logo Sign In

twooffour

This user has been banned.

User Group
Banned Members
Join date
8-Jan-2011
Last activity
8-Oct-2011
Posts
1,665

Post History

Post
#513555
Topic
An Experiment in Inducting a SW newbie.
Time

Not really - as far as I remember, TMN was pretty much a rounded, self-contained story, aside from these occasional OOC remarks by Lewis (which I found about as annoying as his constant food descriptions).

This, boy, he meets the girl, then they start exploring haunted houses and bump into the crazy uncle (forgot his name, do not want to look up), he talks a bunch of gibberish, then they start world-travelling, bump into Charn with some Giant Queen (who cares if the becomes the White Witch later on?), then there they wreak some havoc back in London, and... well, it's pretty much this neat, intriguing mystery plot that has nothing to do with Aslan, Jesus, or Narnia, or any talking animals, up until... well, until they beam into Narnia while it's being sung into existence by Aslan.

It's from this moment on that it starts to kinda suck, and maybe it doesn't stand alone well after that moment. But I'm not sure.

Post
#513540
Topic
When Remakes are a Bad Idea
Time

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.

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?
Then another will try to argue that you should either play it accurately, or compose something on your own. Recording someone else's composition, just with some different phrasings, ornamentations and other kinds of tweaks, is a total no-go. It's a BASTARDIZATION.

Then you've got someone who's listened to the same solo, or jazz improvization, for a long time, and proceeds to learn and record it, identically or maybe with some "tweaks" of his own.
But then some dude will step in and say that it was an improvization, not a composition, and shouldn't be copied.

You know what my answer is? FUCK ALL THAT.


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.

Take the "original", and give it a different spin, ornamentation, color.
If someone wants to do (or see) a "spiritual successor" instead, then they'll free to do that, too.


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.

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?
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?



PS:
Pianists play Cziffra's arrangements by transcribing his RECORDINGS, which he didn't write down.
They play Liszt's arrangements, by learning the scores.

The first example is a movie, the second is a play.
A pianist plays 2 encores, first is Liszt's Galop (most certainly influenced by other performances), second Cziffra's Tritsch Tratsch Polka (obviously influenced by his own recording(s), and others'). WHERE'S THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE??

Depeche Mode write a mellow song about Jesus.
Marilyn Manson, a fan, has an awesome idea of singing the same song in his own raunchy style, putting a cynical (or Satanic, whatever you want) spin on it by delivery alone.

So he basically took someone else's song, that WASN'T MEANT TO BE REWRITTEN, sang it word for word, but BASTARDIZED both its sound, and its meaning.
And it's COMPLETELY AWESOME (dare I say, way better than the original, although that's just me).
But I guess according to "philosophy", he "shouldn't have done that".

Post
#513534
Topic
An Experiment in Inducting a SW newbie.
Time

timdiggerm said:

twooffour said:

I just thought it was a pretty cool "mystery adventure" book until it turned into religious fairytale cheese towards the last third.
No fuckin' Fauns, no fuckin' talkin' animals repressing their first laughter, no stupid grasshoppers, no Apples of Teh Life - could've turned out so differently, had it been written first :(

Perhaps you know nothing else of C.S. Lewis' work? Most of his books are Christian theology. Heck, even when he wrote sci-fi, it was explicitly in a Christian context.

If one doesn't particularly like being preached religious messages in a fiction book, does it really matter whether it's something the author does all the time, or just thought would be fun this one time?

But yea, I obviously meant it from the perspective of someone who didn't know ahead ;)


Just to clarify, I don't have any problems with Christian, or religious themes as such - and the version of Christianity, along with its values, detectable in the Narnia books is certainly of the better kind.
Still, there are some rather backward ideas in those books, mostly concerning questions of "faith", and yes, they do get kind of annoying.

Post
#513495
Topic
An Experiment in Inducting a SW newbie.
Time

Well, YMMV on that, it's been more than 5 years since I last looked into it, and I'm not going to anywhere in the near future.

I just thought it was a pretty cool "mystery adventure" book until it turned into religious fairytale cheese towards the last third.
No fuckin' Fauns, no fuckin' talkin' animals repressing their first laughter, no stupid grasshoppers, no Apples of Teh Life - could've turned out so differently, had it been written first :(


But yea, the creepy mad scientist guy, the arrogant, impulsive boy and the wiser cheeky girl who turns out to be right, that book's full of annoying tropes.

Post
#513482
Topic
An Experiment in Inducting a SW newbie.
Time

Yea, it's somewhat of a hard one with Narnia.

The written order makes more sense, in terms of exposition etc. - but the Magician's Nephew is just way cooler overall, and it doesn't hit you over the head with Christian allegories right away... that is, by the time you get to the horrendous "creation" of Narnia, and the Eden allusions, you've already been lured in with cool magic rings, flying through space between worlds, a world where everyone's a monster, and dead, Jadis wreaking havoc around London, the crazy scientist cartoon - and the unbearable Narnia chapters just kinda flow from there.

Lion&Witch just starts off as this cheesy fairytale adventure, so it may not make for the best first impression :)

Post
#513414
Topic
Cookie MOnsters favorite jokes!
Time

Bingowings said:

Once upon a time there were these identical twins, who, in defiance of all we know about the genetic basis of intelligence, were anything but identical mentally. One of them was, quite frankly, stupid, while the other was very sharp indeed. In fact, he was a master of ready wit and stunning repartee. 

One evening the stupid twin went to a circus that happened to be in town. He went early so he could get a good seat in the front row, right beside the ring, and he thoroughly enjoyed the experience. He marvelled at the elephants, cowered from the lions, and gaped at the trapeze artists in their skimpy costumes; he reacted exactly the way he was meant to.

Last of all, on came the clowns. They were his favourite bit of the circus. All that falling over, all that water, all those custard pies - it was hilarious. The lead clown was the most ludicrous of the lot: he had bigger shoes, baggier trousers, brighter make-up and the most enormous red nose. And part of the lead clown's job was to make fun of people in the audience.

So the clown looked around for someone to hassle, and saw a rather stupid-looking man sitting right in the front row. Ideal. He went up to the stupid twin and said:

"Sir, are you the front end of an ass?"

The stupid man sat there wishing that he hadn't come, wishing that the clown would go away and pick on someone else. He knew he wasn't very intelligent, and he knew he would come out of this looking very foolish. But he spoke up. "No," he said.

"Sir, are you the back end of an ass?" the clown continued.

"No, I'm not," the stupid man replied.

"Then, sir," the clown said slowly, letting the audience savour the moment, "you are no end of an ass!"

The audience, having a fairly poor sense of humour, erupted into laughter. The stupid man just wished he could die. Fortunately for him, the show was soon over.

When he got home, the stupid man told his brother what had happened.

"Don't worry," said the master of ready wit and stunning repartee, "I am a master of ready wit and stunning repartee. Tomorrow night I will go to the circus and make that clown look foolish."

So the next night, the master of ready wit and stunning repartee went to the circus, and got a front row seat. Being an intelligent man, he was considerably less impressed by the sight of dumb animals being made to do tricks, although he had to admit that the trapeze artists were rather tasty.

Then the clowns came out, and the one with the biggest shoes, baggiest trousers, brightest make-up and most ludicrously over-sized nose looked around the audience for someone to make fun of. He could not believe his luck. There, sitting in the front row, was the stupid man he'd got such a laugh out of the night before. So the clown approached the master of ready wit and stunning repartee and asked:

"Sir, are you the front end of an ass?"

"No," said the master of ready wit and stunning repartee.

"Sir, are you the back end of an ass?" the clown continued.

"No, I'm not," replied the master of ready wit and stunning repartee.

"Then, sir," said the clown, "you are no end of an ass!" The crowd went wild with laughter. The joke went down even better than it had the night before, and the clown felt on top of the world.

But just then the master of ready wit and stunning repartee stood up, smiled sadistically and said

 

"Not the middle end in one?"

Post
#513407
Topic
Cookie MOnsters favorite jokes!
Time

A husband and a wife sit in a restaurant.
Suddenly, the wife spills the soup over her dress, and laments: "Oh no, I look like a pig!"
The husband replies: "Yes, and you've spilled your soup."



...


A Rabbi arrives in town, and seemingly in great hurry, asks a passerby:
"Can you tell me where the synagogue is?"
The passerby replies: "It's on the 31st street."
Shocked and confused, the Rabbi exclaims: "But that's where the town brothel is!"
"No, the brothel is on the 26th."
Relieved, the Rabbi replies: "Ah, thank you!"



Two necrophiles walk past a graveyard.
One of them says to the other: "Hey, let's have a couple cold ones!"



(Yea, all three shamelessly ripped off.)

Post
#513396
Topic
Is Part 3 of Anything Ever Good?
Time

greenpenguino said:

Tyrphanax said:

Part three of your mom was pretty good.

Greenie-T said:

Hold on, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Don't bring anyone's mother into this, she ain't here. And if it weren't for your mother, you wouldn't be here. So remember when you're putting down one mother, you're putting down mothers all over the world

*breaks out into rap song*

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!

You just won the internet. :D

Post
#513387
Topic
When Remakes are a Bad Idea
Time

A few details I liked about the later 12 Angry Men, just as examples:

-The raving bigot, in the new version, isn't as intimidated by the others' rejection, and eventually changes his vote just to get it over with.
In the old, he starts begging and stuttering, and then proceeds to sit in a chair, shocked. Seems rather impressed by the following arguments, too.

There's much less satisfaction and payoff in the new version - it's not some old bitter man who got put in his place and will probably go home to rethink his life; it's a loud-mouthed (apparently religious) dude in his prime, and from the looks of it, he'll remain a bigot for a long time after that.


-Before the final testimony is deconstructed (the one with the glasses), the new version also has Jack Lemmon looking all intimidated and uncertain when challenged to rebut this testimony, until the old dude comes up with the glasses argument.
This is just to further stress that the weakness of the main character, and the fact that he, indeed, also tried to pull over the jury with some unfinished ideas, hoping to reach a consensus.



So there, just a few details, but totally worth it.

I realize it's all based on a play, but hey, let me ask you:
What difference does it make (I'm now going all "Juror with grudge at his son" here ;) - if the play already got adapted into the movie, is it really any more justified to yet do ANOTHER adaptation, also in a movie, than doing a remake of a movie that wasn't based on a play?

The characters and dialogue are very similar, it might as well have been a remake.



On a side note, they're gonna make another version with George Cloomy and... Sacha Baron Cohen!! God, am I dying to see that :DDD

Post
#513373
Topic
When Remakes are a Bad Idea
Time

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

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.

I still don't get why this categorical "theory" about the "fundamental wrongness" of redoing something. 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?

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?



Regarding King Kong, well, what did Jackson's contribute?
An expressive King Kong (as opposed to that cheesy smiling retard puppet), and lots of kick-ass horror scenes like the nasty natives, the penis polyps,  the dinosaurs, and a badass manly captain who wasn't also misogynistic.

Not sure how to evaluate the movie as a whole, but it sure brought lots of kickass stuff to the table.


Regarding your question which movies could possibly "benefit" from a remake, well.
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.

Not to get all too lost in examples... hmm... could imagine a Matrix remake somewhere down the line.
There's lots of stuff in those movies that kinda takes away from the experience it might've been, like boring real wold scenes, nerdy and comicbook-like elements, some unintentional goofiness, some character disconnection, and all the storytelling mess that gets more and more obvious as we progress into the sequels.
All of which made it look less whole, and less seamless, then it could've been as a "finished product that, there, was already WRITEN".

Obviously, it would have to be DAMN GOOD.




12 Angry Men with Jack Lemmon and James Gandolfini was way cool (although I don't remember the original that well). Awesome characters, a black bigot. It was good.

Post
#513315
Topic
Off topic
Time

I'd support that suggestion.

There's a thread there right now, called "Politics", with 250 pages or something - is anyone ever going to read what was on page 147 in order to get some kind of idea, fact or inspiration from it?

Wouldn't it better to have a "srs" section where everyone could discuss "important" world issues neatly categorized in different threads, without the whole thing becoming a huge mixed pot mess?


So here's the possible categories:
-OT.com - threads commenting on the site and community themselves, like the meme or LOL moments threads. There may be not too many of them, but they'd be easy to find.
-"SRS FRM" for politics, religion, medicine, society, science etc.
-if that's too messed up, make a "samrtass section" for all the nerdy sciency stuff or various professions and areas of knowledge, i.e. "stuff no one cares about" - probably not necessary.

-Movies and TV shows (possibly also including the internet, books, other forms of fiction / entertainment /art; sub-divide or not at will)
-Music (see above)
-Sports (could serve as a separate category, if there's demand for that).


Just saying, would make threads easier to find and all.