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.