Why The Hell Hasn't The Breakfast Club Been Remade Yet
 

I think the concept is doable in this and age (especially in this day and age).

Before anybody bitches about the chastity of their childhoods just know I find the original to be one my favorite movies ever and it is timeless as it is. Everybody ever would do well to watch it. I do not wish for a replacement, merely an update of sorts.

Having said that I think a new movie would be cool. Extra points if it involves the kids of the originals.

There were talks of a sequel but the director really couldn't think of a reason why to put them all together in the same room again. I think that's what the story was.

I don't think this movie should be remade or add a sequel or anything. It's perfect the way it is.

It's perfect regardless but I'd be interested in a contemporary take.

I think the movie holds up just fine (as most John Hughes movies do) and there aren't any current actors I would like to see in this. That isn't to say I don't think it will eventually happen.

Then take some LSD and watch it again.

Saw it this morning.

Because it was stupid then and would be stupid now.

O wow

Unreal movie.

fags

I'm curious about what you think the contemporary take would be. Cyber-bullying and text fights? The problems and roles the teenagers represent among the youth are pretty timeless and always relevant

While the Breakfast Club all the major types at the time, a modern take could include modern sub-types of teens. They're a spoiled lot these days, but they seriously face things our parents never did. Some of the hot topics in the movie were parents, sex, and weed - things changed since then. And while the subject manner still resonates, it would be topical to tell the story in a modern way. Text fights? How about sexting (it could be a reason one of them is 'doing time'). Cyber bullying isn't widespread enough to be relevant, but social network drama is - and I can see a few scenes off that alone.

The means are different, but the ends are the same. The details of how they represent those archetypes is really not what makes that movie great. It's the fact that they all face those universal issues.

If this movie gets remade, legend is getting punched in the face.

Kalyx. You need to shut the fuck up with this shit.

For the record, if I had been a teen in the mid-80's, I would have had a thing for Molly Ringwald. The red hair gets me every time.

Anyways, Hollywood should grow a pair and come up with some original films.

The Breakfast Club 3D

Bite your tongue, triaD. Besides, it's not like there's major uber-cash to be made out of it so the only real reason it would be remade is just for the sake of remaking it. I didn't get a chance to see this film until I was, like, 14 or so and the message and themes of the movie weren't lost on me. Anyone can watch it now and still grasp what it was trying to do. That's what makes great movies great. People don't need an update when the original is right there. And that's the key word: original. All of these remade films are based on someone's ORIGINAL work. They weren't updates. They weren't the product of someone saying, "Hey, let's have a contemporary take on this". Like I said, it would just be remaking for the sake of it. Hollywood needs to get its head out of its ass and start making the classics for tomorrow.

Nah, won't shut up about it.

Because we don't need remakes of every film ever

Unknowns all. But William Defoe has to be that teacher.

Did M-A-G just return to post about the Breakfast Club?

I seem to remember that everyone was saying that Charlie Bartlett was so much like Ferris Bueller but honestly I didnt see it like that, although I thought it was decent but nowhere near as good as Ferris. and I am 100% surprised they never did a sequel, especially since Matthew Broderick wanted to do one..I figured the movie would make itself..Ferris and Sloane are married and have a kid and the kid does the same things he did in the original.

Because it would be a stupid idea.

Which I think WILL eventually happen.

This is pretty dumb. Nothing about ruining my childhood, but there's little point in remaking the movie.

I wouldn't call it a return. More like a cameo.

Hah, that'd actually be pretty awesome.

"That's another detention! You want another one?!?!? You know what? F*ck this!" *PUMPKIN BOMB*

I hate remakes.

Remakes aren't always bad. But there's little they could do to this one without significantly dating it from the start. I mean, I can think of a few reasons to do a new version of a movie:

1. Capabilities for visual effects not available. Doesn't apply to the Breakfast Club.
2. A significantly new spin on the material. Well, the movie already has a pretty broad basis. Noid, I mean...Kal's only idea seems to be to take a broad base and move on to sub-genres, which doesn't spin it so much as narrow it.
3. bringing it to a new audience. That could be a commercial thing too, but I was thinking of exposure. That seems to be what Kal's after, except it's either going to be an "in name only" remake or it's not going to resonate with the kinds of people it would aim for.

Tim Burton to remake "The Breakfast Club" with Johnny Depp as John Bender

I hate remakes of movies that are basically the original and add nothing new. (Karate Kid)

When they add something new people bitch about their childhoods.

How about adding something new without remaking something old?

I wish John Hughes added something new to a contemporary update of Rebel Without A Cause instead of writing original screenplays like The Breakfast Club and Ferris Bueller's Day Off

I saw that the Coen Brothers were remaking True Grit (due out this December). Jeff Bridges is Rooster Cogburn and Matt Damon is the guy that Glenn Campbell played. I think John Wayne might have to come back from the dead and start beating the shit out of people for this.

Nothing's stopping writer's from making new shit. That isn't a 'Hollywood' problem.

Hollywood buys the scripts and given the current climate they're more likely to hire a scriptwriter to rework a proven property than to take a chance on a new property. So yes, it is.

And the proven properties are safer because...?

Because they are proven to have a reputable name with a lot of built in interest. Are you familiar with the concept of brand names and franchises at all?
Plus the studios already have their franchises locked up and only need to hire a screenwriter(s) to do their bidding

I just wish you wouldn't throw out opinions for the sake of having them without having some understanding of how the film industry (particularly shopping a script to studios) works.

Yes, I do - I was proving a point.

It isn't a Hollywood problem, it's a consumer problem. If people valued new, original works than we wouldn't wait 4 years for the Inceptions and Splices. Hollywood is an amoral machine, it does what can feed it. We feed it.

I promise if more people felt rehashes and sequels were boring Hollywood would adjust accordingly.

Take this back, as a courtesy.

Hollywood does cater to the consumer, but they also play it safe. Movies are not artistic endeavours for them, they are investments.
You can't blame the masses since they will accept both, if done right. It's just safer to go with the proven. This is the studio's decision. The most successful movies aren't usually reboots. Remakes are normally moderate successes, that can almost guaruntee a small profit but nothing more.

So I don't take anything back.

I see. I guess we're done here.

It's not as simple as you make it out to be either. Just because remakes and reboots turn a profit doesn't mean the masses are neccessarily eating them up.
You can make the argument that new quality properties are in higher demand. They usually do far better. People want to see new things. People complain about remakes all the time.
Just because a lot of people still go to see movies that don't deliver this to them doesn't mean it's what they'd prefer.

Not to mention Inception did incredibly well this weekend... so I would say the masses do have an appetite for original material.

I think you're giving too much credit to the tastes of the weekend moviegoer.

I wouldn't use this as a basis for this argument. Inception was great but it was still a huge-budget action film. A good one, yes. It still was directed by a huge mainstream director coming off of one of the biggest films of all-time. A good director, yes. A good film, yes. It still starred a former teenage Hollywood heart-throb. A good actor, yes.

My point being that it was a great film, with a great director, a great leading man and great supporting actors but it's not like it was some film out of left field or something that didn't have mainstream appeal already. The fact that it's a great film my a genius director/righter is kind of inconsequential in my mind.

People like new things, and it can be proven. I say you're not giving them enough credit. Even if they don't care enough to express this doesn't mean it isn't going on. It's possible for the masses to have attitudes and perferences that they don't neccessarily even know about.
Just because people are turning up to see uninspired movies still doesn't mean there isn't a lot of people who aren't showing up.
That's what it's all about. The ones who aren't showing up. The potential dollars, not the safe ones.

It's still new material though. I think material and creators are two different things.
A lot of people will feel comfortable with proven directors, writers and actors. This has almost always been the case.
Actors longer than directors.

With Hitchcock and Spielberg the birth of the namebrand director became a part of the film industry, but they still brought new material to the table.
In this situation the moviegoers and studios have the benefit of tapping into a brand and giving something new at the same time.

I agree it's "new material." All that I'm saying is it's not like Inception was some movie by some unknown director with an unknown cast that blew up at the box-office strictly because it was "new material."

Whether something is original or sequel/remake is nigh irrelevant when the main qualifier is quality.

There has been original titles of dubious quality, and remakes of high quality. People like good movies, not merely new ones.

That actually reminds me of something I didn't even mention. The relationship between the material and the creators.
This is an important one to the studio, I think. With most remakes and reboots, the material and the name itself is the selling point. This allows them to cut corners with casting, writers and a director. Usually they'll aim low and let the title do the heavy lifting.

With an unproven material you have to worry more about quality, so you're probably going to have to spend more.
Again, it boils down to the difference between studios and the fans/filmmakers. The latter may view it as arts and entertainment, but the former views it all as investment and in business terms.

My argument also is that Inception hasn't done well strictly because it's a quality film; there are other obvious elements that have allowed it to succeed.

The percentage of high-quality remakes is also rather low.

Obviously, but the question here is whether they'd prefer new to familiar when quality is more or less the same. I think they would. No one is saying familiar isn't in demand. It is safe and will always do well. If it's quality it can even be great, but in general I think new is higher yield. It's just also higher risk.

I'm also opposed to "remakes" in general anyway, so I'm pretty biased. I just don't see the reason for it. I mean, from the studio's point of view, I see the reason for it; they're easy to make and they're guaranteed money-makers. From an artistic standpoint, there's just no reason for remakes.

I'm sure there are quality remakes but I just don't see them as a rule.

The only remake I can think of that I like is The Night of the Living Dead remake from 1990.

I do think a lot of people probably look at the trailers for a movie like Inception and say "Oh that looks good", perhaps without even realizing that it's because they are turned on by something new.

I don't want to state this like it's fact, because it's just a theory. I just think in general the public values new. Accepting familiar doesn't change that.

People are certainly turned on by new things but it would have done well anyway because it was a huge summer blockbuster with a gigantic budget, crazy special effects and a top leading man. Crap films like 2012 do well in the box office for the same reason, despite the lack of "quality" exhibited by a film like Inception.

My argument is that quality or "new material" does not majorly influence box-office success as crappy films and remakes do just as well as quality films at the box-office.

lol


I think The Thing is probably the best remake. The Fly and King Kong (2005) are also very good remakes.
Maybe it's something about monster movies.

Also, Scorcese's Cape Fear is way better than the original, I think.

I can jump on board with those remakes too, I guess. Especially The Fly.

Oh and The Departed is a good remake too.

Should be noted that those remakes are all done by quality directors though. The Fly was Cronenberg and King Kong was Peter Jackson.
And Scorcese obviously. Even The Thing was directed by John Carpenter who was on fire at the time.

The Departed again... Scorcese.

I also didn't mind the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake for whatever reason. Not that I would call it a "good film" by any stretch of the imagination but yeah.

Yea I kinda liked it too

Halloween by Rob Zombie is probably the worst remake I've ever seen

I kind of wanted to see Rob Zombie's take on Halloween but I didn't see it in the end. The original is perfect anyway.

The Psycho remake was really bad too.

Yea it was shot for shot basically, just in color and with a horrible cast. What was the point Gus Van Sant?

Yeah I agree with this, my post was more of a response to Kalyx saying that we have an abundance of remakes because of consumers. I think the fact that the top two movies at the box office right now are based on original material supports Jeritron's theory that studios are just playing it safe.

As for remakes... it seems one thing the successful(artistically) ones were in the hands of strong directors.

12 Monkeys (Gilliam)
The Thing (Carpenter)
The Fly (Cronenberg)
King Kong (Jackson) etc. etc.

Then again the Psycho remake was directed by Gus van Sant ... but I would say he is the most experimental director of the names previously mentioned so his Psycho remake was more of a failed experiment.

I also think remaking Psycho, and any Hitchcock movie for that matter, is a failure from the get go.
Hitchcock films are all Hitchcock. He directs the shit out of them, and it's impossible to replicate. The content of Hitchcock film's isn't inconsequential by any stretch. Many of the stories are great, but they're definitely classics because of their form. He has a very distinct style and a Hitchcock movie is a "Hitchcock movie" for a reason.
I would say touching his movies is pointless. Especially the more well known ones.

Yeah, I agree, no one can weave artistry and entertrainment the way Hitch could, most enjoyable filmmaker ever. Hopefully the rest of his work is left alone.

They're remaking The Birds right now I think. That's one of my least favorite Hitchcock films though

The Birds was lame.

Says the guy that wants The Breakfast Club to be remade

featuring Jesse Eisenberg as Anthony Michael Hall?

The Birds is good but it's not up there with Psycho/Vertigo/Shadow of a Doubt/Rear Window

And on the latter, you're very much trying to use the exception as the rule.

I should have fucking known..

Yeah so..all day detention in College makes so much sense but I guess its the best they could do..

ugh

Edit: Youtube took the video down, but it was the trailer for "This aint the Breakfast Club XXX" or whatever the hell it was called.

would you relax with the porn spoofs Droford

This should not be remade. Anyone who loves this movie should agree. Jesus.