twooffour said:
You must've missed out on at least a half of my post, then.
Didn't I make a clear distinction between a written score, and a RECORDING? Like, the score is the play/script, the recording is the movie?
A composer writes his own composition, performs it, records it, and may or may not release a score (if he doesn't, people will make their own). It's not "meant to be adapted" in any way.
You are absolutely correct that I didn't catch you were talking about recordings. The reason is that it is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Playing around with something already recorded is like playing around with a movie already made - see Fan Edits forum. Or look at the "Special Editions" which were not remakes.
But they really can't "remake" it.
Well, neither can you a movie.
It's already been made, and it's here to stay. Has Jackson really "remade" King Kong, if a song cover can't be called a remake, either?
I've already argued that I think music is more like plays which are by their nature are to be adapted infinite times. A movie script can be used similarly to the written music or written play, but it really is a different creature. I'm not going to explain yet again why I think this is. But surely it can be used in the same way. For you that's the end of the matter.
This is clearly highly offensive to you.
Who ever said anything about "offensive"? I just don't see any purpose, or sense.
Nobody had to use the word "offensive," it's a matter of tone.
Well, so are Willy Wonka and Apes. So your "bad examples of remakes" were also book adaptations ;)
Yes. I mentioned that in the very first post in which I raised them. To explain yet again: I referenced them to offer a potential reason for why remaking (in the sense I've been talking about) movies would generally be a bad idea. Put another way, if I were using a citation signal it would probably be "Cf."
It also led to me offering a totally different theory for why remakes generally turn out poorly, as I wrote: "But maybe the issue is that only 'good' movies are remade and thus are more likely to pale in comparison to the originals."
I'm honestly just exploring the issue, or trying at least.
Your position seems to be that any remake might be good. That it basically depends on the people making it. That remakes of Star Wars, Love Story, Toy Story, whatever, are all potentially good ideas. Maybe the theory I've been floating (and you've been trying to push under the water) is flawed. I've accepted this from the get-go.
But there are elements of it that I think raise legitimate considerations for why a remake may, in principle, be a bad idea. One is the lack of creativity. If something is already made and made well, why copy it just to put one's own fingerprints on it? In your zeal to be correct, I think you are refusing to see even a sliver of validity in these kinds of considerations.
King Kong is neither demeaning, nor absurd, nor uncreative. And all it took for it to be this, was... good ideas and execution.
Doesn't that really say everything about your "media shouldn't be remade into the same media" maxim, that should be said?
No, not everything. A single example doesn't prove anything. My "maxim" may still be generally true.
If your argument is that movies have so many dynamic elements that they are more open to true remaking than books, I can see how that might be the case. Still doesn't mean it's generally a good idea, but it addresses my argument head on.
Maybe you question my yearning for some over-arching principle. Maybe you fear such a principle would stifle creativity (not that anyone is trying to implement anything).
Some people say the Wizard of Oz should never be remade. I have sympathy for that point of view. It's culturally important. Last year Warner Brothers was pursuing a remake that apparently fell apart, in part due to the controversy that they would dare remake it. And the stupidest thing was that they were going to use the original movie script. I say stupid because the movie is so memorable and already exists. There is simply no need to make the same movie again.
And perhaps you've been champing at the bit for this (I always used to think it was chomping at the bit): The Wizard of Oz is based on books. I would truly be curious to see a straight adaptation of the Oz books. Both Wizard of Oz and Return to Oz combined elements of various Oz books. The movies are fun and memorable for what they are. Redoing the movies is minimally creative. Re-adapting the Oz books would be enormously creative. If you cannot see the distinction here, there's not much more I can say on the matter.
Since it is late, I'm going now to rewrite Goodnight Moon. Not a bedtime book substantially similar to Goodnight Moon, mind you, but actually Goodnight Moon. Night.