Remakes and Sequels: Then And Now

One of the general reads I've had is how many people share their dislike of sequels and remade movies, sometimes under a different name than the original, and yet praise the original film as being the only one. "Has Hollywood run out of ideas" being one of the many statements. I think many can agree that a remake and sequal has to have a purpose of being made at all. The audience end of sequel being made is because they want to see more of the character(s), or more of the story. The industries main reason can be that they also want to see more of the story, and as many audiences say, the industry just wants to squeeze the idea dry and make more money off it. Either can be true. It depends.

Well, from my understanding, sequels and remakes have been made since the dawn of film's existence. During the years film came into existance, an idea was filmed numerous times, many times with a different cast. Here are a few examples of classic movie remakes and sequels:

THE REMAKE

The Philadelphia Story (1940) and High Society (1956)

Only 16 years after the release of The Philadelphia Story, Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby and Grace Kelly hit the screen with the musical "adaption" of the Philadelphia Story, the play. Both were indeed the same stories and the same scenes, but technically High Society was not a remake. It was another adaption of the play, in musical form. Personally I enjoyed The Philadelphia Story, but not High Society as much.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) and (1956)
22 years after Alfred Hitchcock made the 1934 version, he decided to remake his own film, with an entirely different cast. Now this is Alfred Hitchcock, and to me, only he could ever remake his own films. It is also a good example of comparison of cast. Personally I enjoyed the early version with Peter Loore, and have not yet seen his remake.

THE SEQUEL.

Invisible Agent (1942)

A sequel to the Invisible Man, the Invisible Agent show the Invisible Man's granson into World War II, to spy on the enemy. I have not seen this film but can imagine what it is like.

Frankenstein (1931) and Bride of Frankenstein (1932)

Frankenstein had much success when it was first released in 1931, and so followed it's sequel, the Bride of Frankenstein. Frankenstein has always been enjoyable to me, but Bride of Frankenstein comes up just a bit short. There is such momentum building up about the second monster, and yet she is only seen for a couple of seconds, before being killed by a fatal accident.
------------------------------------------------------------
So what is the difference between remakes and sequels now and then?
Do you think audiences then had the same opinion then about a remake or sequel that audiences do now?
How about a related story then? The boy meets girl story was very popular.
Recycling ideas good or bad? Is it really recycling? There have been plenty of movies which are similar, and are largely by many considered to be remakes, when in reality they are not. That goes the same for adaptions of plays and novels.

Id like to see a remake of The Handmaid's Tale. I read the book at 14, then again a few years ago. Boy oh boy is the film awful, even in film standards.

The book commands such quiet imagery, that I would love to see translated into film, again, better, yeah.


LD

Remakes weren't at all uncommon, going all the way back to the silent and early talkie eras. Lon Chaney's only talkie, The Unholy Three (1930) was a scene-for-scene remake of the 1925 silent version of the same title. The famous Busby Berkeley musical "Gold Diggers of 1933" was a remake of a remake -- "Gold Diggers of Broadway" (1929) was one of Warner Bros' most successful films ever, leading to a remake just four years later. The 1929 film, meanwhile, was a remake of a 1923 silent, "The Gold Diggers," which in turn was an adaptation of a 1919 Broadway play. Abbott and Costello's "Rio Rita" (1942) was a remake of the far superior 1929 version, which featured Wheeler and Woolsey, based in turn on a 1927-28 stage show. "Show Boat" was remade three times -- the original part-talking 1929 version was followed by a remake in 1936 and a bombastic Technicolor version in 1951.

And on and on.

Sequels were even more common -- think of "The Thin Man," "Another Thin Man," "Return of the Thin Man," and so on. These evolved into the concept of B-level "series pictures" in the '30s and '40s, and all the studios jumped on the trend -- Universal had its whole stable of monster pictures and its Sherlock Holmes mysteries, MGM had its Hardy Family comedies, Warner Brothers had its Nancy Drew mysteries, RKO had its Hildegarde Withers mysteries, Columbia had the Blondie comedies and the Crime Doctor mysteries, and of course the endless cycles of series westerns from the poverty-row studios. These types of films were staples of local TV reruns in my childhood, and while they were perfectly fine light entertainment, they did prove that there's really nothing new under the sun...

Son of Kong

Remakes weren't as offensive in the days when the original wasn't easily available on DVD. There is a very significant difference between Philidelphia Story and High Society, so they are really more like different films based on the same source material. The Maltese Falcon, for example, was remade twice (three tries in all) before they got it right and then it was, as it should be, left alone.

There were dozens of Univeral monster sequals, and dozens of series of B movies. The best of the sequals was, I think, Bride of Frankenstein, an the usual law of diminishing returns applies to the others. Some series start strong and end badly - like the Charlie Chan films, but some started strong and ended before they movedd the notoriously slapdash Monogram studios - like the Mr Moto films.

I don't think sequals and remakes are necessarily bad in and of themselves, but they have become pervasive.

Edited to say: Ooh, if I hadn't gone for that cup of coffee Lizzie wouldn't have beat me with ehr post (ouch).

Anyway, Hollywood never was and never will be the place to find startling or original art.

I think most remakes are doomed for failure, simply because if it's a film everyone already loves and thought was done well, you're not going to please the fans of the original. It's like Monday morning quarterbacks - I think they should've used Paul Newman in the lead, but you think it should've been Brittany Spears...and if they'd only moved the location from New York in 1940 to Havana using the revolution as the backdrop...

It's almost impossible recapture the magic of a well-loved, well-done film. Look at the two versions of Psycho - Van Sant's "shot by shot" recreation of Hitchcock's film - where's the creativity in that? I think the only way to have a more boring wooden cast would've been toss Josh Hartnett into the mix somewhere.

I think the only remake that ever "worked" and came out better than the original was Maltese Falcon (1941) with Bogart because (what a concept!) they stuck to the original book and Huston didn't let the writers "mess it up." That's one place where "third time's the charm" worked. (Satan Met a Lady (1936) with Bette Davis & Warren William and Maltese Falcon (1931) with Ricardo Cortez & Una Merkel were the prior versions to the more well-known BEST version).

A big part of the problem is that screenwriters and directors want to change everything around and put their own stamp on the project. Plots are changed, characters added and deleted, settings are changed. In essence, they're making a whole new movie with a whole new story...and then they're surprised when nobody likes it because it doesn't compare with the original.

Another part of it is every once in a while, just by sheer luck, everything gels just perfectly and the result is magic. They have the right director, the right cast, the right crew & technicians, the right story told just the right way, everyone working together and then magic happens. High Noon with Gary Cooper & Grace Kelly. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner with Hepburn & Tracy. Citizen Kane. Trying to then go back later and recreate that magic is futile.

Let's repaint the Mona Lisa...let's fix that smile, give her red hair, let's put her in a jazzier outfit...I know...instead of the pastoral background, let's use South Beach Miami...everyone'll love my new masterpiece!

Sometimes they get it right, but usually they screw it up.

Look at H.B. Halicki's 1974 Gone in 60 Seconds and you'll find a B movie with cardboard acting, thin plot, no-name actors(many friends and family of Halicki) and starring the director / producer in the lead role. Why is it a cult classic? It does what it set out to do. No summer blockbuster, no CGI, no massive diesel fireballs. It was a labor of love about cars by a man that loved his cars and loved driving them...

Gone in Sixty Seconds, the 2000 remake with Nick Cage, Angelina Jolie and Robert Duvall failed to capture the essence of the original because it accomplished something entirely different. It attempted to rake in money...which it did. The cardboard plot was slicked up, the characters contemporized, a big name producer was brought in(Jerry 'everything I put on the silver screen EXPLODES!' Bruckheimer), the cast filled with A-list stars, everything needed for full theaters and box office profits. And succeed it did in the profit department. But it missed the point. The remake wasn't about a one man's passion for cars, precision driving and making his own films, it was about the standard Hollywood WOW! production.

The film industry has always been about raking in the dough, but far fewer people in that industry than before got involved and are still involved because they just want to make films. They want to make films, but moreover, they want to make money, and in the interest of profit, the details and passion that would otherwise be present is cast aside to ensure the film's financial success.

Hi, I'm new but I really enjoy all the discussions of classic films in this forum.

It seems like, in addition to sequels and popular series films like the Andy Hardys, the Maisie series (with Ann Southern), etc, studios would also try to cash in on the popularity of a picture by using the same cast in another. "The Maltese Falcon II" would have been impossible, but John Huston could direct Bogart, Astor, Greenstreet, et al. in Across the Pacific (1942), then Bogart, Greenstreet & Lorre in Casablanca (1943).... it was easy too, since they were under contract. Also The Four Daughters (1938) with John Garfield, Claude Rains, and the Lane sisters. There were sequels (Four Wives, Four Mothers) but as JG's character was killed off in the first film, they couldn't do a sequel with him. Audiences loved him though, so they made the unrelated Daughters Couragous with Pricilla Lane, JG and Rains.

I've often wondered if the common remakes then had to do with the fact that pictures usually only ran once in theaters, then went away. No DVD or late night tv viewing I mean!

happyfilmluvguy said:

Invisible Agent (1942)

A sequel to the Invisible Man, the Invisible Agent show the Invisible Man's granson into World War II, to spy on the enemy. I have not seen this film but can imagine what it is like.

Click to expand...

This isn't as bad as you think - as long as you treat it the same of the Rathbone Sherlock Holmes films where he battles the Nazis.

For sequels and remakes in general, pre-war cinema is littered with remakes. Mainly because studios were very much in the mindset of "The punters like these films - lets make more of them." Hence the reason why so many films appear to be very similar in plot!

As for Frankenstein, I'd certainly agree that Bride is far better than the original. For a start it had a score, secondly Whale was far more confident directing. The usual editing in the Mary Shelley prologue highlights this. Although the female monster was only briefly involved, she isn't the focus of the film - the desire to recreate/procreate is the theme.

Continuing with the Universal horror theme: at the same time Bela Lugosi was making Dracula, a spanish version was also being made (same sets and equipment). Anyone who has ever seen this version will know how much better it is than Lugosi's.

Waterloo Bridge (1931 & 1940) is the first classic remake that comes to my mind. I prefer the 1931 version.

I don't know if these could be considered sequals or not, but The Broadway Melody series went on for over a decade; 1929, 1936, 1938, and 1940. Also all of those Gold Diggers films; On Broadway (1929), 1933, 1935, 1937, and In Paris (1938).

Two Girls On Broadway (1940) was a remake of The Broadway Melody (1929) with Lana Turner and Joan Blondell in the roles of Anita Page and Bessie Love. Again, I prefer the earlier version.

Love 'em & Leave 'em (1926) with Louise Brooks was remade as a talkie in 1929, The Saturday Night Kid with Clara Bow.

The Show Off (1926) became Men Are Like That (1930) in the talkie era. Harold Lloyd remade his own silent movie Safety Last! (1923) as the talkie Feet First (1930). There were lots of silent to talkie remakes.

And lets not forget all those recycled plots! Readers have written into my old movie magazines saying that they were sick of seeing the same movie over and over only with different stars and settings. Movies have been "unoriginal" from the beginning. Also, as someone else has said, once the movie left the theatre it was gone. They weren't bombarded at you from every which way and maybe that's why the remakes and sequals today seem so overdone.

"Backstreet" was made several times. That's when I first fell in love with Irene Dunn.

I'm a WWII movie buff and there have been several remakes in this genre of film. The great wartime movie "Sahara" with Bogart was remade as a cable TV pic starring of all people, Jim Belushi! Need I say more! Another one of my favorites is "To Hell and Back" with Steve Mcqueen. This was remade, very loosely, into an HBO movie called "When Trumpets Fade". This was a very interesting remake that I have a love/hate relationship with. "Dawn Patrol" was remade several times. The last and I think best was with Errol Flynn and David Niven. I wouldnt really call this a remake but the documentary "Memphis Belle" was made into a regular feature movie. It was a little cheesey but beautifully shot. Unfortunately, the movie had little to do with the real Memphis Belle. It would have beenbetter to call it "the Last Mission" or something like that.

I dont know if any one would consider the recent debacle "Pearl Harbour"a remake of "Tora Tora Tora" and "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo". That movie Sucked any way you look at it.

"A Guy Named Joe" was remade as "Always" with Richard Dryfuss playing Spencer Tracey's roll. Instead of fighting japs, they are fighting fires. Yawn!
I think this was Audrey Hepburns last movie.

Another non-war movie that was horribly remade was "The Big Sleep" with Bogart again. The new version made in the early 70s, probably trying to capitalize off the "Chinatown" coat tails, starred Robert Mitchum and was set in England! Phillip Marlowe in England?!?! Well I guess they do wear trench coats there.

Finally, a movie that I think should be remade is "Midway". So long as they dont mess up the CGI the way they did in "Pearl Harbour" I think that would be an amazing film.(without the stupid love story)

I dont know if anyone has heard that "DamBusters" is being remade. the original was so good, I will have high expectations of this remake. I have heard it will be done by either Speilberg or the guy that did the Kong remake. There is a big flap in England over the possible deletion of the code word [EDIT: That is offensive in any context. -HJ] from the film. We will see what happens with that.

"Tuskegee Airman" is being remade from the ho-hum HBO movie. I think Speilberg is also tied with this production.

And lastly, "Eagle Squadron" is being remade by everyones favorite nut job, Tom Cruise.

Where have you gone Red Rider?

LizzieMaine said:

Remakes weren't at all uncommon, going all the way back to the silent and early talkie eras. Lon Chaney's only talkie, The Unholy Three (1930) was a scene-for-scene remake of the 1925 silent version of the same title. The famous Busby Berkeley musical "Gold Diggers of 1933" was a remake of a remake -- "Gold Diggers of Broadway" (1929) was one of Warner Bros' most successful films ever, leading to a remake just four years later. The 1929 film, meanwhile, was a remake of a 1923 silent, "The Gold Diggers," which in turn was an adaptation of a 1919 Broadway play. Abbott and Costello's "Rio Rita" (1942) was a remake of the far superior 1929 version, which featured Wheeler and Woolsey, based in turn on a 1927-28 stage show. "Show Boat" was remade three times -- the original part-talking 1929 version was followed by a remake in 1936 and a bombastic Technicolor version in 1951.

And on and on.

Sequels were even more common -- think of "The Thin Man," "Another Thin Man," "Return of the Thin Man," and so on. These evolved into the concept of B-level "series pictures" in the '30s and '40s, and all the studios jumped on the trend -- Universal had its whole stable of monster pictures and its Sherlock Holmes mysteries, MGM had its Hardy Family comedies, Warner Brothers had its Nancy Drew mysteries, RKO had its Hildegarde Withers mysteries, Columbia had the Blondie comedies and the Crime Doctor mysteries, and of course the endless cycles of series westerns from the poverty-row studios. These types of films were staples of local TV reruns in my childhood, and while they were perfectly fine light entertainment, they did prove that there's really nothing new under the sun...

Click to expand...

I agree L.M The westerns from our day where great and from a city boy's view, gave me courage to leave it and head west. Well, Far north westlol

tallyho said:

Another one of my favorites is "To Hell and Back" with Steve Mcqueen. This was remade, very loosely, into an HBO movie called "When Trumpets Fade". This was a very interesting remake that I have a love/hate relationship with.

Click to expand...

"To Hell and Back" with Steven McQueen? What happened to Audie Murphy? Did I miss something? [huh]

A lot of my favorite films were remade during the 1940s.
I wonder if the difference might be that we now can rent the original and compare it to the new version immediately. Movie houses in the old days would run older movies occasionally but it seems like you could introduce a story to a new audience with a remake back then.
There is also the idea of bringing something new to it. In the Golden Age the remake could be a talkie version or fabulous technicolor. Now we can add incredible special effects!

Sincerely,
The Wolf

Sunny said:

"To Hell and Back" with Steven McQueen? What happened to Audie Murphy? Did I miss something? [huh]

Click to expand...

My mistake, wrong "hell" I should have said "Hell is for Heros"

I remember another remake, with "Hell" in the name. "Hell in the Pacific" with Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune was remade as "Enemy Mine" with Dennis Quaid and Louis Gossett Jr. This times aliens replaced Japs.

Quaid seems to pop up in a lot of rmeakes. "Flight of the Phoenix" "DOA" "The Alamo" "Enemy Mine" "Jaws 3-D" "Parent Trap"

tallyho said:

[EDIT: That is offensive in any context. -HJ]

Click to expand...

Sorry about that. No intention to offend anyone. I can understand banning words in the context of hate but in the context of discussion of the context of a movie from the era we all enjoy didnt seem like a problem to me.

To Be or Not to Be (1942): Jack Benny, Carole Lombard, Sig Rumann, Ernst Lubitsch – how could you go wrong? A wartime comedy with thriller undertones that's hard to follow. Lombard's last; probably Benny's best.

To Be or Not to Be (1983): Mel Brooks, Anne Bancroft, Charles Durning, and, uh, Mel Brooks. A schticky plastic cartoon of the original, not even clever enough to be a parody. Mel's lovable; his stuff isn't always.

tallyho said:

Sorry about that. No intention to offend anyone. I can understand banning words in the context of hate but in the context of discussion of the context of a movie from the era we all enjoy didnt seem like a problem to me.

Click to expand...

If it's the word I think it might be it was not a code word but the name of a dog. Offensive? Yes.

A pair of movies which haven't been mentioned yet are _Red Dust_, (1932), and _Mogambo_, (1953). Both star Clark Gable as man in a triangle between two women out in the back of beyond. In 1932, this Jean Harlow and Mary Astor in a Southeast Asian rubber plantation. In 1953, it was Ava Gardner and Grace Kelly on Safari in East Africa. Although filmed in black and white, _Red Dust_ is also pre-Code, so Jean Harlow gets to show off a little and doesn't have to meet with a Hayes Office-mandated "bad end".

Haversack.

jake_fink said:

If it's the word I think it might be it was not a code word but the name of a dog. Offensive? Yes.

Click to expand...

yes it was the name of Gibson's dog. the dog was killed before the mission hence the use of his name for the code word. that name was avery common name for that breed of dog. There was nothing racist about its use.
This whole issue is very much like the issue with the use of a swastika. the swastika was used for centuries by cultures around the world including American Indians.

It just angers me that historical movies get changed for P.C. reasons