>

oh that sounds like a great idea! i’m so tired of my favorite movies/shows getting ruined because of reboots/remakes. we need something new out here, not something we already love and made into something else again.
I would like this.  Great concepts that were terribly executed should be remade to get the execution better. >

Please give me eragon that is actually similar to the book. >

Eragon is the very first thing I thought of! They did him dirty. >

Yah they fucked that up so bad that I almost walked out of the theater and i was just a kid then. Read the entire series (the last book wasn't finished yet) and was all hyped up over a pile of shit. By far the most dissapointed I had ever felt over any movie, book or game to this day. Wonder how Christopher Paolini felt after that shitshow. Some of the scenes were so fucking terrible that people in the theater were fucking  laughing at it. >

I never finished reading the series. Was it good? >

Some spoilers, nothing too crazy.
The first book obviously borrows heavily from Lord of the Rings and Star Wars, but I mean he was a 15 year old author. And it’s honestly not bad, just a little goofy at times.
Eldest is a HUGE step up, really an awesome book. The concept of magic is better explored and explained, and the arc of the family back home is amazing. I think it’s the best of the whole series.
Brisingr was fine, but the concept of Eldunari seemed kind of stupid to me. Like, why do only dragons have these special rocks? It’s just an arbitrary way he devised to harness a dragon’s power. There’s no reason their bodies should have that, no real adaptive advantage. And the ongoing drama with Arya not going much of anywhere is disappointing and weakens things. Yes, we all suffer disappointment, Chris, but this very public expression of sexual frustration is embarrassing. It just seems manufactured? Like he gives reasons, but they seem totally surmountable. The real issue just seems like an anxious-avoidant dynamic/mismatch. I do enjoy that he drops a marriage-is-only-temporary, polyamory thing about the elves. Hilarious 
The final book wasn’t as memorable to me, since it came out later, and I was largely over the craze. But I read it. I recall really liking the character of Galbatorix, a suave charming fellow who’s just kind of a control freak, sort of like the emperor in Dune was supposed to be in Jodorowsky’s never-made adaptation, portrayed by a manic Salvador Dali, if you can imagine it. In some fucked up way he believes he’s doing the right thing, but he became so untouchable that he’s completely lost touch. The way Eragon devises to defeat him in the end is clever and befitting.
Overall good. Maybe not as classic or original as some other high fantasy, but then again better than most of the genre >

Major spoilers ahead: y'all have been warned.
I agree with some of your points but I think I come down a bit harsher especially as it relates to the end.
I will say Paolini had some cool ideas for sure, and some of it was interesting introspective stuff. I remember reading a part about how the main character realizes that because of his magic he won't age and change the same way his mortal friends and family do, and how he's kinda stuck for a while looking the way he does. It casts an interesting light on the "beautiful immortal elves" trope, because he is human but not pretty like an elf would be I guess.
You are spot on about the Eldunari, and that actually ends up being one of my major bones of contention with the books in general. Dragons die, but because they leave the stone behind they aren't actually dead... but also their power and influence can make someone connected to them immensely, dreadfully powerful? They essentially become magic batteries to empower whoever controls them, which isn't terrible but the implementation was poor. 
The fact they essentially find a secret vault of dozens or hundreds of these a short time before the final conflict? Uhhh... sure. And then even more astounding is how the secret word magic ends up negating everything anyways so they don't really need the magic dragon batteries because they know the super mega magic words...
I didn't think it was so clever in the end, but I think it's because it veered off from where I think it made sense to go and all. It's a fun read but I don't think it stands up too well. >

Okay yeah, bigger spoilers in this one.
If I recall correctly, the defeat isn’t due so much to knowing the name of the ancient language nor more dragon batteries. Despite all that, Galbatorix is still much stronger. Does he even know the name of the language himself and think it’s old hat? Don’t remember, but I do remember Eragon is gonna lose anyway. The win only comes because Eragon somehow makes Galbatorix feel the misery he’s caused and causing in the world, and that’s at odds with the protective narrative Galbatorix has built for himself, and he can’t handle the truth. I like how it plays on the way villains almost always don’t conceptualize themselves as villainous and have some kind of messed up ends-justify-the-means mental contortion going on. Very nuanced, very morally grey.
The best stuff about the series is: 1. The mechanics of magic. I love how it takes literal energy to accomplish, and you can store and borrow energy like we understand with modern tech. Like in Harry Potter you see them straining to cast spells against each other, but why is it so effortful? It’s like the Daniel Tosh joke about how Superman flies faster, is it just more holds his arms out and strains? It’s not like the energy is coming from them. In that paradigm, it all seems to be about technique or innate magical strength/ability. Knowledge helps, but the mechanism of the potency of magic is left completely unexplained. Some objects and people just have more of it, like intelligence. That makes magical battles more of a brute-force contest with cleverness/trickery as a spicy side dish, whereas in Eragon they’re portrayed as primarily intellectual, because you have to smartly conserve resources as your first concern. This also gives us a sense of some of the moves at a low level, efficient ones, dangerously bad ones, ones that have unexpected effects, counter-measures. It all becomes much more interesting. I also like how there’s some attempt at explaining how/why magic is tethered to a language, that magic was wild and unharnessed before, chaotic, and someone in a wiser, forgotten age saw fit to fight against that, with disastrous short-term consequences. To take the Harry Potter conception as the typical counter-example again, in most stories no one questions why the magic words are magical, why you have to say them instead of something else. 2. The way the elves’ culture is so thoroughly explored. What does being magical demigods do to a society? He thought through it. Turns out it makes everyone vegan and less love-attached, kinda “enlightened” in a Buddhist sense. I like how they grow the trees into houses and just try to be super harmonious with everything, but this detachment can bite them in the ass too, as we see with their population collapse and unwillingness to venture beyond their borders for others most of the time. There are similar themes in Lord of the Rings, Ancient Greek epics, and even some vampire stories, but often not as explicit: These beings are wise and incredible but in decline, morose, slow to react. It’s as if their risk aversion and long memories make them perpetually ill-suited to the present. Whereas mortality makes creatures bold and vibrant, more willing to seize the day, knowing tomorrow isn’t promised. 3. A good amount of focus on non-superpowered heroes like the cousin (Rowan?) and Horst. 4. Great exploration of the dragon-rider bond and exploration of why both would want that/the history of society built around it/how that loss would devastate a person like—was it Brom? 5. The journey out of obscurity guided by an Obiwan-like archetype is well-executed I think. Makes the character relatable throughout, and you get to explore the world bit by bit with him. The worst parts are: 1. Eldunari. After all the care to not be arbitrary about the magic words, this just feels like a cop out, a Deus ex. 2. Bad pointless love arc. In a Bildungsroman the hero should usually face his fear of the opposite sex and come away stronger. Eragon ends the series still a virgin if I’m not mistaken. 3. Urgles basically being orcs and those bird monster things basically being Ringwraiths 4. “Chosen one” trope. 5. Oh yeah isn’t he Brom’s son? Too cliche. Dumb. Or at least have Brom reveal it much much earlier instead of it coming to light posthumously among the elves.
I do wish it had been better executed. I feel like had he been older so the first one’s content didn’t seem so patently stolen, and its style so meh, had he had more life experience to inform the crush/love interest, and had he not taken the easy way out and made a dumb concept (dragon soul rocks) a huge cornerstone of the story, then it really could have been masterful. There was a lot of good there, but it came out so fundamentally flawed in the end, I thought. This is part of why I like Eldest best, because it’s the only one touching that potential. Book 1 is immature, and by book 3 he’s canonizing nonsense. But book 2 is narrative and world-building brilliance. He had it in him. It would have taken more time to do right, and I know he was all excited to be propelled at such an early age, and probably under deadlines from Knopf, and it’s harder to tie up narrative threads in a satisfying way than to spawn them (a curse many TV show writing teams get killed by), but he should have been more patient, even pulled a Douglas Adams or a George RR Martin, maybe. But had to get it out the door to sell while the audience was still eager. Not sure that was the right call long-term. He could be a legend today, but instead he’s just last-last decade’s best seller. Comfortable, but that’s not what true art is about. >

But the whole reason they're remaking movies is because they hate taking risks. Making new stuff is risky, so they take something that has already been successful and make a low-effort remake that people will go see because the title is familiar. No studio will invest in remaking a flop. >

Dune >

Is one of the best-selling novels of all time and they are making a film based on the book, not on the 80's film. >

Wasnt there a TV show too? >

Children of Dune? >

SciFi channel did two miniseries. Dune and Children of Dune. >

And surprisingly not terrible >

Children of Dune was definitely the lesser of the two but I really liked the Dune mini series. More so than the 80s movie. Much more book accurate. >

Completely agreed. I think they ran out of steam towards the end, but it's the most book-accurate version to date. >

Steven Soderbergh did a great job of this with his remake of Ocean's Eleven. The original film is pretty mediocre. >

Ocean's is a remake????????????????? whaaaaaaaaat >

Wait until you hear about Scarface. >

The movie from like, the 80's? I didn't know that was a remake either. >

Yup. There’s a good number of remakes that outshined the originals by so much people don’t even know they are remakes. >

I'm the guy the prefers the original Scarface with Tony Camonte. Pre Hayes code movies kick ass. >

I’ll never understand the “not enough turnout” of the 2010 A-Team movie , and Tron:Legacy. >

Tron Legacy was unjustly underrated. I mean ok, I lost a little interest in the characters in the 3rd act but the aesthetics and the music were sufficiently excellent to make up for that >

The daft punk soundtrack made the movie absolutely worth it >

The reason there are so many reboots and sequels is that the new film borrows from the previous one’s success, so the audience will go and see it because they loved the original. 
With your plan you have an audience turned off by associate with a shit film and actual fans not wanting to go because you changed something they liked 
Hollywood doesn’t like risk and your plan is big risk. You’re better off with brand new properties than being tainted by previous flops >

But if the first film was long enough ago that most of the audience doesn’t remember it, then I don’t think they’d lose their audience. Like remaking movies from decades ago that are unheard of today is basically akin to releasing an original movie. They don’t have to advertise it’s a remake, plus they could learn from what worked and what didn’t in the original release.  
I don’t know, I hear the money arguments, but at the same time I think the consumer audience doesn’t really give a shit, they just want to be entertained—and hey, what they don’t know won’t hurt them. I’m sure there are some gems of writing that would do very well if they were reworked for today’s crowds and re-released. There are also lots of movies that absolutely should just not be done again because the writing sucked. But if the writing is good and it just needs a polish and some better acting and direction, then I don’t really see a negative. Of course, other than taking away the chance to develop something completely new (which is preferred). >

Didn’t they try that with the Chips movie? >

Well I didn’t hear about that one so I’m guessing it didn’t work out 😬😅 >

Waiting for a water world remake >

Why? That movie is already perfect. >

Wish I could find a copy of the extended version where the villains plans are shown that he wants to make a golf course.  Only ever saw it once on CBC. >

Aww shit yeah, thank you >

In Time would be a good one to try again >

the fact this movie ended up being so bad haunts me. such a good premise >

And so many big names! The premise was so good, the cast was seemingly good, they just blew it with the execution (plus Amanda Seyfried and JT had absolutely no chemistry) >

Except M3gan. That deserves several sequels >

basically just an updated "Childs Play" >

Which was just an updated "Pinocchio" >

Not really. Pinocchio never went on a murder spree and Chucky never wished he was a real boy >

r/woosh >

Suicide squad is a successful example >

No it isn't. TSS bombed (financially). >

Still a good movie, which turned out really well for their crumbling brand. It launched a spinoff tv show and a partnership with Gunn that looks like is a major part of the studio's strategy going forward. >

Maybe but none of those things would encourage a studio to attempt a remake in the same vein.
Hell, I bet whoever greenlit TSS regrets it too given than Gunn now has their job. >

This is not an unpopular opinion >

It is because no one's really thinking about it >

You've apparently never been on YouTube. There are 100s of videos dedicated to the subject >


Instead of remaking great movies, Hollywood should remake bad movies that were based on good stories, but did not meet expectations.

Such as? >

Every video game movie from the 90s >

Not even just from the 90s. Assassin’s Creed was horrible. As were both iterations of Hitman. DOA, Tekken. Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, Doom, Prince of Persia (tbh I actually didn’t mind this one but it got panned critically), Final Fantasy, Need for Speed. None of them have any kind of acclaim, nor did they do too well at the box office. 
The whole approach of how video games are turned into films needs looking at >

I didn't mind the Resident Evil ones, you could tell they were their own thing and just loosely adapted from the concept of resident evil rather than the story itself
How else are you going to add Mila Yokovich doing backflips to the movie? That won my 14 year old bone..brain over instantly >

I feel at this point I should remind you that the 5th Element exists. She briefly nakey in that one. Dread to think how many times 14yr old brainer would’ve been won over by that one >

Sadly, I wasn't aware of that movie when I was 14, but I can assure you my 17 year old brainer was happily surprised >

Erm… I’m glad(?) lol >

Welcome to r/popularopinion. >

I would love to see a reboot of Congo. The book was so good but awful movie >

I was a young teen, so Congo was extremely watchable …….and also totally believable. >

Why doesn’t Hollywood just restart creating original content? >

I always wanted to see a remake of Jaws 3D with today's technology. >

I love those forced 3D movies of the 70s/80s, that absolutely didn't need the 3D element at all - Friday the 13th part 3(?) is a great example >

You stole this off a meme >

I was going to say, this has to be the 5th+ time I’ve seen this on some website or another. I’m pretty sure it’s even taken word for word. Pretty lazy, OP. >

Hollywood doesn't intentionally bet on losing horses.
They prefer to bet on pedophiles and women abusers. >

This is only unpopular amongst the hopelessly clueless studio system >

Not clueless, just risk-averse. Remaking successful properties is minimal risk. >

Risk-averse is what makes them clueless - Safe art is boring, stories that don't challenge or enlighten your perception are empty. In it's heyday film producers understood the medium they were investing in - now it's a game of statistics run by people who don't even watch movies, all having been bought out by telecommunication, electronics, news media conglomerates... You are no longer an audience watching a movie picture, you're a consumer buying a product - thus, an embarrassingly detached and hopelessly clueless ideology predominates. >

That's capitalism baby. >

I think Battlefield Earth could be done right, if given another chance. >

Nah, I think the movie we got is the perfect representation for Scientology. >

All the more reason to do it right this time. The core scifi story in the book is a solid one, although I'm willing to bet there's a lot of Scientology crap woven within that I missed as a teenager when I read it. I'm sure Hubbard's depiction of women is just as bad in retrospect as so many authors of his day too. So rewrite it with the same setting and plot with better characters and modern morality lessons or whatever. >

That would do nothing but give a PR boast to Scientology as they would use the film as a means to promote their cult. >

In the anime world the first adaptation of Fullmetal Alchemist made some questionable choices. I’m not entirely sure the history, but I think the anime production made it past the source material and they continued the story in predictive ways. 
Then we got one of the most touted shows of all time at #16 on imdb: Fullmetal Alchemist: brotherhood. 
Maybe some of that type of stuff in the movie world would make money >

World War Z deserves a re-do. >

Idiocracy >

That one was amazing. They don’t need to remake it when the original is hilarious. >

Go way baitin >

I like this. Why make a newer, worse version of a really good movie when you could make a newer version of a bad movie? Best case scenario you fix what the first movie ruined and worst case you just make a bad movie worse >

Plan 9 from Outer Space being remade as a big budget blockbuster with A-List actors would be the most hilarious thing ever. >

I’d never thought about this, this could either be really good, or absolute dogshit >

Highlander! >

Quite unpopular but i wanna see a proper remake of "Rhe league of Extraordinary gentlemen" >

Mac and Me featuring Paul Rudd.
Make it happen. >

Stephen King's Thinner is a great book, but one of the  worst movies I've ever seen. Entirely due to shitty special effects; I would love a remake of this. >

Quantum Leap >

People will see they are remaking a terrible movie, and say “That movie sucked.”
I get what you are after, and agree that’s the way to go from a common sense standpoint, I just don’t think it’s the way to go from a money standpoint.  And at the end of the day… >

I don't think this is an unpopular opinion.
I do think modernizations and new TAKES on good movies can be fun, but I see the opinion in OP shared all the time. >

Very popular opinions >

Dune >

PLEASE REDO ERAGON! >

Remake Ready Player One >

Like Aquaman? >

That’s a great idea actually >

This is unpopular? >

Unpopular to movie execs >

Feeling daring today, are we? >

They should remake The Room >

Wow. I read your comment while returning to the front page and had to come back to the thread and your comment just to reply. 
This is such an awesome idea. Just for the experimental aspect of it. Imagine getting the top screenwriters in Hollywood to clean up the script and keep it as close to the original as possible while making it make sense. 
Then getting the top talent in the world, on the levels of Anthony Hopkins, Gary Oldman, Kate Balnchett, Alicia Vikander etc etc,  to take on the various roles and turn The Room into a watchable film. 
What a concept. >

I love it. As long as they keep ALL the sex scenes! >

Hollywood loved a sexy scene. >

Not unpopular opinion. 
This is an exact word-for-word copy/paste that's been floating around Facebook and other social media for years. >

They've actually done it though. It's not even a new idea in Hollywood. Every time there's a remake of a bad movie no one knows because the original is bad. >

How is this unpopular? I'll downvote since I agree. (Remember, that how this sub works.) >

They would just end up as crappy as all the other movies that come out of Hollywood these days. >

I think the new suicide squad is a good example of the same >

This is a very popular opinion. New ATLA movie now! >

They're making a new live action ATLA, but as a series which I can agree with. More time and budget to go into each Book. Also they're making a Percy Jackson series which I'm hyped for >

yeah like Dune >

I don't know, I kinda like seeing Patrick Stewart with hair. >

Star Wars, Prequel trilogy. >

This is a highly popular opinion >

I love this idea. >

Bring back the early 2000 parody movie 😭 >

OP said "remake bad movies with good ideas," not "bring back a terrible genre, but do it in a time when the biggest problem in comedy is already bullies bitching about people not laughing at bullies." >

Hell yeah. Let’s see Adam Sandler’s Jack & Jill remade >

Lol wut >

can we get a matrix 4 remake? >

Yeah... posts like this make me wonder if this sub is really meant for unpopular opinions or opinions people didn't think about, but end up agreeing with said opinion. Sometimes borderline edgy too. >

Not an unpopular opinion.
Unfortunately that would require hard work and most Hollywood films are in it for a quick buck and they think shilling off a good film will make the same results. >

They should remake Starship Troopers with actual power armour. It made no sense sending in infantry to fight the bugs without it. The scenes were they shoot at the bugs whilst walking towards them made me laugh. >

There are several books and video games that deserved far better movie adaptations than they got, and can do way better if they aren't made as soulless cashgrabs. Eragon, Prince of Persia, Assassin's Creed... >

This is a shower thought not an unpopular opinion >

Remake every movie Bruce Willis was in over the last 4 years.
Edit:typos >

Eregon needs a remake - do the whole inheritance cycle while you're at it as well >

Gotta downvote because this is a good idea. >

You don’t really gotta say you’re gonna downvote >

You're right. But if we only did what we have to, life would be boring. >

Or worse and we just get a newer polished turd… >

I agree! Enjoy my downvote! >

Angels in the Outfield needs a non children’s movie  rewrite >

Damn good idea, too bad hollywood would never bother. >

But they won't make much money and reliability. Hollywood remakes good movies because people are already attached to it. >

The question is - can we live through another bad attempt at Avatar: The Last Airbender? >

Netflix is currently making ATLA live action so we'll just have to wait and see >

That can't happen for the same reason new movies can't be interesting >

My first thought it’s remaking the Descent. Pretty good movie for its being small but I’d love to see a 2-3 version of it that goes more into detail >

I agree i don't particularly hate remakes in games / movies that were great but this feels like a better use for remakes/ reimaginings to give ideas and concepts a second chance . >

I’d be happy if the remade the Seventh Son (spooks apprentice)…books are great and it had the potential to be the next Harry Potter type series but oh no…they had to age up Tom & Alice for the sake of throwing a sex scene, Jeff Bridges absolutely BUTCHERED Gregory the Spook…wtf was with Kit Harrington making an appearance? No Grimalkin…Great books…fucking dreadful film >

it worked for Suicide Squad >

I'm currently reading The Shinning and we definitely need a new movie that's more accurate to the source material. Kubrick butchered the story. >

Like putting lipstick on a pig.. >

I think they should take all the big directors and have them all do the same story at the same time in their own way, release on the same day, then compare after. They would kill in the box office because everyone would want to see how they stack up and see all of them to decide. >

You're asking a bunch of narcissistic psychopaths to apply critical thinking... dream on. >

This goes for like 90% of science fiction literature that has been filmed. Like Starship Troopers was a movie that I found amusing, but it wasn't anything really representing what the book was about. If Verhoeven wanted to make a space cavalry fascism satire movie he should have just made it and not dragged Heinlein along with him.
There's some authors like William Gibson that everything they've ever had filmed has sucked. >

This is a genius idea. >

Or maybe it should just move away from story-driven cinema. >

This Is my hope For The Postman, my favorite post-apocalypse novel that got done dirty by Hollywood in the 90s. It and World War Z are two takes that are very different from the usual apocalyptic stories you see and I would like to see a faithful retelling of both. >

It didn't work out well for Mortal Kombat did it? 
Fucking hell, the new movie truly was hot garbage. Stick to the original story. How hard can that be?! >

The Suicide Squad treatment >

Waterworld 2.0! >

True this would be really interesting and refreshing >

This is not an unpopular opinion, this is a great idea! >

I was just making this case last week. Hollywood keeps sticking to past successes like they're going to improve on it or like people will hand over as much money as last time just because it's no worse than the original.  They should be looking at things they could improve upon or things that were good but maybe got released behind a blockbuster and never got a fair shake. >

The FBI would like a word... >

Hollywood should be making new movies, but that takes creativity and the guts to do something new, which is something Hollywood sorely lacks. >

Yeah that's a great idea if your goal is to make good movies.
That's not their goal. >

Remake Tommy Wisseau's The Room. But get a critically acclaimed Director and Oscar Winning cast to do the movie. >

Just FYI, their goal is to make money not make good movies. >

Why do you think this is an unpopular opinion though? >

Hollywood only care about one thing and that's money. 
Why would they risk millions of dollars of a remake of a previously poorly received movie when they could make a sequel or remake from a beloved IP and quite easily turn a profit. >

The Dark Tower could use a remake >

This is such a great idea >

But they want to cash on the success of the previous movie, if they did what you're proposing they wuold have to actually do a good job, and we both know they ain't capable of that. >

Videogames could do with a bit of this. Dark Void was an amazing idea that definitely had enough love from the team. Budget is what let it down. >

You mean, like what they did with Ghostbusters? I guess it could work in some situations. >

the league of extraordinary gentlemen, great story but at the end of the day the execution was just ordinary. >

Sorry, had to downvote. I agree so hard. Especially because it would maybe give something new to the public instead of recycling the classics. >

You should start by naming some of this so called movie >

3.1k score, but I bet, if it was done, people would say "it will be bad again" and would ignore these movies anyway.
Seeing how much people hate good movies already, I doubt it would change anything. >

I want another waterworld >

Ok I found one in public domain. TRACK OF THE MOON BEAST. dude gets hit by a fragment of a meteorite and turns into like an alien swamp monster. >

Yeah definitely, that's what I've always thought.  There's lots of movies that were bad but could have been good with the right director, writers, etc. but when they try to remake a movie that was already good, movie goers are going to compare the two, and it's a lot easier make something better than a mediocre movie than it is to make something better than a classic. >

That’s a great idea. But apparently Hollywood have run out of those. >

of course i agree, it's actually a good idea, but it's like saying "people should do good things, not bad things", it makes perfectly sense but it's utopian >

Ya a ton of people have said this >

Hollywood needs to stop being so damn lazy and come up with some new movies and stop rebooting every damn thing we've already seen it can we see some new stuff >

There was a reason bad movies are bad. >

This works in theory, but would result in them losing money. Marketing wise they are starting on the back foot with the connotations with the previous bad film >

Which movies would you suggest? >

Great idea, but being that it is hard to say this at all unpopular. But maybe I am wrong? >

This is a very popular take from several other subs. You just changed some words. >

Live action Treasure Planet. >

Avatar the last airbender 💀 >

That one they're already working on with Marvel sized budgets. Watch the YouTube videos covering it. >

Ye i know, but it just popped up in my mind when i read this 😂 >

I'm with you. 
I watch MST3K annually,  from start to finish and there's some terribly bad movies with potential. 
To the front of my mind is an absurd film starring Raul Julia called Overdrawn At The Memory Bank, the plot is... something,  but it winks at the matrix and some William Gibson sci fi of digital space.  He imagines himself in casablanca and is put on notice for trying to watch "cinemas" over the network in a world where art and passion seem stricken from society as a whole.  It's absolutely batshit, but it could be reworked (imo.)
Also (not on mst3k) but I always thought the movie Brainstorm with a young Christopher Walken could be revisited given a blumhouse treatment.  Even though I feel the movie holds up really. >

OP totally underestimates  how many good stories are there. There is no need to use a good story that already flopped as there are many great stories not put on the screen yet. >

They’re kind of doing that with Percy Jackson, though it’s getting a series instead of movies. >

Ahem, Troll 2 is perfect the way it is. >

Love this idea! But with as badly as they screw up beloved movies and the rate of terrible tv remakes we’ve got to accept Hollywood does not care there’s nothing good being made. >

thats actually more exciting for me.
wont ever happen sadly
as it appears the majority of the world is content consuming the next remake/ marvel film >

Well they did a good job with dune >

I would definitely watch remake of John Carter and  Valeria - City of thousand planets. 
They were fumbled so bad, these movies had good premise and great potential but execution was so poor. >

Hollywood remakes hits because they are guaranteed cash cows, not because they are “good”. Unsuccessful movies based on “good” stories means nothing to them, because in their eyes if it hasn’t sold once, it might never sell at all. Stupid system tbh. Even tech companies know that they have to constantly experiment with fresh products to stay ahead of the curve. Media has a monopoly and maybe that’s why they want to maintain the status quo for as long as possible, to avoid any change >

Is the Mario Movie coming out in April not exactly that?
Its only main film adaptation was a weirdly bad live action one where the main actors were drunk during most of filming, and any, if all references to the actual games were changed drastically to make most of the characters humans.
The new one is actually animated, and has all of the characters actually look like themselves, and not portray unique characters like Bowser, Toads, or Goombas as live action humans. It also seems like it’s going to be referencing the games significantly more. Even a few fairly obscure characters and enemies have been seen to make a cameo in the preview footage so far. >

I think this would be a really worthwhile idea. >

Agree, but money >

"meeting daddy", with Lloyd bridges, became "Meet the Parents" >

jack & Jill would be good if played by someone better >

Sadly, no studio will reinvest in a flop >

Disney tried that with Pete's Dragon.  The remake was fantastic, but it bombed because no one wanted to see it. >

Love this. >

Freddy Gets Fingered is due >

🤯 >

Wasn't this exact post posted last week? >

Been my view for a while. 
Most the marvel movies/TV shows should honestly just be retconned. 
IMO, directors, writers and companies these days are too proud to admit that the product they produced was garbage. >

That's not even an unpopular opinion, that's a damn good idea OP! >

IDK, maybe hollywood should find some actual writing talent instead of just rehashing past works. >

Hot take, but this is sort of what they did with Marvel movies.  We had the Fantastic Four and similar movies — including several versions of the Hulk (and a ton of Spidermen) — but comic book movies weren’t really taken seriously, and mostly did only ok.  (Though Spider Man was more successful.). Then they finally got the formula right with Iron Man, and the MCU took off.  So there is some precedent there. >

Pls redo Hunger games >

The problem is Hollywood doesn’t know the difference between a good or a bad story and instead focuses on films that make money. So the premise of this thought is entirely misunderstood. >

i doubt there would be as much money for these sort of reboots as there would only be negative expectations after the first failure regardless of who produced it. youd have to really have a hard core fan base for the source material in order to maintain decent projections >

His Dari Materials did this.  Haven’t finished the show yet but it’s miles better than the movie that came out years ago >

Oh wow what an unpopular opinion. >

Dark Tower but every book gets its own movie and the creators actually give a fuck this time
Idris Elba stays though >

Remake I Am Number 4 as a tv series. The books are so good >

anything that is not a marvel comic character is good! >

Do you have any movies in mind? I’m curious to know >

A street fighter remake starring Patrick Stewart as M. Bison got my juices flowin. >

Every M. Night Shymalan movies have great concepts that could be award winning, IF the plot twists didnt make you blurt out "What?" every damn time. >

I think they already are doing  that. Look at Spiderman >

Someone send this guy to Hollywood. >

Fuckin a, I'd love to see what they could do with Logan's Run. Amazing book, shit movie. In the book the character has a gun with I think 6 different bullet types, in the movie it shoots sparks. The best part of the movie was how they dressed. >

They kind of sort of did that with Dune - but keep in mind that the original Dune would have been much better had David Lynch been given the creative freedom he deserved. The studio botched that one. >

First fix: Artemis Fowl movie.