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.