To some extent, I am working my thinking out here. And that's part of the reason it might seem "all over the place."
My basic thought is that a remake of a movie, that was originally made as a movie, is a bad idea. To show why I think this might be, I compare movies to books. If an author declares that she is rewriting Jane Eyre, to me is absurd. It is already written. It is what it is. Maybe I'm not explaining this point well enough but strikes me as obvious, or at least instinctual.
One can be inspired by a book to write something similar or write about the same characters, but to write the same story with the same characters in the same format? It seems there would rarely be a good reason. Perhaps that is the crux of the matter.
The degree of similarity between an original and a remake comes into play to show whether or not it is really a remake - rather than merely inspired by the original. I'd toss Karate Kid and Living Dead into this category.
King Kong is the kind of true remake I'm talking about. It's about the same character in the same situation facing the same fate. It's not a shot for shot movie but is substantially the same. I thought it was a good, but not great, film. (Oh noes, I think it's good, my theory must crumble! JK.) So the question is what, if anything, makes it a worthwhile film when King Kong already existed? I'm truly curious about everyone's views on this question.
twooffour, you confuse two different points in this passage
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?
I never used the phrase "pale imitation" so I'm not sure which point you're referring to. Please stop making up quotes! I used the word "imitation" with regard to the Burton films - both of which are based on books - as a means of comparison. I suggested that - as an alternative theory from the one I'm pushing - that remakes may "pale in comparison," because only good movies are remade. So in either case, I was not talking directly about the merits of my theory.
You think there's a good gotcha quote in there that you raise again:
"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.
Let me allow you to confuse yourself further for a moment: I enjoy the multiple cinematic tellings of a Christmas Carol (though the Alastair Sim version is probably my favorite). I would like to see a remake of Harvey. So I clearly don't have some broadly obstinate desire to not see different tellings of the same story. As the preceding sentence contextualized: "I don't think I've read a book that I'd like to see rewritten." Maybe you have. Maybe you finished reading LOTR, and thought it would be super cool to read it again with a bunch of arbitrary alterations. I can't account for the tastes of all consumers. But I would question the person's motivation in creating such an alternative telling.
I think what makes stories like A Christmas Carol and Harvey so amenable to multiple cinematic versions is that they are adapted. A future director doesn't just take what was already on the screen and dress it up or butcher it. He can go to the source and bring that source to life anew.
Some ways to convince me my theory is fundamentally flawed:
- Name movies (that were originally movies) that may be well-served by a remake.
- Name remakes of movies (that were originally movies) that are actually pretty good.
- Give good reasons for remaking movies (that were originally movies).
Some people argue that certain iconic movies should not be remade (eg Wizard of Oz, Godfather). Maybe you'd dismiss that argument out of hand as well. And certainly that is based on little more than sentimentality. My argument addresses the substantive nature of the works themselves.