When Remakes are a Bad Idea — Page 3

TV's Frink said:

Mrebo said:

Out of a lack of anything constructive to say I've held back on articulating my muzzel in your thread.

I soooooo want to understand what this means...

Haha, I'm being very cute, referencing the post so as to say that the ability to articulate a muzzle doesn't justify the effort to do so. Fairly clever double entendre, imho.

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?

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.

doubleKO said:

I would go without the new King Kong if it meant I definitely never had to decide whether or not  to see a remade Wizard of Oz.

RedFive said:

The Manchurian Candidate

Anyone mention this yet?  I actually heard the remake wasn't bad (never saw it), but that's beside the point - it was totally unnecessary.

Yeah, don't bother seeing it. Watch the original if you haven't already. It's better in every way and, as you said, the remake is totally unnecessary.

I've seen some good remakes, but overall, most of them are pointless and often disappointing. (The Day the Earth Stood Still 2008... *barf!*)

Looking at a list, here are some I've seen both versions of:

Good

- Angels in the Outfield (the original has Janet Leigh...rowr!)
- The Magnificent Seven (Western remake of The Seven Samurai, lots of fun)
- Cape Fear (I prefer the original)
- Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (I prefer the original)
- Freaky Friday (2003; forgettable compared to the original, but amusing)
- Fun with *** and Jane (better than the original)
- The Karate Kid (better than I figured, but then, Jackie Chan is in it)
- Mighty Joe Young (it gots Charlize Theron in it...rowr!)
- You've Got Mail (remake of The Shop Around the Corner, both fun)

Bad

- The Day the Earth Stood Still (the original has been a top favorite since I was a wee tot, however! This one really bugs me...)
- The Manchurian Candidate (2004; as mentioned, pointless)
- Planet of the Apes (forgettable compared to the original)
- Psycho (1998; SO very, very pointless!)
- The Time Machine (2002; again, the original is one I've loved for most of my life, and this one was just...weird, especially the addition of that stupid "uber-Morlock")

Looking through the list (linked above), there are a lot I've still only seen one version of.

^

You Forgot 'The Fly' and 'The Thing' on the good list.

I only put movies I've seen both versions of, as noted. ;)

twooffour said:

...

NO, WRONG.

...

I dunno, are you intentionally mixing up the analogy, or is your reading comprehension really this bad?

...

Obviously, Jackson's trilogy didn't REALLY live up to the challenge.

...

Well it's official now, so accept it.

...

Yes, and I rebutted that. It's an invalid, and completely arbitrary position that isn't justified by anything whatsoever (it also doesn't hold water).

...

NO. THAT'S THE EQUIVALENT OF A FINISHED MOVIE. Got it?

...

well, it CAN turn out good. Specific "ideas" how to do it, can obviously just as well be poor.

...

No validity in "remaking a work in its own medium is wrong" at all.

...

All your arguments are pretty arbitrary, and uninteresting both to criticism, and the creative process

twooffour said:

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.

Aside from the fact that there is no particular reason to think that remixes, or "fan edits" are inherently any better than remakes (isn't that also bastardizing the original? how much creativity is involved in piecing already finished scenes from an already complete movie together?), NO, WRONG.

Playing around with a recording = remixing = fan edits, special editions.
What *I* meant was... taking an original recording... and PLAYING IT YOURSELF. Performing in front of an audience, doing another recording, essentially "putting your own fingerprints" on that, too. SAME WITH SONG COVERS.

I dunno, are you intentionally mixing up the analogy, or is your reading comprehension really this bad?

You appear to be the one confusing the analogy and being unable to understand what I've been saying. You are trying mightily to blur the distinction between playing a cover of a song and somehow playing the recording itself, by which you really mean playing a cover (which I addressed in my previous post but you said I had missed the point)? Or you are saying that there is no difference between sampling, remixes, and playing it as a cover? Perhaps because now you're talking about degrees of creativity?

And when you say things like "NO, WRONG." and "no, dismissed" I just wonder who the hell do you think you are. I know you've convinced yourself. But an idea cannot be absolutely dismissed or declared wrong unless it is a factual issue. If I were saying that George Bush is still president and is trying to pass a law to make us all wear funny hats, your tone and language would be absolutely justified. But because I don't see this issue exactly as you do does not make it wrong.

There is no factual issue in contrasting remakes with edits. I'm arguing that they are fundamentally different. You believe that they exist on a scale of creativity.

If you cannot see the distinction here, there's not much more I can say on the matter.

I see the distinction, but I also see the similarities.

So it is a matter of the significance of those similarities and differences.

Some people say the Wizard of Oz should never be remade

Others say LOTR should've never been put to film.
Obviously, Jackson's trilogy didn't REALLY live up to the challenge.

So I could argue against ecranizations of novels, just as well.

Yes...and my point wasn't that what people say they want should be determinative. It just wasn't. Seriously, I have to continue to explain the same points ad nauseum because you refuse to understand them. You confuse any number of issues and accuse me of doing so.

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.

Well it's official now, so accept it.

More of this? Seriously? It's official because you say so?

I've already argued that I think music is more like plays which are by their nature are to be adapted infinite times.

Yes, and I rebutted that. It's an invalid, and completely arbitrary position that isn't justified by anything whatsoever (it also doesn't hold water).

You offered something resembling a rebuttal, but no you didn't rebut it.

A published score, yes.
An original recording, or performance, ESPECIALLY an improvized one? NO. THAT'S THE EQUIVALENT OF A FINISHED MOVIE. Got it?

Got it? I've suggested that myself! So again, you have failed to understand the argument.

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.

It sure MIGHT be good.
"Potentially good" only in the sense that, well, it CAN turn out good. Specific "ideas" how to do it, can obviously just as well be poor.

Not sure why you're stressing "MIGHT" and superfluously providing a definition of "potential." I clearly understood your point and so used the words "might" and "potential." Not sure what other definition of "potential" you thought could have been implied. Oh well.

Having that said, adapting a play, or a book, that's already been adapted in this medium, is maybe only a step more "creative", in that it's easier to ignore the other renditions (but not very easy).

But, hey, you know...

Why wouldn't it be very easy? Bringing a book to life on the screen is infinitely more creative than bringing a movie to life on the screen again.

If something is already made and made well, why copy it just to put one's own fingerprints on it?

The part with the fingerprints IS THE CREATIVE PART.

If it's just about putting fingerprints on it, it is minimally creative, as I already argued.

All your arguments are pretty arbitrary, and uninteresting both to criticism, and the creative process (as far as I can judge that last one... and probably the former, too) - you say "all they can do is imprint their own fingers", but "doing the same with different fingerprints" is own the entire appeal in the first place, and still has a lot of room for creativity.

It only sounds arbitrary because you refuse to understand the argument. If uninteresting, please feel free to drop out of the thread.

You say I said, "all they can do is imprint their own fingers...doing the same with different fingerprints." This is about the 5th time you've made up a quote I didn't say. It is evidence that you do not understand what I'm saying because you feel the need to invent quotes. Those invented quotes do not represent what I've argued.

Yea, there's probably more "room for creativity" in re-adapting an original play, or book - but I see that as a mere matter of proportions.

No, wrong, dismissed.

See what a silly and rude thing it is to respond to an idea in that fashion? I think the room for creativity is a major factor in whether a project is worthwhile.

As for the Wizard of Oz, well, I remember seeing the original as a little kid, at 9 I think, and already then I found it horribly cheesy.
Haven't seen any remakes, but if they'd make one that's actually exciting and engagin, and doesn't make you wanna slit your wife's wrists, then hey, you've got my blessings.

You have an interesting view of the word "cheesy." While there could be many reasons to not like the movie, I suspect you'd be in a distinct minority of people who would find it "cheesy." Perhaps you give that word a broader meaning than most people.

Your views on violence against women and your blessing for a new Oz movie are duly noted. There is a prequel in the works.

As far as my argument goes (and my ability to argue it), do not take me for some conjurer of cheap tricks. You have failed to understand the argument and appear more eager to be proven right rather than to engage in civil discussion. I think it best to "agree to disagree" - such a stupidly useful idea.

Ripplin said:

I only put movies I've seen both versions of, as noted. ;)

Well go see both versions of them. NOW