twooffour said:
Um, the problem with your "philosophy" is that you're trying to take a rather diverse issue (remakes can be done differently, have all kinds of relationship to "the original", in content and quality, there can be different intents behind it, etc.), and reach a simple conclusion like "this is inherently wrong".
Which is absurd in itself.
It makes much more sense to just look at individual works, or groups of works, and evaluate them in how well they work in whatever aspect, rather than strive for some universal conclusion about a certain approach being "wrong" by principle.
I'm very clearly talking about a subset of remakes, not any and all movies that are generally considered remakes. But yes the entire topic of remakes does involve a great variety of considerations. I'm not contesting that.
And maybe it does make more sense to just look at individual works, as you arbitrarily insist.
Someone will say that once a composer has recorded their own composition, there's no need for others to "play the same piece, too". I mean, dead composers who never recorded their music, ok, that's kind of needed, but in this case? WHERE'S ALL THE CREATIVITY GONE?
*buzzer*
Sorry, but you continue to simply not understand my argument.
The written composition is made to be adapted - ie played by an instrument. In playing the instrument, just as an actor acts in a play, there will be variation and in instances of improvisation. That is the nature of music. Just as I've not argued that a play must only be acted once!
How would one "remake" any song? One can be inspired by it to write something similar. One can perform it in their own special way with their own voice. But they really can't "remake" it. Think of the various versions of Blue Moon (The Marcels ; Billie Holiday; Frank Sinatra). They take the same set of lyrics and set them to different music. But that is really just adaptation.
Why do you need some particular "reason" to validate a remake? Like, there either should be some compelling necessity for it to exist, or just don't make it? Well, *why* that, please?
Someone has an idea how a movie could look with different actors and mood, but essentially the same storyline (because it's already cool as it is). He doesn't want to change the names, because then it'll look like a rip-off, but he also wants to do the same story, and some similar one with "comparable tropes", because THAT'S THE INTENT OF THE WORK.
Don't be confused, please. I'm not running for dictator-of-what-remakes-shall-be-remade. I'm not deeply wedded to this theory of mine. I just wanted to explore it. This is clearly highly offensive to you.
You really have not taken a deep breath and tried to understand the distinctions I've made. Thus I continue to repeat myself. To illustrate:
Think in terms of a PLAY, like you attempt to do all the time. Different directors keep staging the same play, in different settings, with different actors, with different tweaks. And it can ALL BE INTERESTING, despite being the same work all over again.
Same with a movie remake. You take what is essentially the same "script", plus some cinematic features maybe (just as the director of the play will probably be influenced by other stagings). and dress it up differently.
I did think in terms of a PLAY (capitalized?). See my first post. It can be INTERESTING. Now you finally start to sort of engage my argument by saying you disagree with a distinction I drew in my first post between scripts and plays. I do think a script is fundamentally different from a written play. Certainly a script can be treated similarly as a written play.
Someone wanted to do "True Grit" with a drunk, grumpy Jeff Bridges, instead of the classic straight-up John Wayane.
May I ask you, what is the necessity for that someone, to toss away that idea, and instead write some new Western with Jeff Bridges as a mentor figure in it? WHY?
Maybe because True Grit is an adaptation of a book?
Peter Jackson wanted to remake KING KONG. Complete with the obsessed director, the blonde, pure starlet, a raunchy manly captain, menacing natives, and a GIANT GORILLA. His remake had a LOT OF AWESOME in it.
So what, should he have said "no, a remake isn't valid, I should do something inspired by the original King Kong", and then, what? Do another movie with a giant Gorilla, just named differently? In a jungle, not on an island? But including the Empire State Building as a "homage"? Maybe replaced the crew? Done it with a giant Chimpanzee instead?
Oh wait, no, he wanted to make a new KING KONG. So where does your philosophy come into any of that?
Not my philosophy. Just an idea I was floating. You've not convinced me it's wrong. But I'm not further convinced it's right either. I wanted people to give examples, like Kong, to see how the theory may be supported or undermined. Is Kong an exception to a general rule? I'm not really sure.
Since I don't think either of us will make headway, I'm moving on.
So what remakes did you enjoy or not enjoy, twooffour? How come you didn't like the one's you didn't like?