Even when they are crappy they are a good thing. First it gives the people who loved the original a new way to see it if they wish too. If they don't they can just ignore it. Second some people who have never heard of the original will check it out because of the remake. Win/Win.
[deleted]
agreed. It gives a new generation of people a movie. And weather or not the fans of the original like or not wont matter. It's done and it's made and new people are getting to experience a great movie.
shareAnother agree. Now that I've seen the remake my interest in the original is peaked.
shareWow, I rarely comment on peoples use of English ... but I'm left wondering if there is a connection between it and you liking this POS.
shareI personally have no problem with remakes. My issue is with the amount of remakes that are being made. There have been remakes in every decade since Hollywood began making movies. It's now out of control. It's not just remakes, it's also sequels. If you look at the release schedule for 2011, I'll bet you'll find one or the other practically every week.
What happened to original movies? It seems that the studios have completely stopped taking any kind of risks. The problem is that the audience keeps going to these movies. If we keep seeing them then why should they make anything else?
The other issue I have is that most remakes offer nothing new. Two of the best remakes ever, The Fly and The Thing, took ideas from the original and improved them.Those remakes are better then the original and are now also remembered more then the original movies. They did more then just update the special effects. Most remakes now don't even bother to change anything, except to add some new effects or hire younger actors.
i think you have a rosy view of the past, elvis made dozens of movies alone, it doesn't make his output good, they used to spam out movies when people had few options for entertainment. remakes are fine, if its trash it will fail, so why do you care if they try. you can't win if you don't try, if it fails, it cost you nothing.
shareI have a great idea.
Why doesn't this generation make it's OWN movies that will be classics instead of remaking classics from a different generation?
That would make a lot more sense than making *beep* remakes.
I mean 15-20 years from now do you think people are really going to look back and see all these remakes as classics? Or even have a fond memory of them?
I doubt it.
Sounds fine with me.
shareMaking remakes does not prevent a generation from making there own classics. My generation which Footloose came from made plenty of remakes. I guaranty you that some people will have fond memories of these remakes. It might not be many but the ones who don't have fond memories of these will have fond memories of something else. Win/Win. My point just like an earlier poster said is that this remake got them interested in seeing the original.
share@peri0701: My generation which Footloose came from made plenty of remakes. _____________________________________________________________________________
The only remakes that come to mind are 1982's "THE THING" and that was remade again for this week 2011. The other being "THE FLY" What other 1980's movies were remakes? I am sure there was more but I can't think of any????
You are correct Roadghost69... besides horror movies there were *very few* remakes made in the 80s; especially when compared with the last 10 years.
shareHere's an idea, if you don't like remakes AVOID them. Remakes aren't the only movies out, see the much better movies that are currently playing at any given moment.
Footloose (2011) - 6/10
Ides of March - 10/10
The trouble is you can't avoid them - because the new one chases the old one right out of the world. In a few months this Footloose will hit the TV, and the old one will be gone. Unless you have saved the vcr tape from 1984, you won't find the old one anywhere.
This is known as Gresham's Law. An example: I kind of liked Casino Royale with Peter Sellers, good music, a few laughs. Now, whenever I see that title on the tv listings, it's the Craig version, no laughs.
Ditto: The Thing. Ditto: Moulin Rouge. Ditto: 3:10 to Yuma. The new one chases the old one away.
Ditto: Scarface.
.
.
Tenser, said the Tensor.
Tension, apprehension, and dissension have begun.
The fact that is available on blu ray makes that point invalid. The original is still widely available and I recently saw it on HBO actually. In fact I think it got the blu release because of this movie. If anything more young people will be open to watching it because of that. I wasn't a fan of the new Footloose anyways, too close to the original, but I would've loved it if I saw it before seeing the original.
Can't Hardly Wait (rewatch) - 10/10
Heathers - 8/10
I seriously doubt the Julianne Hough version will ever replace the Kevin Bacon one. Yeah, some remakes chase the original away but those are cases in which the remake is obscure and the new one is much better known. Footloose is a classic, modernizing it wont change that.
shareI thought that Footloose was one of the better remakes since it managed to a decent job at making the film a more contemporary version of the original.
shareIf you can come up with a new idea for a movie that's never been done before, lemme know.
shareSecond some people who have never heard of the original will check it out because of the remake
None of that matters. Just because I have Netflix, doesn't mean I've seen every movie available on Netflix. Just because I have premium channels doesn't mean I watch everything on those channels. Kids are simply more likely to watch the old one because of the publicity of this movie. For example Netflix was reccommending the original Fright Night to me for quite a while. But I didn't know anything about it and honestly had no interest in finding out as I didn't want to use up space on my queue when there was stuff I had to see. Then I saw the remake, and loved it. Now it's on it's way to my mailbox. I would never have rented that film had they never made the new film. They may see it listed but they are more likely to actually view the film after seeing this. And to be honest, who cares if they see it. I love Footloose, but it's just mindless entertainment. It's not a must see film, there is nothing to learn from viewing it. Since they are almost the exact same film, the younger generations should just stick with the new film.
Can't Hardly Wait (rewatch) - 10/10
Heathers - 8/10
You're wrong on all levels. Remakes are a horrible thing and people need to watch the originals. People need to come up with new ideas.
Your chains are still mine, you belong to me! - The Phantom Of The Opera
The levels you are wrong on is that remakes make it MORE likely that people will watch the originals. Remakes don't prevent anyone from coming up with new ideas. There really are no new ideas by the way. Star Wars was derived from Lord of the Rings. Harry Potter was derived from Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Disc World. Taking old ideas and doing something new is the source of some great things. All that said my best guess is I am not going to like the new Footloose all that much but due to all the attention it is bringing the old one I am so glad it was made.
shareIncorrect.I wasn't a fan of this movie (it was decent) but to say all remakes are "a horrible thing and people need to watch the originals." You are are the one who is wrong, on many levels. Remakes are not a horrible thing, bad remakes are a horrible thing. Here is why remakes are not bad:
Heat
True Grit
Disturbia
Fright Night
Let Me In
The Mummy (sequels were bad though)
My Blood Valentine 3D (underrated)
Ocean's Eleven
I am Legend
Ransom
The Ring
Scarface
All great remakes. Some of these are better than the original. People act like remakes are some sort of new thing and they aren't. The truth is, ideas are not infinite. There are no NEW ideas. Would you rather them blatantly rip off other movies? At least these movies give credit to the original And people don't "need" tow watch anything. Watch what you like and leave everyone else alone. I'm no defending this movie (although it was pretty fun) but don't act like remakes are awful when many of them are better than the original. The one reason this movies wasn't as good as the original is they took direct lines from the original. If I saw this the first, I'd say it's a better movie. But they basically used the same script and added in lines to make it modern. Good remakes take the basic principle and make it their own movie.
Footloose (2011) - 6/10
Ides of March - 10/10
[deleted]
Sometimes movies are remade because the SEs in the original are outdated. I'm not saying that this is the case with footloose but most people on this site are referring to ALL remakes. Personally, in my opinion they should remake JAWS for that very reason. (Which was a book first btw)
I also don't really understand why so many people are literally offended by a movie being remade. I'm the 9999...th person to say this but honestly, just don't watch it. If you truly hate this movie being remade don't talk about it because it only brings more attention to it.
Most things are recycled, revamped and inspired by an older version of itself in general.
Been trying to watch the original Footloose. All out at the movie rental stores. Checked out and waiting list at the Library. I would say the evidence that the new movie has created a lot of interest in the old movie is irrefutable.
shareI'm one of those. I hadn't seen the original, but after seeing the remake (which I watched because I got free tickets) my friend and I almost immediately went and got a hold of the original to see how they compared. While I like Kevin Bacon and John Lithgow in the original, I found Miles Teller more endearing than Chris Penn, and Julianne Hough not as irritating as Lori Singer. Dianne Wiest I thought made more of an impact than Andie McDowell, even though she spoke less. There were good elements to both, but to be honest if I were to re-watch a version it would probably be the 2011 version (I am of a generation that likes to see multi-racial casts and girls kicking butt rather than just cheering on the boys). That said, I didn't really enjoy either version enough to want to watch it again.
And before people start ripping into me for being a 'new generation, didn't grow up in the 80s so I just don't get it' person, I was born in 1980, I love Grease and Dirty Dancing, The Goonies and Labyrinth. Footloose just didn't really do it for me the same way these films did (and yes, I know Grease is a 1978 movie, but I grew up watching it and it's my favourite movie so I'm putting it in with the others). That said, I think I'd be horrified if they remade Grease, so I understand where all the original Footloosers are coming from.
In addition to Footloose I also tracked down the original Ocean's 11 after watching the remake, and there are probably others but those are the main ones that come to mind.
So I think the OP makes a valid point.
Thank you very much you understood my point. Some people actually have a hard time getting it. Now as for comparing the two movies to me it comes down to Acting vs Dancing. You hit the two big ones. Bacon and Lithgow just bury Wormald and Quaid as actors while of course Wormald buries Bacon as a dancer but for the part of Ren to me dancing is far less important. Still regardless the new movie inspired you to watch the old one and the people who love the original should really appreciate it.
shareThere's one good reason for a remake -- added value. If, for example, modern film-making techniques can add something to the original. That's why so many classic horror movies get remade -- fantastic new special-effects magic can enhance the too-fake original. Or the issue of social attitudes -- you can put stuff on screen now that were strictly forbidden a generation ago, so if the original movie was inhibited by social taboos, a remake could be better.
In the case of Footloose, the justification for the remake was to upgrade it into a full musical. But I guess they couldn't figure out how to do that, so they kept it as just a dance movie; that made the project pointless because the original was already a great dance movie and the new version didn't provide any added value.
[deleted]
agreed. bump
shareAbsolutely peri0701!
The original Footloose was fantastic and will always be the 'original', but now it's been honored with a fresh version for people to experience. The current movie has likely sparked new interest, knocking dust off the 'original', reminding fans of the great story, and enticing new fans to view it as well.
Kenny Wormald as Ren ~ WOW, what an amazing actor, bringing dimpled-smile(~_~) good looks, stacked up charm, and mega talent. This guy has got the total package of a star. If Kenny continues to perform as he did in Footloose, he'll surely reach the sky.
As for the comments here about not willing to watch the 'new' version...these folks are missing out and will never know how good it can be. 'You can fly if you'd only cut loose'
A*_*Tz Gurl