logo Sign In

When Remakes are a Bad Idea

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link

I have a nascent theory I'd like to bounce off you all.

It is that media should not be remade in the same form that it was initially conceived. If something was originally made as movie, it should not be remade as a movie. If something was originally made as a book, it should not be rewritten as a book. I would differentiate plays from movies in that the script for a movie is solely a means to an end (and constantly open to revision) whereas a play is written and released in a single form to be interpreted on a stage multiple times. And TV shows are episodic and open to future 'continuation' or re-imagining that goes far beyond simply rewriting the original scripts.

My reasoning for this is that it is absurd, uncreative, and demeaning of the original creation. We could rewrite Shakespeare or Stephen King but why?

I've tried to think of examples where something has been remade in its original form. One suggestion I got was "Hairspray." And that was a movie, turned into a play, turned into a movie. I'm not sure if the translation into a play made it more amenable to remake as a movie. It does seem a generally bad idea to create the substantially same story in the same media. But what are your thoughts?

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time
Post link

Um, seriously, no.

This sentiment is completely arbitrary, and it holds no water.
What is a musical arrangement? A remake of a musical piece... into another musical piece.

I don't need my Hamelin Campanella rearrangement as some film score to a SpongeBob cartoon for it to be valid, or pass for "respectful", thank you very much.


Remakes can be done in different ways, you can attempt to copy it shot for shot (which, I think, went horribly wrong with Psycho, even though I've only seen bits of the remake), or, you can take the plot and ideas, and remake as something new.
Put it in another setting (like, maybe one more suited for the modern day, or something else), tweak around the details, and essentially make a movie that "could've turned out, had they made different decisions". And that form of "imitation" has all the justification you need.


So no, dismissed.
This thread would make more sense as a "good remakes vs. bad remakes", to which I'd reply, I don't vividly remember any original / remake right now :D

Author
Time
Post link

twooffour said:

Um, seriously, no.

...

This sentiment is completely arbitrary, and it holds no water.

...

So no, dismissed.

I don't know why you don't just make this your default post.  It sums you up perfectly.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

Um, seriously, no.

...

This sentiment is completely arbitrary, and it holds no water.

...

So no, dismissed.

I don't know why you don't just make this your default post.  It sums you up perfectly.

Maybe because I wrote it specifically for this thread, and not everything I reply to has something to do with an "arbitrary sentiment"?

And more importantly, what does this have to do with how right or wrong my response was, in relation to the OP?

Author
Time
Post link

twooffour said:

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

Um, seriously, no.

...

This sentiment is completely arbitrary, and it holds no water.

...

So no, dismissed.

I don't know why you don't just make this your default post.  It sums you up perfectly.

Maybe because I wrote it specifically for this thread, and not everything I reply to has something to do with an "arbitrary sentiment"?

You post some variant of those statements in almost every post you make.

And more importantly, what does this have to do with how right or wrong my response was, in relation to the OP?

Nothing at all.  What's your point?

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

twooffour said:

So back on topic, doesn't anyone else find it preposterous and disrespectful how this hack here basically remakes Rebecca's song as... also a song?

Already posted in the Rebecca Black thread, except I used "http" so the link worked for everyone.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Works for me. Although I'll also use https next time, so no one gets a virus.

Author
Time
Post link

I never used the word "respectful." I did say remaking (in the limited manner I outline) can be demeaning of the original creation. But I don't mean this in the sense of respectful deference to a creator - that was clearly not the argument I was making. I mean demeaning of the work itself. Now it's probably not the best word choice to use to describe an object that can't feel anything but I clearly wasn't talking about "respect" in the way you raise it.

There are lots of movies with the same basic plot. And maybe you want to slap an old title on it for whatever reason (marketing, perhaps). Night of the Living Dead just came to mind.

But making substantially the same movie/book/play (originally conceived as such) does strike me as generally dumb. And I think there is a reason for this. That is what I'm getting at.

You "dismiss" this possibility out of hand but do not offer a concrete example where it has worked or been justified. Instead you offer Psycho, which may support my theory.

You talk about a "music arrangement" but that is an adaptation - which I take no issue with.

Imagine if I were going to rewrite Lord of the Rings. Still going to be about the hobbits, wizards, men, Sauron, etc. But Frodo is going to be very unlikeable. Gandalf will be tempted to join Saruman and will kill Peregrin but then realize his error and redeem himself, thereby becoming the White Wizard. Saruman will be stabbed atop his tower and fall. I'll obviously change the style, move scenes around, but it will basically be the same story. And for whatever crazy reason Tolkien's estate allows me to publish this as "Lord of the Rings: Modern Edition." To me, this kind of remake is stupid in principle, not just subjectively after we read it. Indeed, it may be thoroughly well-written and thoroughly enjoyable to those who have not read the original.

I'm saying that I think movies are like books. Do you disagree on this point? If so why? Else do you think such rewrites of books are good and justifiable?

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time
Post link

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

Works for me. Although I'll also use https next time, so no one gets a virus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

Sorry, can't view the clip from my country.

(Know how to search for clips on proxy sites, but not how to paste links.)
I'm sure it was hilarious, though.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

twooffour said:

So back on topic, doesn't anyone else find it preposterous and disrespectful how this hack here basically remakes Rebecca's song as... also a song?


Here's another awesome song remake:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DbwrU3QZsA#t=74
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOosiyw7t00#t=77

But it's also a musical number, so I guess it sux. Oh well...

See my most recent response above, relating to your musings about disrespect and the nature of certain works as adaptable. Plays and songs are meant to be adapted. They are written to be performed by any number of persons. I'm saying books and movies are different in that they are the final work. A book is not written to be rewritten nor a movie filmed to be refilmed. It is technically possible to rewrite and refilm, but I'm saying it is a bad idea for a reason. Respond to my earlier post, please.

Also worth noting I'm a big fan of "remaking" the PT (see the rewriting forum). But this is not to build upon or remake those movies. It is to neglect those movies and imagine what should have been based on the OT. I see such efforts as making brand new stories, not remaking PT ones.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time
Post link

The problem with remakes isn't what medium they're made in, but the soulless life-sucker that is Hollywood.

Author
Time
Post link

Mrebo said:

I never used the word "respectful." I did say remaking (in the limited manner I outline) can be demeaning of the original creation. But I don't mean this in the sense of respectful deference to a creator - that was clearly not the argument I was making. I mean demeaning of the work itself. Now it's probably not the best word choice to use to describe an object that can't feel anything but I clearly wasn't talking about "respect" in the way you raise it.

There are lots of movies with the same basic plot. And maybe you want to slap an old title on it for whatever reason (marketing, perhaps). Night of the Living Dead just came to mind.

But making substantially the same movie/book/play (originally conceived as such) does strike me as generally dumb. And I think there is a reason for this. That is what I'm getting at.

You "dismiss" this possibility out of hand but do not offer a concrete example where it has worked or been justified. Instead you offer Psycho, which may support my theory.

You talk about a "music arrangement" but that is an adaptation - which I take no issue with.

Imagine if I were going to rewrite Lord of the Rings. Still going to be about the hobbits, wizards, men, Sauron, etc. But Frodo is going to be very unlikeable. Gandalf will be tempted to join Saruman and will kill Peregrin but then realize his error and redeem himself, thereby becoming the White Wizard. Saruman will be stabbed atop his tower and fall. I'll obviously change the style, move scenes around, but it will basically be the same story. And for whatever crazy reason Tolkien's estate allows me to publish this as "Lord of the Rings: Modern Edition." To me, this kind of remake is stupid in principle, not just subjectively after we read it. Indeed, it may be thoroughly well-written and thoroughly enjoyable to those who have not read the original.

I'm saying that I think movies are like books. Do you disagree on this point? If so why? Else do you think such rewrites of books are good and justifiable?

Ah, well then, I just hear "disrespectful" in arguments about adaptations, remakes etc. way too often :)

As for your argument, maybe you should specify what exactly you're talking about?
Psycho was a frame-to-frame remake, that somehow managed to look very cheap and lame (those stupid CLOUDS).
Some genuine movie remakes that come to my mind right now, like Karate Kid or True Grit (although I only know them from TGWTG, as of now) basically tell the same story, but just tweak around the characters somewhat (like making the evil trainer less OTT, or the girl more detached and evil.
King Kong had a different love interest, but the basic story was more or less the same.

But what YOU are suggesting, is a complete revamp of the original story.
Frodo is now "completely unlikeable", Gandalf kills Pippin... what the hell?

So what's your beef now, with the copying, or the radical changing under the same title?
I just don't get it. For what it matters, I don't think those changes you brought up would be any worse in a book, than in a movie. Jackson's "changes" (like Frodo repudiating Sam because of something Gollum said) were already offensive enough, and the fact that it was a different movie didn't really help it.
All the viewer could do, is just forgetting about the books and considering the movies as a separate reality, which can be done for your book version, too.

Author
Time
Post link

Mrebo said:

twooffour said:

So back on topic, doesn't anyone else find it preposterous and disrespectful how this hack here basically remakes Rebecca's song as... also a song?


Here's another awesome song remake:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DbwrU3QZsA#t=74
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOosiyw7t00#t=77

But it's also a musical number, so I guess it sux. Oh well...

See my most recent response above, relating to your musings about disrespect and the nature of certain works as adaptable. Plays and songs are meant to be adapted. They are written to be performed by any number of persons. I'm saying books and movies are different in that they are the final work. A book is not written to be rewritten nor a movie filmed to be refilmed. It is technically possible to rewrite and refilm, but I'm saying it is a bad idea for a reason.


Um, classical compositions ARE meant to be a "final work", and not "meant" to be rewritten.
Maybe in the Baroque period, to a limited extent, but not in the example above.

As for Friday, I think we can both heartily agree that she didn't mean for all those... "covers" on Youtube, either, when creating this song :D

Author
Time
Post link

Mrebo said:

I've tried to think of examples where something has been remade in its original form. One suggestion I got was "Hairspray." And that was a movie, turned into a play, turned into a movie. I'm not sure if the translation into a play made it more amenable to remake as a movie. It does seem a generally bad idea to create the substantially same story in the same media. But what are your thoughts?

I think Hairspray is a a little different than a remake.   Hairspray wasn't turned into a play, it was turned into a musical. The Musical was in turn made into a movie.   The fact that one movie is a musical and the other isn't, makes them different from each other.

Author
Time
Post link

If my alternate LOTR books were released, what would you say? Oh, that's interesting, an alternate telling of the story. I might not enjoy it, but isn't that interesting. Or as you say here, "what the hell?" My reaction would be the latter.

And I didn't say Frodo would be "completely unlikeable" just "very" - stop misquoting me!!! :p The changes I've described do not fundamentally alter the arc of the story, as radical as they might be. It's the same characters (at least in name) in the same world on the same mission.

My "beef" is a theory about why remaking media in the same original form may be a bad idea in principle. I concede I could be totally wrong and that's why I'm engaging in discussion with anyone who doesn't just dismiss the argument.

If I want to use the same characters in the same situation, that is the kind of remake I'm addressing as a bad idea. I think of a remake I enjoy, like Sabrina, and it is based on a play. I think of a remake I'd like to see, Harvey, and it is also based on a play. I can't think of a movie that was originally a movie that I'd like to see remade. I don't think I've read a book that I'd like to see rewritten. I might want more stories about the characters, but not the same story told differently.

I think that remakes of Planet of the Apes and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory were so lousy because they looked like mere imitations of the older movies rather than better imaginings of the original books.

And when a movie is remade from a movie (rather than freshly interpreting the original source material), what are the chances it be as good as the original? The original is the standard.

But maybe the issue is that only 'good' movies are remade and thus are more likely to pale in comparison to the originals. We should be remaking the bad movies! We'll start with Gigli.

Postscript: It is fun the muse about which remakes we thought were good and which we thought were bad. But I'm curious about exactly why this might be. To this end, I am wondering if remakes of movies which were originally conceived as movies is bad in principle because you're translating less than you are xeroxing.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Um, ok, I still can't wrap my mind around what it is exactly that you detest, because, frankly, you're all over the place.

Let's break it down:
A story being retold in a different medium vs. in the same medium.
A story being completely identical to the original vs. somewhat modified vs. radically changed.

Those are completely different, and interchangeable factors. So which is it now?

In one sentence you say you wouldn't like something to be rewritten, or "told differently", the way you brought up, in another, you dislike the "pale imitation" that doesn't try to "interpret the source material".
Seriously, which is it now?


My WTH reaction wasn't to your idea, but to the fact that you brought it up in this context.
So again, would it make things better if Jackson had released a movie trilogy based on your suggest outline? Would it be any "better" than the same released as a book?



"I might want more stories about the characters, but not the same story told differently."
Well, that's the whole answer, isn't it? Some people take interest in seeing the same story told differently. In whatever medium.

As for Charlie, I haven't seen either movie completely, but the original Willy "you get nothing" Wonka was obviously way better than Depp's, so that might be a factor.
Not sure how much I've seen of the original Apes, but what I remember from the new one was the absurd ending, and the lame main actress.


Seriously, in case you haven't already, you might want to watch some of Nostalgia Critic's "Old vs. New", where he compares originals with remakes (or different adaptations).
Most of the time, one of them scores with the better villain, while the other has better supporting characters or the better flow, so it's always kinda hard to tell.

Obviously, it's all just his opinion, but being so radically against remakes, you might wanna watch that stuff :)