I'm not making this up, I saw a blurb on the Today Show segment(About the plethora of remakes), stating some studio genius has determined that what the viewing public wants to see is a remake of "The Honeymooners" with "Cedric the Entertainer" as Ralph Kramden! Jackie Gleason must be rolling over in his grave.

Yeah, I've heard about this too. We all have our favorites. A lot of TV Shows that have been remade into movies I never gave a damn about in the first place.
"The Honeymooners" I give a damn about. It is a classic show that is very much of a certain time and a certain place in television history and American culture. This would be sort of like remaking "Amos & Andy" with Adam Sandler as The Kingfish. Dumb.

Remakes that should never be done:

All In The Family
M*A*S*H*
Hogan's Heroes

just to name a few.

James :)

Well, "McHales Navy" has already been done. How could anything be worse than that?

Wait, Hogan's Heroes WAS a remake! Well, sort of. Remember "Stalag 17?"

My prediction is that just about every show that's at least 15-20 years old and had an ounce of popularity will be pitched as a remake at some time. Think about how many remakes are proposed and, thankfully, turned down before we ever hear about it.

Wait, Hogan's Heroes WAS a remake! Well, sort of. Remember "Stalag 17?"


Actually Hogan's Heroes was the TV show version of "Stalag 17"

"Stalag 17" was first, then came Hogan's Heroes

^Is there an echo in here? They're remaking "Bewitched" with Nicole Kidman as Samantha, Will Farrell as Darren, Shirley Maclaine as Endora, and a former high school classmate of mine - Amy Sedaris, as Gladys Kravitz. From what I've read, this one might be fairly clever. But "Bewitched" ain't exactly "The Honeymooners" - if it's a horrible piece of crap, so what?

Same goes for The Night Stalker. Not a hit, not well written, constantly let down by an almost no-existent budget...if you remade it, it would (like Galactica) almost ahve to be better...but would it recapture the charm of the original and would it be worth doing?



Well, as a kid the thing scared the crap outta me on a regyular basis, and it's charms hold up well today in spite of cheesy scipts and pathetic costumes for the monsters...and the major portion of that charm is Darren Mcgavin. No Mcgavin, no Kolchak. No Kolchak, no "Night Stalker".

Besides which, the premise is not at all distinguished from The X-Files, which negates any purpose in doing a remake. But doing one they are. The intended audience will never have seen the original, and won't miss McGavin.

Okay, then, bring it on. It's likely to be the only way any intereest will develop within MGM for a dvd boxed set of the original.

I enjoyed the Honyemooners remake with the two mice.
Can't recall if it was a WB or MGM cartoon.

Things that absolutley should not ever be remade? Anything, as far as I'm concerned. How about getting a new idea, hollywood?

What am I saying...

Well, like Zorro I think "The Honeymooners" is such a classic only an idiot would think he could improve on it, only a complete idiot would attempt to step into Jackie Gleason's or Art Carney's shoes.

Besides, the whole remake concept is just bad to begin with. When John Carpenter liked and wanted to remake "Rio Bravo" in the late seventies, he made "Assault on Precinct 13", which borrowed themes and ideas from 'Rio" but was only a "remake" in the most general sense of world. And he made a great movie.

Flash forward 25 years, when somebody liked "Assault on Precinct 13" and wanted to remake it, instead of making an original movie, they borrow the title yet throw the movies plot and ideas out the window. I haven't seen it, but the previews look pretty lame, and obviously the street-gang-with-silenced-automatics-and-a-grudge plotline was thrown out the window.

And though I like Lawrence Fishburne, the guy that played Napolean Wilson (The only other thing I ever saw him in was Hill Street Blues) in the original nailed it so good Fishburne's performance can't look as good.

If you want to make a movie about cops attacking a police station, make a good one, but there's really no reason to tie it in to "Assault".

The way Hollywood, hell ,America is driven, Money is everything. If a focus group responds to the title "Assault on Precinct 13" better than "Some dudes trapped in a building", then That's the title Hollywood is gonna go with. That's what big business does. New Coke! New and improved Tide! That's what the government does.(insert crisis here). Sell the movie, sell the crisis, so long as enough people buy it, you keep your job.
If I am a Director or writer, I would feel my creativity being stifled and resent the suits and honchos for that kind of thinking. I would imagine thats why you end up with a lot of these films that are mismashed , focus grouped to death,piles of crap.

Besides, the whole remake concept is just bad to begin with.

Well, I agree in principle, however, there are always some notable exceptions to the rule. The basic idea presented to 1950's sci-fi audiences as IT: TERROR FROM BEYOND SPACE was reworked years later and became ALIEN.

Then there's THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD. The original Howard Hawks' film is an admitted classic, however, there are several here who will tell you that they prefer John Carpenter's version: THE THING because, among other things, it is truer to the original story.

- GJS

Sgt. Bilko. When something is done to perfection, leave it alone.


I also heard the Honeymooners rumors. That would move me to picket outside the theater. The Longest Yard remake is also one that makes me physically ill - thinking of Adam Sandler in the cast.

This thread came to mind when I was watching The Dirty Dozen this weekend. That's another classic that's ripe for some idiot producer to
put an "updated" spin upon.

If I am a Director or writer, I would feel my creativity being stifled and resent the suits and honchos for that kind of thinking. I would imagine thats why you end up with a lot of these films that are mismashed , focus grouped to death,piles of crap.

I agree, these produced-by-corporation movies are curiously uninvolving and soul-less, even when well done. Almost all of last years "big" movies that I've been catching recently on DVD are disapointing. "Collateral", "Bourne Supremacy", "Manchurian Candidate", and many others have that impersonal uninvolving by-the-numbers feel to them, despite being well-acted and/or well made.

I'd personally trade all of 'em for one "Napolean Dynamite" or "A Life Aquatic", both of which were original,quirky, and unpredictable.

In contrast, I knew what the "surprise ending" in "Collateral" was going to be fifteen minutes into the movie.

Well, I agree in principle, however, there are always some notable exceptions to the rule. The basic idea presented to 1950's sci-fi audiences as IT: TERROR FROM BEYOND SPACE was reworked years later and became ALIEN.

Then there's THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD. The original Howard Hawks' film is an admitted classic, however, there are several here who will tell you that they prefer John Carpenter's version: THE THING because, among other things, it is truer to the original story.

- GJS

Gary, this is true, but we're sort of talking apples and tangerines here. In the case of The Honeymooners, Gleason and Carney were Ralph Kramden and Ed Norton. Gleason was one of the great physical comediens of the 20th Century and Carney weren't no slouch either. Gleason was also a giant and an innovator in the history of broadcast television and The Honeymooners as a concept is basically inseperable from who Gleason was as a product of his own personal background and environment. Some art is absolutely definitive and should just be left alone. Cedrick The Entertainer playing Ralph Kramden is sort of like Michael Bolton singing Otis Redding - it's just wrong, wrong, wrong.

Well, I agree in principle, however, there are always some notable exceptions to the rule. The basic idea presented to 1950's sci-fi audiences as IT: TERROR FROM BEYOND SPACE was reworked years later and became ALIEN.
- GJS

It'd only be the same if they had called "Alien" "It:Terror From Outer Space", moved the action from Mars to Zontar, had Gwenyth Palrow play square-jawed Captin Carruthers, Jude Law as the comely medical officer/love interest, and Snoop Dogg as the comic relief enlisted guy from the Bronx. And instead of blood, the monster now kills for stem cells.

With regard to remakes, a great deal depends on the creatives behind the project. For example, as much as I enjoy Gene Wilder’s performance as Willy Wonka, I’ve never particularly cared for the 1970's movie based on Roald Dahl’s book. From what I’ve read, Johnny Depp and Tim Burton are big fans of the novel, and are sticking much closer to it tone-wise than did the Wilder version. All of the above goes double for the Michael Anderson version of “Logan’s Run”, which if you’ll pardon me for saying so, sucks. Bryan Singer is slated to direct the “L.R.” remake following his work on “Superman”, and I’m looking forward to seeing what he and his team cook up. Finally, as much I enjoy the original “King Kong”, I’ll lay odds that Peter Jackson’s remake will deliver the goods whether you’re a fan of the 30's classic or not.

In any case, blaming writers for the number of remakes released by the major studios is missing the point. Writers have very little power when it comes to getting movies made, whereas we (i.e. the audience) can have a serious impact. For example, I just saw "The Aviator," which is a terrific movie about I subject I should think would be of interest to those who frequent this site. Just out of curiosity, have any of you have seen it?

With regard to remakes, a great deal depends on the creatives behind the project. For example, as much as I enjoy Gene Wilder’s performance as Willy Wonka, I’ve never particularly cared for the 1970's movie based on Roald Dahl’s book. From what I’ve read, Johnny Depp and Tim Burton are big fans of the novel, and are sticking much closer to it tone-wise than did the Wilder version. All of the above goes double for the Michael Anderson version of “Logan’s Run”, which if you’ll pardon me for saying so, sucks. Bryan Singer is slated to direct the “L.R.” remake following his work on “Superman”, and I’m looking forward to seeing what he and his team cook up. Finally, as much I enjoy the original “King Kong”, I’ll lay odds that Peter Jackson’s remake will deliver the goods whether you’re a fan of the 30's classic or not.

I sincerely hope those two won't suck, especially "Logans Run" which was one of my favorite books as a youth due to it's great plot, action, and a real rarity in sci-fi back then:sex. Though I'm not sure I'll find the idea of a 21 year life span near as appealing as I did at age 12-13 when I first read it, I do hope this version at least resembles the book. I have no idea where the ending of the '70 movie came from.

For example, I just saw "The Aviator," which is a terrific movie about I subject I should think would be of interest to those who frequent this site. Just out of curiosity, have any of you have seen it?

Love Scorsese, but will probably wait for the DVD.

I don't dismiss remakes in general. I think there have been good remakes. The problem is when Hollywood tries to remake movies or TV shows that were classic because of the original actors that portrayed the characters. There was a certain something, a chemistry, about the actors in certain movies or TV shows that made those characters their own. Trying to remake The Honeymooners is almost sacrilegious. What's next? I Love Lucy? There should be some law that prohibits Hollywood from tampering with well established classics. I heard rumors about casting new actors as The Three Stooges. That's insane and GUARANTEED to fail! Why can't the powers-that-be in Hollywood see that?

- Joe J.

Gary, this is true, but we're sort of talking apples and tangerines here. In the case of The Honeymooners, Gleason and Carney were Ralph Kramden and Ed Norton. Gleason was one of the great physical comediens of the 20th Century and Carney weren't no slouch either. Gleason was also a giant and an innovator in the history of broadcast television and The Honeymooners as a concept is basically inseperable from who Gleason was as a product of his own personal background and environment. Some art is absolutely definitive and should just be left alone. Cedrick The Entertainer playing Ralph Kramden is sort of like Michael Bolton singing Otis Redding - it's just wrong, wrong, wrong.

In this instance I whole heartedly agree with you, Scott.

I was just taking issue with the idea that remakes are wrong from the get-go. If that were true then there would have been no Bela Lugosi version of Dracula after Nosferatu. No Frederick March Jekyll & Hyde after John Barrymore's. No Charles Laughton Hunchback after Lon Chaney's. No Judy Garland Wizard of Oz after the silents.
By and large remakes don't live up to the originals but, every once in a while we're blessed to get one that surpasses the initial offering.

- GJS

I don't dismiss remakes in general... The problem is when Hollywood tries to remake movies or TV shows that were classic because of the original actors that portrayed the characters.

Does this mean you're not looking forward to Steve Martin's Inspector Closeau in the forthcoming "Pink Panther" remake?

(talk about a stillborn idea for a remake... yikes!)

Does this mean you're not looking forward to Steve Martin's Inspector Closeau in the forthcoming "Pink Panther" remake?

(talk about a stillborn idea for a remake... yikes!)

Another example of a role being performed definitively (and of a title that was milked for too many sequels the first time around). I don't dislike Martin but Sellers was, is, and always will be Clouseau.

... I notice "The Flight of The Phoenix" came and went in about a week's time.

If you're going to see The Aviator, see it in a theater; a big one.

In this instance I whole heartedly agree with you, Scott.

I was just taking issue with the idea that remakes are wrong from the get-go. If that were true then there would have been no Bela Lugosi version of Dracula after Nosferatu. No Frederick March Jekyll & Hyde after John Barrymore's. No Charles Laughton Hunchback after Lon Chaney's. No Judy Garland Wizard of Oz after the silents.
By and large remakes don't live up to the originals but, every once in a while we're blessed to get one that surpasses the initial offering.

- GJS

True enough and those are all very good examples. Personally, I prefer the Carpenter "The Thing" (haven't read the book) and Cronenberg's "The Fly" (have read the short story) to the first film treatments. In both cases though, the original idea was changed enough thematically that they are essentially entirely different stories from the originals.

True enough and those are all very good examples. Personally, I prefer the Carpenter "The Thing" (haven't read the book) . . .

The original story (vs. a movie adaptation tie-in novel that probably came out with the John Carpenter version) was a novelette (LONG 'short' story) from the '40s(?) (pre-Hugo awards, IIRC) called "Who Goes There?". It made my stomach churn from anxiety and suspense. EXCELLENT story.

... I notice "The Flight of The Phoenix" came and went in about a week's time.

A very deserved fate considering the exellence of the original with Jimmy Stewart. I think Hollywood wanted to remake it since the original had nothing but Caucasion males in it. That's a mortal sin in the PC environment of Hollywood nowadays.

Remakes that should never be done:

All In The Family
M*A*S*H*
Hogan's Heroes

just to name a few.

James :)

"All in the Family" is a remake of a british sitcom.

Hee Haw: The Motion Picture

...like Michael Bolton singing Otis Redding - it's just wrong, wrong, wrong.

True enough, but it didn't stop him from doing "Dock Of The Bay."

A very deserved fate considering the exellence of the original with Jimmy Stewart. I think Hollywood wanted to remake it since the original had nothing but Caucasion males in it. That's a mortal sin in the PC environment of Hollywood nowadays.

The problem is, I really think you are serious....... About the reason for the remake.....

The problem is, I really think you are serious....... About the reason for the remake.....

No. I perceive the problem as being that he's correct about the reason for the remake.

- GJS