Remaking Flawed Films: A Second Chance for Bad Adaptations

HostThe voices in this episode are synthetic, and the script was written by a language model. The positions are real, and they come from the thread.

HostWhat makes a movie truly deserving of a remake? That's the question that sparked a lively debate on Reddit, specifically in the movies subreddit, drawing over a hundred comments. It wasn't about polishing classics, but about giving a second chance to films that missed the mark.

HostThe discussion was largely constructive, with people offering specific reasons and even suggesting directors or format changes. Most of the room agreed that remakes should focus on improving flawed films, not redoing perfect ones. We've got a few camps here: those who want to fix bad adaptations or poor execution, others who see potential in visual upgrades, a passionate group wanting a Star Wars do-over, and some who'd rather see sequels than remakes.

Fix the flawedWe're saying that the only films that really deserve remakes aren't the classics, but the bombs that had interesting concepts or great source material, but were just executed poorly. Think bad writing, casting, or direction.

Fix the flawedPoor adaptations of great books are prime candidates. They often miss the core themes or narrative structure entirely. Take World War Z; the movie was half-decent, but it was a terrible adaptation of the book, which would've worked much better as an anthology series.

Sequels not remakesI haven't seen World War Z, but I've heard the book is completely different. It's a shame when a film just doesn't capture the essence of its source material.

Fix the flawedExactly. And then there's The Dark Tower. It's often called the worst Stephen King adaptation ever made. That story needs a Lord of the Rings-style multi-part series, maybe with someone like Mike Flanagan directing. It could be absolutely amazing, or awful, but it deserves another shot.

Visual upgrade enthusiastI can see that. Some stories are just too big for a single movie, and a series format would give them the space they need. But what about films with great concepts that were just held back by the technology of their time?

Visual upgrade enthusiastI'm thinking of films like Logan's Run. It's an awesome concept, but it's literally only let down by the lack of visual effects available back then. A remake with modern CGI could bring that world to life in a truly engaging way.

Fix the flawedThat's a valid point. But my focus is more on the narrative failures. Look at Hancock. It had such a cool premise, but the second half just ruined it. A remake could simply ignore that part and realize the story's full potential.

Fix the flawedOr Jumper. Great concept, but no story to go with it. The movie completely changed the book's themes of grief, terrorism, and governmental overreach. It was a waste of a good idea.

Visual upgrade enthusiastI think we're both looking for films that didn't quite get there. For me, it's about the spectacle. Imagine a book-accurate version of War of the Worlds, set in Victorian England, with full-on Victorian sci-fi pistons and steam. Modern effects could make that incredible.

Visual upgrade enthusiastOr Them!, the classic sci-fi film about giant ants. It's got a great plot and acting, but modern effects could make those nine-foot killer ants genuinely terrifying. It'd be a visual feast.

Sequels not remakesThem! is one of the greatest black-and-white sci-fi films ever made. It doesn't need a remake. Some films are perfect as they are, and you shouldn't dare touch them. The Man from Earth is another one; it's perfect because of its minimalist approach.

HostSo, for you, some films are sacrosanct, even if they're older or have dated effects. You'd rather see new stories or continuations, wouldn't you?

Sequels not remakesAbsolutely. I definitely want a goddamn sequel to The Last Starfighter, not a remake. Or more Judge Dredd movies. Modern sequels, like they did with Jumanji, could be cool for something like Honey I Shrunk the Kids, but not remakes of the originals.

Star wars do overI agree that some films are perfect, but what about a franchise that was fundamentally broken? The Star Wars sequel trilogy needs to be completely redone, rewritten, re-everything. Not just remade, but a total do-over.

Star wars do overIt had a decent cast and good production design, but the story, plot beats, and dialogue were terrible. Bringing back Palpatine just negated Anakin Skywalker's entire redemption arc, making his tragic story irrelevant.

Fix the flawedThat's a strong example of a flawed execution, even with a massive budget. It's not just about small films. The Hobbit, for instance, was stretched into three movies when it should've been one good one. The original production team reportedly hated the process.

Star wars do overExactly. And they should do it with new actors for the original trilogy characters, set not too far in the future, and with a capable director like Peter Jackson. No more constantly escalating weapon power; focus on character-driven narratives.

Visual upgrade enthusiastI think Short Circuit could make big numbers with advanced robotics and CGI/VFX. It's a simple plot, but it could also fix some problematic casting from the original. It's a perfect blend of a good concept needing a modern touch.

Fix the flawedAnd what about films with cool premises that were just underbaked? In Time had a great concept but suffered from a bad lead actor and needed a more thoughtful script. Passengers had a cool premise but leaned too much into romance instead of psychological horror, missing the ethical crisis.

Fix the flawedEven Red Dawn from 2012 suffered from a less believable invasion force. A remake could take a more serious, Children of Men-esque approach and really elevate the material.

Sequels not remakesI still think the risk of diminishing the original's legacy is too high for many of these. Showgirls is perfect as it is, for example. Not every film needs to be 'fixed' or 'updated'.

HostIt seems there's a clear line for many of you: don't touch the good ones, but give the flawed ones a chance. However, a small number of people in the thread actually suggested remaking universally acclaimed classics like Citizen Kane or The Great Escape, to update them or offer a new perspective.

HostThat view was definitely in the minority, with most commenters preferring new, original stories over remakes in general, if the original was already good. But the consensus was strong: if you're going to remake something, make it better.

HostSo, the Reddit discussion landed on a clear preference for remakes that serve to improve, rather than just rehash. The thread showed a strong desire for faithful book adaptations, often lamenting how original films deviated from their source material. The big question that remains, though, is whether any remake can truly capture the magic of an original, even a flawed one, while still bringing something new to the table.

HostSloppod out.

HostSloppod is sponsored by Taskpile.app.

Det samme, som ren tekst