Mrebo

CP3S said:

Mrebo said:

You're not doing a "nerdy, technical term deconstruction thing of the word 'opinion,'" you're confusing the definitions.

Oh, but he thinks he is doing a nerdy, technical term deconstruction thing of the word "opinion", and if he thinks it, it might as well be reality.

Precisely.

twooffour,

You missed the point again. Well you did catch the sarcasm (you used the word "sarcasm" or "sarcastic" 7 times in your post). The problem with replying to your previous post in a more substantive manner, as I tried doing for many previous pages on the topic of remakes is that you really cannot follow anyone else's argument but your own.

I explained why saying a pencil will fall to the floor when dropped is not a fact (its merely a prediction). Your rebuttal consisted of saying, 'well you know what I really meant, like in a everyday conversational sense and how dare you be intellectual about it!'

I'm not entirely clear on if you think my method of argumentation is too intellectual (as if that matters) or if my definition of fact is somehow too intellectual. If it's the former, that's not a rebuttal, that's whining. If it's the latter, well we are arguing over the definitions so calling my distinction too intellectual does not mean it's wrong.

Nonetheless, I offered an explanation for not using some kind of "everyday conversational" definition of "fact":

I thought we were talking about the difference between opinions and facts, not talking about how people might misuse those terms in everyday language.

You offer:

"How about both, since the two are kinda related?"

To which I can only say, so what? Yes...there is a relationship between the topic of what is a fact vs opinion and the topic of confusing the two ideas. But the question at hand was your misuse of the term fact, which you resist admitting to by calling me out for being "intellectual."

You continue your rebuttal to my above quote with:

"Like, because when someone's accusing me of confusing facts with opinions, and posts shitty flawed google graphics to support that, they're kinda misusing those terms... in the everyday language that is this board?

This isn't some academic forum here, and we're not posting peer reviews."

No duh. But just because this board is full of everyday language and silly graphics does not mean the rules of logic need to get muddled. You're just making poor excuses to ignore my argument.

When I explained the merit of using an intellectual approach:

"There will often be many variables involved in a situation which you cannot assume do not exist or may not think of. In everyday conversation, people will claim all kinds of things are facts."

You didn't really offer a rebuttal, except to say:

"As I JUST SAID, such "possibilities" are kinda considered, but NOT MENTIONED."

"The pencil will hit the floor" in everyday conversation = "this pencil will hit the floor unless blah blah blah".
Thanks you finally got that now, thanks."

So the possibilities are not mentioned that would prove your statement false, so they're assumed to not be there, so that you can be correct. Right, no circular logic there at all (this too is sarcasm). It is a fact that things fall due to gravity. That's not more or less intellectual or conversational, it's just precise. That a pencil will fall to the ground when you drop it is a prediction based on that fact, but not a fact itself. You smugly seem to think that your snarky "Thanks you finally got that now, thanks" actually addresses anything.

You offer an opening to continue the madness:
"But hey, where was that opinion that I treated as a "fact"? And I mean not just debunked (you can debunk an illogical opinion, too), I mean as FACTS?"

So you admit you have no knowledge of the basis for this discussion after being involved in it for a couple pages. This is the point it really feels like talking to a brick wall. You think my sarcasm is defensive or that I'm trying to weasel out answering your ever so cogent argument (again, sarcasm).

In reality it's a matter of the apparent futility of arguing with you when you admit you have no idea what the basis of discussion is, your rebuttals consist of personal attacks, you whine about something being too intellectual, and insist that we should blur the line between actual meanings of words and how they might be used in everyday speech. It's all a bunch of sophist (said it again) nonsense.

If you're wondering why I chose that single line from your post to criticize, it is because it is so obviously in error. The goal was to pin you down when you're obviously wrong to see how you would react. And as we see, it's by whining about intellectualism, imploring us to just know how you meant it (which is still wrong), and claiming ignorance of the basis of the argument (which is important to keep in mind for the discussion to make sense). The rest of that post is just as flawed (no matter how many times you link back to it).

At the very least, you can see my sarcasm was not defensive or an attempt to avoid your intellectual firepower.  It is honest frustration with your inability to admit error or even understand what is being discussed. It is fatigue with your personal attacks.

I actually meant my sarcastic post to hit quite close to the mark of your perception of yourself and it seems that it did. Thus it is amusing to me that after I said:

 

Where you tell it how it is but people can't handle the truth.

You replied with:

"An obliviously accurate statement meant as sarcasm - instant unintented irony hilarity awesomecake."

I said it because I believe that you hold that view. So it was a perspicacious observation. If me thinking you are wrong creates "awesomecake," you already have a lifetime supply. I think you know irony about as well as Alanis Morissette. Isn't that ironic?

Please spend 7 pages doing it. I won't post a thing. We'll just read in awe. All of us who have criticized your rudeness and lacking coherence are certainly wrong about you. We're obviously the ones with problems. You should see no reason to take a step back and reevaluate your words. You undoubtedly face similar frustrations off the internet where few are as smart as you. Where you tell it how it is but people can't handle the truth. No one is quite as dynamic and open-minded as you.

doubleofive said:

 

TheBoost said:

Cant they just as easily make a movie out of Garindian from "Star Wars"?

He does just as much as Boba, and doesn't die on screen.

*applause*

 

I vote for this.

I forgot that Fett would be a clone. I don't want to see him struggle with his identity in a post-PT world.

A paragon, a PARAGON, you say?

I thought we were talking about the difference between opinions and facts, not talking about how people might misuse those terms in everyday language. You're not doing a "nerdy, technical term deconstruction thing of the word 'opinion,'" you're confusing the definitions.

The issue is that you treat our opinions as facts that can be debunked. Thus you are rude and make nonsensical arguments.

When people try to explain opinion vs fact, you devolve into a discussion about everyday meanings of dropping pencils. And the "intellectual masturbation" is important in establishing a basic concept. There will often be many variables involved in a situation which you cannot assume do not exist or may not think of. In everyday conversation, people will claim all kinds of things are facts. But how about that one man or that one pencil that didn't hit the ground? Not because they were caught by a dove, but by some reasonable but unforeseen circumstance.

General Frink, count me in.

I honestly don't see the point of this thread, other than to mock xhonzi's.

TV's Frink said:

 

twooffour said:
Making a prediction that if I let go of my pencil, it'll drop to the floor, is a fact;

Sounds like someone has never been in space.

 

If you ask me, sounds like someone has xD

twooffour said:

Mrebo said:

 

twooffour said:
Making a prediction that if I let go of my pencil, it'll drop to the floor, is a fact;

A prediction is not a fact. And that's a fact, not my opinion. But let us not take another 7 pages to fail to convince you on this point.

I'm not sure which terms scientists, or epistemologists use in this context, but yes, in everyday speech, the "fact" that if you jump out of the 9th floor, you'll fall to the ground, and "might" get a headache, is, indeed, a "fact".

Or at the very least a "certainty", which is what this is all about anyway, isn't it?

Surely you meant ornithologists. But don't ask me about what the fancy scientists say, you're the guy who said:

Yea, sure a pain in the ass to find out that the guy you're trying to spoonfeed with basic, common definitions, actually knows more about them than you do (about those basic, common definitions).

Now if you're asking me for my prediction, it is mighty likely the pencil and leaping man will fall. I assume nobody will be catching them. I assume there will not be a great gust of wind that would carry them to safety. And of course I assume that there is gravity. I have to assume that absolutely nothing intervenes between the pencil/man and gravity. And if we can make such broad assumptions, then any number of probable or even potential events become "facts," but it's all done by sophistry. Now if you're saying it is a fact that gravity will exert force on the pencil, then yes. But you went further than saying gravity exists. It is not a fact that the pencil or man will fall to the ground at all. Just highly likely.

I am serious about not wanting to take 7 more pages to fail to convince you.

twooffour said:
Making a prediction that if I let go of my pencil, it'll drop to the floor, is a fact;

A prediction is not a fact. And that's a fact, not my opinion. But let us not take another 7 pages to fail to convince you on this point.

Oh god, that was fun reading.

Even explaining the difference between opinion and fact to twooffour becomes a tortured exercise.

The only thing that might be worth responding to in his last "response" is:

You either have the driest deadpan humor I've ever witnessed, or you're an unimaginably boring person.
I could make an educated guess based on the tone of the rest of your post, but I rather wouldn't.

You're clearly being rude (coy, but rude). This perfectly illustrates your manner of argumentation in which you absolutely misread and misconstrue everything (while being rude).

Has my tone been "boring"? You're surely entitled to your opinion (sorry I won't explain what that means). I have been civil, logical, and patient. Those may be boring qualities in your eyes. Certainly given the tone of the rest of your post...

The truth is I tend to have a dry deadpan humor. Don't know about the driest ever. Am I now amazing because I do apparently have the driest deadpan humor you've ever witnessed? Of course not. Need you rethink the "boring" tone of the rest of my post? Don't trouble yourself. We've agreed to disagree so I'm moving on to organize my rock collection.

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.

Wow, I had forgotten about those. I did like the pictures. Wasn't Zorba Jabba's father? In art class in middle school I made Zorba out of clay (2D). Guess I was really Star Wars deprived.

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.

Billie Holiday.

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?

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.

Sometimes I don't know if you fully understand the point I'm making, twooffour. 12 Angry Men was originally a play (technically a "teleplay")! It was meant to be adapted. I think that's why it lends itself to remakes so well.

twooffour said:

Oh, ok, so it's NOT about outrageous changes then, just the copying part.

Clearly I'm not arguing "eww, they changed it so I don't like it!" So again, I don't know that you really are trying to understand my argument.

Listen, I still maintain that this thread should be redubbed into "good remakes vs. bad remakes", because this "theory" of yours seems to be very arbitrary, and ill-supported.

Can we talk about what factors might-maybe-perhaps determine why remakes can be a bad idea? Or must we accept your premise that they might always be a good idea?

My theory is not arbitrary. So again, even if you disagree with it, it appears to me that you aren't even trying to understand it. I think it works better with regard to books. Anchorhead gives some good reasoning for it. Maybe it's a little philosophical, but not arbitrary.

Yea, it can be easily abused by producers who want a shortcut, there are many ways it can go wrong etc., so why don't you talk about those things?

 

Um, because I had this sort of philosophical idea I wanted to explore?

Nothing about this is "obvious", or "intuitive".  A work of fiction, be it a book or a movie, isn't just "written and basta", it's not some kind of holy, homogenous entity that just "exists" and that's it.
It's made up of lots of general concepts, details, and creative decisions, all of which can be reworked and modified. What's so "absurd" about that?

And many many many works have been inspired by pre-existing works and have totally ripped off plots, characters, and story elements. See Star Wars (in a good way); see Harry Potter (in a shameless way). I'm obviously not objecting to using pre-existing works to derive new ones. So again, I think you really just don't want to understand the argument.

The issue is about the need or the reasoning to make the same work again. And as stated, the absurdity of this is most clear with books. Technically I can't "rewrite" the same book. The book does exist as the precise collection of words and phrasing. Tolkien was quite particular about words and spellings. To "rewrite" it is only a bastardization, or at best an edit.

One book I really enjoy is L'Etranger. But most Americans will not enjoy it unless it is translated. That translation is done by necessity (or at least it's easier to translate than to teach everyone french). In some sense it is a "remake." But you can't really appreciate it until you've read it in the original Klingon french. Some of the meaning is lost in translation (a lot of it is in the tone). The same goes for rewriting a book in the same language. This is not an arbitrary point.

There are many movies that could be obviously IMPROVED, but then we're not talking about an innocent remake anymore, are we?
If it's just an innocent remake, the original doesn't have to "benefit" from or "need" it in any way, it'll just be another version.

I don't know what an "innocent remake" is. I'm questioning the need for "just another version." To my "why?" you say "cuz." The Burton examples I raised earlier, Charlie and Apes (which are adaptations of books, so not what I'm addressing under my argument, but raising them specifically for this point), were failures in my view because they were "just another version" of films that already existed (certainly they suffered from other flaws as well). When one makes a film based on a film this problem is all the more likely.

Not to get all too lost in examples... hmm... could imagine a Matrix remake somewhere down the line.

The Adjustment Bureau not good enough for you? Oh sorry, you mean the same movie about aliens and a guy named Neo who takes the red pill, unplugs himself, and fights in slow motion. Because we really need to see the same movie again, this time with passion. I certainly could see a sequel to Matrix (well envision, anyhow) that follows the same basic plot (really, that's what most sequels do). But to use the same script again? Has the well of creativity really dried up that much?

------

I completely disagree with thejediknighthusezni that the OT will be remade. Star Wars proper (ANH, ESB, ROTJ) exists as it exists. There is no rationale to "remake" them. For the reasons I've argued, I think it's an absurdity. Even cynical greed won't dictate they be remade. Cynical greed may result in sequels and certainly in every manner of product, but not in remakes. Star Wars is fixed in our consciousness as it exists. So much of its value lies in that shared consciousness. I'd direct you to watch Jeremy Messersmith's video/song "Tatooine." Even without dialogue and omitting much of the movies, it greatly captures the feelings many of us have about Star Wars. A remake can only degrade that (*note I have no problem with adaptations of Star Wars, to the stage, radio, even a cartoon - just with a live-action "remake") (*note I feel these lengthy parentheticals are necessary in order to stress the nuance of my arguments).

I also completely disagree with generations owning films and that every generation might need their own version. I'm thrilled when succeeding generations adopt the OT as their own. There are members of this site who are at least around 20. I don't think they missed the cutoff date for owning the OT. When we think of classical movies we love, they aren't obsolete or taken to the grave by our forefathers. Out of a lack of anything constructive to say I've held back on articulating my muzzel in your thread. I think we're all entitled to our exploration of "what ifs". That said, I disagree with your premise.

Hope it was a good birthday, Warbler!

(so far I'm closest in age to ferris)

TV's Frink said:

doubleKO said:

I enjoyed the new Star Trek ... remake.

Agreed.  Though, would Star Trek 2009 really be considered a remake?

It would be my impulse to say "not really." It was a new story with the same characters. And that's really what a TV serial is all about. Granted with new actors, but I'm not sure that fact alone makes something a "remake."

doubleKO said:

I don't completely agree, for me it depends on the quality and characteristics of the remake in question, as well as my feelings for and familiarity with the original material. I enjoyed the new Star Trek and The Italian Job remake. I held the belief that Clash of the Titans should be remade for years and was very disappointed with the result when it finally was. Some regard the 1990 remake of Night of the Living Dead as superior. I agree that most remakes I have seen are inferior and demeaning to the original work in some way, but I am not against the idea altogether. It does make less sense to remake something in its original format.

My biggest problem with remakes is that by using the same name and material, comparisons are automatically invited and the importance of this comparison is often overblown to the point where the "loser" of the comparison suffers from a similarly overblown negative public perception rather than being judged on its own merits or appreciated for its own strengths.

Of course we are talking about Hollywood, and the major influence here is money. This means that movies that could be significantly improved due to having a great premise and shoddy execution are going to be sidelined in favour of stuff that they already know people like and will pay to see. So the movies that get remade will usually be the movies that need it least.

I agree about the Italian Job! It was a lot of fun (and I like what the director had to say in the commentary about not using CGI). As for Star Trek, I do think TV serials easily lend themselves to be remade (a point I made in my first post).

I did not see the new Clash of the Titans but why do you think it could benefit from being remade?

You're right about remakes inviting comparisons with previous efforts and Hollywood's zeal for money. I think these are certainly factors in the failures of remakes.

To some extent, I am working my thinking out here. And that's part of the reason it might seem "all over the place."

My basic thought is that a remake of a movie, that was originally made as a movie, is a bad idea. To show why I think this might be, I compare movies to books. If an author declares that she is rewriting Jane Eyre, to me is absurd. It is already written. It is what it is. Maybe I'm not explaining this point well enough but strikes me as obvious, or at least instinctual.

One can be inspired by a book to write something similar or write about the same characters, but to write the same story with the same characters in the same format? It seems there would rarely be a good reason. Perhaps that is the crux of the matter.

The degree of similarity between an original and a remake comes into play to show whether or not it is really a remake - rather than merely inspired by the original. I'd toss Karate Kid and Living Dead into this category.

King Kong is the kind of true remake I'm talking about. It's about the same character in the same situation facing the same fate. It's not a shot for shot movie but is substantially the same. I thought it was a good, but not great, film. (Oh noes, I think it's good, my theory must crumble! JK.) So the question is what, if anything, makes it a worthwhile film when King Kong already existed? I'm truly curious about everyone's views on this question.

twooffour, you confuse two different points in this passage

In one sentence you say you wouldn't like something to be rewritten, or "told differently", the way you brought up, in another, you dislike the "pale imitation" that doesn't try to "interpret the source material".
Seriously, which is it now?

I never used the phrase "pale imitation" so I'm not sure which point you're referring to. Please stop making up quotes! I used the word "imitation" with regard to the Burton films - both of which are based on books - as a means of comparison. I suggested that - as an alternative theory from the one I'm pushing - that remakes may "pale in comparison," because only good movies are remade. So in either case, I was not talking directly about the merits of my theory.

You think there's a good gotcha quote in there that you raise again:

"I might want more stories about the characters, but not the same story told differently."
Well, that's the whole answer, isn't it? Some people take interest in seeing the same story told differently. In whatever medium.

Let me allow you to confuse yourself further for a moment: I enjoy the multiple cinematic tellings of a Christmas Carol (though the Alastair Sim version is probably my favorite). I would like to see a remake of Harvey. So I clearly don't have some broadly obstinate desire to not see different tellings of the same story. As the preceding sentence contextualized: "I don't think I've read a book that I'd like to see rewritten." Maybe you have. Maybe you finished reading LOTR, and thought it would be super cool to read it again with a bunch of arbitrary alterations. I can't account for the tastes of all consumers. But I would question the person's motivation in creating such an alternative telling.

I think what makes stories like A Christmas Carol and Harvey so amenable to multiple cinematic versions is that they are adapted. A future director doesn't just take what was already on the screen and dress it up or butcher it. He can go to the source and bring that source to life anew.

Some ways to convince me my theory is fundamentally flawed:

• Name movies (that were originally movies) that may be well-served by a remake.
• Name remakes of movies (that were originally movies) that are actually pretty good.
• Give good reasons for remaking movies (that were originally movies).

Some people argue that certain iconic movies should not be remade (eg Wizard of Oz, Godfather). Maybe you'd dismiss that argument out of hand as well. And certainly that is based on little more than sentimentality. My argument addresses the substantive nature of the works themselves.

If my alternate LOTR books were released, what would you say? Oh, that's interesting, an alternate telling of the story. I might not enjoy it, but isn't that interesting. Or as you say here, "what the hell?" My reaction would be the latter.

And I didn't say Frodo would be "completely unlikeable" just "very" - stop misquoting me!!! :p The changes I've described do not fundamentally alter the arc of the story, as radical as they might be. It's the same characters (at least in name) in the same world on the same mission.

My "beef" is a theory about why remaking media in the same original form may be a bad idea in principle. I concede I could be totally wrong and that's why I'm engaging in discussion with anyone who doesn't just dismiss the argument.

If I want to use the same characters in the same situation, that is the kind of remake I'm addressing as a bad idea. I think of a remake I enjoy, like Sabrina, and it is based on a play. I think of a remake I'd like to see, Harvey, and it is also based on a play. I can't think of a movie that was originally a movie that I'd like to see remade. I don't think I've read a book that I'd like to see rewritten. I might want more stories about the characters, but not the same story told differently.

I think that remakes of Planet of the Apes and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory were so lousy because they looked like mere imitations of the older movies rather than better imaginings of the original books.

And when a movie is remade from a movie (rather than freshly interpreting the original source material), what are the chances it be as good as the original? The original is the standard.

But maybe the issue is that only 'good' movies are remade and thus are more likely to pale in comparison to the originals. We should be remaking the bad movies! We'll start with Gigli.

Postscript: It is fun the muse about which remakes we thought were good and which we thought were bad. But I'm curious about exactly why this might be. To this end, I am wondering if remakes of movies which were originally conceived as movies is bad in principle because you're translating less than you are xeroxing.

twooffour said:

So back on topic, doesn't anyone else find it preposterous and disrespectful how this hack here basically remakes Rebecca's song as... also a song?


Here's another awesome song remake:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DbwrU3QZsA#t=74
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOosiyw7t00#t=77

But it's also a musical number, so I guess it sux. Oh well...

See my most recent response above, relating to your musings about disrespect and the nature of certain works as adaptable. Plays and songs are meant to be adapted. They are written to be performed by any number of persons. I'm saying books and movies are different in that they are the final work. A book is not written to be rewritten nor a movie filmed to be refilmed. It is technically possible to rewrite and refilm, but I'm saying it is a bad idea for a reason. Respond to my earlier post, please.

Also worth noting I'm a big fan of "remaking" the PT (see the rewriting forum). But this is not to build upon or remake those movies. It is to neglect those movies and imagine what should have been based on the OT. I see such efforts as making brand new stories, not remaking PT ones.

I never used the word "respectful." I did say remaking (in the limited manner I outline) can be demeaning of the original creation. But I don't mean this in the sense of respectful deference to a creator - that was clearly not the argument I was making. I mean demeaning of the work itself. Now it's probably not the best word choice to use to describe an object that can't feel anything but I clearly wasn't talking about "respect" in the way you raise it.

There are lots of movies with the same basic plot. And maybe you want to slap an old title on it for whatever reason (marketing, perhaps). Night of the Living Dead just came to mind.

But making substantially the same movie/book/play (originally conceived as such) does strike me as generally dumb. And I think there is a reason for this. That is what I'm getting at.

You "dismiss" this possibility out of hand but do not offer a concrete example where it has worked or been justified. Instead you offer Psycho, which may support my theory.

You talk about a "music arrangement" but that is an adaptation - which I take no issue with.

Imagine if I were going to rewrite Lord of the Rings. Still going to be about the hobbits, wizards, men, Sauron, etc. But Frodo is going to be very unlikeable. Gandalf will be tempted to join Saruman and will kill Peregrin but then realize his error and redeem himself, thereby becoming the White Wizard. Saruman will be stabbed atop his tower and fall. I'll obviously change the style, move scenes around, but it will basically be the same story. And for whatever crazy reason Tolkien's estate allows me to publish this as "Lord of the Rings: Modern Edition." To me, this kind of remake is stupid in principle, not just subjectively after we read it. Indeed, it may be thoroughly well-written and thoroughly enjoyable to those who have not read the original.

I'm saying that I think movies are like books. Do you disagree on this point? If so why? Else do you think such rewrites of books are good and justifiable?

I have a nascent theory I'd like to bounce off you all.

It is that media should not be remade in the same form that it was initially conceived. If something was originally made as movie, it should not be remade as a movie. If something was originally made as a book, it should not be rewritten as a book. I would differentiate plays from movies in that the script for a movie is solely a means to an end (and constantly open to revision) whereas a play is written and released in a single form to be interpreted on a stage multiple times. And TV shows are episodic and open to future 'continuation' or re-imagining that goes far beyond simply rewriting the original scripts.

My reasoning for this is that it is absurd, uncreative, and demeaning of the original creation. We could rewrite Shakespeare or Stephen King but why?

I've tried to think of examples where something has been remade in its original form. One suggestion I got was "Hairspray." And that was a movie, turned into a play, turned into a movie. I'm not sure if the translation into a play made it more amenable to remake as a movie. It does seem a generally bad idea to create the substantially same story in the same media. But what are your thoughts?

Hey guys

I'm trying to think of something else I liked in the PT to have at least one on-topic post on this page. The Utai are a good design.