Is 14 years long enough for a re-make?

Landon D. Parks · September 8, 2005

I have an Idea for a re-make to a one-time hollywood movie based on a novel in the Public Domain (for fear of having the idea stolen, I will not say the name of it); My question is this: A fairly famouse, Warner Bros version was made in 1993, and now I think iy deserves a remake thats more true to the book than that version was.

Would I would copying, stealing or dragging the other movie in the mudd by making a remake to this movie? Is 14 years long enough that a remake would be welcomed?

Comments, suggestions, criticism for posting such a stupid question, ect are welcomed... Hell, you can even yell at me :blink:

Later!

Luke Prendergast · September 8, 2005

Search 'remake' on IMDB. If the story is public domain and your version is significantly different I don't see an issue. The public has a very short memory for past films.

Landon D. Parks · September 8, 2005

This film has about 20 re-makes listed on IMDB alone, Ranging from 1916 to 2004... The only real "Known" version from what I can tell is one that as a said was fairly famouse.

My vision is not "All that different", as the known version stuck fairly close to the book like I want to do.

Bottom line: The film itself wont be all that different than the 14 year old version. As there is not a whole lot of ways it can be, unless you make stuff up, which I never approave of. I beleive that if you want to make a movie from a book, you should stay true to the book as much as possible.

Primarily it would combin an update in Technology... Such as adding some Digital FX to enhance the story, Better acting performance, Better Cinematography, etc more than "Better Story". This paticulare 14 year old version got a 7.6 star rating on IMDB, so as fare as the story goes, it wasnt to bad... I just feel its time to "Update" it, if you know what I mean?

I dunno, maybe I should just leave it well enough alone. My mind is half telling me "Landon, Its got a great story, and acceptable cinematography. Why not leave it?" then the other half is saying "But this, that and so on can be improved, plus its a film I always wanted to adapt into a movie"... So my mind is telling me to go 2 different ways.

sneeze proof · September 8, 2005

Just do it

Brad Grimmett · September 9, 2005

This film has about 20 re-makes listed on IMDB alone, Ranging from 1916 to 2004... The only real "Known" version from what I can tell is one that as a said was fairly famouse.

My vision is not "All that different"

"But this, that and so on can be improved, plus its a film I always wanted to adapt into a movie"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, sounds like you should go make that 21st remake since you don't plan to make it any differently. It sounds like that's exactly what it needs. Screw doing a better and updated version.....just re-do it the same way someone else did. Every good film needs to be adapted into a movie. Sounds like you're the right man for the job. Just make sure you spell check it first.

Ahhh, the future.....

Landon D. Parks · September 9, 2005

Ahhh, it never fails... Good ol' Grimmett... :huh:

Edited September 9, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

Gordon Highland · September 9, 2005

Eh. . . I dunno, I tend to think "do we really need to see that again?" If it's a technical exercise for practice that might be kind of fun and challenging on a personal level (like that shot-for-shot home video remake of "The Empire Stikes Back" my friend did in college). but. . . you're a young guy, right? Looking to make a mark? I think your youthful enthusiasm would best be put to use trying your hand at something more original. Or re-imagine a book deemed "unfilmable" or modernize an old tale that no one has seen on the screen before.

It's like playing in a cover band. Sure it's fun, but that same energy could be put into making songs that someone else will some day cover. :D

Tim J Durham · September 9, 2005

...Or re-imagine a book deemed "unfilmable" or modernize an old tale that no one has seen on the screen before.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Landon,

No one has done a watchable version (lately) of James Joyce's "Ulysses" yet. Why not tackle that one?

September 12, 2005

Landon, I realize that you want to protect your idea, but without more details it's hard to say. As this story is public and has 20 films of it, I'm not sure what you would have to lose by at least saying the title, but I'll leave that with you.

If this project is something dealing with science fiction, supernatural creatures, or other "effect heavy" idea, than maybe. I love the film "Chandu the Magician" but the special effects, well, weren't very special. So I could see a leave the story alone/upgrad the tech approach.

But then you have the remeak for the sake of remake idea. A few years ago the BBC made a remake of "the Great Gatsby". I don't think it was as good as the '73(?) version, but there was nothing "wrong" with it. Both were very close to the book and both were very much alike? I couldn't help but wonder why.

Then you have the Planet of the Apes remake. (Sigh...I went to church after that one)

Lood Guck with the project.

Joe

Landon D. Parks · September 13, 2005

CLICK HERE

Click there, and you shall see... Sorry, I thought it woukd be kinda kool to make ya work for it :rolleyes:

Landon

Landon D. Parks · September 13, 2005

Does anyone feel a re-make would be un-welcomed or do you think anyone would even accept a remake?

Just curious...

rik carter · September 13, 2005

Disney is in development on an adaptation right now and the film version of the musical is being developed at (I think) Sony.

Landon D. Parks · September 13, 2005

See, you wait to long and someone else will take the idea from you. I should have known that in hollywood, there is no such thing as "Too soon for a re-make".

Oh well, disney & Sony, move over, Landon is coming to town :o

Thats why I debunk everyones thoughts that I should make about 500 shorts until Im 30, then take a shot at a feature... If you wait to long, the opertunity may pass you by. The younger, the better, so on.... Whatever, it all works.

Edited September 13, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

Tim J Durham · September 13, 2005

See, you wait to long and someone else will take the idea from you. I should have known that in hollywood, there is no such thing as "Too soon for a re-make".

Oh well, disney & Sony, move over, Landon is coming to town :o

Thats why I debunk everyones thoughts that I should make about 500 shorts until Im 30, then take a shot at a feature... If you wait to long, the opertunity may pass you by. The younger, the better, so on.... Whatever, it all works.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion there, Landon. That wasn't exactly an opportunity for YOU. But if you build 10 years of shooting shorts with progressively complex scripts and set-ups and a track record of doing them on-time and on-budget, it may one day be an opportunity for you. By then, I'm sure you'll have many more original ideas than the 14th re-make of "The Secret Garden".

Hell, you might even be ready to make the FIRST version of "The Satanic Verses". which no one has had the b@lls to make (for good reason if you know the story of Theo Van Gogh).

Make some shorts. If it was an appropriate start for George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Terry Gilliam, et al, it should be good enough for Landon Parks.

rik carter · September 14, 2005

See, you wait to long and someone else will take the idea from you. I should have known that in hollywood, there is no such thing as "Too soon for a re-make".

Oh well, disney & Sony, move over, Landon is coming to town :o

Thats why I debunk everyones thoughts that I should make about 500 shorts until Im 30, then take a shot at a feature... If you wait to long, the opertunity may pass you by. The younger, the better, so on.... Whatever, it all works.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wonder:

If two years ago you had started making short films, gotten really good, won some awards, used the connections to make a great little low budget feature, all before you turned 18; by now you would have a great reel of finished movies to show people.

Instead you debunk the idea of making a lot of shorts and as of right now you don't have a solid enough track record to attract investors. You have already let a great opportunity pass you by because you won't make short films to show how talented you are.

Landon D. Parks · September 14, 2005

And thats a question I may have to live with my whole life... And It's a good question, and you are 100% right.

If I had started making films back 2 years ago, even short films, I might have had a long enough track record to prove to people that I can direct a film, but I didn't.

We'll just have to see what happends...

Robert Hughes · September 14, 2005

Go take a look at the 1949 (?) British version also. Perhaps because the war had finished so recently, it had a gravity and serious honesty that is often missing in films of the past twenty years.

So get your actors cracking on their British accents, go shoot a few short scenes for your remake and start that demo reel going.