"Splash" -- another needless remake!

[great_chandel]

I could not believe when I read "Splash" was being remade! That is about as brilliant as the "Ghostbusters" remake. While I am not a huge fan of Daryl Hannah (although she was great in Kill Bill), and Tom Hanks is not my favorite actor (although he is good in just about anything he does), both were perfectly cast in that film! To try and once again remake a classic, that is just an exercise in futility. Yet, since it seems Hollywood is fresh out of ideas, I guess maybe I should not be so surprised after all...............

[Nostalgiabuff]

not only will it be a remake, but the mermaid will actually be a mer-man, played by Channing Tatum. what a disaster

[PNGwynne]

lol "Splash" is not "Citizen Kane." I'd pay for a matinee to see a Tatum mer-man.

Let's put this in perspective: If fans are willing to embrace distaff versions of characters like Batman and Superman, this sort of remake shouldn't seem too offensive.

[cockyhoskins]

All I can think of is this:

[Hector]

Splash was not exactly, like PNG said, Citizen Kane or Casablanca.


This is one of the rare instances where the remake might automatically be better by default, lol...

[monitor_ep]

It will be better than Disney's Splash II tv movie.

[Hector]

If it stars Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez...we should all march to Hollywood...and torch the place down, Frankenstein windmill style...

[megomania]

Splash was not exactly, like PNG said, Citizen Kane or Casablanca. This is one of the rare instances where the remake might automatically be better by default, lol...

Not bloody likely.

True, the original is not an Oscar flick but enough is enough.

Splash is a classic with great supporting performances by Candy and Levy.

Stop the madness.

-Chris

[thunderbolt]

Never thought I'd hear Splash! and classic in the same sentence.

[enyawd72]

Remakes are nothing new...in fact they are as old as film itself. Some films were remade 2-3 times during the SILENT era.

Think the 1939 Wizard of Oz is the original? Nope. It's a remake.

Just an few examples...look at all the classic horror films:

Phantom of the Opera was made in 1925, 1943, 1962, 1983, 1989
Dracula in 1931, 1958, 1970, 1973, 1979, 1992
Frankenstein in 1910, 1931, 1957, 1973, 1992, 1994, 2004

The list goes on and on...

[megomania]

Never thought I'd hear Splash! and classic in the same sentence.

Well, it IS a classic 80s movie. Again, I agree it's not Casablanca.

[Mikey]

Never seen the original and absolutely have no interest in a remake

[huedell]

I could not believe when I read "Splash" was being remade!

I can believe it. Remakes get both investors and the potential audiences that would see the investors' investment (i.e. "movie") interested.

That is about as brilliant as the "Ghostbusters" remake.

Depends on how you look at it... as a pure "money" gamble.... it ain't stupid.

While I am not a huge fan of Daryl Hannah (although she was great in Kill Bill),

I like movies she's been in... but, I dunno about how I think about her acting. Fun fact: Tarantino is my favorite filmmaker---yet I'll still watch the total hack job Memoirs Of The Invisible Man (Hannah/Chase) over Kill Bill any day.

...and Tom Hanks is not my favorite actor (although he is good in just about anything he does),

He's a "likable actor" sort... I get behind his movies a good amt. of the time. To me, "Big" is the quintessential Hanks movie. "Big" was a watershed flick in many respects... Hanks' popularity boost was one of them.

both were perfectly cast in that film!

Can't argue that.

To try and once again remake a classic, that is just an exercise in futility.

It is immensely difficult to make a solid movie that also makes a solid profit that also keeps the franchise/"name value" solid. But some remakes are decent... if not "serviceable" (as alluded to above regarding money made by investors).

Yet, since it seems Hollywood is fresh out of ideas,

Out of "courage" in a notably exponential fashion?

Certainly.

But out of "ideas"?

Not a chance.

I guess maybe I should not be so surprised after all...............

That I agree with.

[thunderbolt]

Well, it IS a classic 80s movie. Again, I agree it's not Casablanca.

Hardly a classic, mostly a forgettable movie.

[huedell]

Not bloody likely.

True, the original is not an Oscar flick but enough is enough.

Splash is a classic with great supporting performances by Candy and Levy.

Stop the madness.

-Chris

So agreed.

I feel like comedies get the short hand of the stick in this regard.

Splash is about as good (and box office successful) as any movie in its genre gets. That makes it a "classic" (to use a phrase from earlier) "by default".

Is it as irreverent as the original Ghostbusters comedy film (a comedy which I don't think people would feel as comfy denying "classic" status)? No, but, that "irreverence" element present in GB alone shouldn't short Splash either IMHO.

That said: A new Splash must be edgier or it won't be able to compete in the current climate for comedies.

Actually, it might be able to "compete".... most of us here just won't like it... we HAVE the original already.... so a remake for a movie like Splash being edgier is just about the only chance it has for having it's own voice.