ARRRGH things that should NEVER be made into films

And then there's the remake of Ring. Hollywood must be given a sharp kick to the backs of the knees.

But then again, they tried to make a film out of Naked Lunch, didn't they?

Indeed it must. I've been suffering from temper tantrum outrage for months already over imminent remakes of 2 of my favourite films:

'Solaris' - Hey, let's make it a ROMANTIC SCI-FI THRILLAH!
'Manhunter' - Hey, let's replace the tormented monster of Dollarhyde with an altogether more photogenic smoothie, and overshadow Brian Cox's chilling performance by using that villian from 'Overacting Of The Hams'!

I'd like to be pleasantly surprised, but what are the chances?

A warning example that springs to mind: 'The Vanishing' remake.
But all contributions of 'big Hollywood star remakes that were better than (not just LOOKED better than) the originals' gratefully received.......

I've enjoyed the book, the illustrated book, the Infocom text adventure, the BBC TV series, and the radio program. The original book has remained unmitigated for this long - one more thing isn't going to invalidate it. Jay Roach has done some wonderful things (1st Austin Powers movie, Meet the Parents), and also the screenwriter of the fabulous Chicken Run is on board. I think a big budget may even help - the woeful low-budget scruffiness of the TV series was distracting, though slightly amusing. Yes, I have apprehension toward Hollywood treatments, but I don't find the concept itself of a Hitchhiker's Guide movie upsetting.

Re: the Solaris remake. I thought the original was fascinating and gorgeous. Its most striking characteristics, being slow-paced and philosophical, make it the complete opposite of what a successful (i.e. profitable) Hollywood film would be. Therefore, I bet Soderbergh is going to take it in a very different direction. I'm rather curious to see if he can pull it off.

Now I'm no Tolkien-lover, but it somewhat disturbs me to read that they are adding a love triangle sub-plot that isn't in The Two Towers:

http://us.imdb.com/PeopleNews/2002/20020916.html#9

Quote: "We sexed it up a bit."

Oh dear.

Insomnia US is better than Insomnia Norway. The Ring should survive translation and if they remove the massive plot hole even improve it. I've heard the Solaris remake is equally slow and ponderous - though I find that hard to believe of Soderbergh. (Mind you I think Tarkovsky's is fascinating, geoergeous but a bit rubbish).

Has anyone seen the original version of Meet The Parents with Emo Phillips in it?

That subplot is sort-of implied in the book, anyway.

Haven't seen the original for over 20 years, though IIRC there's a couple of distoibing/impressive moments in that one too.
Maybe remakes of Sci-Fi or heavy FX-dependent films start off on a better footing - then again would you want a remake of Jason & The Argonauts hmmmmmmm......

'The Haunting': orig - dated but scary, remake - looked great but not enough.

Yes Tom here comes that theme again haha

(haha eowyn = played by shannon tweed?)

Meet The Parents 1992: http://us.imdb.com/Title?0104844

Any remake of 'Ring Of Bright Water' = otterly mundane

haha Shannon Tweed haha

SOD OFF YOU PONCEY ELF CHICK!

I may not haf got that quotation right but neither do I give a monkey shaped food.

eg how would you film a book in which (say) someone who doesn't know what an aeroplane is finds an aeroplane and the description in the book means that we-the-reader don't know it's an aeroplane either? (Substitute aeroplane for spaceship and you have a common s-f plot)

Haha but I haf seen the trailer anyway.

But I still want to see it again! When o when will it be in the modern cinematograph house eh?

What Mark said. It's there, it's unrequited which is the whole point, it works in the book and will work fine on-screen.