Miscellaneous Movie Musings - Page 128

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).

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.

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.

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.

Eliza Hodgkins 1812 · 12-01-2006, 02:43 PM

Quote:

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 · 12-01-2006, 02:57 PM

Quote:

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.

Eliza Hodgkins 1812 · 12-01-2006, 02:58 PM

Quote:

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.

Alex · 12-01-2006, 02:58 PM

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.

12-01-2006, 01:24 PM	#1
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, 01:58 PM	#2
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, 01:51 PM	#3
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	#4
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, 02:04 PM	#5
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	#6
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, 02:58 PM	#10
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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.
	Submit to Quotes