Miscellaneous Movie Musings - Page 131

flippyshark · 12-01-2006, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mousepod

A bad remake of a forgotten classic tends to create a negative feeling where there should be a blank slate. When friends are hanging out at my place, and I pull out a movie that I know they'll like, I don't want to have to explain that "it's much better than the one with Nicolas Cage - trust me..."

Well said, and the example you chose may stand as the definitive illustration of this frustrating trend. The unbelieavably crappy remake of The Wicker Man, if seen first, will certainly diminish if not utterly spoil one's prospects of appreciating the classic original. I tried to get a friend of mine to watch The Wicker Man after she had suffered through the Nicholas Cage nightmare and she just plain refused.

Alex · 12-01-2006, 12:52 PM

Well, to be fair, The Wicker Man isn't a good example because, IMO of course, it really wasn't that good to begin with.

I haven't seen the Cage one yet so I suspect your friend would have been better off seeing neither.

Has Psycho been at all diminished by Gus Van Sant? I would argue not.

mousepod · 12-01-2006, 01:01 PM

Don't know if you noticed €uro's post last night. The "bad Nic Cage movie" could also be "Wings of Desire".

As for Psycho - Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake (except for one telling shot) was an interesting excercise that happened to be a bad film. By siting Psycho and "The Godfather", you're talking about films that are already part of the general public's consciousness. That wasn't my point.

In film, the "art" and the story are almost intrinsically linked. When Brendan Fraser's "Bedazzled" was released, it tossed out Peter Cook's clever dialogue and retained the same basic plot. In that way, the remake "spoiled" the original in its artless telling of the same story.

Alex · 12-01-2006, 01:24 PM

Yes, but in citing The Godfather and Pscho they do support the idea I had (which I admitted was not what you were saying).

When the Psycho project was announced and again when it was released many people did argue that independent of its quality it was a bad thing because it somehow devalued the original.

I disagree with you though. I haven't seen both Bedazzled movies but I have seen several other pairings and don't view the lesser as detracting from the superior. Alec Guinness's The Ladykillers is exactly the film it was before regardless of how good or bad the Tom Hanks version is (and it was bad). If other people aren't able to view separate movies telling the same story as separate objects (Olivier, Gibson, Brannah; how are these impacted/devaluded by the existence of the other Hamlets) then I don't see it as the movie's fault that most people are retarded.

"Oh now, now people will only see the new crappy version and ignore the old wonderful version" is a valid complaint (though again it is a complaint about stupid people, not movies). But only after the movie has been released. But my point was that before a remake is ever seen most people complain about it being an insult to the original.

(And, of course, my larger point was that this argument from some people, while striking me as silly is similar to the devaluation of marriage argument. The former I find silly but easier to understand. But if they come from the same place maybe this smaller example can help me understand the larger).

mousepod · 12-01-2006, 01:51 PM

Alex, just out of curiosity, did you see the Alec Guiness or Tom Hanks version of The Ladykillers first? When the Tom Hanks version was released were you aware that it was a remake?

My specific example of pre-disgust at The Hitcher remake is based on the following: While it wasn't a blockbuster hit on its initial release, the original took the then-current expectations of the genre and turned them on their metaphorical ears. In particular, the subtext of movie in regards to relationship of the two main characters was unique and the ending of the film drove that home in a disturbing and original way. The plot was the vessel by which these points were made. In the realm of pop culture, the movie transcended the expectations and approached "art". The new movie was adapted by a screenwriter whose sole credit is the remake of the 1979 horror film When A Stranger Calls. The director is making his feature debut after a string of music videos. Based on the trailer, I can see that several key scenes were retained, but reset to "play" to today's Saw, Hostel, and Turistas audiences. If it's better than dreadful, I will be surprised. If it spoils the plot (the vehicle, if you will) of the original, it will surely diminish the initial viewing of the original for someone who is only familiar with the remake. I felt the same way about The Wicker Man.

I'm not talking classics, like Psycho and the Godfather. I'm certainly not referring to Shakespeare. I'm specifically discussing genre films that achieve cult status by fans who love them and keep them alive by sharing them with their friends.

Cadaverous Pallor · 12-01-2006, 01:56 PM

Alex still hasn't learned that people are stupid and there's no changing that....hence I find mousepod's point more valid. I dislike how remakes can warp people's perceptions of the original when they haven't actually seen the original. I would add that those that are adverse to seeing older films just because they have been remade are part of the aforementioned stupid people. I suppose that these people wouldn't watch old movies anyway. But still, you have to say "this one is much better than the remake" in order to slough off the baggage and that just sucks.

Ghoulish Delight · 12-01-2006, 01:58 PM

A movie's "quality" and "value" are not, in my opinion, defined solely by what's on the film and on the audio track. Their standing in the public eye is part of the equation. And remakes, no matter the quality, usually have a diluting effect on that standing. A truly terrible remake makes younger viewers reluctant to consider the original as worthy of watching, thus reducing its appeal and therefor its value, no matter the quality of the original. A mediocer remake that, perhaps, has technical and stylistic advantages while storytelling, acting, directing are inferor to the original, may supplant the original in the minds of a younger audience that's drawn to its flashier modern sensebilities, again devaluing the original movie (e.g., overheard some kid who claimed that Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was sooo much better than the original).

Hamlet is an unfair example. That's a play. The difference, to me, is that a play is a medium that is designed to be given different interpretations. Or, rather, a written play is one medium, a performed or filmed play is an interpretation of the written play in a different medium. When someone does a new movie version of Hamlet, they aren't starting with another movie version, or stage version, and going from there. They start with the play. Whereas when someone's remaking a movie, they aren't starting with the screenplay, they're starting with the movie. Heck, using the same example, that's where Charlie and the Chocolate Factory fell short, imo. Despite everyone's insistance that it was going to be more faithful to the book, in the end it had too much in common with the movie version to be anything more than a remake rather than a reinterpret. And the bulk of the stuff that was distinct from Willie Wonka wasn't from the book at all anyway.

So yes, I tend to be on the side of feeling that remakes, especially poor ones, hurt the standing of the original.

CoasterMatt · 12-01-2006, 02:04 PM

The worst question of my everyday existence, is "The new one or the old one?" when people see "Psycho" on my nametag (as Favorite Universal Studios Film)

Not Afraid · 12-01-2006, 02:26 PM

Seeing City of Angels would not lead me to see the wondeful Wings of Desire, but it sure made me appreciate how wonderful the original was.

Bornieo: Fully Loaded · 12-01-2006, 02:34 PM

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.

12-01-2006, 12:52 PM	#1302
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Well, to be fair, The Wicker Man isn't a good example because, IMO of course, it really wasn't that good to begin with. I haven't seen the Cage one yet so I suspect your friend would have been better off seeing neither. Has Psycho been at all diminished by Gus Van Sant? I would argue not.
	Submit to Quotes

12-01-2006, 01:01 PM	#1303
mousepod You broke your Ramadar! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,635	Don't know if you noticed €uro's post last night. The "bad Nic Cage movie" could also be "Wings of Desire". As for Psycho - Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake (except for one telling shot) was an interesting excercise that happened to be a bad film. By siting Psycho and "The Godfather", you're talking about films that are already part of the general public's consciousness. That wasn't my point. In film, the "art" and the story are almost intrinsically linked. When Brendan Fraser's "Bedazzled" was released, it tossed out Peter Cook's clever dialogue and retained the same basic plot. In that way, the remake "spoiled" the original in its artless telling of the same story. __________________ "Give the public everything you can give them, keep the place as clean as you can keep it, keep it friendly" - Walt Disney
	Submit to Quotes

12-01-2006, 01:24 PM	#1304
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Yes, but in citing The Godfather and Pscho they do support the idea I had (which I admitted was not what you were saying). When the Psycho project was announced and again when it was released many people did argue that independent of its quality it was a bad thing because it somehow devalued the original. I disagree with you though. I haven't seen both Bedazzled movies but I have seen several other pairings and don't view the lesser as detracting from the superior. Alec Guinness's The Ladykillers is exactly the film it was before regardless of how good or bad the Tom Hanks version is (and it was bad). If other people aren't able to view separate movies telling the same story as separate objects (Olivier, Gibson, Brannah; how are these impacted/devaluded by the existence of the other Hamlets) then I don't see it as the movie's fault that most people are retarded. "Oh now, now people will only see the new crappy version and ignore the old wonderful version" is a valid complaint (though again it is a complaint about stupid people, not movies). But only after the movie has been released. But my point was that before a remake is ever seen most people complain about it being an insult to the original. (And, of course, my larger point was that this argument from some people, while striking me as silly is similar to the devaluation of marriage argument. The former I find silly but easier to understand. But if they come from the same place maybe this smaller example can help me understand the larger).
	Submit to Quotes

12-01-2006, 01:51 PM	#1305
mousepod You broke your Ramadar! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,635	Alex, just out of curiosity, did you see the Alec Guiness or Tom Hanks version of The Ladykillers first? When the Tom Hanks version was released were you aware that it was a remake? My specific example of pre-disgust at The Hitcher remake is based on the following: While it wasn't a blockbuster hit on its initial release, the original took the then-current expectations of the genre and turned them on their metaphorical ears. In particular, the subtext of movie in regards to relationship of the two main characters was unique and the ending of the film drove that home in a disturbing and original way. The plot was the vessel by which these points were made. In the realm of pop culture, the movie transcended the expectations and approached "art". The new movie was adapted by a screenwriter whose sole credit is the remake of the 1979 horror film When A Stranger Calls. The director is making his feature debut after a string of music videos. Based on the trailer, I can see that several key scenes were retained, but reset to "play" to today's Saw, Hostel, and Turistas audiences. If it's better than dreadful, I will be surprised. If it spoils the plot (the vehicle, if you will) of the original, it will surely diminish the initial viewing of the original for someone who is only familiar with the remake. I felt the same way about The Wicker Man. I'm not talking classics, like Psycho and the Godfather. I'm certainly not referring to Shakespeare. I'm specifically discussing genre films that achieve cult status by fans who love them and keep them alive by sharing them with their friends. __________________ "Give the public everything you can give them, keep the place as clean as you can keep it, keep it friendly" - Walt Disney
	Submit to Quotes

12-01-2006, 01:56 PM	#1306
Cadaverous Pallor ohhhh baby Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parental Bliss Posts: 12,364	Alex still hasn't learned that people are stupid and there's no changing that....hence I find mousepod's point more valid. I dislike how remakes can warp people's perceptions of the original when they haven't actually seen the original. I would add that those that are adverse to seeing older films just because they have been remade are part of the aforementioned stupid people. I suppose that these people wouldn't watch old movies anyway. But still, you have to say "this one is much better than the remake" in order to slough off the baggage and that just sucks. __________________ The second star to the right shines in the night for you
	Submit to Quotes

12-01-2006, 01:58 PM	#1307
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	A movie's "quality" and "value" are not, in my opinion, defined solely by what's on the film and on the audio track. Their standing in the public eye is part of the equation. And remakes, no matter the quality, usually have a diluting effect on that standing. A truly terrible remake makes younger viewers reluctant to consider the original as worthy of watching, thus reducing its appeal and therefor its value, no matter the quality of the original. A mediocer remake that, perhaps, has technical and stylistic advantages while storytelling, acting, directing are inferor to the original, may supplant the original in the minds of a younger audience that's drawn to its flashier modern sensebilities, again devaluing the original movie (e.g., overheard some kid who claimed that Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was sooo much better than the original). Hamlet is an unfair example. That's a play. The difference, to me, is that a play is a medium that is designed to be given different interpretations. Or, rather, a written play is one medium, a performed or filmed play is an interpretation of the written play in a different medium. When someone does a new movie version of Hamlet, they aren't starting with another movie version, or stage version, and going from there. They start with the play. Whereas when someone's remaking a movie, they aren't starting with the screenplay, they're starting with the movie. Heck, using the same example, that's where Charlie and the Chocolate Factory fell short, imo. Despite everyone's insistance that it was going to be more faithful to the book, in the end it had too much in common with the movie version to be anything more than a remake rather than a reinterpret. And the bulk of the stuff that was distinct from Willie Wonka wasn't from the book at all anyway. So yes, I tend to be on the side of feeling that remakes, especially poor ones, hurt the standing of the original. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

12-01-2006, 02:04 PM	#1308
CoasterMatt BRAAAAAAAINS! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: One Step Beyond... Posts: 8,802	The worst question of my everyday existence, is "The new one or the old one?" when people see "Psycho" on my nametag (as Favorite Universal Studios Film) __________________ Do you like my photography? Visit photosbymatt.tumblr.com to purchase prints!
	Submit to Quotes

12-01-2006, 02:26 PM	#1309
Not Afraid HI! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 17,108	Seeing City of Angels would not lead me to see the wondeful Wings of Desire, but it sure made me appreciate how wonderful the original was.
	Submit to Quotes

12-01-2006, 02:34 PM	#1310
Bornieo: Fully Loaded Lego Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Disneyland, USA Posts: 3,704	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.
	Submit to Quotes