So I've been watching the Production diaries over at KongisKing.net (http://www.kongisking.net), and the other night I caught John Carpenter's The Thing on the picture box. It's got me to thinking about different remakes and the purpose of the remake in cinema.

First of all, does anyone think that a movie should never be remade? I used to think this, but not anymore. I think the remake serves a useful purpose in filmdom. I think The Thing is a better film that The Thing from Another World, and I think PJ's monkey will be better than the original and much better than the Jessica Lange version (which to be fair did sport brief nudity, so it's not total crap). Sometimes, remaking a film can revitalize the story and introduce a new audience, like with Cape Fear. It can also take an old story in a new direction, as was the case with Scarface and will hopefully be the case with Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

But then there are the films like Gus Van Sant's Psycho, which defies all logic; Vanilla Sky, which would have been better if I never saw the original; and The Teaxs Chainsaw Massacre, which managed to make a movie about a chainsaw wielding psycho boring and only served to reintroduce us to Jessica Beil's breasts. I'm talking about the stinkaroo remakes. The list could go on forever: Shaft, Planet of the Apes, The Nutty Professor, The Haunting, etc.

Then there is the American remake of a foreign film - recently this has been big in the horror genre: The Ring & The Grudge. Is this okay? It does introduce a new audience, but from what I've seen the movies can change in the translation.

Basically, I'd like to get everyone's thoughts on remakes and why they do or don't like them.

Poke

sometimes, i think, films should be remade...others, like "classic" or "epic" films should not be remade. Foreign remakes...eh. well, it depends what the filmmaker is going for...money or just to show off their creativeness through a reamake. To show people how much better theirs was from the original...if that made sense. (most likely the money), but if they really don't care about the money, and just want to be kknown i don't see why the couldn't remake a film. so i basically have mixed thoughts about this subject...^^if you could understand that confusing paragraph of answer please let me know. ;).

Mr. Poke--

Good subject. Difficult answer. I do believe there is a certain threshold a movie might cross, after which it seems wrong to attempt a remake. Citizen Kane, Gone With the Wind, The Wizard of Oz...I think remakes of these would be ill advised (and I don't consider The Wiz a straight remake). There are REASONS why these films have withstood the test of time. (I think I would also include Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory...so I am a little disturbed about Burton's project.)

Let's face it, with the advances in filmmaking technology (and a rapidly declining attention span), the youth culture of today expects a certain quality in the look and feel of a movie. Remakes of certain classics could likely be made better, but they would be a detriment to the education of the history of cinema. The movies I mentioned above were groundbreaking achievements in cinema. A remake would only serve to put the original on the discard shelf. As new generations get into watching movies, they will likely not hold the same esteem for the classics, especially if they have all been remade with better color, sound, and effects. (King Kong could be an example of this. If you want to see a story about a large terrorizing ape, would you opt for the original, or the 70's remake? When Peter Jackson's version comes out...will anyone really care about the previous ones anymore?) So, IF the remake is better than the original, then we have a better movie to watch (which is good), but we tend to lose sight of the original and the impact it had on the development of cinema (not so good). IF the remake is decent but not necessarily superior to the original (ie: Planet of the Apes), then the original could possibly survive.

As for remaking foreign films for American audiences...well, I'm not an expert in this area of film history, but I'll bet this has been going on since the birth of cinema. I would also bet that a great many highly regarded American movies were inspired by foreign films and we probably don't even realize it (some day I'll research this to see if I can support my assertion). I don't think there is anything wrong with this, but I would likely opt for the original over the remake. Most movie-going Americans do not care to sit through a movie reading subtitles or listening to bad dubbing. I actually enjoy foreign films, but I would not consider myself a 'unit of the prime Hollywood target demographic'. If the story is good, then it will bring the story to a whole new group of people. If you prefer to watch the original, it is your right to chose IT over the remake.

So, in summary: Foreign Film remakes--I don't object to them, but I usually prefer the original; Classic Film remakes--I would only encourage it if the original wasn't viable today. But I still worry about the effect it has on replacing the classics.

In regards to a remake overshadowing the original, I do see that as a problem. But, I think this can be remedied somewhat. PJ is adamant about mentioning the 1933 version of Kong in nearly every interview he gives, so it will likely lead to more people wanting to check out the original as well as the new version. The same was true of John Carpenter's The Thing. If I hadn't heard JC talking about the original, I would have never seen it.

I do think certain films seem untouchable, but I don't think any film is untouchable in the right hands. Many felt that books like "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" and "The Lord of the Rings" would ever make it to the big screen, but in the capable hands of Terry Gilliam and Peter Jackson not only did they make it but both were pretty damn good adaptations. Who's to say that in ten or fifteen years the rights to Citizen Kane won't be aquired by a filmmaker who will remake it ten times better than Orson ever envisioned it?

Now, about the remaking of foreign films. I agree it is a practice that is not new, but I feel it's taken on a whole new deminsion than in the past. And this calls back what I said about PJ hyping the original Kong. I can honestly say I would never have seen the original Ringu were it not for the remake (The Ring for you braniacs out there) and the constant mentioning of the original. I feel it's a good thing this has come about.

Poke

If they can be remade and enjoyable as the orriginals or even better, then Im for it. But it seems that hollywood today seems to lean more towards special FX to carry a movie as opposed to Good acting in the old days.

War of the Worlds is going to be remade by Tom Cruise. He wants to set the movie in the 1800s as it was orriginally written by HGWells.

i would love to see this. But Planet of the Apes with Mark Walburhg Blew chunks.

They murdered a classic. I like Tim Burton for his orriginal concepts but not for remaking films. He even said he didnt like the idea of making Charlie and the Chocolate factory but did it anyways. I dont think it will be a "Remake" of the Classic 1971 film with Gene Wilder. its going to be a movie based on the actual book itself. so it will be way different.

I also understand Ray Bradburrys movie "Farenhiet 451" will be remade. this sickens me. I Hope someone can remake it well. You just cant recreate the 1960s astmosphere and the mindset of the people of that day. seemed like everyone was doing drugs when they filmed movies in the 60s. there is a wonderful atmosphere of that period that just doesnt exists in films today. even the 70s had that feel to it. I was watching Night Gallery on the sci fi channel and it brought me back to my childhood years. I didnt change, just society. watching old reruns of Night Gallery had the same feeling today as when I was a kid. I would hate for a TV recreation of Night Gallery. Actually I think it has been done in the 90s. leave a good thing alone.

thats my 2 cents.

I don't mind remakes at all except for CLASSICS. Geez... For some reason, a remake of a classic really pisses me off. But that's just me. Take Psycho for instance. ????? But hey, if someone can remake a classic and make me forget about the original, I guess I can work with it...

I've been seeing previews for "Flight of the Phoenix" --The previews look decent but damn... I really like the original. But like Poke said... If a remake can somehow reintroduce the genre and find a new audience that the original didn't have then why not?

I can still watch the original all I want...

Just goes to show you that Hollywood simply needs new ideas. There are so many remakes of classics on the horizon it would make your head spin...

You ain't seen nothin' yet...

filmy

I can honestly say I would never have seen the original Ringu were it not for the remake (The Ring for you braniacs out there) and the constant mentioning of the original.

Poke

Lots of good stuff out there in foreign film land to be seen, regardless of whether or not it is currently being remade for American audiences. A few good horror movies from Asia--Dark Water (although guess what...yep! Currently being remade for American audiences, with Jen Connelly), The Eye, or how about Suicide Club, Battle Royale, Versus, Tetsuo (if you are an Eraserhead/Lynch fan), Ebola Syndrome (okay..maybe not so good, but still fun), the list goes on.

Remakes are like adaptations and sequals, they give the vewier a point of comparison. The better the original, the better the remake has to be to live up to reputations and expectations. Otherwise a crap movie is just a crap movie, original or not.

I have a great deal of expectation for Willy Wonka. Tim burton, Johnny Depp, great book, and a kick ass original film, mann I would hate to be in Timmy boys shoes. If he screws this up like......

Remakes are like adaptations and sequals, they give the vewier a point of comparison. The better the original, the better the remake has to be to live up to reputations and expectations. Otherwise a crap movie is just a crap movie, original or not.

I have a great deal of expectation for Willy Wonka. Tim burton, Johnny Depp, great book, and a kick ass original film, mann I would hate to be in Timmy boys shoes. If he screws this up like......

Thats what I was saying before. Its not a remake of Willy Wonka. Its sticking to the orriginal story book theme. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory which is the name of the title.

There will be some simularities of the Gene Wilder film. but Willy Wonka was more based on the book as this will be sticking to the main storyline.

so I hope its a hit.


To be honest, When was the last time a movie like Willy Wonka was made that burned on the minds of people for several generations. it has a feel to it that very few directors can recreate. it was chemistry between the actors chosen. I like Johnny Depp. he was funny in that pirate movie. but someone like Jim Carrey would have been a better choice. I say Jim because he is one of the few Character Actors of this Generation. I wish hollywood would find more people like him.

I also hope there are lots of colors put into this film. Like the old technicolor films of yesteryear.

thats what made it so appealing to children.

To be honest, When was the last time a movie like Willy Wonka was made that burned on the minds of people for several generationsIts funny that you should mention that. I had a similiar thought about music. What was the last band that made immortal status. Sure there are plenty of great bands out there but where are the Elvis's, Beatles, Madonnas. The kind of bands that our grandchildren will know and recognize.

So yeah the same could be asked of film. Where are the great films like Gone with the Wind, the Wizard of Oz and the like? The classics.

I understand that classic status is not something that is easily recognized right away. Its just that when I think back to the nineties and I can think of some really great movies, but what movies are people still going to know generations from now. Pulp Fiction? Forest Gump? I just don't see these stories as having the staying power to effect future generations the way they effect me.


Jim Carrey would have been a better choice. I say Jim because he is one of the few Character Actors of this Generation. I wish hollywood would find more people like him.
We are in complete agreement on quite a few things here. Jim Carrey is WAY underrated as an actor. Might have something to do with a string of crap movies he made some years back. I'll admit I laughed myself silly with Dumb and Dumber, but fluff filler that movie was. That is quite a reputation to outlive. Man on the Moon was freakin' genius and I don't have to restate my position on Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Who was the last actor that had that kind of range?

Even if they had offered Carrey the Wonka role, I don't think he would have taken it. He just got done playing Count Olaf in Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events. Two iconic child film characters within a year of each other could have been overkill.

And just to be clear, the new version will be closer to the book than the Wilder version.

Poke

I'm for good ones, against bad ones...I also don't like it when they change the story up or change the time frame (like in Planet of the Apes or previous King Kong remakes)...I like the way Peter Jackson wants to remake King Kong, because it will be set in the 40's...just like the original. In other words I like literal remakes, not loosely based ones...and that's only if the remake is better or equal to the original.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the Psycho remake? I have not seem it but from what I understand it is a shot-by-shot remake of the original. If this is true, whats the point? And who would fund such a seemingly pointless excercise. I can understand retelling a story, updating it, adding new effects. But shot-by-shot? I don't get it.

But then there are the films like Gus Van Sant's Psycho, which defies all logic ...

It isn't shot for shot. There are some minute differences, but it's close enough to warrant a big WTF to mr. Van Sant ... or Mr. Sant ... or Gussie.

Poke

Yeah.. Psycho sucked.. Something about the TWO remakes of texas chainsaw massacre never sat right with me either.

I still have yet to watch the original "You've Got Mail" or whatever it was called before the remake with Hanks/Ryan.. (which I like btw, but then pretty much anything either of, but especially BOTH of, those two are in usually ranks high in my book)

As for the foreign remake thing.. I enjoyed The Ring more than Ringu (quite a bit more).. haven't seen the grudge, or it's Japanese counterpart though.

The only remakes i like aren't actually remakes at all. My friends i speak to you of the art of parody. the sincerest form of flattery is after all imitation, misguided or not.

If the first film was a pile of shait or not faithful to it's source material, I wouldn't mind seeing a remake. But if the first film was well made, critically acclaimed, and commercially accepted - I don't really see the point of doing a remake. Tim Burton has this bad now. The first Willy Wonka and Planet of the Apes movies were fine.

I always used to be against remakes, I've seen enough poor ones over the years, Stallone's "Get Carter" winning the prize for worst ever. However, I read an article a little while back by a director (sorry can't remember the name) whose argument was that plays like Richard the Third or musicals like Chicago get remade and reinterpreted over and over again on the stage. Some of the reworkings are great, some are poor and some really, really suck. He argued that creative option should be allowed of film and for every bad remake it should be remembered that without a remake of the Seven Samurai they've be no Magnificent Seven, without a remake of Yojimbo they'd be No Fistful of Dollars (remade almost shot for shot).

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I know that I've wanted to make a remake of the James Stewart's classic Harvey for as long as I can remember, but it a risky project for a director and the lead actor to take on.
I think the day I find the right lead actor is the time I'll do it. Kevin Spacy is the obvious choice, but I've never made and obvious casting in my life.

I always thought Jim Carrey would be the obvious choice.

Poke

I always thought Jim Carrey would be the obvious choice.

Funny you should say that, Stella said exactly the same thing this morning

He does a killer Stewart impression, but I've always felt he had the same style of speech and body control that Stewart had.

Poke

If remakes are done true to the originals, without making changes to the scripts or changing the plotlines in any way, they can be good. A good example was the remake of "I Married A Monster From Outer Space". With the exception of the actors, the original and the remake were, pretty much, identical.

If the remakes are identical to the original (i.e. Gus Van Sant's Psycho), what's the point of remaking it? I say if you have nothing new or useful to add to a story don't remake it.

Poke

Anyone have comments on the remake of the Battlestar Galactica series? I'm too young to have seen the original air but the new stuff is absolutely great. Drama in a sci-fi environment. The directing is great I think and the SFX not too over done. I'm not entirely sure I'm a huge fan of the whoel shaky cam thing yet but it was decent.

There are 2 things that bug me about remakes at the moment:

1. there are Waaaaay too many... i mean it is ok to make a remake, i mean if the story is something fantastic that the world is starting to lose a hold of then a remake can bring it back to life! But the fact is that the remake is becoming something of a way for directors to keep in the game without having to do any work, i mean not too long ago there was a massive strand of 60's tv remake movies, most of them have been forgotten all to quickly but with movies such as "Rocky and bullwinkle" and " My favorite martian" filling up the cinemas in the early stages of our new millenia, people begin to wonder..... where are our creative writers???

2. Remakes should follow the same concept of a song cover.... there are two types of a song cover... one where the song has been copied in every word, every beat, every note so that the only distinguishable difference between the two songs is that fact that one is in the new release section of the CD shop i.e
"i love rock and roll- brittany spears" and the other is the opne where an artist would take a song and put into it their own style, changin g things around to make it thier own, whilst still paying homage to the original song i.e " a little help from my freinds - Joe Cocker" this one of cource being the better type... and its the same with film.... If a director wants to make a remake they shouldnt even have a look at the original film to refresh their memory, they should get the script and work from there... give their interpretation, or do what tim burton is doing with "charlie and the choc facotry" or even what P.J Hogan did with his remake of " peter pan" byt taking the original story how is was meant to be.... this is what makes a good remake!

Anyone have comments on the remake of the Battlestar Galactica series? I'm too young to have seen the original air but the new stuff is absolutely great. Drama in a sci-fi environment. The directing is great I think and the SFX not too over done. I'm not entirely sure I'm a huge fan of the whoel shaky cam thing yet but it was decent.

If ever there was a case for remakes Battle Star Galatica is it. It is a superb reworking of what was after all a very dodgey 1970's sci-fi for kids.
I think the point with remakes is to see some grain of greatness in an original piece of work and know that you can improve on it, rather than just cashing in on a classic by putting some new faces in it. I think with Battle Star Galactica you've got incredibly well written scripts and just superb casting decisions. I can't find fault with it and I am old enough to remember the original.
I think one of the reasons that I'm drawn to a remake of Harvey is, despite the fact that James Stewart's performance in it is flawless, the supporting cast are very much of their age and some of the acting is a little wooden.

I know that I've wanted to make a remake of the James Stewart's classic Harvey for as long as I can remember, but it a risky project for a director and the lead actor to take on.

How about Jeff Goldblum? He reminds me alot of Jimmy Stewart.

I'd also like to add: I saw 'Arsenic and Old Lace' a couple of weeks ago, does anyone else think John Cleese may have been a little influenced by Cary Grant's performance? And how many actors have drawn something from Bugs Bunny?????? (seriously)

[QUOTE=bird]How about Jeff Goldblum? He reminds me alot of Jimmy Stewart.QUOTE]

When I think of Stewart I think of an actor who, in his roles, represented characters who were outside of reality. In this moment I can only recall two roles. In Mr Smith Goes to Washington, Stewart stood above the political-constitutional reality of the US at the time, fighting for representation. In Harvey, Stewart stood beyond reality in his firm belief of the giant rabbit. In both cases Stewart's roles were characters that the audience (I, at least did) fell in love with, as they had something central to them, yet at the same time tragic. In ‘Washington’ when I watched Smith fight, but in such a respectable way, refusing to give up the floor. Then his own physical limitations stopped him and he collapsed. The tragedy is Mr Smith was sacrificing his health for a greater goal - he could not have both. This was something that fascinated me - the self-sacrifice, and was a quality I have since demanded of myself (yet will never truly reach, but that is irrelevant).
In Harvey he was a well-dressed intelligent man who also held a child-like fantasy with him through out life. This juxtaposition within the character was fantastic, as it allowed both old and young into his role, and for both types his character held something they desired of themselves, either an unwarranted yet beautiful belief in something ridiculous (something that many see as a trait of a simple character - say Forrest Gump was also immensely popular in this simpleton sense), or a very respectful and respected man (something associated with the older, wiser people).
So the actor needs to have traits that people can admire, they need to be above/beyond reality, seemingly from another world where dreams (utopias of equal representation and imaginary friends) are worth more than reality. So the actor must represent such enigmatic qualities. Attract the young + aged inside of each of us. I'd say Goldblum/Carrey/Spacey are grand choices - very much in with this line of thought. However I think that two names have been missed out of the discussion.
Young/Old/Immature/Simple/fighting for a higher cause --> i know this sounds silly but really consider it - Stallone. Simpleness, in his roles, seems to pour out of every orifice. The fact that I can't understand what he is saying most of the time may be a hindrance, however, this adds to the quality that he comes from another world. He'd be interested no doubt.
I feel that the supporting cast to Harvey was designed to be blunt and thin. It was to highlight the differences between Stewart's world and the real world - to reveal his to be more fun and, ironically, humane. I think this is one of the central themes of the film, and if you dropped that, you would have to pick that theme back up again in some other way without turning it into a basic 'no-one understands me' cry baby film.
Oh, the other name that many people I think would find acceptable (if they did not agree to Stallone - shock, horror) is Damian Lewis (that ginger guy from Band of Brothers and the Archer BBC satire). He has another worldly quality to him, suave, yet has a childlike quality that also draws audiences in with ease (similar to Stewart).
He'd be up for it too - as he showed with the Archer thing - he is not afraid to take risks, and he'd be willing to do more serious stuff to forget about Dreamcatcher.
There was something else I wanted to say about remakes in general, but it slipped me by when i was thinking of Stallone's orifices. It'll come back to me,
sorry about the length of this - I don't like to edit stuff down, unless I have to (it takes away the immediacy and essence etc)
zoolio

I principle I am all for remakes, and on empirical grounds my support is contingent on how the remaking is done.
There is a veritable wealth of literature arguing that all stories come down to basic narratives - the Romeo/Juliet love story, or the coming of age story etc etc.
I would say that it is small-minded to say that a film or anything should not be remade. I mean, is anything truly original? 2001: a space odyssey and Requiem for a Dream. These are totally different films, but thematically speaking, about the downfall of man due to his dreams (eg, Hall the computer). Star Wars, Godfather, Magnolia - thematically about family.
My point is that these films are interlinked, interconnected. They are not autonomous, and as such, does anyone have actual ownership of them? No. My point is that these re-makes are re-interpretations of eternal themes put into new situations or not, and that the 'originals' were never truly 'original'.
Walter Smidge earlier said that a song could work as a remake when taken and made different to the original. Poke said that it was only worth remaking films if you have something to add to the story. To add something or to make it different is to re-interpret it, to remodel it, to ultimately, remake it.
If it were not for taking things and remaking them everything you see (if an artist) would be red, green or blue. There would be no magenta, cyan etc etc. What kind of a world would that be?
The point of paper was to communicate, to record. This has been, eventually, into the laptops and desktops that we are typing on now. If no-one had dared to evolve the ideas behind the creation then we would all be drawing on each other's bodies - something I for one would not enjoy. :no:
For me the worth of a film is in the ideas behind it, those themes of human life - and those are constantly being remade. 'Remakes' are new interpretations, new readings into life - and should be welcomed by all.
Their worth is in how they are done, but in principle, we should not deny their right to be.
I would evolve my argument further but I think I've gone on for too long,
Nothing is autonomous, and as such, everything is a remake/remodel/retelling of the age-old stories.
i'll stop now,
eternally zoolio.

Well, I'll throw my voice in on this as it's one of my all-time pet peeves. I see nothing original to add to the comments above, however, so I'll just throw my weight behind a couple of opinions in typically verbose fashion:

1. A remake is essentially of no creative value whatsoever. When a film is born and bred for the film medium specifically (as opposed to films made from books, stage plays and other media) its basically a stand-alone work. The only time there could be any benefit is if the original film were based on a great concept but poorly done; then the remake might be a sort-of creative repair job. Nobody wants to be brave and tackle a good concept made into a poor film, however. It's all about riding a brand name, and that alone is worth picketing any remake.

2. Battlestar galactica, what little I had time to watch of the new one, looked like the first decent space series in a few decades; very strong both dramatically and visually. The funny thing is, it's so entirely different from the first that they could just as easily changed a few more characters and ideas and presented it as a similar film but as a stand-alone different film (just as King Kong was based more or less on the Lost World concept - or became that once Cooper got to RKO - but still had enough differences that instead of The Lost World II, The Giant Ape, they called it King Kong, and that for me works. Plagerism doesn't, but inspiration does. where does one stop and the other begin? that depends I suppose on where every individual's red-line is on their Knock-off-o-meter.)

3. Bad remakes disparage the memory and reputations of original classics. Speaking of the aforementioned Kong, I just read in Entertainment Weekly where the new Peter Jackson King Kong will have, among many already reported unfortunate script decisions, a big Kong doody gag. Oh, ho ho - a giant ape leaves a giant crap. Now that's both stupid and unoriginal, having been done in both caveman and then Jurassic Park. But kids will see the new Kong and then, while catching the original - sure to be marketed like mad when the remake comes out - will likely be making big Kong doody references. In case nobody noticed, this kind of thing ruins the experience of watching the original.

4. The only time a remake is fair game, in my opinion, is when its done by the original filmaker. Unlike alot of people, I don't condemn Lucas, for example, for reworking his Star Wars films. If he wants to "get it right" in his head, God bless 'em. Hitchcock remade a couple of his early films, and that's fair. (and please, no endless flame threads about Lucas reworking his original Star Wars trilogy - this is only one guy's opinion)

All these remakes are really nothing more than wringing happy dollars out of baby-boomer memories while enjoying the buck that can be had by a reliable idea in the form of a recognizabkle name brand which is easily bought. Maybe I'm becoming an idealist, but even for the most commercial of film ideas, it seems to me that that this one stinks.

Speaking of Battlestar Glactica.. The Sci-Fi channel is running a B.G. Marathon today. "The entire 4 hour miniseries is on, followed by the 2 hour pilot." Or so the ads that ran during every break last night kept telling me.


For the record, the entire Star Wars story (original 3 for certain) are virtually a remake of 'Alexander Nevsky' by Sergei Eisenstein (Soviet Union, 1938). Lord of the Rings is also very similar, from a visually technical point of view. ie: same shots, same protrayal of good and evil, etc. If you watch Alexander Nevsky and want to compare it to Star Wars, just think: Russians = Rebels, Germans = Empire... or to compare with LOTR Russians = Humans/Elves (Battle at Helms Deep is a good example), Germans = Orcs.

All these remakes are really nothing more than wringing happy dollars out of baby-boomer memories while enjoying the buck that can be had by a reliable idea in the form of a recognizabkle name brand which is easily bought. Maybe I'm becoming an idealist, but even for the most commercial of film ideas, it seems to me that that this one stinks.

You may be right, however here is a short list of remakes, these are the films you are condemning:

The Magnificent Seven, Fistful of Dollars (Sergio Leone), Cape Fear (Scorcesse), The Thing (Carpenter), High Society, Invasion of the Body Snatcher (Sutherland vs), The Postman Always Rings Twice (Nicholson vs), The Masque of The Red Death (V. Price vs) and of course Scarface (Pacino vs)

I think it's OK to say of a film like Stallone's "Get Carter" that's a bad, self indulgent remake, but say all remakes are just cynical cash cows doesn't stand up to the evidence. There are bad and good. Personally, I'd miss every single one of the above titles from my DVD collection and with the exception of Cape Fear, Seven Samurai and Yojimbo I don't own any of the other originals.

For myself, I'm having fridge magnet made that says "If it's good enough for Sergio Leone, it's good enough for me."

The blob has been remade a number of times..

You've got mail was a second or third generation remake of "The Shop Around The Corner".

Oceans 11 was a remake, which in my opinion was more entertaining the second time around (Sorry Rat Pack Fans)

The Italian Job: remake

The Ring is a remake of Ringu from Japan. Neither were that great, but after seeing the American version first, I hated the Japanese original.

How about films all based on the same original story.. that counts as a remake, no?
If so, There are at least 8 versions of Dracula, that have THAT NAME.. not to mention other interpretations of the original story done as films with different names (Nosferatu, etc)

Clive,

"You may be right, however here is a short list of remakes, these are the films you are condemning:

The Magnificent Seven, Fistful of Dollars (Sergio Leone), Cape Fear (Scorcesse), The Thing (Carpenter), High Society, Invasion of the Body Snatcher (Sutherland vs), The Postman Always Rings Twice (Nicholson vs), The Masque of The Red Death (V. Price vs) and of course Scarface (Pacino vs)"

Okay, I'll go through the short list, and make it clear I'm not trying to *impress* my opnion on anyone else; it's just an opinion offered for whatever its worth:

The Magnificent Seven is different enough to stand on its own, just as Forbidden Planet is different from shakespeare's The Tempest on which it is based. they also changed the name, which takes all the sting out of a bad remake influencing the reputation of an original. I think the same could be said of A Fistful Of Dollars. Keeping the title of the original film - or references to it -in the remake is critical to defining a remake to a film which is "heavily inspired".(we avoid the difficulty, of course, by doing neither and making orginal films in the first place)

Cape Fear (Scorcesse), The Thing (Carpenter), High Society, Invasion of the Body Snatcher :
In my opinion, every one of these films is vastly inferior to the original, in the case of Cape Fear and The Thing, embarssingly so, and do nothing to help the reputations of the originals except perhaps to make them look better by comparison. I know some people love the Thing remake, but I can't see how trading off grotesque animtronic effects is an advantage over terrific storytelling, and I think we'd all admit John Carpenter isn't even out of his diapers compared to Howard Hawks (who directed, regardless of Christian Nybie's name on the Big Chair, and he said as much in interviews as did the cast).

As for The Masque of The Red Death and Dracula, they're based on written works, which I said - in my opinion again - is fair game as interpreting one media form to another as many times as people want.

As far as the few others mentioned, whatever entertainment value they offer or artistic accomplishment they possess might have been better realized if all that time and money and energy had been put into a great script for an entirely original film. For every remake in which all that was spent, we may have been robbed of a NEW classic.

Nah, sorry, guys. I'm going to stick to my sergio leone sixshooters on this one. My vote appropos the question posed in the header of this thread: "Nay". And a BIG Nay at that.

When you answer a black and white question with a black or white answer, you can always be proven wrong :yes: Some remakes are horrible attempts to cash in on the previous attempt. Some remakes are an attempt to convert a story to modern situations or convert a story from one culture to another. Examples are DeCaprio's Romeo and Juliet (never saw it by the way) set in modern times, and the Magnificent Seven, converting from Japanese culture to the Wild West culture.

I can generally live with those types of remakes. I'm generally unsatisified with remakes that don't bring anything to the table (for lack of better words). An example of that is Psycho. It didn't need to be modernized, and as far as I'm concerned Hitchcock made a movie that could withstand the effects of time.

So my answer is grey.

The conversions can and have been able to stand on their own. Some of the conversions are legitimate new stories or films. Some are less so. I'm generally unhappy with remakes of classics. Psycho is one example. Cape Fear is an example of one that I did like. Both the Bogart and the Denero films.

Yep, my answer is grey.

Chris

Please vote for my Subaru commercial. I'm losing badly. Now it's just to soothe my savage ego. The commercial is called "Space".

http://www.sevenseats.com/movie.aspx?VideoID=15

the funny thing is that a lot of the times people have no idea that a movie is a remake of another older film, this is mainly due to clever marketing and a forced "lack of recognition" towards the older version and so nobody has any problems! So whats the harm, if you found the movie entertaining then who cares if it is a remake!

i think sometimes we forget that movies are entertainment, thats what they were designed to be, and thats what they will always be... and so if the movie entertains it audience, then it is a good film, even if the film is a remake it doesnt matter, what matters is the audience! So the real answer is Neither!

-Walt

what matters is the audience! So the real answer is Neither!

-Walt

Thats exactly what I was trying to say before Walt. That, if we look at it from a film to film point of view, and just look at the empirical evidence - we can't make a real answer.
I was trying to make the point that, in terms of principle, irrelevent of the end result, we have to welcome both forms of film (remake or not), and i think your point on entertainment and your conclusion illustrates that excellently.
Thing is you said it in a coupla lines, I took a bloody essay - and still didn't make that clear! :no:
ah well.
(someone may say that if that is my argument then i am making any film, by principle, acceptable - like real sexual violence and so forth, but i think thats another thread - and shouldn't be here)

you know what... i think i am going to go make a remake now.... i have been inspired and i think a remake is in order, lol :D

seriously though, a lot of people do get into the habit of forgetting the reason we have film in the first place and thus view it in the wrong light... (mind the pun). I know i get into that trap and roughly critisize films that i see even though i am forgetting that just because i didnt like the film doesnt mean everyone else hated it too...

But on the other side, people are sheep and they dont know what is good or not :grumpy: lol

-Walt

"I also understand Ray Bradburrys movie "Farenhiet 451" will be remade. this sickens me. I Hope someone can remake it well."


I totally agree. Fahrenheit 451 is one of my favourite novels of all time, and as a SF-freak I was first enraged at the idea of remaking it, and I was worried that someone would screw it up. However, I'm not gonna sell it off quite yet because, from what I've heard, writer/director Frank Darabont is supposed to be attached as the director, and from what I've seen of his work (excellent moves such as 'The Shawshank Redemption' and 'The Green Mile') we can expect something special from him. I think that remakes can be good, but they need to have a relevance to people today. You need to find a way to keep alive everything that was so strong about the originals but include something that people can take away into their lives. I disagree with simply remaking a film because it was commercially successful, but some remakes have been very good. As for Fahrenheit 451, I'm keeping hope alive... :cool:

The Magnificent Seven is different enough to stand on its own, just as Forbidden Planet is different from shakespeare's The Tempest on which it is based. they also changed the name, which takes all the sting out of a bad remake influencing the reputation of an original. I think the same could be said of A Fistful Of Dollars.

Fistful of Dollars is an almost shot for shot remake in key scenes, it couldn't get closer to the original. Key scenes in Seven Samurai and Magnificant Seven are identical, as are the characters. What makes them great films is the skill and love with which the remake was made.

I understand your point, if a filmmaker is lazy and just remakes someones' masterpiece badly, then I hate it too and that was the reason I used to hate remakes.

The truth is we all agree, most remakes are bad ideas made by bad filmmakers, some of whom should be shot. However, I still believe that it is possible to create something wondeful out of someone elses work, providing you have something new to say with it. It's the difference between being a film samurai and being a peasant. it doesn't matter if it was better or worse than the original, just in the same way it doesn't matter if it was as better or worse than the book. A good film stands by it's own rights.

Clive,

You and I are saying pretty much the same thing, except that the good "remakes" are those with different spins and different TITLES, and those are called "heavily inspired" or "knock-offs", depending on whether your perseptive is academic or business, respectively.

I do believe using the title of the original is what defines it as a remake perhaps more than anything else, since that is where the direct and unabashed comparisons lie for the common viewer. Remember also there are lots of film lovers who, like all of us, have limited knowledge of the history. If they see Cape Fear and think it stinks - the REMAKE - they may not even be aware there WAS an original, and bypass it entirely, the cumulative effect being the original gets alot less attention, makes less money for the people who made it, racks up less revenue for the distributor who may also be financing new productions and they look at the tally and says, "Vampire lesbians From Saturn" made alot more than the original Cape Fear, therefore we're putting our investment dollars into sleazy space vampire flicks instead of solid, well-crafted suspense thrillers. Oh joy. The business really can run this way when there is a perception that great films are less desireable than trash, and we've all seen it happen ad infinitum. Remakes soiling the long-term perceptions of classics films just ads to the motion picture land fill, and that land fill, like all land fills, is starting to stink.

I agree that films can and should stand on their own merits. In a way that's my point, also. So why not call the remake of Cape Fear, "Deadly Facination" or some such thing and LET it stand on its own merits? After all, The Magnificent Seven had an original title, so who cares? And if they call King Kong "The Legend of Kong Island" then at least it distinguishes it, although I have no idea why people want to tread AS ARTISTS over classic ground. If they want to remake anything, let them remake Robot Monster, but be sure to call it something else, like "Apocolypic Invader" or something otherwise equal to the effort.

Clive,

You and I are saying pretty much the same thing, except that the good "remakes" are those with different spins and different TITLES, and those are called "heavily inspired" or "knock-offs", depending on whether your perseptive is academic or business, respectively.

I do believe using the title of the original is what defines it as a remake perhaps more than anything else, since that is where the direct and unabashed comparisons lie for the common viewer. Remember also there are lots of film lovers who, like all of us, have limited knowledge of the history. If they see Cape Fear and think it stinks - the REMAKE - they may not even be aware there WAS an original, and bypass it entirely, the cumulative effect being the original gets alot less attention, makes less money for the people who made it, racks up less revenue for the distributor who may also be financing new productions and they look at the tally and says, "Vampire lesbians From Saturn" made alot more than the original Cape Fear, therefore we're putting our investment dollars into sleazy space vampire flicks instead of solid, well-crafted suspense thrillers. Oh joy. The business really can run this way when there is a perception that great films are less desireable than trash, and we've all seen it happen ad infinitum. Remakes soiling the long-term perceptions of classics films just ads to the motion picture land fill, and that land fill, like all land fills, is starting to stink.

I agree that films can and should stand on their own merits. In a way that's my point, also. So why not call the remake of Cape Fear, "Deadly Facination" or some such thing and LET it stand on its own merits? After all, The Magnificent Seven had an original title, so who cares? And if they call King Kong "The Legend of Kong Island" then at least it distinguishes it, although I have no idea why people want to tread AS ARTISTS over classic ground. If they want to remake anything, let them remake Robot Monster, but be sure to call it something else, like "Apocolypic Invader" or something otherwise equal to the effort.


You make some good points, a remake should not ride off the success of its orignial couterpart but rather off its own merits.. for instance When the film "10 things i hate about you" took the words of William Shakespear you didnt see them calling it "The taming of the shrew", they changed the title and made it their own, the same should apply to film.

Walter,

Thanks, but I'd go a step further in the distinction based on your interpretation. I DO think that multiple versions of films based on works which originated in another media - such as novels or Shakespeare's plays - are fair game because they're interpretive from the outset. Therefore if they did use whole passages of Shakespeare in "10 things" (I didn't see it) then they should either call it Taming of the Shrew and be true to the play, or write something else. Otherwise it seems like nothing more than plagerizing the greatest playwrite (I'm a big Shakespeare fan, so that's just my opinion). Again, why people can't sit down and write something original is beyond me - only making money off a pre-sold commodity makes any sense, and that's slimey sense at that, though "inspiration" is not only fair, but probably indespensible.

Specifically my take is when a film originates AS film, when it's been written for the medium, it's gone through the process of concept for a movie to completed film it should be left alone to be what it is . And I DO say "do it again" - but just make a DIFFERENT FILM!


"Remaking" a film using scenes but re-writing all the dialogue, changing the characters and re-naming everything from the title to the characters and re-writing what they say isn't a great practice - it shows a specific lack of imagination on the part of the film maker in a big way - (in my opinion anyway, though I don't see how it can be amnything but) but it isn't a terrible practice, either. Re-making a film, simply re-writing a good script and re-filming it either because one doesn't know what else to do or to cash in on the name of the great work it's "re-imagining" (another meaningless marketing department catchphrase) and calling it by the original film's title really IS terrible practice in my opinion. In my mind, a group of film makers re-making King Kong or 451 (how they figure they can compete with that film's closing ten minutes I have no idea - I guess they'll "re-imagine" it, but being based on a novel that is, alas, fair game) is nothing short of embarrassing to watch.

Kong had such a great script and editing, it came close to structure perfection within the very narrow linitations of the story, and you can see Jackson and staff wrestling with that problem: Kong doo-doo and splitting the role of Jack driscoll into two roles and "expanding the relationship between Kong and Ann darrow" (whatever the hell that means - what are they going to do, have bonding weekends in the poconos?). It really is stupid.

Now Jackson is a big Kong fan and all that so why the hell didn't he just make a SEQUEL? Kong is a fantasy, so why not have a modern guy planning an illegal - or otherwise daunting to make it interesting for the audience - venture back to the Island. Even off the top of my head I have a pretty good opening scene for it too: it's Sept 11th, 2001, and see see scenes of people from store fronts to bars to homes watching the repeated newscasts of the falling towers. Awful, terrible, heartwrenching and disappointing on a profound scale. Camera in on one apartment showing a guy surrounded by papers and periodicals focused like a laser beam on HIS TV, but while the rest of the world is watching that current disaster, he is focused on one long forgotten - watching old newsreel footage of the giant ape which ravaged NYC in 1933. HE'S going back to that island come hell of high water, and you don't need a word of dialogue to inform the audience of the fact - we simply SEE the fact in his expression. Fast forward 5 years later and he's on his way, skirting customs and radar and everything - or whatever needs to be done to show the resolve and ingenuity of the guy - to get to Skull Island - or find it in the event it is being kept secret like a sort of Jurassic Area 51 (or maybe it still hasn't been rediscovered).

Perfect? No. Simple and a direction one could take it? I think so, sure, why not, and I gave as much thought to it as it took to write this, and I'm no genius.

If these guys need to re-imagine anything, let them do it with a sequel. Montag in 451 has gone off to his new world, but his airhead TV-addicted wife picks up a book she finds left over from the raid and starts her own journey. You know, bring something NEW to the table, for Christ sake. Add to the mythology instead of just feeding off it for the money.

There are 3 reasons i can think of to make a remake:

1. For fun : Directors sometimes make remakes because they were a fan of the original and so they themselves try to have a crack at their all time favorite films... i.e Peter Jackson.

2. For Money : this one gets a bit iffy, but basically a studio will push for a remake over anything else usually due to the fact that they know they will at least have a fan base to work from.... i.e Harry Potter... this may join with the other motivations as the director will have different intentions...

3. Because they have run out of ideas: It is had to come up with some new out there ideas these days and directors are strting to give up.... and so what better to work on something thats already written.

And there are probably more but thats all i can think of....

Now Dr Vis FX.... i have to say i dont agree with you on the 10 things bagging, it is ok to rename a film against its counterpart, the film although losely basing itself on taming of the shrew wants it to be seen as something individual, and not just a remake... u havent seen the film and so i wont hold this against you, but i love the film and you are knocking my pressioussssssss.... lol

I think in all essence the argument of the remake itself is not to be questioned, but the motivation for the remakes creation....

-Walt

If ten things is loosely based and has few or no direct,ines of dialogue, then I'm all in favor of it - different title, different writing, just using the play as a core inspirtation. I don;'t think anyone can sandbag it for that.

In terms of your three reasons for remakes, I'm not sure if you're defending them or not. They are certainly the most likely three reasons in my opinion, no question, but are they GOOD reasons which justify doing it? I'd say no, but again, that' just one person's opinion.

By the way, i think all three are usually true at the same time: they want to make money and have no ideas to compete with a pre-sold commodity, make the decision and raise the finance, get all excited at the prospect and have some fun doing it. It sounds nice, but I just really hate it! :-p

Maybe when these guys die someone will run around the graveyard putting up phoney tombstones with their names on it to confuse which is the "real" one, and write all manner of unflattering things about the guy on the copies. :-)

I think i am playing the neutral here, i am going to have to stick with the "If it is done well then i have no problems... strain of thinking" and so i guess the three reason stated are that of purley logical thinking rather than a judgment based on sides... However i have to say i do get very annoyed when someone tells me that the new Italian job is better than the original... i have been told this by many a young nieve "why-is-our-world-going-down-the-drain-with-this-waste-of-a-youth-sector" (man that was a mouthul) type of person and to that i both cringe and throw punches....

I guess its always the motive that decides the quality of a persons action, whether it be making a movie or anything else really....

-Walt

I guess its always the motive that decides the quality of a persons action, whether it be making a movie or anything else really....

-Walt

I would say that the quality of actions are decided by the actions themselves, but that the value of the actions are decided by the motives behind them.

This is an interesting remake (http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/guesswho/). They remade Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, but they switched it and made it a slapstick comedy.

:weird:

Poke

There are 3 reasons i can think of to make a remake:

1. For fun : Directors sometimes make remakes because they were a fan of the original and so they themselves try to have a crack at their all time favorite films... i.e Peter Jackson.

2. For Money : this one gets a bit iffy, but basically a studio will push for a remake over anything else usually due to the fact that they know they will at least have a fan base to work from.... i.e Harry Potter... this may join with the other motivations as the director will have different intentions...

3. Because they have run out of ideas: It is had to come up with some new out there ideas these days and directors are strting to give up.... and so what better to work on something thats already written.

And there are probably more but thats all i can think of....

-Walt
what about to tell the story to a new generation. Yes, everyone can still rent the original King Kong, but most won't. Jackson's King Kong is going to introduce the story to a new generations, and probably bring more people to see the originial.

what about to tell the story to a new generation. Yes, everyone can still rent the original King Kong, but most won't. Jackson's King Kong is going to introduce the story to a new generations, and probably bring more people to see the originial.


This is interesting, because in my mind, since the film wasn't based on a novel or prior work in another medium, the original King Kong IS the story of King Kong. It was written and developed for the film and during the course of the film. And it isn't much of a story except a film to "thrill people" according to Cooper, lifting heavily from Conan Doyal's Lost World thanks to FX meistro Willis O'Brien's dinosaur work.

If there are those truly interested in bringing the story of Kong to a whole new audience, they should promote the original, at least on DVD. Or, again, Jackson could make a sequel, which could get his "I gotta do Kong" out of his system AND point the way to the original film for a new generation.

Naw, there's the stench of raw exploitation for a buck, and Jackson is investing the film heavily with the kind of humor which made The Frighteners a wash at the box office. It may intorduce Kong to a new audience, but not in a way which will honor the skill with which the film was originally envisioned and brought to life; the cumulative conclusion from all the story and casting leaks makes that part already pretty much certain.

...they should promote the original, at least on DVD.

Naw, there's the stench of raw exploitation for a buck...

I believe a DVD release of the original Kong is slated for next Fall, right before PJ's version. If you've watched any of the on set diaries, you would see that PJ has an intense love for the original and is honoring the original while at the same time updating it for today's audiences.

Poke

Well, you know, he says he loves it and I won't call him a liar. However, I'm not so sure as an updating its anything more than color (which is also an aesthetic choice) and visual effects. Sure, there are bound to be great visuals. But there is so much more to a film than that as we know (and my specialty has always been visual effects). And what if he creates something which competes all around with he original? All he does is a divide a film community, since there will always be those who stick with the original. As far as updating the rest, it's a period piece which is interesting, since its period now (1933) but was contemporary when it was made, so the original like all contemporary pieces is more than just an old film, its a look back into entertainment (and other) history while the best we can do today is a pale imitation of where it actually came from.

I apologize for my passion for the original (I, too, really do love it and would never remake it if they offered me all the money in the world, and I really, honest-to-God really do mean that), but let me offer this analogy: what if someone took MacBeth, or Hamlet, wrote it of the same time period, used all the settings and most of the characters and then simply re-wrote it, used the same title and that author used his power and influence to put it up in every store, school and library bookself in the world where it was bound to become confused for all time with the original, even if it has some nifty new dialogue sequences.

You see, what bothers me is not that people will re-discover the old one, but in ten or twenty years won't know that there was the original, or bother to watch it having seen "the cooler" one.

And for what? To demonstrate a supreme example of money spent on a profound lack of imagination? So Jackson can indulge a personal fantasy? I guess I'm one of those people who really does take film seriously, if anything other than human love and suffering can be taken seriously. I understand why people would ask "who cares?" But I know I'm not alone when I say "I do". I recently saw part of the the shot-for-shot remake of Psycho (for the first time, although it plays regularly on TV), and can easily imagine kids born now watching the "outdated" original and saying, "oh forget this, I already saw the color one. I know what happens". (in the case of that film, of course, literally, as even the actors - doing something nobody ever talks about - literally mimiced the inflection and timing of the original actors in the most bizzare motion pictures color by numbers ever created) What's next? Citizen Kane, cool and updated for today's audiences who would never see the original story?

If there is a concern that they aren't seeing the originals, then people should petition another nation-wide PBS broadcast channel which feeds Turner Classic Movies to every household in the US. And everyone else should shout down the remakes with spending their movie ticket money on somthing new and ORIGINAL whenever those classic remake monsters show up. Classic oscar nominated effects master Jim Danforth said a year or two ago that he would never pay a dime in support of the original, including seeing it at the theater. At the time I imagined that to be an impossible display of self-discipline for principal. Now I'm inclined to join him. I really just am getting sick of what this endless remake prediliction in Hollywood is doing - or may do - to classic movie history, mythology and appreciation.

More heartfelt posturings from the Old Movies Are Important gallery.

I think there is one way to solve this for everyone.... one simple rule to make everyone happy:

" if you dont wanna see it... dont "

now i can understand that there will be a lot of people who will be disguted by PJ's idea to make a remake of King Kong... and so they wont see it and that will be that! but on the other hand there will also be a whole bunch of people who will want to go see it it... whether they be fans of the original wanting to see what PJ has done to it.... or whether it be people who never had any intention of looking for the original and now have seen a version they have easy access to and taken it...


I believe a DVD release of the original Kong is slated for next Fall


Either way films are made to be both hated and loved.... if all films that came out were perfect and each one of them better than the next... there would be no need for new talent like ourselves to emerge and take over... so in a way we can count ourselves lucky that there are bad remakes with bad directors who will one day be pushed aside by us!! :D

"" if you dont wanna see it... dont "

There always is that, but I do kinda think you missed my point. I hate to think that kids growing up now - the film makers of tomorrow - will be basing their inspirations and film histories on the pretenders to classics instead of the original classics themselves. One kid: Did you ever see that old movie, King Kong?" Othe kid: "Nah, I never liked Peter Jackson". "What about Psycho?" "I dunno what people think is so great about Hitch-whatever-his-name-is. I thought Ann Heche was terrible casting in that film." "Well, did you ever see that movie Rear Window?" "I didn't like Hitchcock's Rear Windiw either. It seemed too exploitative of Christopher Reeve's condition at the time." "What about Kevin McCarthy in Invasion of the Body Snatchers?" "Who? That was Donald Sutherland."

You get the idea. Give it some time. Maybe there should be a law requiring all remakes to have the word Remake in the title for film history preservation. What a mess!

I think this is a legitimate concern, but I think with the amount of love PJ has been showing for the original it can only lead to people checking out the older one. I think the idea that an original will die if it is remade is false, because you'll always have people discussing the differences between the originals and the remakes.

Poke

I think this is a legitimate concern, but I think with the amount of love PJ has been showing for the original it can only lead to people checking out the older one. I think the idea that an original will die if it is remade is false, because you'll always have people discussing the differences between the originals and the remakes.

Poke


Well, here i go.....*CONTINUING this*!

With all due respect - and I'll certainly get on board an idea I agree with even if it proves me wrong (yeah, it's called always learning, and I embrace it) - I'm not sure i agree with any of your last post (but nothing personal).

Reasons?

With a PR routine like PJ has, we can only guess if he really loves the original, and I suppose I'll agree with that because he's been buying up priceless stop motion artifacts .

Yes, PJ is showing love NOW, and it's being discussed now, but it will all be very old news two years from today, but his film will,remain on the shelves for decades, with tht title King Kong making 20 year olds not yet born assuming his is the big classic, or wondering which is which. Then what? Like if that hypothetical author said, " here's my version of MacBeth and I re-wrote it because I love it and made it hip and modern and made no distinction in the title I loved it so much, and had all my big money bottom-feeders putting it next to - or replacing - all the old copies on the shelf"

Sure, inspired by that hypothetical writer's enthusiasm, thousands of hypothetical readers, mostly younger kids, would check out the original, but then might not want to slog through the difficult language when a "more accessable" version available (one that speaks to "today's audiences in the pretentious jargon of money grubbers posturing as social benefactors), and thereby miss an opportunity many readers of the bard have come to love and inspired them to keep his work alive: to appreciate the poetry inherent and UNIQUE to him that West side Story and other versions of Shakespeare's writing doesn't have. You see, the literary community would have a fit, and publishers wouldn't touch such a thing, and if one did, no one would promote it. Ah, but the bottom feeders in motion pictures have no such scruples about the art they deal in.

When Delaurentis remade Kong in 76 it was a different world. No extensive cable TV (none to speak of, really), and we were half again closer to the time of the original as we are now, so it was fresher then and "King Kong" was still a common expression. No millions of DVDs (no VHS at all, for that matter) , no video games, no millions of similar boxes and abels to get lost in - and to not stand out in - and even then there were many who had not seen the original before the remake came out. All these aspects will be multiplied many times over ten years after PJ does his film with Kong droppings and all new "comical" aspects.

And Hitchcock's flms remade? And so many others? And once again, the question remains. for what? To be the ultimate Kong geek? The ultimate Psycho fan? A love shared by the studios bankrolling all this stuff?
Nope. Money.

This is probably many times worse than the dreaded and roundly condemned colorization process because while the added color did muddy the black and white if you turned the color down to try to appreciate the film in it's original form, at least you were 90 percent there compared to a remake. remakes are quite capable of supplanting an original in the public's mind. Not for art. But to be a copycat. Not for love, but for a buck (if PJ REALLY loved the original Kong he would "set it free" and not cage it in a remake, and maybe just donate a small fraction of his many millions by releasing the ultimate DVD of the original. or make a sequel. You see, I have no idea why he didn't do a sequel. Except to exploit the title of the original. He's too brilliant a man not to be able to see the forest for the trees.


And when colorization threatened to supplant even the grey tones of originals, the Hollywood community was up in arms over the tampering of great works of art. Now they don't apparently give a damn about old films replaced with *new versions*! Probably because when colorization was a big deal only Turner made money and they didn't. Now that they can, they say not a word in defense of the classics.

And for nothing else but for that reason alone, the whole thing stinks.

And my apologies to anyone working on a remake. It's nothing personal except personal for us who love the classics.

Dr.

I can not believe that your argument is true, except in the case where the remake is better then the original. I don't truly believe in ten/fifteen years time that the remake of "psycho" will even be remembered. However there will cinophiles, such as yourself, for a long time to come who will seek out the original classics. And maybe not even for the cinophiles.

As a child, I was born post first kong remake, and I have seen the original black and white. I don't even think I was aware that there was a seventies reamke untill I hit PJ's web site. I may have run across it at some time, but Kong, like other great classics, are so firmly embedded in our cultural consciense that it would require an incredible film to displace the original. And if that is the case, well, the more incredible films that are out there the better.

As far as your shakespeare comparison. Which do you think will be studied ten years from now the original "othello" or the film "O?"

These films, play, are classic for a reason. I understand your concern but I think that you must have faith that they will still be classic even after all the profit mongers are finished.

Mike

Yes, PJ is showing love NOW, and it's being discussed now, but it will all be very old news two years from today, but his film will,remain on the shelves for decades ...

Given what I feel is PJ's obvious love for the original and his obvious love for loaded DVDs, I can't help but think there will be some special features that are about the original. Thus anyone who buys or rents the DVD will automatically get some insight into the fact that it's a remake.

That might lead to the arguments over what is the better version you eluded to, but I've always felt that was healthy for film.

Anyway, time will tell on all of these things, but if a movie is a classic the chances of a remake killing it off are slim, especially if said film deserves the "classic" label.

Poke

Well, I wish I had your faith on the issues of the originals not being supplanted, but the idea that the DVD will contain much reference footage about the original is really a very good point i hadn't considered. The filp side is that those DVD extras may not be forever and certainly won't be on TV ten years hence.

Regarding Shakespeare, I have no trouble as I've said with interpretations of works from other mediums, such as west side story from Romeo and Juliette, as one was a play and another a film. What I was doing was making a comparison which thankfully as of this time is only imaginary, and that is what if a WRITER wrote a PLAY called MacBeth and had the power and influence money buys to take the originals off the shelves and replace it, and I think the anaology is still valid. Should Shalespeare's plays in written form ever become a hot commodity again in some distant future where big money is behind it, that would be in danger, too. As it stands now, no one would care enough to do it.

The other part of my objection, that remakes are nothing more than - for whatever reason - displays of startlingly unimaginative expenditures of money to make a buck leeching off a previously classic film still think is valid and the act is pretty much indefensible, I think. Again, I have no trouble even with remaking films most people can agree are terrible. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but I still think this remake avalanche stinks.

And I guess I've used up all my hot air on this subject.

The filp side is that those DVD extras may not be forever and certainly won't be on TV ten years hence.

That is true, but I think you are selling cineastes and people in general short. The mere fact that people still know of Shakespeare even though his work has been remade a copied numerous times over is a testament to the lasting endurance of people's love for classics.

Poke

The difference is Shakespeare remains regarded as the ultimate playwrite of all time and is heavily embraced by academia, which not only doesn't teach film the way they do literature, but still have a generally demeaning view of television and film compared to the classic novels. Shakespeare will always have a voice to represent him, hopefully. I thought the same was true forclassic films when Hollywood rose up against colorization, but now that the people who were complaining have a venue in which they can get their fingers in the pot, no longer, it seems. And having Jackson's Kong shit in the forest won't help matters much, either, when it comes to commanding respect which will reflect favorably on the original (besides, that joke has been done to death already, as far back as Caveman in the 1980's, so it isn't even funny anymore).

You know, a sequel would have made so much sense. A remake makes none for any good artistic reason I can think of. That's reason enough in my mind to dislike it - on the concept alone.

I dunno, I think it'll prove to be pretty decent. Nothing can be worse than King Kong vs. Godzilla, and the like... ;)

The difference is Shakespeare remains regarded as the ultimate playwrite of all time and is heavily embraced by academia.

But Kong is considered the ultimate monster movie of all time, and embraced heavily by cineastes and film scholars. I just don't see it disappearing the way you believe it will. I'll give you the strong possibility that the PJ version will outshine the original in the hearts and minds of those introduced to the big hairy guy by this version, but I just can't see a world existing where no one says, "Hey, ever see the original Kong?"

Poke

"but I just can't see a world existing where no one says, "Hey, ever see the original Kong?"

The world was halfway there when DeLaurentis remade it in '76, i remember it very well.

As far as Kong being the ultimate monster movie, i don't see that at all, really, from a world point of view; just as many people can say that about Frankenstien, Alien, a whole list of different people's personal favorites. It was conceived by Cooper to be the ultimate adventure, and that's closer to the mark probably, but this "ultimate" definition is really a subjective opinion.

This will sound confrontational but isn't: since you are playing devil's advocate on the issue (or I am, depending on one's point of view) I'm now curious about how you judge the idea of remakes simply being little more than a testiment to a lack of imagination on the part of the film makers, and the money, no matter how you view the issue, would be better spent - along with time and talent - creating new classics. Every classic made since King Kong - or anything else - would be one less classic in the world if those film makers had chosen to remake a pervious movie.

I don't know if this is still relavent or not, but I just happened to be reading an old issue of Wired the other day, and Peter Jackson was interviewed. Here's one Q and A:

Why remake King Kong?

PJ: King Kong is my favorite movie - I love the original. It was initially the excapism that drew me to it. The adventure. Being swept onto an island. But it's 70s years old, and there is a generation of kids who don't have the tolerance for old blank & white films. This will be a new version. I'm trying to recapture what I loved about the film when I saw it when I waws 9.

I wish more bad movies would be remade instead of classics. I really hope no one ever messes with this original piece of cinema. (http://www.newstoday.com/_tpl/qbn/vw-sing.html)

That makes me sad.

Poke

I'm now curious about how you judge the idea of remakes simply being little more than a testiment to a lack of imagination on the part of the film makers, and the money, no matter how you view the issue, would be better spent - along with time and talent - creating new classics. Every classic made since King Kong - or anything else - would be one less classic in the world if those film makers had chosen to remake a pervious movie.

A true enough statement. However for the most part film has never been about the art but about the profit. Was the original kong made out of a selfless desire to explore the deeper truths of life. Nay, they wanted to make a buck. Perhaps as viewers we occasionally get lucky and a film is produced that steps above the din to become something more. And maybe sometimes a film strikes a balance between art and commercialism. But at its core most film is about makin' a buck.

Please don't misunderstand, I am all for art for arts sake, but that is not what we are discussing. These things that we call classics were/are financial successes. A film that isn't seen can not be classic and one must pay, in some form, to see a film. This motivation of profit is what moves the film industry along and to condemn it would be to condemn a system that allowed the originals to be made in the first place.

And sure money could be better spent. I would love to see more high quality films produced. I would love to see more talent developed. I would love to see new, inventive ideas and methods of story telling. However I personally will be satisfied with the few gems that can be found.

In a nut shell.... yeah it sucks but we have to suffer through the bad to get the good.

Commander Goat,

What a fantastic example you found to illustrate what this discussion is about!

Yeah, it's sad and sick. It's funny, but only to a certain generation, but that humor I think is tempered with a sort-of horror of what can be done to old films. And the catch line for the ad, "the original, but updated" is a perfect seque into Jackson's explaination you quoted. Now you've me fired again and I'll dissect it's obvious flaws quickly for the sake of the discussion:

"Why remake King Kong?

PJ: King Kong is my favorite movie - I love the original. It was initially the excapism that drew me to it. The adventure. Being swept onto an island. But it's 70s years old, and there is a generation of kids who don't have the tolerance for old blank & white films. "

This is an insulting assumption regarding the intelligence of the current generation old enough to appreciate films. I find quite the reverse is true: thanks to MTV and a whole host of venues with alternative styles, B&W is valid again. When I was a kid in the late 60's B&W movies were "old fashioned". Jackson himself now appears old fashioned to think such a thing. I'm not sure I'm convinced it's anything more than an excuse for plunder a national treasure, however.


"This will be a new version. I'm trying to recapture what I loved about the film when I saw it when I waws 9."

He did that, perhaps, with Lord of the Rings. He could do it with a sequel. This is all hokum, I think, because he is clearly too brilliant to not know what he is otherwise doing.

You know commander, there are SO MANY MORE STINKERS THAN CLASSICS. What a treasure trove for those with shallow imaginations. Let them renake the stinkers and leave the classics on hallowed ground. It's like dancing on the graves of those men who regarded those classics as their personal life achievments, and a life is an important thing.

EDIT:

Mikey, you and I were posting at the same time.

" These things that we call classics were/are financial successes. A film that isn't seen can not be classic and one must pay, in some form, to see a film."

I try not to make absolute declarative statements per se, and I apologize for the confrontational sound of this, but the evidence manifestly proves this line of thought invalid. Citizen kane, still widely regarded as the greatest film to emerge from America, had almost no distribution when it was released due to threats and blacklisting by Hearst, and lost alot of money for RKO.

Lots of classics are rarely seen. That is more the trouble with this situation than the explaination for the validity of the circumstance. Indeed, when Jackson says the original Kong is an old black and white film which holds no appeal for younger viewers (he really is making that case, unbeleiveably enough) he is indeed talking about replacing the original with his version. That doesn't necessarily help the original get seen. A SEQUEL would do that much better because then people would want to see what happened before the sequel and many would want to watch the original. And even if people DON'T see it, it will still be the classic it is or would be even if no one had ever seen it, but had been made nevertheless..... as would have been the case with Kane if fate had not swerved just a little and saved the original negative from being burned by RKO when they were under severe pressure to do so.

Many classics also become discovered long after the creator died, and that many years after the creation of the classic.

Does a tree make a sound if it falls in the forest but nobody hears it? Of course, because the air carries sound waves. Just because something is unappreciated or even unseen doesn't mean it doesn't exist - or isn't sublime regardless of a lack of appreciators.

Yeah, it's sad and sick. It's funny, but only to a certain generation, but that humor I think is tempered with a sort-of horror of what can be done to old films.

I thought the absurdness of Gene Kelly breakdancing was hillarious...but if I hadn't of seen the original, I wouldn't understand...so I think this is a good joke for the cultured people. I thought it was cool more than it bothered me...and it actually made me want to watch Singin' in the Rain again....I just posted it for fun I guess.


The one thing that bothered me about Jackson's answer was "it's my favorite movie." If I had to pick a favorite movie, I would probably say it's Fight Club, and there is no way in hell I'd ever dream of trying to remake it. Nothing I could do would possibly live up to the original and I wouldn't want to try to live up to the original. So I don't really understand his reasoning there. If it's his favorite movie, it should be more sentimental to him....but on the other hand, if you watch some his video dairies, he is completely obsessed with King Kong. I think he will try to stay very true to the original feel...and for some reason, I'm getting this feeling he will include the Original 1933 version on the DVD when it comes out. He's just that kind of guy.

" These things that we call classics were/are financial successes. A film that isn't seen can not be classic and one must pay, in some form, to see a film."

A poorly thought out statement indeed. However....



Does a tree make a sound if it falls in the forest but nobody hears it? Of course, because the air carries sound waves. Just because something is unappreciated or even unseen doesn't mean it doesn't exist - or isn't sublime regardless of a lack of appreciators.


A true enough statement, however I have never quite understood the sentiment. Can a classic be a classic without an audience, however small? A tree falling will have an effect on the world regardless of spectators, however film can only have an effect if it is seen. As I said before, art for arts sake is fine but with out an audience its greatness will neither be heightened nor reduced. Its effect on the world however.....

And does a remake really reduce the greatness of the original, or does it just reduce its numbers of appreciators? Some seem to believe that a remake will only rekindle interest. I don't know. I do agree that it is sad that so many would choose mediocraty over greatness, that they would choose profit over art.

I would like you to know that I don't neccesarily disagree with what you have to say, I suppose I am just feeling a bit fatalistic this evening. The remake is inevitable.

As far as the commercial is concerned, I laughed and then I was horrified. I imagine it would have stayed amusing for me except that it was being used to sell something. I hate commercials.

Commander Goat,

" If it's his favorite movie, it should be more sentimental to him...."

This is really so much at the heart of all this. As far as his obsession, it may just be a gimmick: he did the same thing about Lord Of The Rings, going so far as to run around in the snow in his bare feet like a Hobbit. Somehow I think he goes home and chuckles at all us asses. No one can be that brilliant and an idiot at the same time, regardless of apprearances. Einestein, Hitchock and others all seemed to be eccentirc geniuses, but Einstein just didn't care about his appearance and Hitchcock was all show for the audience. This is different.

Mikey,

Not trying to be a pain in the ass here, but for discussion,

"A tree falling will have an effect on the world regardless of spectators, however film can only have an effect if it is seen. "

Well, the MAKING of a film can have a profound effect on the people making it, directing lives and all those other domino effects, so it really is like a tree falling in a forest. Both have impacts regardless of whether anyone appreciates either.

My take on the commercial was that I though it was going to make a powerful statement about tampering with classics for shallow effect, only to discover it was an EXAMPLE of what I hoped it would make a statement about.

Awful.

I don't have the expertise and knowledge of film history many of you here seem to exhibit...but in my opinion, I think pro and con sides of the remake issue stem from the dichotomous nature of film.

Even before Melies (father of expressionism...film's 'entertainment aspect') and the Lumiere Brothers (fathers of documentary...film's pedagogical part)...we've had arguments regarding the nature of 'seeing'. Newton believed it was primarily a physical act of light striking object and entering the eye...Goethe believed that what we saw was shaped by our perception, the mechanics of vision and how each brain processes that information...objective and subjective each. Light sensitive materials were exploited by astronomers as well as portrait artists as well as LIME -lighting snake-oil salesmen. (ha , I guess that would be tri-chotomous)

I believe that if one views film as strickly 'art' then remakes make absolutely no sense...influence/inspiration, of course, but for a new work. If one views film as strictly entertainment/investment, well then..the biggest bang for your buck with nothing out of bounds. Hell, maybe the lime-lighting, salesman WAS right...spectacle for money-making AND suffering for his 'art' (some 1st degree burns if i'm not mistaken). :lol:

"A tree falling will have an effect on the world regardless of spectators, however film can only have an effect if it is seen. "

Not if you subscribe to the idea of morphic resonance.... :D

"The one thing that bothered me about Jackson's answer was "it's my favorite movie." If I had to pick a favorite movie, I would probably say it's Fight Club, and there is no way in hell I'd ever dream of trying to remake it."

Fight Club would be very hard for anyone to remake. It's very "of the time." "King Kong" on the other hand, is a sort of timeless story Man v. Beast/Beauty and the Beast. And plus, in the end, King Kng is about going to the theatre and being "wowed." It's about spectacle. When it first came out, the special effects blew people away. Kids today see it and may laugh. Jackson is making a King Kong for a new century. People will go to the theatre and be "wowed." I have no problem with that.

The original is a classic, and will stand the test of time, but mostly for cinephiles. I think Jackson is looking recreate the magic of the first one for a new generation. I don't understand why one would question his motives.

"Fight Club would be very hard for anyone to remake. It's very "of the time." "King Kong" on the other hand, is a sort of timeless story Man v. Beast/Beauty and the Beast. And plus, in the end, King Kng is about going to the theatre and being "wowed."

King Kong is really also very much of the time; much of its idealistic/romantic nature stems directly from the values of that time, the late-1920's/ 1930's, which was contemporary then. The best anyone can do - and Jackson is making a period piece tsaking place in that era - is to try to interpret or imitate what was stemming organically from the time and place naturally both visually and dramatically. Kong is no different in that regard. Or maybe even more so.

Kong is also generally regarded cinematic art, regardless of what people believe the intentions of the makers or subjective value might otherwise be. That makes it rather valuable, as human value goes.


"I think Jackson is looking recreate the magic of the first one for a new generation. I don't understand why one would question his motives."

Honestly, I think that has kinda been addressed in this thread.

Once again, the idea that modern audiences - the younger side - is too lacking in the appreciation of when the original film was made is an insult to their individual and collective intelligence. In fact, I see them as being alot more open-minded than we were at that age - for me, more or less when the DeLaurentis remake came out. They don't need to be spoon-fed the original in remade form like three-year-old morons with lots of new-fangled suger on top. They're quite able to appreciate the original in context. Those who don't will be the minority who think the Kong pop joke will be the best part of the new one, but they are, in my opinion, not the majority to aim for.

People tend to think the new Kong will be like Lord Of The Rings, but his choices are making it seem more like another Jackson film, The Frighteners, which is likely very bad news indeed for the great ape.

Once again, if Jackson feels compelled to thrill people, by all means he should make a good, thrilling, ORIGINAL movie. I'm not sure what is so complicated about that concept. Yes, he WANTS to remake Kong, which is why he's doing it, but I'm not sure that's the issue being discussed. Or even a good reason. If he loves Kong so much he needs to embrace it creatively, then he can work the character in a sequel. But that's not what he said. He said he's making it accessible to a younger audience, and that, in my opinion, simple isn't a credible explaination for someone who has had many years to cointemplate the pros and cons of such a thing. You know, let him make his OWN classic, and respect the work of those who came before.

Bird,

I appreciate your intellect on the issue of the zen of seeing (not my phrase, but a good one), but I do think this is more a personal value issue than a strictly eye/mind perceptual one; this issue goes alot more into the processing of the information than that. But please do keep us on our toes - out on a limb, where all artists, either artistically or financially driven, need to be! :-)

All I was saying, was, because film is a hybrid (art, entertainment, and product) there may not be the same reverence (or respect) for the medium as say a sculpture by Michealangelo, a building by Wright, or a painting by Klee and that 'tude may be what makes remakes acceptable. If no one can even agree that film is strictly art or product then who would be considered the masters of the medium...or have we even seen them yet? It's a long way from cave paintings to the Renaissance (and that's just a joke, I have no empirical knowledge to back up there being a 'Mona Lisa' of Lasceux(sp)or not.

"Once again, the idea that modern audiences - the younger side - is too lacking in the appreciation of when the original film was made is an insult to their individual and collective intelligence. "

It's not a matter of "spoonfeeding," or insulting people's intellegence -- it's just that people like "new" products. If King Kong were re-released in the theatres, it would be a largely older audience at art houses. There wouldn't be lines out the door at the local multiplex. The Jackson remake will be draw in a audience that would not have otherwise ever seen this story.

There are always going to be people who search out classic films, including many of us on here. But the fact is, a lot of people don't give a fuck about the "classics." Lots of people want to see the best Hollywood has to offer when they go to the boxoffice. Generally, I don't like remakes. Most of the time they're are pointless exercises. But I'm excited to see King Kong. It's great story and Peter Jackson is a great fantasy director. And you can't overlook the technological aspect. I think Jackson will create a fun and movie that makes people go "whoa." What's wrong with that?

Also, I think in the long run, the new King Kong will bring more people to see the original than if it wasn't made.

"I think Jackson will create a fun and movie that makes people go "whoa." What's wrong with that?"

In my personal opinion and under the circumstances, plenty, but I've already made my point on the issue. Anything else would be redundant..... *AGAIN*! :-)

Bird,

nteresting points, as always. I think we have today the perception that fine art of the past was for its own sake. If that were true, it would not have been sold, or more specifically, commissioned. So we get into the definition of "what is art".... and I've had this one before and ultimately the discussion heads into an excersize on the validity of existentialism, which to me, is a fruitless discussion except to throb one's brain cells.


General,

I'm not sure intent defines fine art. many never strive for it. Jean Cocteau said, "I never attempt to write poetry, the mere mention of the word frightens it away", and he was a great poet and film maker. The makers of Kong were looking to create mass entertianment, and created art. Art can be elusive, but conversely, art HAPPENS (with a given set of parameters of course, but intention to create something hailed as fine art, i believe, is not one of them. )

Remember, this is the same Jackson who gave us The Frighteners and Meet The Feebles.

By the way, at first - a year or so ago - I assumed that because it woul be done anyway everyone, including stop motion fans of the original, should get behind it. But the thoughts have settled, and as they settle more, the idea of remaking it strikes me as nothing more than a greedy attempt to cash in on a name and pretend his imagination is on the same par as those who made the originals. And as the Frighteners prove, without authorship behind him - like Tolkien - there doesn't appear to be much, alas. And that's perhaps what irritates me most.

But he has his devoted fans, and now I'm just pissing off those among them on this board, which isn't fair, so I'm done. I've said my peace, and the conversation is getting redundant on my part..... again, AGAIN!

So we get into the definition of "what is art".... and I've had this one before and ultimately the discussion heads into an excersize on the validity of existentialism, which to me, is a fruitless discussion except to throb one's brain cells.

Throbbing my brain cells :lol: So that's what I was doing at University for three years!

You do realise that NONE of us have seen PJ's King Kong yet and so i think we should probably stop using it as an example until we know what we are talking about....

In my mind we don't need to any more than we needed to see colorization, the remake of psycho, et al. For me, it's the principal of the thing.

i think this topic holds within it another issue.... should there be a control over what films can be made? Should we have a panel of experts deciding what is a good film and this allowing it to be shown...

i think this topic holds within it another issue.... should there be a control over what films can be made? Should we have a panel of experts deciding what is a good film and this allowing it to be shown...

No

That is all I have to say.

Well, in a way we sort of already have the first part, and it's called copyright law. We also do have experts who decide which are good films, like the AFI's 100 best films list, much of which I felt was a joke, not only in content, but concept.

I DO think that for film history sanity in a hundred years, we should institute some kind of distribution law which demands that any film which is a remake of a film not based on a book, play or other medium, be clearly labeled as a "REMAKE", just like conventional film ratings and the like. We should take our film history seriously; so much of our culture now derives from it.

Well, in a way we sort of already have the first part, and it's called copyright law. We also do have experts who decide which are good films, like the AFI's 100 best films list, much of which I felt was a joke, not only in content, but concept.

I DO think that for film history sanity in a hundred years, we should institute some kind of distribution law which demands that any film which is a remake of a film not based on a book, play or other medium, be clearly labeled as a "REMAKE", just like conventional film ratings and the like. We should take our film history seriously; so much of our culture now derives from it.

So Bogart's Maltese Falcon will be Maltese Falcon Remake?

I'll be sure to make more of an effort to appreciate film history, I don't want to be uncultered.

So we will have a new genre of film... called REMAKE.... and have to add another section to the Video store... that would not be bad.... but then you would have to distinguish between what is a remake and what is a " based on " type movie...

Well, this discussion is taking some stupid turns (not you, Walter), so I'll leave it where it is.

Throbbing my brain cells :lol: So that's what I was doing at University for three years!

glad to see i'm not alone.............oh it hurts so...........

So we will have a new genre of film... called REMAKE.... and have to add another section to the Video store... that would not be bad.... but then you would have to distinguish between what is a remake and what is a " based on " type movie...

At the video store i used to work at, we would always display the original film with remake when it came out on video. Again, I think anytime a film is remade, it draws attention to the original that it would not normally receive. Unless the remake is better, it's a good situation for the original.

Remakes happen. They've always happened and, at times, they've produced some great films. You'd do yourself a favor and worry about other aspects of film history. Great films stand the test of time whether they are remade or not... but their audience always decreases as the years go on. Occasionially there will be a spike viewership -- usually when that film is remade or released on DVD. Since both are happening within in the year for King Kong, a lot of people will be seeing it for the first time. Jackson is doing film history a favor.

Jackson may be doing film history a favor, now, just like DeLaurentis did, when distributors decided it was worth releasing Kong on primetime TV with the censored scenes restored . How it helps in the long run I have no idea.


As far as throbbing brain cells, try to work out existentialism sometime and see where it gets you. :-) (I don't know about you, but useless discussions give me a headache!.... this one is starting to qualify)

None of the defense of he doing this explains WHY a guy would want to simply demonstrate to the world why someone with his financial resource would want to tread old ground. His reasons make no real sense, so they can't really be believed. So it's likely money. Nothing wrong with wanting money, of course, but as some others in this thread have said, if he really respected the original, he'd leave it in its place and do something new.

"His reasons make no real sense, so they can't really be believed. So it's likely money. Nothing wrong with wanting money, of course, but as some others in this thread have said, if he really respected the original, he'd leave it in its place and do something new."

Just so I get this right, you think Peter Jackson really doesn't respect King Kong and is just saying he loves to the movie as a guise to his real purpose of making more money on top of the millions he already has earned for the LOTR?

This Jackson really sounds like a dick. Thanks for pointing out his real motivations.

Remaking a film is rarely done for anything OTHER than in money, certainly not inspiration, a conventional wisdom i thought everyone pretty much understood. There is no bigger fan of Kong than Ray Harryhausen, and he said he would never have thought of remaking Kong out of respect for the original and he worked with O'Brien on Mighty Joe Young, so no one would have been better poised to do it again, and indeed turned down an offer to work on the DeLaurentis version . But Jackson just can't help himself he loves Kong so much, and money has nothing to do with it, is that it? You really believe that? If that's the case, then why is he accepting a full ten to twenty percent of the budget - valuable money which could be spent on better realizing the film - on his personal salary? Hey, don't just be friendly to me, discuss with the other guys here who agree that if he respected Kong he would leave it where it belongs in film history and Jackson should move on to something original, something defenders of jackson's Kong seem to have no interest in discussing.

DR

I'm engaging you in this conversation specifically because it seems to me you're calling Peter Jackson a liar and questioning his motivations, which is totally unwarrented.

He's explained WHY he wants to make the film. Because he loves the film, and unlike you, thinks he can pay tribute to the original by remaking it for a younger audience. If you don't understand, that's fine, but I don't understand questioning his motivation.

As you pointed out, he's already got a shitload of money. He is taking a large cut, that's because this is his pet project. He's writing and directing it and the fact that his name is on it will draw in a lot more poeple to see it.

It's not like Jackson just finished some small indie movie and needs to make a buck so jumped on a remake of Kong. He initiated this. He WANTS to remake it, not because of money, but because he loves the story, he loves movie making and he wants to give kids today a similar experience that he had when he first saw Kong.

He's smart enough to know that most 8-25 year olds are not going to seek out a 70 year-old B&W film with, by today's standard, inferior special effects.

If you see or read any interviews with Jackson, you'll find he's a director who is a true movie fan. He didn't get into this business to make money (though that's a nice benefit). He's a director because he loves movies.

To see you question his motives because you can't understand WHY someone would remake Kong seems condescending and insulting to me.

Sorry if that seems a bit harsh, but that's how i see it.

I

Actually, I don' think you're being nearly as harsh this time as in the post prior.

Considering it is a remake, I think its absolutely fair to question his motivations, just as colorizing or anything else (colorizing was defended on the same principal, that it would make B&W films appealing to a younger audience that wouldn't accept black and white. Well, that turned out to be a VERY fellacious arguement, as is well evidenced by the plethora of B&W films next to the new ones on the DVD shelves.

I do think jackson is brilliant. I very much liked Lord of the Rings (the first, less so the second and third, but by no means disliked them). I did NOT like The Frighteners or Meet the Feebles. So far he has taken the original story, made some questionable casting choices in many people's minds and seems to be doing some jokey stuff which, well, to quote you, seems condescending and inulting to those of us who hold a handful of old classics in the highest regard.

Anyway, this debate seems to have been whittled down to Jackson's motivation, and no one can read his mind.

I'll just say that the debate being where it is, we have little choice but to agree to disagree. people do it all the time and remain friendly. We can, too.

And time will tell. And I promise you this. If I see more good than bad come out of it, I'll come back here and fess up. How's that?

that sounds like a deal to me.....

hey does anyone know who is cast for KK yet??

:cheers: Yahhh...peace reigns in the land of Indietalk :cheers:

Actually, I don' think you're being nearly as harsh this time as in the post prior.

Considering it is a remake, I think its absolutely fair to question his motivations, just as colorizing or anything else (colorizing was defended on the same principal, that it would make B&W films appealing to a younger audience that wouldn't accept black and white. Well, that turned out to be a VERY fellacious arguement, as is well evidenced by the plethora of B&W films next to the new ones on the DVD shelves.

I do think jackson is brilliant. I very much liked Lord of the Rings (the first, less so the second and third, but by no means disliked them). I did NOT like The Frighteners or Meet the Feebles. So far he has taken the original story, made some questionable casting choices in many people's minds and seems to be doing some jokey stuff which, well, to quote you, seems condescending and inulting to those of us who hold a handful of old classics in the highest regard.

Anyway, this debate seems to have been whittled down to Jackson's motivation, and no one can read his mind.

I'll just say that the debate being where it is, we have little choice but to agree to disagree. people do it all the time and remain friendly. We can, too.

And time will tell. And I promise you this. If I see more good than bad come out of it, I'll come back here and fess up. How's that?

Yeah, i tend to get worked up sometimes. I apologize for any sharp words.

I do see where you're coming from in terms of being concerned about Jack Black being cast. It does seem to indicate he'll be going for a kind of ironic take on old-time adventure films. I hope he plays it more straight than comedic, but we'll see.

The last thing anyone wants it another "The Mummy" or "The Mummy Returns."

I think Naomi Watts was cast as well. And maybe Bruce Cambell? I may have just imagined that, though.

they does anyone know who is cast for KK yet??

All your Kong questions answered. (http://www.kongisking.net)

Poke