TopBilled

Remake vs. original / Remake vs. another remake

81 posts in this topic

12 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Well your 'edit' kind of answers your 'why anyone would even bother' question;   A producer believes another set of actors (as well as director, editor,  etc...) can creates something 'different' to make the effort worthwhile.

But overall I agree; there isn't much of a reason for a new adaptation if 'all they plan to do is re-shoot the same scenes....'.

But, ain't that what they do with SHAKESPEARE ?

I mean, for how many centuries now have actors, actresses and all acting troupes done HAMLET the way it's ALWAYS been done?  And who am I, or ANY of us here to say that with a different cast of actors and actresses, and a different method of cinematography that an even BETTER version of CASABLANCA or CITIZEN KANE can't be made?  

And BTW and IMHO...  I liked Spencer's Hyde MUCH better than March's underfed primate whatever that was. Looked more like a HALLOWEEN costume than an ALTER EGO.  :rolleyes:

Sepiatone

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

But, ain't that what they do with SHAKESPEARE ?

I mean, for how many centuries now have actors, actresses and all acting troupes done HAMLET the way it's ALWAYS been done?  And who am I, or ANY of us here to say that with a different cast of actors and actresses, and a different method of cinematography that an even BETTER version of CASABLANCA or CITIZEN KANE can't be made?  

And BTW and IMHO...  I liked Spencer's Hyde MUCH better than March's underfed primate whatever that was. Looked more like a HALLOWEEN costume than an ALTER EGO.  :rolleyes:

Sepiatone

I agree that the concept of a 'remake'  (new adaptation) of a film based on a play is much different then a 'remake' of a film that was based on a book;  e.g. typically there is a lot less original source material with a play then there is with a book.  

As you say: with a play the main difference between one 'version' and another are the actors.

But the new-screenplay concept can still apply to a play-adaptation;  e.g.  the screenwriter can delete a character,  enhance the role of a character,  remove scenes,  change the location of a scene (e.g. make a scene in the outdoors\on location instead of a static indoor scene)  etc...

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what do we call it when a new film attempts to revise history and "remake" an earlier story...but not tell it from the exact same point of view...?

African American actor-director Nate Parker says he reclaimed and repurposed THE BIRTH OF A NATION. His 2016 version stands in opposition to D.W. Griffith's 1915 version.

the_birth_of_a_nation_2016_film.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

So what do we call it when a new film attempts to revise history and "remake" an earlier story...but not tell it from the exact same point of view...?

African American actor-director Nate Parker says he reclaimed and repurposed THE BIRTH OF A NATION. His 2016 version stands in opposition to D.W. Griffith's 1915 version.

He "re-purposed" the title only. The story was completely different, set in a different time period (1831, rather than post-Civil War Reconstruction), and covered different, real-life events (the Nat Turner slave rebellion). So no, I wouldn't include it in a discussion of remakes, as it was never meant to be one. I'm also not sure what you mean by "revise history". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

So what do we call it when a new film attempts to revise history and "remake" an earlier story...but not tell it from the exact same point of view...?

African American actor-director Nate Parker says he reclaimed and repurposed THE BIRTH OF A NATION. His 2016 version stands in opposition to D.W. Griffith's 1915 version.

the_birth_of_a_nation_2016_film.jpeg

"The Rebirth of a Nation" from 2007 uses footage of the original giving it a whole new soundtrack and some added effects. The commentary is about the original film and the history of racism in the nation.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1223143/

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

He "re-purposed" the title only. The story was completely different, set in a different time period (1831, rather than post-Civil War Reconstruction), and covered different, real-life events (the Nat Turner slave rebellion). So no, I wouldn't include it in a discussion of remakes, as it was never meant to be one. I'm also not sure what you mean by "revise history". 

Thanks for clarifying. I haven't seen the 2016 movie yet. 

By revising history, I meant how marginalized or minority groups seek to tell their own stories. Revising what a dominant (white) culture had previously recorded their history to be in books, music, films and other works of art.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

"The Rebirth of a Nation" from 2007 uses footage of the original giving it a whole new soundtrack and some added effects. The commentary is about the original film and the history of racism in the nation.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1223143/

Very interesting.

So would you say the 2007 version is an audio remake? An audio remake of a silent film? That sounds funny.

The images are still the same. D.J. Spooky doesn't seem to have done anything to alter the scenes, he is just commenting on them. Of course, he is only using the core of the film, about 100 minutes of it. Griffith's original was almost twice as long, 193 minutes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm embarrassed to admit that I didn't realize PSYCHO had been re-made and I'm a real movie fan. I guess I tend to agree that most re-makes are not as good as the original. However, a few are quite good. For instance the new technology used in movies like KING KONG, GODZILLA and The MUMMY worked well. On the other hand I think the remake of THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL wasn't as good as the original special effects aside. I also agree that CASABLANCA and CITIZEN KANE are untouchable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hoganman1 said:

I'm embarrassed to admit that I didn't realize PSYCHO had been re-made and I'm a real movie fan. I guess I tend to agree that most re-makes are not as good as the original. However, a few are quite good. For instance the new technology used in movies like KING KONG, GODZILLA and The MUMMY worked well. On the other hand I think the remake of THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL wasn't as good as the original special effects aside. I also agree that CASABLANCA and CITIZEN KANE are untouchable.

screen-shot-2019-04-02-at-12.35.54-pm.jp

I'm probably one of the few who likes Gus Van Sant's remake of PSYCHO. He is definitely doing a shot-for-shot remake, but there are some extra touches. Like in the scene where Norman (Vince Vaughn) is peeping through the hole in the wall as Marion (Anne Heche) gets undressed, he is obviously pleasuring himself which occurs just below the screen.

screen-shot-2019-04-02-at-12.34.25-pm.jp

I think Julianne Moore is a vast improvement over Vera Miles as the sister. William H. Macy is also quite good as the detective.

The death scene is more memorable. Or rather, I should say the end of the death scene. After Marion's fatally stabbed and she pulls the shower curtain down, we see Anne Heche nude as she falls forward and dies. A lot more realistic and shocking than what was implied in the original. Sometimes we do have to see it all, especially in a horror film where the death is meant to be graphic. The death in Hitchcock's version is a little too glamorous and coy. But in Van Sant's version, it's disgusting and ugly...exactly what it should be given these circumstances.

Similarly, the mummified corpse of Norman's mother is much more graphic. And the story is better for it. PSYCHO needed a "freer" post-production code version, in order to depict the unseemly aspects of the story. The weakest part of the remake, in my opinion, is Vince Vaughn. He doesn't come anywhere close to Perkins. I can think of other actors in the late 90s who would have been better as Norman. I would have chosen Johnny Depp to play our troubled motel manager.

screen-shot-2019-04-02-at-12.34.41-pm.jp

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know The Day The Earth Stood Still has a remake. Gee, I should know that. I do favor movies not made with a Mac.

I could see a remake of Best Little W/House In Texas with Cooper and Gaga. 9 to 5 and On Golden Pond too. Jane could take part in both of those.

Someone needs to gamble with a remake that starts in B/W then goes color to signify the change from old to new. Maybe even sneak in the original film. Look how well it worked for Dorothy. I cannot think of any other film to do that. Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care much for remakes. I like the 1935 version of Magnificent Obsession than the 1954. Also Imitation of Life in 1934 was much better than the 1959 version.  I know there were remakes for my favorite films It Started with Eve (1941) and The Major and the Minor (1942) in the 1950's but I probably won't like watching them.

tumblr-nz44mjc-GMU1qe4ru4o2-250.gif

It Started with Eve (love this film!)

Also The More the Merrier (1943) was better than Walk, Don't Run (1966)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TopBilled said:

screen-shot-2019-04-02-at-12.35.54-pm.jp

I'm probably one of the few who likes Gus Van Sant's remake of PSYCHO. He is definitely doing a shot-for-shot remake, but there are some extra touches. Like in the scene where Norman (Vince Vaughn) is peeping through the hole in the wall as Marion (Anne Heche) gets undressed, he is obviously pleasuring himself which occurs just below the screen.

Prompting Roger Ebert to point out that "the only new thing director Van Sant added to his version was, appropriately enough, a m**********n scene".   :D

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

I mean, for how many centuries now have actors, actresses and all acting troupes done HAMLET the way it's ALWAYS been done?  And who am I, or ANY of us here to say that with a different cast of actors and actresses, and a different method of cinematography that an even BETTER version of CASABLANCA or CITIZEN KANE can't be made?  

That's actually a really good point. Putting film "masterpieces" on a pedestal and declaring them sacred does seem kind of harsh, if not counterintuitive (this isn't a word, seriously?) to the artistic process... considering that, before the convenience of recorded media, anytime anyone wanted to see/hear a particular piece again it had to be performed all over again. Recordings have sort of changed our perception of where the "soul" of some artwork is, (it now seeming to be more with the performer than the composer.)

That reminded me...a while ago I found a made-for-TV remake of The Night of the Hunter on YT, starring Richard Chamberlain. Of course this sounded so wrong that I had to see it. I decided to first look up some reviews and take in some outrage. There was a lot of it, too, pointing out what a terribly inept remake it was, and how dare they even try to make it, and it should be vanquished from the face of the planet, and all that jazz. Like, there was so much reverence held for the original film that it had caused the fans to want to shelter it from slander...

But obviously whoever decides to try something like this probably loves the original a great deal, and if they want to desecrate the grave of a beloved masterpiece just for the sheer pleasure of shouting that love from the rooftops... well, that's their artistic license, (how is that so different from that Hugo (2011) fiasco?) Heck, they may even feel like it's a duty to keep something they love alive, even if their efforts blow, just to keep it from mummifying on that sterile altar.

So anyway, yeah, the TV remake of TNoTH was pretty bad, tho I found it amusing in spots. It was modernized, and shortened a great deal, including the removal of the Lillian Gish character altogether, (it never even made it to titular NIGHT.) Richard Chamberlain seemed to being enjoying himself, so maybe he felt it was worth it just for the joy of taking a stab at that classic character. I bet a lot of actors would love to try that one. It's a great part, after all, why shouldn't it become a oft-performed classic in the traditional fashion? Blah, blah, blah, blah.... boy, look at me go.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Kay said:

But obviously whoever decides to try something like this probably loves the original a great deal, and if they want to desecrate the grave of a beloved masterpiece just for the sheer pleasure of shouting that love from the rooftops... well, that's their artistic license, (how is that so different from that Hugo (2011) fiasco?) Heck, they may even feel like it's a duty to keep something they love alive, even if their efforts blow, just to keep it from mummifying on that sterile altar.

Er...who-whaa??  😮

Only "fiasco" I remembered from Hugo was bad marketing that convinced everyone that Martin Scorsese had somehow turned "traitor" to the Mob and was making, quote, "Kiddy" films just like Spielberg and Robert Zemeckis were (so much Zemeckis-hate, combined with Spielberg's "Tintin", had adults literally thinking Scorsese's movie was a "CGI kiddy film"), Oscar voters stayed away, and everyone praised The Artist as "the only [sic] film to pay tribute to the days of silent Hollywood movie-magic".

Other than that....NO clue what you're talking about.  Unless you're suggesting Scorsese made the movie up himself, and not from an award-winning book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EricJ said:

Er...who-whaa??  😮

Heheh. I had a feeling I'd be answering for that remark.

It being a "fiasco" is strictly an opinion... and maybe the major folly lies on whoever authored the book you speak of, if he was the one who thought that old movies would be a sufficiently whimsical basis for a magical adventure-fantasy type movie, complete with plucky British youngsters. I found the recipe singularly irksome. It may not be a bad remake, but, much like a bad remake, it uses the allure of better movies as a gimmick for injecting false intrigue into something empty. In the case of Hugo, it's an overbearing, schmaltzy bore that jumps feet-first into every most insipid cliche the classic film retrospective..... and it just wasn't my thing. So... you used the word "tribute," whereas I chose "desecrate," but other than that the sentiment is basically the same, (but hey, I was giving the Scorsese the benefit of the doubt just then, conceding it was a labor of love and not necessarily intended to cause harm.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Kay said:

That's actually a really good point. Putting film "masterpieces" on a pedestal and declaring them sacred does seem kind of harsh, if not counterintuitive (this isn't a word, seriously?) 

Actually, and probably to "Otto's" chagrin, it IS  ;)

coun·ter·in·tu·i·tive

/ˌkoun(t)ərinˈt(y)o͞oədiv/

adjective

  • 1.contrary to intuition or to common-sense expectation (but often nevertheless true):
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I agree that the concept of a 'remake'  (new adaptation) of a film based on a play is much different then a 'remake' of a film that was based on a book;  e.g. typically there is a lot less original source material with a play then there is with a book.  

As you say: with a play the main difference between one 'version' and another are the actors.

But the new-screenplay concept can still apply to a play-adaptation;  e.g.  the screenwriter can delete a character,  enhance the role of a character,  remove scenes,  change the location of a scene (e.g. make a scene in the outdoors\on location instead of a static indoor scene)  etc...

 

 

Yeah, but you DO realize that it's THEN when the remakes often start falling short.  Wouldn't work well in most plays either. (or musicals too)

I don't suppose many theater goers would accept ELWOOD P. DOWD talking to an imaginary 7 foot squirrel, do ya? 

Or HAROLD HILL marching through River city singing about "72 CLARINETS"?   Or( in a "modernization" attempt)....

"That's trouble with a "T", which rhymes with "C" and that stands for CRACK!"  ;)

Sepiatone

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

Actually, and probably to "Otto's" chagrin, it IS  ;)

Ah, yeah, I knew it was. My spell-checker just keeps underlining words I use, indicating I'm either making them up or using them improperly, both of which I've been repeatedly guilty of. Limited vocabulary skills have often forced me to "repurpose*" existing words to fit my own meanings. Thought this might be one of those times... I sorta took the whole Humpty Dumpty philosophy to heart,

"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

(*now I'm told "repurpose" isn't a word.)

Who is Otto?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kay said:

Who is Otto?

Otto = auto censor.

Otto Censor is the stern Germanic fellow who judges every post made and deletes/replaces them as he wishes.

angry-old-man.jpg

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2019 at 6:53 PM, LawrenceA said:

I just saw this list and thought I'd include it in this thread. It's from Rotten Tomatoes. It's their list of the 24 worst remakes, based on their "Tomato-Meter", which is tabulated via an averaging of critical appraisals. The "worst" were determined by the greatest discrepancy between the rating of the remake as compared to the original, or best known, films. Like all lists, they're subjective and don't really mean anything beyond entertainment.

  1. Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)
  2. The Invasion (2007) - remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
  3. Get Carter (2000)
  4. The Women (2008)
  5. The Mummy (2017)
  6. Godzilla (1998)
  7. The Wicker Man (2006)
  8. The Stepfather (2009)
  9. The Jackal (1997) - remake of Day of the Jackal (1973)
  10. The Haunting (1999)
  11. House of Wax (2005)
  12. Down to Earth (2001)
  13. Halloween (2007)
  14. The Pink Panther (2006)
  15. Day of the Dead (2008)
  16. The Fog (2005)
  17. Mr. Deeds (2002)
  18. Arthur (2011)
  19. Swept Away (2002)
  20. Rollerball (2002)
  21. Pulse (2006)
  22. The Heartbreak Kid (2007)
  23. Ben-Hur (2016)
  24. Psycho (1998)

 

At least by using the discrepancy in the scores as a guide, they do add at least a little bit of objectivity to the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few points: I remember when (I think it was) Gene Siskel would comment that "they should remake the bad movies, the flops. In an effort to make them the good movies they were meant to be in the first place." No one would complain about that. People would actually welcome that.

I like when a remake is made to use a new technology. But, also to either make a story closer to the book (or other medium), its adapted from. Or to add a twist to it.

All three films:

MV5BMTczMzQ5ODU0M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTc3The_Breaking_Point_1950_movie_poster.jpgGun_Runners_poster.jpg

 

were adapted from the same Hemingway novel yet, they are different films. No one attempted to recreate Bogey/Bacall, that would be foolish. But, there was enough story there to make different movies. They didn't ride on the popularity of the first film, they changed the name. No "reboot". Just make a quality movie.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun_Runners_poster.jpg

AH! So it was AUDIE who introduced George Hamilton to those tanning salons back in the day, EH?!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe some of the bad movies should be re-made as Siskel suggested. I would rather see some of the older movies again with new stars than some of these comic book films. I always thought that TOMBSTONE was basically a re-make of THE GUNFIGHT AT THE OK CORRAL. In my opinion, it was much better. While GUNFIGHT featured two really big stars and a great Frankie Lane song, it doesn't hold a candle to TOMBSTONE.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Hoganman1 said:

Maybe some of the bad movies should be re-made as Siskel suggested. I would rather see some of the older movies again with new stars than some of these comic book films. I always thought that TOMBSTONE was basically a re-make of THE GUNFIGHT AT THE OK CORRAL. In my opinion, it was much better. While GUNFIGHT featured two really big stars and a great Frankie Lane song, it doesn't hold a candle to TOMBSTONE.

Yes, some "do overs" are vast improvements over the originals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2019 at 2:13 PM, TopBilled said:

screen-shot-2019-04-01-at-11.11.29-am.pn

 

Anyone a fan of the second version of PSYCHO, from 1998?

I remember seeing this one in the theaters.

screen-shot-2019-04-01-at-11.09.55-am.pn

 

I am, but maybe not for the most favorable reason which would be a compliment to it.

It's like, when you study the Mona Lisa, you also find it instructive and valuable to see every other version of the painting, some done as studies, some done in Leonardo's own studio possibly, as seeing what might pass as exact copies, educates the eye and one finds instructive.

But also in reality, if Hitch's version never existed, I would not be dismayed to recommend the second version as it is at least a true attempted reconstruction of the first. Great topic, TB!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us