Let's predict: Will the new Naked Gun reboot be a hit or not?

[Marcel Birgelen]

That worked because it was so subtle, that adults would get it, but it was not offensive.

I'm pretty sure that it would create some kind of fake outrage nowadays though. If it wasn't from some random feminist outpost, then probably from the likes of PETA or similar...

[Mike Blakesley]

Superman: The Movie is an obvious exception.

It isn't really an exception though, because that movie is just called "Superman." The only place they added "The movie" was in the marketing.

I'm talking about movies where the word Movie is just burned into the film along with the rest of the crap. You know, like "A Goofy Movie" and "The Lego Batman Movie."

The only one I can think of that was remotely approaching good was "Twilight Zone: The Movie" and it was not very good. But at least it wasn't (as our old booker used to say) a waste of film.

[Bobby Henderson]

I like the 1982 version of The Thing more than the original. But I was a teenage kid when the 1982 version was released, so the re-make seems more at home with Generation-X aged people.

One reason I think they didn't really show the monster in the original film was they didn't have any feasible way (or production budget) at the time to make the monster real for the cameras. By the 1980's there were ground-breaking leaps in practical special effects makeup technology. The crew of "The Thing" sported legends in that craft like Stan Winston and Rob Bottin. The visuals in that movie were unforgettable. There was the sled dogs sequence (that was shown in some previews). That was horror inspiring on its own. One of the best moments is a human head falling off an infected body and then sprouting spider legs. One of the crew guys sees it trying to sneak away, "you gotta be fucking kidding."

[Frank Cox]

"Why don't we just wait here a little while. See what happens."

One of the best movie endings ever.

[Ed Gordon]

"I can't think of any remake that was better than the original."

Great examples of remakes that were better than the originals. I will revise my broad statement to "In most cases, remakes are rarely better than the originals".

I still prefer the original The Thing to the Carpenter remake, which was very well done, but a bit too gory for my tastes. I prefer the original because they didn't show the monster. As they said in The Bad and the Beautiful:

image.png

[Frank Cox]

Of the three movies based on Richard Matheson's I Am Legend, the second attempt (Omega Man starring Charlton Heston) is the best.

The Vincent Price version is just too outdated now, and while the Will Smith version is pretty good it's not as good as the Charlton Heston movie.

And then there's John Carpenter's The Thing, second attempt after The Thing from Another World. They're both really good, actually.

[Bobby Henderson]

Superman: The Movie is an obvious exception. Holy shit, those overbearing opening titles with that music from John Williams was just great and set the tone for the rest of the movie.

But, yeah, there have been plenty of other "title: the movie" examples that sucked.

I can't think of any remake that was better than the original.

I think David Cronenberg's 1986 re-make of The Fly was better than the original 1950's movie. The first time I watched that movie it put me through an emotional ringer. Geena Davis was outstanding in that movie. The ending of the movie is just heart-breaking. The scene where Jeff Goldblum's mutilated fly-guy puts the barrel of the shotgun Geena Davis is holding up to its head just fucking crushed me. Maybe the only criticism I have about that remake is that it just makes you feel terrible when you get to the end of it.

The 1978 remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers was also really good. And it had a clever tie-in to the 1956 original via a cameo from actor Kevin McCarthy. The 1956 film might still rank as culturally more important since many film critics saw it as a commentary on the tyranny of Joseph McCarthy's anti-communist witch hunt. The 1978 movie was made in a different era, but production values and filmmaking techniques in practical visual effects improved dramatically. That allowed the 1978 film to sport some very disturbing images, such as a bulldog with a human man's face.

[Mike Blakesley]

Generally speaking, my rule is to avoid (almost) all movies that have a number
as the last word in the title. ("Gone WIth The WInd 2", for example)

I have a similar rule to avoid any movie with the word "Movie" in the title. If it's called "The (Whatever) Movie," it's almost guaranteed to suck.

[Ed Gordon]

I can't think of any remake that was better than the original. The remake of The Pink Panther is a good example. The Steve Martin version just did not work.

dreadful
Kenny-548 February 2006
This is a very bad film is so many ways. Trite script, clumsy and plodding direction and Steve Martin embarrassed himself. I have no problem with remakes. The problem here is that the original Inspector Clouseau character was brilliant not because of overly outstanding writing or directing (though they were good). Peter Sellars created that character and made it his own. I do not think it is possible to remake a movie and capture the essence of that classic character. Martin simply tries to be Peter Sellars being Clousseau and it does not work. I guess I don't understand what is so funny about gags so obvious and cliché, you know they are coming a mile away, and to make things worse, the scenes continues for a painfully long time.

I was irritated the entire time I was in the theater, because this garbage will make a lot of money for people who exhibited no talent. Throw Beyonce in there no explicable reason other than to draw in more of the mindless who seem to think this drivel is funny. (In addition, I especially hate the turn-off-your-cell-phone trailer.)

Source: IMDB

[Ed Gordon]

Or the nice beaver?

That worked because it was so subtle, that adults would get it, but it was not offensive.

[Jim Cassedy]

Generally speaking, my rule is to avoid (almost) all movies that have a number
as the last word in the title. ("Gone WIth The WInd 2", for example) There are
exceptions, of course, and I'm sure many of you will provide examples, but as
a general rule, most re-makes or re-boots are lame imitations of the original.

[Bobby Henderson]

My expectations are not high. Airplane! ranks as one of the best comedies ever made. Anyone attempting a re-make not only has to fluently understand the inspiration of the original parody, but they also have to bring a lot of new things to the table. That's a very daunting challenge. Plus there is nothing funny or fun about air travel in the year 2024. It sucks.

With the Chinese market getting mostly shut off to American movie studios that might give me some hope for American-produced comedies. Movie studios and their media company parents have been so hell-bent on making their movies market-able globally. That has resulted in a lot of movies, comedies in particular, being bland and safe. It's a very rare thing Hollywood releases a risk-taking comedy such as Tropic Thunder.

The Zucker, Abrahams, Zucker ("ZAZ") writing and directing team caught lightning in a bottle with the original 1980 film. Over 40 years later the movie still holds up pretty well. I think one reason for this is the movie was very unique. The filmmakers insisted on casting a bunch of actors who had never done comedy before and told them to play their roles straight. The results were gut-busting funny. The guys knew what they wanted, so after auditioning a bunch of different voice actors for the parts of "Betty" and "Vernon" the ZAZ team hired the real life couple who recorded the announcement messages played in the LAX terminal. That had to be surreal for a lot of people hearing, "Listen, Betty, don't start up with your white zone shit again."

The ZAZ team worked for years pitching Airplane! and only got to do it after working with John Landis on Kentucky Fried Movie. That movie was a labor of love for those guys. Still, they're sense of humor was so good they weren't afraid to make of various flaws in Airplane! when making a commentary track for the DVD.

Airplane 2: The Sequel, released 2 years later, just plain sucked. The ZAZ team wasn't involved with it. That should be a warning about re-makes.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Hopefully they'll bring Shoeshine Johnny back, as well as all the guest stars that sat in the chair after the Drebin got up.... Of course, they'll have to find s new actor for that role too.

[Allan Young]

I'm cautiously optimistic, because Liam Neeson is such a serious actor (as were virtually all of the folks in the original Naked Gun movies) so it just.....might..... work. After all, as we all know, he has a special set of skills.

If his hilarious straight-faced performance in Life's Too Short is anything to go by, I'm sure he'll do a fine job...

[Randy Stankey]

I'm interested but I'll with the "wait and see" camp.

Sometimes, they do remakes well. Other times...so-so.

I remember remakes of TV shows like "Beverly Hillbillies" or "The Flintstones" that were done well. Jim Varney in the role of Jed Clampett or John Goodman as Fred Flinstone were good choices. They were both, pretty much, the definitive choices, IMO.

I just don't know how well Liam Neeson will play in Leslie Neilson's shadow. Neilson's white hair, bushy eyebrows and ability to play an absurd character with a totally straight face were his trademarks.

Neilson was a straight actor who found a second calling in comedy. Who knows? Maybe Neeson can do the same?

I dunno'... Wait and see...