Remakes, Yea or Nay?

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...
 
Walter_Smidge said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
DR_Visual_FX said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Walter_Smidge said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
Last edited:
DR_Visual_FX said:
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?
Click to expand...

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."
 
bird said:
:cheers: Yahhh...peace reigns in the land of Indietalk :cheers:
Click to expand...

Hurray!!! Finally, we can all live peacefully and lay down our different opinions of remakes. I'm so relieved all of this arguing is over. Now we all can sit back and look forward to a year of original movies. Personally, I can't wait until Spielberg releases his next completely original masterpiece called The War of the Worlds. Man, the idea alone is pioneering and mind blowing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top