?[/footnote] but Voyager was made at a time of increasing scientific literacy when Trek had already been touting itself as largely inspired by theoretically possible science since the 1980s. I think that's why you had so much pushback against episodes that strained suspension of disbelief to breaking like "Threshold" with the whole Warp 10 "infinite speed" thing. Even the guy who wrote that VOY episode called it "A royal, steaming stinker".

Enterprise was canceled before it finished the story it was telling.

Being terrible probably had a little to do with that.

Meh. I would have liked it to stay that extra season to see the live action Kzinti.

Add to that the fact that 3 of the last 4 pre-reboot Trek movies were just awful and it's not hard to see why opinions might differ on which is the "best" version of Trek and how far back we have to go to get to it.

But that's sort of my point. Even if one doesn't like the reboot, or thinks it reeks of Abrams taint, it's inane to think that removing him (or anyone, really) will somehow bring us back to the ham of the original, or the bland, annoying Mary Sues of the Next Generation. Trek has changed, it's not going back, and that has nothing to do with Abrams.

While I wouldn't call all the TNG crew bland Mary Sues I agree with your main point. I'm not really upset about the reboot because I know the alternative is for the series to just die. Some fans view the franchise as sacred and the reboot tantamount to digging up a corpse and playing with the bones. I don't take things that seriously, but I understand why the reboot upsets so many people so deeply. Personally I try to enjoy/judge each Star Trek iteration for what it is on its own merits, including the reboot. Which isn't bad just different from and not as good as the original.

But the reboot doesn't really deliver on anything most older Trek fans would like. Not the hopeful vision of the future, or the exploration, or the darker and mature storylines with deep characters. Basically it turned Trek into another generic action franchise.

I know quite a few oldschool Trek fans who would argue that point. And further the point that these are just a long list of spurious complaints by a fanbase who likes to make spurious complaints. I've seen less pettiness from Dave Tennant Who fans, who got mad that Matt Smith held a gun and the Doctor would NEVER CARRY A GUN!

Fanboys gonna fan yo. But like I said I sympathize with people who feel hurt by the shift, though I don't personally. I know it hurts to invest so much of your imagination into a universe only to have it "yanked away" like that. But hey that's Capitalism for you.

 

[octafish]

The Italian Job was pretty good, although to be fair I've never seen the original.

Only someone who has not seen the original could say that. It is dogshit by comparison. Contemplate that on the Tree of Woe.

Rio Bravo is a much better film than El Dorado which proves nothing I guess except somethings should just be left alone, even by Howard Hawks.

 

[cojo965]

Well, let's see...
-Scarface was a remake of a film made in the 1930s.
-I loved the 1986 version of Little Shop of Horrors.
-Can't forget The Dark Knight (I was sort of cold on Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises, but The Dark Knight is undeniably excellent).

Nothing else comes to mind right now, but I'm sure there's others. Plenty of good remakes/reboots around.

I love the 1986 Little Shop of Horrors musical. Great villain, with a great plan for world domination, fantastic songs and voice to go with. I mean, he is a giant, man-eating, singing plant, you can't top that.

 

[zhoominator]

...

Why reboot something that people like? Why not give it it's own identity?

...

Because it offers a new take on an existing franchise.....[snip]

That may be the case from the artists' perspective in SOME cases, but the fact is the real reason these projects are green-lit in the first place is an easy cash-grab.

Sure, the guys working on AMS1&2 may have cared about taking their project in a different direction, but don't try to pretend that the movies weren't merely released by Sony to milk a franchise they didn't want to lose the rights for.

It's this kind of cynical practice that people object to, not necessarily the movies themselves. If a movie like the Total Recall remake ends up doing less well because of that practice, then it is quite frankly deserved. If you don't want people moaning and saying how inferior it is to the original, how about just not having it named that in the first place? Oh yeah, because it wouldn't have made as much money, which is what it's REALLY about.

I'm very happy to judge a movie on it's own merit too, but you can't expect people to not compare them and to often prefer the original.

 

[Randoman01]

Battlestar Galactica(2004) is a good reboot. It is certainly better than the 1970s version BSG.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I actuallly didn't realize they were so reviled until Into Darkness came out and Trekkies exploded in nerd rage like they do with every new Trek movie.

Every new Trek anything.

This came up a while back on here, where people were saying things about Abrams leaving and how we could finally get back to the Trek we all loved. And my question was: what Trek was that? It wasn't the last TV series, or the last movie. It probably wasn't any of the TNG movies, or Generations, in fact. Voyager divided the fanbase (To put it nicely), as did Star Trek: Babylon 5. Fans were bitching as far back as the aborted Phase 2. I can imagine it'd be worse if it was a time with ubiquitous internet. Hell, the death of Spock prompted newspaper ads to be taken out in protest--oldschool Trekkies were hardcore.

Same way I see it. I love all the generations of Trek, even the Abramsverse which apparently makes me not a Star Trek fan.

OT: I don't see a point in hating on reboots, it doesn't invalidate the feelings you have to the things you like about the original. Maybe it just makes some folks feel superior to look down their noses at a younger generations attempt to tell stories their parents generation told to them.

 

[Michael Tabbut]

Despite their flaws, I enjoyed Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness. If it makes me not a true Trekkie I say PO, I was raised on it some of my earliest memories was watching TOS on my dad's Betamax player.

I liked the Dawn of the Dead remake, I haven't seen the original though so I can't really compare.