Miscellaneous Movie Musings

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

Remade films are a tough call. I don't think I've really ever enjoyed a recently remade film, although it seems there are more out there than ever. On the other end, they're really nothing new. Ben Hur, was a remake, Maltese Falcon was done a few times, Casablanca was done on TV, House of Wax was done once before the great Vincent Price version. Even Hitchcock remadeThe Man Who Knew Too Much. I think the seperation between now and then is now it's all a Hollywood game. Its sadly not about making an artist type vision of a screenplay, but rather hyping and making the big opening day boxoffice. And I might add very little risk taken creativily. IMHO.

[Not Afraid]

Songs carry different weight for me than films do, though. I'm glad there are many different versions of Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah, each one is wonderful in it's own way. I think there is a lot more latitude with a song than there is for a film. It's a lesser commitment on both my part and the part of the artist. I can give up 3 minutes to a bad cover song, but, with a bad film remake, I just want those 2 hours of my life back.

[€uroMeinke]

Certainly something is devalued if more copies are made, isn't that basic supply and demand economics?

I don't get the marriage analogy to remakes. I can see how it applies to someone else wanting to make another film, but a remake? That's more like the other couple wants to have a marriage just like yours, in the same or similar house, having the same jobs, speaking the same endearments, same attitudes towards children etc. - and that's downright creepy. Sure get married, make a film - but if you want to marry my wife, then we have a problem.

Honestly, I wish Hollywood would try to remake some bad films, there are plenty that had a lot of potential if only...

But no, the remake often is made based on the success of it's predecessor.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

Honestly, I wish Hollywood would try to remake some bad films, there are plenty that had a lot of potential if only...

But no, the remake often is made based on the success of it's predecessor.

Yes, that is my argument as well. How some movies would have benefited from better dialogue! Or better direction! Or better actors! Those are the ones they should give another chance.

[Prudence]

What disappoints me about remakes lately is they seem so uninspired. It certainly looks to me like they just put blockbuster stars into a ready-made script for a cheap hit. Throw in a couple low-quality jokes and sight gags that place it in this decade and poof! It's "reimagined"!

[CoasterMatt]

I wanna see a remake of "Kiss Meets The Phantom of the Park"

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

I'd love to see an adaptation of Leroux's "The Phantom of the Opera". Lon's came very, very close, though the ending robbed him of his redemption. In tone, in the quality of his performance, it was stunning and accurate. But I'd like to see one with sound, that actually features Gounod's Faust. I dig me some French opera.

[Alex]

I must not be explaining myself well, €, because to the way I am thinking you just made connection between a remake and the original as I think is similar to how many people think about gay marriage affecting straight marriage.

If someone decided to have the exact same marriage as you, fine you'd find that odd an inexplicable. But would you feel it devalued your marriage?

As for the discussion that is happening, it is not objective. If you feel that the Tom Hanks movie somehow ruins the Alec Guinness one (or if the Queen Latifah movie somehow ruins the Alec Guinness one) then that is the same subjective evaluation as determined whether a movie was liked in the first place.

Let me ask this: is Die Hard less worthy because Die Hard 3 sucks? Is Braveheart less of a movie because Mel Gibson is an antisemite (assuming he is)? Does The Maltese Falcon diminish or is diminished by the two earlier versions of that movie that were made? In the following duos, are any of them worse because of the existence of the others: Janet Gaynor/Fredric March; Judy Garland/James Mason; Barbara Streisand/Kris Kristofferson?

Are Irene Dunne and Charles Boyer undone by Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr?

Robin Hood has been filmed almost a dozen times. Does that make the Errol Flynn version any less fun?

To me, saying it is bad for movie A because movie B exists/sucks is like saying John Travolta is worse in Pulp Fiction because he really sucked in Look Who's Talking.

[mousepod]

Alex, what did you think of the Alec Guiness version of The Ladykillers? Did you enjoy it more than the Tom Hanks version? How long after remake did you see the original?

[innerSpaceman]

Am I the only one who is grokking Alex?

The imaginary devaluement of films that have been remade is completely imaginary, and a knee-jerk reaction without any validity ... in theory.

In practice, however, I think people have been burned by too many vapid remakes, and thus have learned to fear and loathe the concept of remake.


I can't deny feeling this way myself. I am one who feels that sequels devalue the original. I can't help that emotional reaction, but I realize how baseless it is.



But we needn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, most remakes and covers are lame. So are most movies and most songs, period. There are plenty of good covers and good remakes. The movie tracilicious mistakenly mentioned a while back, Heaven Can Wait, is - imo - a very good remake of a far earlier film called, if I remember correctly, Waiting for Mr. Jordan.

You just can never tell, and it's proably best not to prejudge. But I can hardly blame anyone for getting the willies when they learn that a fave film is going to be shoddily remade.