Movie Remakes Quotes

Remakes have been done forever. People talk about 'Scarface' and don't even know it was a remake.

In the sixties, the recycling of pop culture turning it into Pop art and camp had its own satirical zest. Now we're into a different kind of recycling. Moviemakers give movies of the past an authority that those movies didn't have; they inflate images that may never have compelled belief, images that were no more than shorthand gestures and they use them not as larger-than-life jokes but as altars.

I'm pretty skeptical about Hollywood and its fascination with the sequel and the franchise.

Among our many crimes as an imperialistic exploiter of other nations' cultures, stealing their movies ranks lower than selling them cigarettes but higher than killing their game. If you've seen big stupid American versions of France's 'Three Men and a Cradle' or, recently, Japan's 'Shall We Dance?,' you can only mutter: 'Guilty, guilty, guilty.'

'Deewar' has been remade so many times, 'Trishul' has been remade so many times. But 'Don' - no one has gone into this area as often as they have gone into these other movies, and I think it fits into the modern sensibility of movie viewing quite well.

Something I'm completely not open to is remaking movies.

I don't think it's sacrilegious to remake any movie, including a good or even great movie.

I have an allergy to sequels and remakes in general.

This is all new to me, these re-releases. I don't know how these things do. I don't know if it will be people who saw it originally or young people.

There have been so many 'James Bond' movies, 'Spiderman' films, 'Mission Impossible' series, etc. Is there any difference in the basic story? Yet, each time there's a release, people are excited.

I always remember my dad saying, "No one makes a remake unless they are trying to make money; there is no reason for it." It was not an honorable thing to do.

Whether you're a believer or not, a flawed biblical epic is going to be more entertaining than a remake of a Paul Verhoeven movie or some third-rate sci-fi flick.

Law students have taken over Hollywood. To them it's all about making money. They know people want to see what they've seen before. Also, remakes are places to showcase the new stars of tomorrow.

Remakes, in general, are a result of necessity being the mother of invention. They can't open movies consistently and break through the advertising clutter that's out there.

I have not met a Filipino actor who didn't dream of working on an 'FPJ' remake.

Ever since there's been a Hollywood, they remake a movie every 20 years.

I always say that you should remake flops, not hits.

I feel old films should not be remade.

There are MAYBE 30 years worth of ideas out there... watch for the feature version of ER in about 25 years... Hollywood has become hopelessly chained to the bottom line.

It seems that every movie is a remake of something that was better when it was first released in a foreign language, as a 1960s TV show, or even as a comic book. Now you’ve got theme park rides as the source material of movies. The only things left are breakfast cereal mascots. In our lifetime, we will see Johnny Depp playing Captain Crunch.

Satish Kaushik has a knack of coming up with very good remakes.

Maybe Oliver Stone doesn't lend himself well to remakes or sequels, because he does them so well the first time.

For Hollywood to make 'Spider-Man,' only to redo the movie a couple years later, just boggles the mind. To recast 'The Incredible Hulk' for a third time? I don't get it.

When I was nominated for an Oscar and seated next to Martin Scorsese, there was nothing in my mind that made me think, 'Hey, in three years maybe I'll make another remake of 'Punisher.''

The things had been made a half a dozen times from silent pictures through the '30s and '40s. In fact, I think there's a version in the '50s. And then, of course, Spielberg eventually did a version of The Lost World, but this [filming] was '91, I think. And we shot it in Zimbabwe.