Miscellaneous Movie Musings

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

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.

That's an interesting example, because there's often a different reason for American filmmakers adapting foreign films. One reason is to bring awareness of the foreign movies to an American audience. I don't really think this works, as City of Angels doesn't even carry the same title, THANK GOD.

I've been mixed about some of the American versions of Japanese horror films. Ju-On kicks The Grudge's ass. But though I may be in the minority, the American The Ring was far more satisfying - and was far scarier for me - than its Japanese predecessor.

Plays get turned into movies, though it's not always done well. Books get adapted. Ballads get adapted into books (Tam-Lin, I'm looking at you, my beloved). I really don't think there's anything wrong with reimagining an original film, adapting it....if there's good reason, a new spin, etc. The fact that it's often done so poorly is too bad, but I don't think all derivative works or adaptations (even a film of a film) has to be absolute crap.

Granted, I understand the reasons for adapting a book into a film - your experimenting with telling a story using a different medium. There is a point to that, whether one likes the adaptation or not. And adapting a film from another film makes less sense. Though I suppose there may be some good scripts out there that were directed badly. More likely the other way around..bad scripts, but an interesting story. So revising the crap script and retelling the same basic story might be a good idea.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Eliza Hodgkins 1812

I really don't think there's anything wrong with reimagining an original film, adapting it....if there's good reason, a new spin, etc.

I don't disagree with that, and I'm don't have a blanket "no remakes" policy. But it certainly seems like the movie world is relying way too heavily on remakes, and remakes with little creative value, recently and I think it's damaging the value of the classic film canon.

Actually, I view remade films as not unlike song covers. You'd better have a good reason and good creative addition to the substance of the original to be doing it, otherwise, stop wasting my time. Therefore, even when I wasn't a fan and didn't like the style of Marilyn Manson's music, I actually respected his cover of "Sweet Dreams" because it wasn't just a resinging of the same song, he reinvented it. The Beatles and Hendrix and many more did a LOT of covers, but they added something that was their own and creatively itneresting to them. Compare that to, say, the Presidents of the USA's cover of Video Killed the Radio star which is so drab an uninspired that it practically makes me want to kill babies. More of that, we don't need. And were the radio waves flooded with covers of that "quality", I'd certainly be hoping for a moratorium on covers altogether just to clear the musical pallet.

[Alex]

I saw the Tom Hanks version first, and it sucked. But that has nothing to do with how I feel about the Alec Guinness version. I don't see why three different Hamlet films (none of which were filmed as stage productions) are somehow exempt from this. The Wicker Man is based on a book, why can't they both just be different interpretations of the source material. And in what way is it objectively wrong from someone to say Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is better than Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Personally, I think they are about equal in quality with one doing something better and others doing others better. That isn't a good example, that person did see both, and evaluated both. It isn't like he said "because it is newer, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is better.

So, that being said. If the value of one thing can be diluted by the existence a similar but fundamentally different thing, why is it so obviously wrong that straight marriage can be devalued by gay marriage? Again, gay marriage does not directly impact the straight marriage, just changes how you think about the combined package.

If you accept that the existence of something unsavory can devalue something so relatively insignificant as an already existing movie, why is it so laughably wrong when it is actually something of some societal importance. (Just to be clear, I'm rejecting both.)

CP: My entire view of the world is based on the idea that 95% of people are stupid, and happily so. I just blame them for that, not the movies. I've always said I don't understand why there is something magical about the medium of film that so many people think once a story it put to it, it is forever off limits. Books, theater, painting, photography, and pretty much every other artform actually encourages the practitioners to go out and reexamine the same material and try to put their imprint on it. But somehow celluloid is off limits.

Hell, I think it is safe to say that 99% of people born after 1985 would never have seen The Wicker Man regardless of whether a remake was made. Most people have no interest in movies not shelved in the New Releases at Blockbuster. So if we're talking about people who are interested enough in film to seek out older classics and unknown gems but too stupid to view them as independent from any later versions then I nominate this group of people as among the specially retarded and we should all throw rocks at them.

I would bet that the number of people who see it because of all the bitching about "a classic being despoiled" outnumber those who would have seen it but don't because they didn't like the remake (which ultimately will be seen by less than 10% of the population and currently less than 1%). At the San Francisco Silent Film Festival this weekend they will be showing the 1927 version of Chicago. I bet it is sold out. I also bet the the prime driver behind it being restored and screened in the first place is the amazingly dreadful remake of a few years ago.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I don't disagree with that, and I'm don't have a blanket "no remakes" policy. But it certainly seems like the movie world is relying way too heavily on remakes, and remakes with little creative value, recently and I think it's damaging the value of the classic film canon.

I agree with everything you've said.

[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.

[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"!

[€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.

[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.