It's perfect as is, no remake necessary.

It's not though. The pacing is off, the creature make up looks like dogshit and the music is overused. You hear the same rift for minutes upon minutes at a time. It gets annoying. The film suffers from editing issues as well. The fight between Nada and Frank is comically overdone. I supposed since wrestling was so popular in the 80s and that's where Piper got his break, they wanted to give a nod to that but it looks ridiculous nowadays. Don't get me wrong, it is one of my favorite JC films after perhaps The Thing and Big Trouble In Little China (I like Escape from New York too) but it is far from perfect.

They Live (1988) - 7 outta 10 stars

@movie_nazi said:

It's not though. The pacing is off, the creature make up looks like dogshit and the music is overused. You hear the same rift for minutes upon minutes at a time. It gets annoying. The film suffers from editing issues as well. The fight between Nada and Frank is comically overdone. I supposed since wrestling was so popular in the 80s and that's where Piper got his break, they wanted to give a nod to that but it looks ridiculous nowadays. Don't get me wrong, it is one of my favorite JC films after perhaps The Thing and Big Trouble In Little China (I like Escape from New York too) but it is far from perfect.

They Live (1988) - 7 outta 10 stars

I guess my question is, "Why?" Why do any movies need to be redone? The producers do it because name recognition often translates into better box office. But as a viewer, why would I want a re-hash of ANY movie? More often than not, the results end up one of two ways:

1. The movie is worse than the original. Audiences and critics hate it and it does poorly at the box office. Questions arise as to whether it was ever worth remaking in the first place.
2. The movie is better than the original. But to get there, it keeps the "spine" of the original, but most of the elements including major events, set pieces, characters, and the ending are changed to make it more "relevant" to modern audiences. Which begs the question, isn't it just a new movie wearing an old movie's clothing?

In short, if I like an older movie I liked it because it had something special for me. I've occasionally seen great remakes--like John Carpenter's The Thing--but they inevitably fall into category #2. I'd seen the old B&W Ice Station Zero on TV as a kid, but I never equated it with Carpenter's movie, and didn't even try to trade upon the original's title let alone the title of the book they were both based on.

Why not just demand more good, original movies? They don't NEED the crutch of a built-in audience and they can surprise us because we don't know quite what to expect.

"They Live" IS a cheesy movie. It DOES have dodgy effects. And the fight between Keith David and Roddy Piper is awesome BECAUSE it goes on so ridiculously long. It's the perfect version of what it is, and it doesn't need to appeal to modern audiences. Make a new movie to protest consumerism and the rise of Surveillance Society rather than try to re-make a movie that is a product of its time and the sensibilities of its very unorthodox director.

P.S. If you like re-makes you must be super excited that Dwayne "My Ego is Bigger than my Biceps" Johnson is remaking "Big Trouble in Little China", right? Right?!! After all, the original has some goofy dialogue, cheesy performances (Gracie Law), and some dodgy effects (god it's so steewpid when Thunder's head explodes!)

@AlienFanatic said:

@movie_nazi said:

It's not though. The pacing is off, the creature make up looks like dogshit and the music is overused. You hear the same rift for minutes upon minutes at a time. It gets annoying. The film suffers from editing issues as well. The fight between Nada and Frank is comically overdone. I supposed since wrestling was so popular in the 80s and that's where Piper got his break, they wanted to give a nod to that but it looks ridiculous nowadays. Don't get me wrong, it is one of my favorite JC films after perhaps The Thing and Big Trouble In Little China (I like Escape from New York too) but it is far from perfect.

They Live (1988) - 7 outta 10 stars

I guess my question is, "Why?" Why do any movies need to be redone? The producers do it because name recognition often translates into better box office. But as a viewer, why would I want a re-hash of ANY movie? More often than not, the results end up one of two ways:

1. The movie is worse than the original. Audiences and critics hate it and it does poorly at the box office. Questions arise as to whether it was ever worth remaking in the first place.
2. The movie is better than the original. But to get there, it keeps the "spine" of the original, but most of the elements including major events, set pieces, characters, and the ending are changed to make it more "relevant" to modern audiences. Which begs the question, isn't it just a new movie wearing an old movie's clothing?

In short, if I like an older movie I liked it because it had something special for me. I've occasionally seen great remakes--like John Carpenter's The Thing--but they inevitably fall into category #2. I'd seen the old B&W Ice Station Zero on TV as a kid, but I never equated it with Carpenter's movie, and didn't even try to trade upon the original's title let alone the title of the book they were both based on.

Why not just demand more good, original movies? They don't NEED the crutch of a built-in audience and they can surprise us because we don't know quite what to expect.

"They Live" IS a cheesy movie. It DOES have dodgy effects. And the fight between Keith David and Roddy Piper is awesome BECAUSE it goes on so ridiculously long. It's the perfect version of what it is, and it doesn't need to appeal to modern audiences. Make a new movie to protest consumerism and the rise of Surveillance Society rather than try to re-make a movie that is a product of its time and the sensibilities of its very unorthodox director.

P.S. If you like re-makes you must be super excited that Dwayne "My Ego is Bigger than my Biceps" Johnson is remaking "Big Trouble in Little China", right? Right?!! After all, the original has some goofy dialogue, cheesy performances (Gracie Law), and some dodgy effects (god it's so steewpid when Thunder's head explodes!)

I see your point. Although I did mention some of the silliness of They Live as reasons as to why it should be remade that is not my main motivational factor to remake it. I like the climate change angle being done by the aliens , which is a hot topic nowadays, and thought it would fit perfectly with today's audience. There are a lot of cheesy things from They Live that I like such as the one-liners peppered throughout the film. I would never knock Carpenter for being unorthodox as that not only works sometimes but is preferable. As for the Big Trouble In Little China re-make I didn't find as many flaws with that film as I did with They Live. It was well paced and the music tracks were well distributed throughout the film. And when I criticize the effects I am criticizing the effects for its time . Just compare the effects of The Thing which came out almost 10 years earlier than They Live and the creature effects are superior. I would never suggest a film should be remade on just the cheesy effects alone or else I would also champion a remake of BTILC which I don't. I completely understand the trepidation with remakes. I too, believe that Hollywood has been relying on them way too much in the last 20 years and they do in fact remake films that have no business being remade (Oldboy, The Magnificent Seven, Ben-Hur, etc.).

They Live holds childhood memories for me as well and I do like the film. But watching it with adult eyes and after watching literally thousands of films later, you begin to pick up where it failed, where it was successful, and which plot elements are still, if not more pertinent today. When one of the main plot elements of a film made 30 years ago was as foretelling as this one was well, it is just begging to be remade.

I came to chew bubble gum and kick ass and I'm all out of bubble gum.

They Live (1988) - 7 outta 10 stars

Funny, I just saw this movie for the first time since it came out in theater. I remember really liking this movie but after seeing this again, it's not as good as I remembered it. Sometimes, movies are better if they just stayed in our collective memories. If they remake it, I'd watch it, but probably not until they release it on DVD.

@Dark_Sithlord said:

Funny, I just saw this movie for the first time since it came out in theater. I remember really liking this movie but after seeing this again, it's not as good as I remembered it. Sometimes, movies are better if they just stayed in our collective memories. If they remake it, I'd watch it, but probably not until they release it on DVD.

Yeah, I know. When you are a kid you are more easily entertained. I still like it but I think it could be better.

@movie_nazi said:

...this would be one of them. They Live has not only a great premise but a wonderfully underlying message that is more relevant today than ever. But I believe the execution of the film could have been better and Carpenter's score is a bit lacking IMO. I think with the right script and director this could be an awesome remake.

They Live (1988) - 7 outta 10 stars

I recently rewatched it not too long ago... the big fight between Frank and Nada is still totally awesome. As for Carpenter's score, I really enjoyed it. I don't see how anyone could argue that a director's placement of his/her score in his/her own film is inferior. That minimal riff does a lot for keeping me into the movie's events.

@movie_nazi said: And when I criticize the effects I am criticizing the effects for its time . Just compare the effects of The Thing which came out almost 10 years earlier than They Live and the creature effects are superior.

Fair enough. I tend to give directors extra credit when the movie is pretty good but the effects are not. I find that's usually the hallmark of a "labor of love" where the producers and/or director just couldn't get enough financing to do it the way they wanted to and did the best they could.

I don't think They Live is an awesome movie. I think it's fun because a) I think Keith David is one of if not the coolest character actors ever and 2) because it's a John Carpenter film. But those are the reasons that, for me, a remake holds no interest. I love the way that Carpenter puts his own, appropriate yet amateurish scores in movies. (They always strike me as someone who was too lazy to actually learn how to play music, but plinks around until they get something that sounds good to them.) But the things he does seem to work for him and me.

Anyhoo, we're just expressing opinions here. If a sequel did get made--which Carpenter, eager to cash in on his classics, would no doubt support--I'd shrug it off and just go watch the original. But I wouldn't begrudge those that preferred the more modern, possibly more technically competent remake.

@AlienFanatic said: I love the way that Carpenter puts his own, appropriate yet amateurish scores in movies. (They always strike me as someone who was too lazy to actually learn how to play music, but plinks around until they get something that sounds good to them.) But the things he does seem to work for him and me.

Actually, some of Carpenter's score are downright friggin' awesome (Halloween) and some are darn good (Escape From New York). But I do think he got lazy with They Live on that count.

I agree with the OPs evaluation of the film and give it the same score, but I don't think a remake would hold a candle to the powers of Carpenter or the chemistry of the leads. What this film needs is parents to show their kids it rather than the non-descript meaningless drivel that tops the box office for years on end.

I do think another, more serious film based on the same book or the same universe would be interesting. There is as no denying that there is a lot of potential mileage in the themes that are explored.

@AlienFanatic said:

I guess my question is, "Why?" Why do any movies need to be redone?

Nothing in the world of movie-making "needs" to be done beyond the process itself. It's an industry with an assembly line of product.

The producers do it because name recognition often translates into better box office. But as a viewer, why would I want a re-hash of ANY movie? More often than not, the results end up one of two ways:

I'm not sure what your understanding of "rehash" is, but I can think of a few remakes that, in my opinion, did make the original story even better.

1. The movie is worse than the original. Audiences and critics hate it and it does poorly at the box office. Questions arise as to whether it was ever worth remaking in the first place.

Agree, I've done that.

1. The movie is better than the original. But to get there, it keeps the "spine" of the original, but most of the elements including major events, set pieces, characters, and the ending are changed to make it more "relevant" to modern audiences.
   

Yep, I've seen this, too.

Why not just demand more good, original movies? They don't NEED the crutch of a built-in audience

Several remakes I enjoy are of original movies that were released before I was born. So, I was not a part of the original audience and could not, therefore, provide the producers with any crutch of built-in audience. A juicy story that can be reimaged and retold introduces new audiences to stories that might not "land" with new audiences as told the older way. Nuances in acting styles, the socio-political milieu, what was cool or "in" or trendy at one time just may not "read" for an audience of a different generation.

A great example of this is Ocean's Eleven. I saw the Clooney remake first, was intrigued to see what the Rat Pack original looked like, and enjoyed it for different reasons. I do think the Clooney remake is a better movie, and the improvements made for a better story, but the original had its own qualities that make it sufficiently different as to be worth enjoying as well.

and they can surprise us because we don't know quite what to expect.

But they can still do this with a remake. And they do, all the time.

Again, with the Ocean's Eleven example, if you know both movies, you would indeed have been surprised by the several twists and angles that the remake took in departure from the original.

Another terrific example, to me, is Dirty Rotten Scoundrels remaking Bedtime Story. What Michael Cane, Steve Martin, and Glenn Headly did with the story made for a much better story than the original with David Niven, Marlon Brando, and Shirley Jones. Again, I did not see the original, it was before my time. I saw the remake first, loved it, was intrigued to see what the original was about, and found it okay and was glad they remade it.

Funny thing is, it was made again in The Hustle - that movie, for me, was a waste of time, what improvements they think they made remain lost on me.

"They Live" IS a cheesy movie. It DOES have dodgy effects. And the fight between Keith David and Roddy Piper is awesome BECAUSE it goes on so ridiculously long. It's the perfect version of what it is, and it doesn't need to appeal to modern audiences. Make a new movie to protest consumerism and the rise of Surveillance Society rather than try to re-make a movie that is a product of its time and the sensibilities of its very unorthodox director.

P.S. If you like re-makes you must be super excited that Dwayne "My Ego is Bigger than my Biceps" Johnson is remaking "Big Trouble in Little China", right? Right?!! After all, the original has some goofy dialogue, cheesy performances (Gracie Law), and some dodgy effects (god it's so steewpid when Thunder's head explodes!)

I don't like remakes for the sake of remakes. It takes craft, a deft hand, and therefore presents a challenge that those who take up understand may work against them.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

I don't like remakes for the sake of remakes. It takes craft, a deft hand, and therefore presents a challenge that those who take up understand may work against them.

I doubt any remake is made on a whim or lets just make it for the heck of it. I would say the motivating factor is of course, money. They figure it worked before and it will work again. Let's not kid ourselves. They Live is by no means a classic. Many classic films do not need to be remade because they hit the mark so perfectly that there really is no reason to remake them. They Live has flaws that I think if remade correctly would be a classic.

@movie_nazi said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

I don't like remakes for the sake of remakes. It takes craft, a deft hand, and therefore presents a challenge that those who take up understand may work against them.

I doubt any remake is made on a whim or lets just make it for the heck of it. I would say the motivating factor is of course, money. They figure it worked before and it will work again. Let's not kid ourselves. They Live is by no means a classic. Many classic films do not need to be remade because they hit the mark so perfectly that there really is no reason to remake them. They Live has flaws that I think if remade correctly would be a classic.

I'd say They Live is too weird to be a classic. As for the rest of your posting, I'd say that hitting "the mark... perfectly" does not necessarily equate to making a great amount of money... not in every case. There are some films out there, some of them indie, that many feel are just right but did not pull in a huge box office or even a very big one.

@movie_nazi said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

I don't like remakes for the sake of remakes. It takes craft, a deft hand, and therefore presents a challenge that those who take up understand may work against them.

I doubt any remake is made on a whim or lets just make it for the heck of it.

Agree.

I would say the motivating factor is of course, money. They figure it worked before and it will work again.

Likely, but not exclusively. Sometimes it's just a juicy story that can be developed. Or, consider that Stephen King hated Kubric's interpretation of his story The Shining and backed a remake that he felt was closer to the source material.

Many classic films do not need to be remade because they hit the mark so perfectly that there really is no reason to remake them.

Yes. But, when they don't hit the mark perfectly, and leave room for an angle or twist that could make a better story and actually hit the mark, why not? I think two sparkling examples of this are Ocean's Eleven and Dirty Rotten Scoundrels...and, in both examples, I mean sparkling on several levels!

They Live has flaws that I think if remade correctly would be a classic.

I haven't seen it, but hey, one thing I notice that is interesting is that it paid $3.25 in ROI, which is the same as the original The Thomas Crown Affair (1968) (well, it [aid $3.26). What's interesting is The TCA remake only made $2.59 - I haven't seen the original, but I love Pierce Brosnan and Rene Russo in the remake. It would not surprise me if the remake is better even though it paid less.

And, as for Ocean's Eleven, the 1960 original with Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis Jr., and the rest of the Rat Pack, paid a solid $4.40 and George Clooney's 2001 remake outshone, paying $5.30. I have seen both and, while the original has its own charm, and edge, and a hell of a kick in the head ending, the remake is better (to me) in many ways, so a remake that hits the mark better and makes more money is all kinds of fun, especially since it helped me discover the original and enjoy it in its own right.

@CelluloidFan said:

@movie_nazi said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

I don't like remakes for the sake of remakes. It takes craft, a deft hand, and therefore presents a challenge that those who take up understand may work against them.

I doubt any remake is made on a whim or lets just make it for the heck of it. I would say the motivating factor is of course, money. They figure it worked before and it will work again. Let's not kid ourselves. They Live is by no means a classic. Many classic films do not need to be remade because they hit the mark so perfectly that there really is no reason to remake them. They Live has flaws that I think if remade correctly would be a classic.

I'd say They Live is too weird to be a classic. As for the rest of your posting, I'd say that hitting "the mark... perfectly" does not necessarily equate to making a great amount of money... not in every case. There are some films out there, some of them indie, that many feel are just right but did not pull in a huge box office or even a very big one.

No, I agree. When I say "hit the mark" I do not mean it was a financial success although I do see how you would take that interpretation since I said that is why studios look to remake it. I meant that it hit the mark as far as being a quality film adored by the public. Many great films failed at the box office for various reasons but are discovered later and become classics. Studios see dollar signs in these films as low risk since they know that A) the story was interesting enough for it to garner widespread attention and B) do not have to invest to much into it since a major part of it (the writing) is already done. Take for example Mutiny On the Bounty . This film was made at least three times by my count and every one of them were , at the least, good films. Its probably due for another remake (not by my personal estimation but what I perceive would be the studios). I like to point out this film because it shows that this is not a recent Hollywood trend. The original one (my personal favorite) was released in 1935. Then again in 1962 and then again in 1984. All of them had top stars of the time. I suppose my point is that if in the right hands, even a film that was originally deemed done right can be remade with another's vision just as adequately if not better. It's just disappointing when there is little effort put into it and it is just anobvious cash grab such as the remake of The Magnificent Seven which in fact it can be argued that the original film was a remake of Kurosawa's Seven Samurai.