Miscellaneous Movie Musings

[innerSpaceman]

Actually, I didn't much care for Here Comes Mr. Jordan, though I can't say if I wouldn't have liked it more if I weren't comparing it to a film I'd already liked.

Sure, there's no inherent devaluation in remakes, covers, revivals .... but the human analytical element of comparison almost always brought to bear cannot be disrergarded out of hand.

It happens all the times with books adapted to film. I usually loathe any movie where I've read the book first. The stereotype exists for a reason: the book's always better than the movie. Often - if I know there's a movie coming out based on a good book - I'll wait till the movie opens so's I can watch it first and then read the book. That way, I'm likely to enjoy both. The other way, I'll only enjoy one.


That value system of comparisons doesn't exist outside the human foible-ridden nature of man, but there it is. Knowing better doesn't seem to help much either, 'leastways not with me.



And N.A. was right earlier .... it's easy to be lax about cover songs: who cares about 3 minutes? But movies take up a couple of hours. And books! What if we had to deal with lousy book remakes?? What a waste of time that would be!


(and why is it that books aren't remade? Why only songs and movies and plays? I don't think I've come across too many re-written novels.)

[Alex]

Movies are corporately owned. Books, for the most part are individually owned. Most remakes are either remade by the same studio (because they already own it) or are adaptations from another medium (where the copyright holder can make serial deals for adaptation). Must multiple books have been written offering takes on the same source material (particularly public domain plays) and complaints are not the same.

Frequently, with remakes, I find that people will like better whichever they saw first. But again, that means it is a personal foible and I don't blame the movie for it. The same things happens with Disneyland vs. Magic Kingdom. Most people prefer whichever one they saw first.

I don't know. Maybe I have some super human ability to take movies on their own terms but I don't find it that hard. And if someone thinks they have a unique take on something (and despite whatever base monetary reasons a project has for getting off the ground in the first place, the people involved almost always believe they have something artistic to contribute) then they're welcome to take a stab at it as far as I'm concerned.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

(and why is it that books aren't remade? Why only songs and movies and plays? I don't think I've come across too many re-written novels.)

Well, there are mutliple version of the King Arthur and Robin Hood stories. That happens of course with stories that probably began word-to-mouth. There are many, many written versions of fairy tales. And there are also pastcies and derivative tales...contemporary authors writing Sherlock Holmes count as pastiches. (Suddenly thinking I'm spelling that word incorrectly, but oh well). And there are retellings of stories from the perspective of other characters, and I think those qualify as "remakes". Mary Reilly retells Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are Dead - a play - in its own way retells Hamlet...kinda. These types of novels are essentially telling the same story from a different perspective. Bram Stoker told the story of Dracula through a series of letters written by the various characters. If someone else wrote a story called Dracula that essentially told the same story, but in first person from Dracula's perspective, I'd put that in the same category.