discussion Movies that are ok to be remade or have a sequel LONG after og came out.

[User_80256]

Hitchcock could make successful auteur movies. But he worked with his own material.
As for modern remakes, I haven't seen a single good one. As an example, the 1965 "Flight of the Phoenix" is an order of magnitude stronger than the 2004 remake. The problem is the cast and the (un)ability of most modern actors to play the roles properly. James Stewart and Dennis Quaid are simply not comparable.

 

[Demiurge299]

almost without exception I've found remakes to be completely terrible. later on sequels CAN be good, but I've also seen quite a few that were absolutely terrible. The only remake I look favorably on really is Johnny Depp's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and even then it was just mildly entertaining, and I still prefer the original. ultimately, I lean towards "if the original is good, and you didn't make it DONT TOUCH IT", and if they do end up touching it, don't just go changing things willy nilly, stick as close to the script as possible (this includes castings that look similar to the originals or at least close to the characters they are meant to represent, no more CW supergirl Jimmy Olsens). if you want new? make something completely your own, don't taint someone else's hard work.

 

[teki777]

I hope it's still worth it Flash Gordon and He-man remake

 

[stoic.nothingness]

Boondock Saints, The sequel was alike a ten year gap.