Im4movies2

Remakes of Musicals in general

114 posts in this topic

Do people ever seek out the original if it was a silent film? In some cases people probably don't care about the original and are happy to have "their" newer version.

 

I'm glad you mentioned silent films.    Often we find that haters of remakes (they would say they are the protectors of the original),   view the talking picture as the 'original' even when there has been a silent version.   We saw this at this forum when the 2016 version of Ben Hur was released.       I.e. attacking the 2016 version under the silly POV that it is 'messing with the original' 1959 version.  

 

In most cases I find that these remake haters lack knowledge of film making and the American studio-era.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say that I agree with James to the extent that a remake does no harm to the original, as long as the original is still available. In the much-vaunted studio era, it was common practice if a remake was planned to try and suppress any showings of the original versions, even to the point of destroying prints and negatives. That's no longer the case, so the previous versions will still be available even if a remake is made. A remake doesn't "insult" or "diminish" the original. 

 

The only musical remakes being made recently are the live TV versions, or the live-action Disney ones, like that recent Beauty and the Beast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I don't think that movie theatre proprietors would like more of these "lead balloons", because that would mean less money for them.  If a movie is really bad, people generally won't go.

 

How can people know if a movie is bad if they don't see it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say that I agree with James to the extent that a remake does no harm to the original, as long as the original is still available. In the much-vaunted studio era, it was common practice if a remake was planned to try and suppress any showings of the original versions, even to the point of destroying prints and negatives. That's no longer the case, so the previous versions will still be available even if a remake is made. A remake doesn't "insult" or "diminish" the original. 

 

The only musical remakes being made recently are the live TV versions, or the live-action Disney ones, like that recent Beauty and the Beast.

 

As you can see I'm now trying to approach the topic of film 'remakes' by questioning what is 'the original'.    I'm now viewing this from a jazz musician point of the view;   In most cases 'the original' is the source material.  So in music that is the actual sheet music and NOT any recordings of the song.

 

All jazz musicians understand this but rockers and I get into it especially now that the internet has made all the various forms of music (recording,  transcriptions) available at our fingertips.     Too many rockers will say 'that is NOT how it is played' or 'this song is in the key of F'.   Well  the sheet music is in the key of G but the most common recorded version,  was done in the key of F.  Which is 'the original'.   

 

So what rockers tend to mean is  'that is NOT the same way as the recording I know'.      A jazz musician just says 'oh, I see you changed those 4 bars to,,,,'.   Hey they may even say 'I don't think that works',   but that is 100% different than 'that I NOT how it is played'.

 

All of the above applies to movies with the exception being movies based 100% on a written for the screen outline and screenplay.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2017 at 7:12 PM, Adelsten said:

Remakes in general are a bad idea. However, the movies you should remake are the bad ones in the hopes of improving on them - not the timeless classics like Singin' In The Rain or The Sound of Music which will never be duplicated or even challenged in all their resplendent charm and glorious Technicolor or (in music's case) Color by DeLuxe.

Like most people I see you have a very narrow minded view of a 'remake'.  

In most cases there isn't even a concept of a 'remake'  (i.e. a new film that is based on a prior film).   Instead there is an adaptation;   a new film is made based on source material (book, play,  original story) that had been used before to make a prior film.    A creative group of movie makers can take this 'used' source material and make it their own.  

Movie goers tend to judge a so called 'remake' by comparing the various film adaptations.    Instead I recommend one judge a remake by how it communicates to the viewer what that original source material was trying to communicate.    

E.g. The 1941 version of the Maltese Falcon was the best adaptation of the book that I have seen,  clearly better at what the book was trying to get across than the other two previous attempts. 

 

    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kjrwe said:

The Sound of Music itself is a remake. There was already a film done about the Von Trapp family in the 1950s.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049876/

Thanks for pointing that out.    To me this isn't just a trivial point but core to the misunderstanding of 'remakes'.

E.g. if one hasn't seen another adaptation (I prefer this over 'remake'),  then one doesn't judge a 'remake' based on that other adaptation.     I.e. what is 'tainted' isn't the 'new' film,  but the perspective of the viewer based on seeing a prior adaptation.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Like most people I see you have a very narrow minded view of a 'remake'.  

That "person" that you are responding to is a spam-bot or something similar. They copied and pasted older posts from other people on several threads, and then disappeared. That particular post you quoted was copied verbatim from the first page in this thread, and was originally posted by NZ back in May of 2010!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

That "person" that you are responding to is a spam-bot or something similar. They copied and pasted older posts from other people on several threads, and then disappeared. That particular post you quoted was copied verbatim from the first page in this thread, and was originally posted by NZ back in May of 2010!

Wow that is odd.   This is what I get by using that 'view unread content' feature!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Wow that is odd.   This is what I get by using that 'view unread content' feature!  

I was fooled the same way. I didn't realize what was going on until I read his post in the Recently Watched Silents thread and discovered that it was my own review for Tillie's Punctured Romance. I reported that one, and it got zapped by the Mods, but I guess his other posts remain.

Share this post


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

I was fooled the same way. I didn't realize what was going on until I read his post in the Recently Watched Silents thread and discovered that it was my own review for Tillie's Punctured Romance. I reported that one, and it got zapped by the Mods, but I guess his other posts remain.

Do you know if this troll is hiding behind the Adelsten user ID (I.e. using it but it really isn't them) or that is who they are?    I ask because now I'm seeing a lot of 'new' posts from that user ID,  that look legit (i.e. cover the topic at hand).  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jamesjazzguitar said:

Do you know if this troll is hiding behind the Adelsten user ID (I.e. using it but it really isn't them) or that is who they are?    I ask because now I'm seeing a lot of 'new' posts from that user ID,  that look legit (i.e. cover the topic at hand).  

 

Yeah I too just noticed that they've added a profile picture and some biographical info. The one new post I saw was an original post, but it also contained an imbedded link that I wouldn't recommend clicking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2017 at 10:57 PM, jamesjazzguitar said:

Like most people I see you have a very narrow minded view of a 'remake'.  

In most cases there isn't even a concept of a 'remake'  (i.e. a new film that is based on a prior film).   Instead there is an adaptation;   a new film is made based on source material (book, play,  original story) that had been used before to make a prior film.    A creative group of movie makers can take this 'used' source material and make it their own.  

Movie goers tend to judge a so called 'remake' by comparing the various film adaptations.    Instead I recommend one judge a remake by how it communicates to the viewer what that original source material was trying to communicate.    

E.g. The 1941 version of the Maltese Falcon was the best adaptation of the book that I have seen,  clearly better at what the book was trying to get across than the other two previous attempts. 

 

    

THANK YOU! Nice to see that someone else shares the same view of remakes that I do. 

I think that too many folks forget that the original is actually the source material (novel, short story, etc.) and not the first film adaptation.

I suspect that they don't realize that a lot of films from the 30s and 40s also have a radio play adaptation. Perhaps they should check out the Lux Radio theater shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2017 at 11:07 PM, LawrenceA said:

That "person" that you are responding to is a spam-bot or something similar. They copied and pasted older posts from other people on several threads, and then disappeared. That particular post you quoted was copied verbatim from the first page in this thread, and was originally posted by NZ back in May of 2010!

How on earth can I possibly know something like this? The post sounded like it was written by a human.

Gotta love the cyberworld sometimes... haha! 

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