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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
A published score, yes.
An original recording, or performance, ESPECIALLY an improvized one? NO. THAT'S THE EQUIVALENT OF A FINISHED MOVIE. Got it?
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.
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.
I never said there weren't any downsides, or risks - lack of creativity is one, it's also a possible excuse to do a remake instead of something original.
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...
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.
In your zeal to be correct, I think you are refusing to see even a sliver of validity in these kinds of considerations.
I see a lot of validity in "considerations" like "attempting a remake of a really good movie, is a hard spot to hit, for this and this reason". 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 (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.
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.
Ah, well sorry 'bout that, then.
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.
It's EASIER to blend out the other adaptions, while it's more CHALLENGING to be creative with the movie as your basis.
Doesn't make any of those somehow "inherently wrong".
A nice example would be the LOTR trilogy, which actually borrowed imagery from the Bakshi cartoon. He could've avoided it like pestilence, but no, he took the same "Foolish Took" scene from Moria, but actually made it BETTER.
From comically OTT, to FUCKING AWESOME.
Could've taken the book version, too (Pippin just drops some stones into a well, and then they're attacked days after - it's never really answered whether it was his fault.) Or done some middle thing that's both more exciting, and doesn't make Pip responsible for Gandalf's death.
But hey... I back him on that one.
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.
(edited)