MovieChat Forums > The Bat (1959) Discussion > Remake of 'The Bat' did someone suggest?

Remake of 'The Bat' did someone suggest?


Borrowing from the heated words of John McEnroe, "you can't be serious!"

How many remakes have you personally witnessed that were as good or even better than the original rendition? Unarguably there are a few such cases. But you can easily count them on just one hand, or certainly two at the very most. Attempting to improve upon perfection is nearly always a serious mistake. Certainly a very risky and unwise endeavor at best. Given the fact, once having reached the ultimate pinnacle of success, the only place left to go is downhill!

Vincent Price and Agnes Moorehead's performances are nothing less than dazzling, as was the entirety of this outstanding cast. The well-written plot, dialog, personal interaction and closely-knit relationships developed between characters, artfully makes you completely forget you're watching a movie as opposed to "the real thing." Consistently being the most notable characteristic of any superbly talented screen performer and film production crew.

As you read this now and it's once again shoved-down our throats like the "letterbox" format was, high-definition television (HDTV) and the associated transition to digital television (DTV) planned to occur February 2009, is being touted as "the greatest achievement since the advent of color television" by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB). Truly stunning visual quality coupled with nearly a complete lack of meaningful content and substance.

Never before in history, was there a greater calling to aggressively dig deep into the vaults and utilize today's amazing restoration technology, for the express purpose of rescuing the vast number of priceless motion picture masterpieces, decomposing into piles of dust. It's nothing short of a tragedy, just how many irreplaceable reels of film have suffered this unforgiving and inevitable fate.

Realize given its age, "The Bat" could very easily have been just such a casualty. While no substantial restoration effort has yet been made, thankfully at least, it's been transferred from film to DVD. How would it impact you, had you been deprived of this particular extraordinary motion picture?

What good is today's "state of the art" high-definition quality without equally high-quality content, worthy of viewing? Given the ability to watch minute beads of sweat form on some athlete's body during a Football game, or count the wrinkles and blemishes on your favorite actor's face, surely doesn't utilize high-definition technology to its greatest potential. Nor is its use mindlessly justified across-the-board without consideration of meaningful purpose and intent.

Give me an outstanding B&W (low-definition) movie from the 1930s-1950's like "The Bat" and I'll choose it instantly, in preference to any of the contemporary Box Office fecal stream pumped-out of Hollywood and the commercial television industry, these days! Presently, the screen-writers are all on strike. Good! Let them stay out-of-work until they acquire some genuine talent, assuming that's a possibility.

This incredibly well-written play and (television adapted) screen-play is a superb reminder, clearly demonstrating by example, to what depths and just how profoundly today's motion picture and television industries have sunk. While completely devoid of the usual sex, profanity and gratuitous violence most typical of today's motion pictures, nonetheless, "The Bat" easily manages to keep viewers on the very edge of their seat, from beginning to end.

Undeniably, "sex and violence does sell" movies to a substantial (depraved) minority of the public-at-large. Let it not be forgotten however, great performances in combination with a brilliantly-written script, is profoundly more powerful and of far greater aesthetic value. Something Hollywood has chosen to forget due to its own laziness, lack of imagination and scarcity of genuine talent.

How many motion pictures can you watch again and again, enjoying them as much (or even more) with each succession, in anticipation of picking-up upon various subtleties and dialogue which somehow managed to evade you, previously? Only a genuine masterpiece has such extraordinary potential and staying-power. The kind which lasts the test of time.

Mike Adams, Lewisburg PA

reply

[deleted]

When I was younger I used to watch this all the time and think 'Oh I would just LOVE to redo it'...but now that I've gotten older, I've realized that it would be impossible to make a better remake than the one that this 1959 horror classic truly is. It's untouchable, and should remain so, leave it alone.

reply

[deleted]

Oh, you betchum, Red Ryder! This thing was a remake itself.

Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.

reply

Yes, however it was a remake very different from the 1930 and 1926 predecessors. And even if something is remade once, that long ago it's bound to be again...like the Blob, it was done in 58, remade in 88 both were good, but they wanted to remake it again this year! The plans must've fallen through or something, thankfully...but if they DID try to remake this movie TODAY, I have no doubt in my mind they would fail...look at all the recent remakes and rip offs that are complete pieces of junk, the Wicker Man, When a Stranger Calls, Halloween, House on haunted Hill (and THAT remake got a sequel!), Night of the Living Dead, Last Man on Earth, House of Wax, etc.

reply

This film kind of was a remake, you know. And one could be done again today, and it could be done again successfully, and it could be a great film that honors the original (being the 1926) film, the first remake (1930), and this third remake starring Vincent Price. Of course, if it is remade again, chances are, it'll be bad.

Besides, no one would dare remake the original film without changing to the point that it no longer resembles that film, because today, any remake would have to worry about similarities to Batman, which the original film inspired.

____________________________________

reply

Of course it was a remake, and it was a good one. Now I say if somebody who held that film as sacred (I say sacred because my brother said regarding remakes "Nothing is sacred to Hollywood", they probably would try to remake it and ruin it) were to try it, maybe change the storyline a little bit but hold true to the characters, an older woman, a strange detective, a suspicious butler, a strong maid, and all in a serious setting (not like today where every bit of dialogue would come out of the mouth of someone on a little bus), I think it COULD work, but I say don't jinx it.

reply

Uh ok. Remaking anything with Vincent in it, is just plain stupid. No actor out there today can even hope to measure up to him. Two words, one legend, Vincent Price.

reply

Amen to that, it didn't work to remake House of Wax, it didn't work to remake House on Haunted Hill, it's NOT going to work to remake The Tingler, leave The Bat alone.

reply

My point is, rather than remake this film, why not remake the original? Or better yet, how about a new adaptation of the novel? Boris Karloff IS Frankenstein's Monster, but that doesn't mean he never let anyone else borrow his shoes for a while, and some times a great performance came of it.

____________________________________

reply

This is true...however I feel with The Bat, you'd have to be more careful than with Frankenstein, it doesn't have as great a legacy but it is a fine piece of art.

reply

I agree, americanmonkey17. I didn't see the remake of House on Haunted Hill but I saw clips where it seemed an actor was doing a bad impression of Vincent Price. I could never stand to see that.

reply

This film IS a remake.

reply

I haven't seen the first two films of this story but I bet this third one is the best.

reply