Remakes, Yea or Nay?

[DR_Visual_FX]

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.

 

[Walter_Smidge]

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.

 

[DR_Visual_FX]

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.

 

[Walter_Smidge]

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

 

[DR_Visual_FX]

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.

 

[Walter_Smidge]

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

 

[Nique Zoolio]

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.

 

[NicklausLouis]

This is an interesting remake. They remade Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, but they switched it and made it a slapstick comedy.



Poke

 

[T Shipley]

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.

 

[DR_Visual_FX]

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.

 

[NicklausLouis]

...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

 

[DR_Visual_FX]

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.

 

[Walter_Smidge]

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!!

 

[DR_Visual_FX]

"" 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!

 

[NicklausLouis]

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

 

[DR_Visual_FX]

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.

 

[Mikey D]

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

 

[NicklausLouis]

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

 

[DR_Visual_FX]

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.

 

[NicklausLouis]

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