twooffour

Ah, hehe, thanks, that clears it up a bit :)

Um, ok, I still can't wrap my mind around what it is exactly that you detest, because, frankly, you're all over the place.

Let's break it down:
A story being retold in a different medium vs. in the same medium.
A story being completely identical to the original vs. somewhat modified vs. radically changed.

Those are completely different, and interchangeable factors. So which is it now?

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?


My WTH reaction wasn't to your idea, but to the fact that you brought it up in this context.
So again, would it make things better if Jackson had released a movie trilogy based on your suggest outline? Would it be any "better" than the same released as a book?



"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.

As for Charlie, I haven't seen either movie completely, but the original Willy "you get nothing" Wonka was obviously way better than Depp's, so that might be a factor.
Not sure how much I've seen of the original Apes, but what I remember from the new one was the absurd ending, and the lame main actress.


Seriously, in case you haven't already, you might want to watch some of Nostalgia Critic's "Old vs. New", where he compares originals with remakes (or different adaptations).
Most of the time, one of them scores with the better villain, while the other has better supporting characters or the better flow, so it's always kinda hard to tell.

Obviously, it's all just his opinion, but being so radically against remakes, you might wanna watch that stuff :)

Gaffer Tape said:

See, I disagree because Return of the Jedi ISN'T about Vader, again, despite what Lucas would have you think.  It's about Luke and his internal struggles.  His desire to bring his father back to the good side.  Because of that, it's what we know about Luke that's important.  We don't really need to know about Vader or the Emperor beyond what we get in ROTJ to understand their relationship, and, more importantly, Luke's relationship to both of them.  In earlier drafts, Lucas did have more backstory and more scenes with Vader and the Emperor, but those were ultimately jettisoned because it needed to be more about Luke, and because those scenes tore down Vader as a villain and made him too sympathetic.  If we know too much about Vader, and he's made sympathetic, then whether or not he will become good becomes a non-issue.  Luke doesn't know for sure; therefore, we don't need to know until the moment that he does.

I'd add that the OT already adds too much confusion as it is.

In ROTJ, it appears as though the Emperor has Vader completely enslaved and on his knees with a dead spirit.
"You have no idea how strong the dark side is; I must, must obey my master" sounds either like he'd be horribly tortured if he stepped out of line, or as though he had no will of his own, basically being "compelled" and "addicted" to obeying the Emperor no matter what.
Or maybe the Emperor would threaten to use some Force thing to draw all emotion out of Vader and cast him into wailing and despair?

Vader's "awakening" at the end seems so much more significant, and brave, in that context.

However, not long ago, in the previous movie, Vader was all talking big about overtaking the Emperor with Luke's help.
So there, he takes out the Emperor, why is he now suddenly good?



Then comes ROTS, and what we're basically told, is that Anakin simply sticks to Palpatine, because he thinks this is the right way to go for the galaxy, or because, well, he's done a lot of crap and now he's just stuck with him. Maybe grows more cynical over time.
Maybe needs someone to fill the void left by Padme, har har har.

Or maybe he feels gratitude for Palpy for restoring his limbs, and/or at least trying to help him with Padme's death?
So after all those years of badassery, he's still completely duped?

So that's just the final nail in the coffin.

Darth Bizarro said:

I should probably mention as well that when we got to Ep IV, she really liked that the special effects were less in your face and flashy.  So it is true that she went into the originals expecting more flash but she was happy to not have it.  

I agree with you guys 100% that she might have enjoyed ANH more if we started there, but even still, I'm quite happy with the level of preference she had for the originals overall even having seen the prequels first.  To me it proves that the originals can and will still endure even with the prequels clouding people's judgement.

While watching the prequels, she never batted an eye at Yoda.  He was CG and she knew he was CG.  But when we got to Empire and Yoda started doing stuff CG free, she actually asked me how they did that.  To me, that's success. 

But... but... the CHARACTERS??? :D

Seriously, this is what's been intruiguing me the most all this time (in so far as it intrigues me at all, that is):
when we look at EpIII, and EpIV, we see a very sharp contrast between characters that are dull and boring, woodenly acted and hard to relate to, and characters that are lively, charming, sympathetic and memorable.

Has she not given any attention to that at all, or... couldn't have perceived it the other way round, really, now could she? :)

Gaffer Tape said:

Yeah, see, for me it has less to do with spoilers in the 'OMG SPOILERS!' sense, but more just in a narrative build sense.  Sequels are always attempting to build on what came before it.  Even if it's not even necessarily intended to, it's impossible not to.  So, quality aside, each Star Wars movie is building, in scope, in spectacle, in new content, upon what came before it.  So the prequels are always going to be made with the original films in mind, but not the other way around.  The PT always refers back to the OT because, even though it chronologically comes before it, it was made afterwards.  The PT was made to be watched after the OT, and George can whine and stamp his foot about it all he wants, but that's exactly the way he made them.  He made absolutely no attempt to make them work in numerical order (although, as I said, that would be practically impossible even if he had tried) and every attempt to make them nod vigorously at the OT.  Really, you're putting both trilogies at a disservice to watch them in that order because you're taking away from both of them what makes them tick:  for the OT, the freshness of brand-new ideas, and for the PT, the context it's constantly making references to.  Again, that's just the nature of the sequel business, and why would you watch three sequels before the original film?

Certainly; spoilers are probably just the worst example of what can happen if you already know ahead.

Maybe it's just how my mind works, but I can happily "blend out" something that happens in a sequel, or prequel, or later in the movie, for the sake of the moment. But blending out something you know about an upcoming surprise, well - it works to 5% maybe.

So I guess if I'd watch it in chronological order, I'd still be able to absorb ANH and all that from the context of its own narrative, without giving the prequels much thought.
I mean, it's pretty obvious from the movie that it was created as a stand-alone, so that makes it easier.

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

Works for me. Although I'll also use https next time, so no one gets a virus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

Sorry, can't view the clip from my country.

(Know how to search for clips on proxy sites, but not how to paste links.)
I'm sure it was hilarious, though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH2-TGUlwu4

Ah, hehe, know that one :D

Mrebo said:

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.

Um, classical compositions ARE meant to be a "final work", and not "meant" to be rewritten.
Maybe in the Baroque period, to a limited extent, but not in the example above.

As for Friday, I think we can both heartily agree that she didn't mean for all those... "covers" on Youtube, either, when creating this song :D

Mrebo said:

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?

Ah, well then, I just hear "disrespectful" in arguments about adaptations, remakes etc. way too often :)

As for your argument, maybe you should specify what exactly you're talking about?
Psycho was a frame-to-frame remake, that somehow managed to look very cheap and lame (those stupid CLOUDS).
Some genuine movie remakes that come to my mind right now, like Karate Kid or True Grit (although I only know them from TGWTG, as of now) basically tell the same story, but just tweak around the characters somewhat (like making the evil trainer less OTT, or the girl more detached and evil.
King Kong had a different love interest, but the basic story was more or less the same.

But what YOU are suggesting, is a complete revamp of the original story.
Frodo is now "completely unlikeable", Gandalf kills Pippin... what the hell?

So what's your beef now, with the copying, or the radical changing under the same title?
I just don't get it. For what it matters, I don't think those changes you brought up would be any worse in a book, than in a movie. Jackson's "changes" (like Frodo repudiating Sam because of something Gollum said) were already offensive enough, and the fact that it was a different movie didn't really help it.
All the viewer could do, is just forgetting about the books and considering the movies as a separate reality, which can be done for your book version, too.

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

Works for me. Although I'll also use https next time, so no one gets a virus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

Sorry, can't view the clip from my country.

(Know how to search for clips on proxy sites, but not how to paste links.)
I'm sure it was hilarious, though.

Ah, heh, thanks :)

Also don't see any of those mass quotations anywhere in the next pages, guess that must've been some other thread or something... memory can be deceiving! :D
Gee, I'm confused.


PS: For what it's worth, I do think that this picture fits the caption much better than the "real one" (which had Luke facing a corridor). :)

Works for me. Although I'll also use https next time, so no one gets a virus.

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...

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

I'd be disappointed in ANH too if I was expecting a sequel to ROTS.

You wouldn't find the refreshing and lively characters, and straight-down-the-line plot to be a positive surprise?

You might be "disappointed" in it in terms of the decreased "scope" and the corny choreography, but come on...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg

TV's Frink said:

OT.com meme: luke sad pic/I care/WRONG PICTURE

I believe xhonzi started this one, just saying "I care" in response to someone posting "no one cares" or "who cares."  I couldn't find the relevant picture so I just used the one of sad Luke being consoled by Leia after Ben died, which led to a brief "WRONG PICTURE" debate IIRC.

Ah, that would've been me :D

I think it was in a thread about protecting the users' kids from the prequels, something with xhonzi castrating an action figure of Yoda - although I don't remember how it was called right now.
Or it might've been a parallel thread from the same time period...

I also remember how everyone started quoting "WRONG PICTURE!!" immediately after, so yea, that's probably the origin :)

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

Um, seriously, no.

...

This sentiment is completely arbitrary, and it holds no water.

...

So no, dismissed.

I don't know why you don't just make this your default post.  It sums you up perfectly.

Maybe because I wrote it specifically for this thread, and not everything I reply to has something to do with an "arbitrary sentiment"?

And more importantly, what does this have to do with how right or wrong my response was, in relation to the OP?

Well yea, pretty much my thoughts, as well :)

One can "like" a seriously "flawed" product for, I think, two very basic reasons:
-the flaws have some sort of appeal in themselves
-you don't give a crap about the aspects that are flawed, at the moment.

Like, recently, I watched Dark City, and I just couldn't be bothered to follow the plot line closely (couldn't understand some of the dialogue), nor did I feel a particular connection to the characters (the whole "stoic" "noir" atmosphere might be at fault - everyone's talking as if they're stoned).
So the only thing that kinda disturbed me were the sometimes narmy aliens and Sutherland's speech pauses, but I enjoyed it very much for its setting, its mysterious setting, and the imagery.

Did the protagonist have a very good arc? I don't even remember, but it was a hell of a payoff.


So if someone watches the prequels, and just doesn't give a crap (like, by going to the toilet while Ani and Ami beat around the bush), then hey, who cares.

I just think it's wrong to say that they could be considered good movies if you only thought away the OT, for the reasons stated - but yea, at the end of the day, if the flaws don't go over the head, then you're pretty safe. ;)

Um, seriously, no.

This sentiment is completely arbitrary, and it holds no water.
What is a musical arrangement? A remake of a musical piece... into another musical piece.

I don't need my Hamelin Campanella rearrangement as some film score to a SpongeBob cartoon for it to be valid, or pass for "respectful", thank you very much.


Remakes can be done in different ways, you can attempt to copy it shot for shot (which, I think, went horribly wrong with Psycho, even though I've only seen bits of the remake), or, you can take the plot and ideas, and remake as something new.
Put it in another setting (like, maybe one more suited for the modern day, or something else), tweak around the details, and essentially make a movie that "could've turned out, had they made different decisions". And that form of "imitation" has all the justification you need.


So no, dismissed.
This thread would make more sense as a "good remakes vs. bad remakes", to which I'd reply, I don't vividly remember any original / remake right now :D

Darth Bizarro said:

Many of you are suggesting that it is a bad idea to show her the prequels first because it ruins the experience of the originals.  But how can any of you really say that for certain.  Most people here saw the originals first and then the prequels so I ask, what frame of reference do you have that showing them the other way ruins the originals.  Everyone is going to have their own opinion.  And dare I say, part of the reason why we consider the prequels to be so bad is because our standards for what makes a good Star Wars film have been set so high by the original trilogy, especially Empire, that it is impossible for the prequels to live up to our standards.  Remove that sentiment and the prequels not only become less offensive, but dare I say it, good.  Some people do like them and it's not fair to call all those people stupid just because they like something you don't.  And even through it all, she picked 2 of the 3 original movies as her favorites, gagged at all the right stuff in Episode 2, and picked Episode 3 as the best of the prequels and a good film, a sentiment that even many people here share.  

The only reason why showing the prequels first would be a "bad idea", is, as I think Gaffer Tape put it, because of the SPOILERS.

It's not a definite reason against it (a movie with a twist can still be enjoyed knowing the twist ahead, if it's a good movie), but the WOW effect is still a memorable experience you don't NEED to take away from the viewer, so I dunno.
I think I liked the 6th Sense quite enough, but I don't know how much more impressed I'd been, had I not known ahead.
On the other hand, I remember being blown away by the reveal in "Identity" (it's all in the mind of a crazy fat guy; don't read the previous sentence if you don't want your WOW effect completely and hopelessly ruined - it's not like you can just erase a spoiler from your memory!), which was pretty awesome.


Now, all the "cool" spoilers in the OT are already common knowledge, but the portrayal of its characters in the PT may negatively affect the first viewing of the OT.
Then again, I do think it's very possible to take Ben, and Darth, for what they are in their respective movies, without thinking too much about asshole Obi-Wan and emo Ani.



So I'd say it doesn't really matter :D


"Remove that sentiment and the prequels not only become less offensive, but dare I say it, good."
Not really, no. You can't get over its most basic, and glaring flaws, like the predominantly dull characters and delivery, the shitty exposition, the confusing plot structure and, more than anything, character motivation, and some of its "annoying humor".

Not that anyone who likes them is stupid, but it's very possible to like them out of stupidity.

ray_afraid said:

twooffour said:

Fine, then, you just didn't bother to mention it - it just appeared as though you hadn't read it.
Just a tip for the retroactive future, if you'd said "I don't find any of that amusing, or entertaining, it's fucking lame", there wouldn't have been a misunderstanding :p


Then again, this new post gives me another reason to suspect the same.

You've just listed all the reasons why this scene doesn't work in the movie, which I'VE ACKNOWLEDGED IN MY ORIGINAL POST.
Yes, all the redundancy, the way it may not fit in with the rest, the problems with Jabba's character (and size), and obviously, the still fake-looking CGI - I've already acknowledged all that, so no need to tell me again.

All I said was why I kinda liked this scene DESPITE all of these problems (while still saying that it should've been left out of the finished movie).


Then, you bother to point me to the fact that you pointed out the flaws in that scene as if I hadn't noticed, while completely ignoring... MY RESPONSE TO ONE OF THOSE CRITICISMS.

But hey, you know... I'm not going there now. Not again.

... maybe it's best if you change the topic now :D

I don't find any of that amusing, or entertaining, it's fucking lame.

Retcon. Doesn't count.

Fine, then, you just didn't bother to mention it - it just appeared as though you hadn't read it.
Just a tip for the retroactive future, if you'd said "I don't find any of that amusing, or entertaining, it's fucking lame", there wouldn't have been a misunderstanding :p


Then again, this new post gives me another reason to suspect the same.

You've just listed all the reasons why this scene doesn't work in the movie, which I'VE ACKNOWLEDGED IN MY ORIGINAL POST.
Yes, all the redundancy, the way it may not fit in with the rest, the problems with Jabba's character (and size), and obviously, the still fake-looking CGI - I've already acknowledged all that, so no need to tell me again.

All I said was why I kinda liked this scene DESPITE all of these problems (while still saying that it should've been left out of the finished movie).


Then, you bother to point me to the fact that you've criticized out the flaws in that scene (as opposed to just saying "it sux"), while completely ignoring... MY RESPONSE TO ONE OF THOSE CRITICISMS.

I've also never accused you of turning a blind eye on the scene's flaws, merely (my ramblings about its supposed) its strengths ;)

But hey, you know... I'm not going there now. Not again.

... maybe it's best if you change the topic now :D

Bruce Spence was way cool, too :)

xhonzi said:

Again, I have a post and I'm not sure what thread to put it in.  So it goes here:

I have to take back my previous statements on BTTF3.  My son and I watched it this weekend.  And it was great.  Lives up to the legacy.

However, I do think it was "one trip to the well too many" for several of the "gags".  The "Marty wakes up next to Leah and thinks it was all a dream" bit and so forth...

I know it's not meant to be "realistic" but rather "charming"...  Do you find that those scenes are charming?  Or just ridiculous?

Back to the Future is all about "ironic echoes", so I'd have to say all those self-referential moments are a plus, not a minus.

I mean, they laid it down way too thick, with Biff at the bar, the Sheriff being the school director's granddad, and so on... I found all of those pretty damn hilarious.

Things that speak against it, would be:
1) I could've done without Doc's love story.
2) Maybe too little wacky time travel stuff, even though the ironic echoing kinda makes up for that.
3) The creepy kid at the locomotive.



Speaking of "ironic echoes", I've just watched "Paul", and thought that it was a much weaker and less funny movie than "Shaun" and "Fuzz".
Even though these are technically just "spiritual" successors, I thought I'd cite it here :)

TV's Frink said:

TV's Frink said:

Dear Moth3r,

If I were to kick twooffour in his pretentious e-nuts, would that be considered a personal attack?

Thanks,
TVF

Dear Moth3r,

Still waiting for your reply.  If it helps, I will try to include some type of on-topic response in said e-nut kicking.

Warmest Regards,
Television's Frink

He probably still doesn't like me for demolishing his laughable posts comparing TPM to MiB, and calling him a "dunce" on that same thread (that was then), so he'll probably say no.

Having that said, if you actually COULD kick me in my e-nuts, you would've long done that instead of beating around the bush after quitting reading after the first few lines.

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

Nice fail!  And I'm not even going to bother explaining why, although you will be the only one here who doesn't understand why.

Actually, I can imagine a good number of reasons "why", and none of them hold water.


;)