In Elmore’s canon, The Big Bounce certainly did. 3:10 to Yuma is coming out AGAIN on September 7.  Will it be better than the Delmer Daves version in 1957?  Note:  The new Yuma is actually a remake of the movie, not the short story. 

Should re-makers go back to the original source material? (Clearly not the case with “Bounce, with a setting in Hawaii”)  Or should they build out the story like with Yuma?

Do you have other examples of better or worse remakes?

My personal worst is Spielberg’s War of the Worlds.  He had the opportunity to go back to the H.G. Wells, but instead he had the Martians, or whoever they were, buried in the Earth!!!  (I had to use up my three slams on that one.)

Go to work, minds.

Live in hope, man. Huston’s Maltese Falcon was the 3rd attempt to film the book.

Elmore would disagree with you on that one.

Why? Because he left the Flitcraft episode out? I couldn’t agree more. But the Flitcraft episode would need a whole movie to itself to do it justice. A very long one, made by David Lynch.

It’s because Elmore thinks Hammett is overrated; Chandler, too.  He did say nice things about Ray though when he got the Brasher Dubloon in Courmayeur, Italy last December.  He’s not a big hard-boiled mystery fan.  That’s not his school.

Are there examples where a sucky book makes a good movie, and vice versa?

Remakes don’t have to suck. 

Following the source material doesn’t necessarily guarantee the film won’t suck, but it may satisfy the purist.  The studio execs need these films to make money or they’d stop making them.  Sure, you may hit a cold streak, lose a ton of money on a series of promising adaptations and want to kill yourself before the studio heads do it for you, but ultimately you get back on the horse, learn from your mistakes and turn out a winner.  You don’t, you’re promoted to figurehead status and told to go home, we’ll mind the store from here on out.

(Can you guys tell I’m making this stuff up?)

I don’t know jack about the industry (and when I say ‘industry’ I mean ‘the business’ ) but I went to school in LA and knocked elbows with film geeks.  Saw a few private screenings (Scarface, with DePalma there telling war stories after, episodes of ‘Taxi’ with some of the cast and execs there (Andy Kaufman must’ve been busy tormenting Jerry Lawler or Letterman that night), etc.) and can imagine how the movie business works just by growing up in So Cal and being a movie fan.  You guys put me in my place about enjoying the bad films made from Elmore’s books, so feel free to crank up the barrage again now. 

Remakes don’t have to suck.  Peter Jackson, IMHO, did a fine job with Tolkien’s Ring Trilogy and King Kong.  He’s now the man.  Can write his own ticket with the likes of Speilberg, Scorsese, Tarantino, the Coen brothers, Woody Allen.  Got to be tons of excellent remakes to cite.  Keep it going.

Now, movies made from classic TV shows suck by definition.  (I’ll hold judgement on ‘The Simpson Movie’ until I see it.)  Remember The Flintstones?

As Gregg says: go to work, minds.

BTW, my man David Lynch tops this list of 40 top directors.

Gregg Sutter - 05 August 2007 03:27 PM

Are there examples where a sucky book makes a good movie, and vice versa?

I would put The Bonfire of the Vanities in the vice versa category.  Great book, horrid movie.

Great book, great movie:  Eric Hodgins’ Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House

Agreed, Bonfire the movie didn’t capture the sentiment shared in the 80s like the book did.

The Right Stuff was a fun film, though.  Need to read the book sometime for comparison.

Anyone know if Charlotte Simmons is slated for adaptation?  The challenge would be in paring it down.  90 minutes wouldn’t do it justice. 120 might.