Bicker, the problem is not remaking an occasional film but rather that bulk rate at which films are being remade. The old cliche about Hollywood running out of ideas seems to be bearing fruit.
Bite your tongue!
Ask any US based male between a certain age range about that movie and you'll be sure to get a different response.The original movie dealt with that same topic.
One of scenes directly addresses it with a father explaining to his son that this (the invasion) is why he was tough on the kid growing up.
Tim
Creative Writer
A little bit of googling and it looks like the cast are going on bootcamp soon and will start filming early 2010. Tom Cruise's 14 year old son will be starring in it as the youngest member of the Wolverines and the enemy invaders will be a combination of russian and chinese forces.
Great... maybe they can time the release so it comes out at the same time as Will Smith's kid in the remake of The Karate Kid.
Heck, perhaps the studios can do a "Remember the 80's!" summer promotion with the remakes of Red Dawn, The Karate Kid, RoboCop, Drop Dead Fred, Roger Rabbit, Weird Science, Top Gun, They Live, Short Circuit, The Last Starfighter, Conan The Barbarian, Footloose, and Meatballs all released at the same time. Yes, all of those movies are either currently being remade or are slated to be very shortly. The worst part is that there are many more from the 80's being remade.
Such a thing is to be expected when you've got both new talent and new technology to exploit. The latter is an essentially significant aspect of genre programming: It lends itself to frequent remakes simply because we gain substantially better technology to achieve genre-oriented visions as time goes on. There isn't the same call to remake something, so often, that doesn't capitalize on all the new technology available.
Poppycock. By that logic, there never was an original idea since the second idea. People have been saying silly things like that since the dawn of film. If people believed that, then we'd be sitting around the television set each year as a family watching Bebe Daniels playing Dorothy Gale ("The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" (1910)). As a matter of fact, the most whining we see is when a remake does introduce something radically different, does vary in significant ways from the original. Some people even rebel against retooling of favored television series or movie franchises in their original incarnations! There's a bit of "sky is falling" going on in an In Plain Sight thread I'm participating in on another forum: They're afraid of what changes might be made for next season.
Saying that remakes are to be expected as a result of "new technology" and/or "new talent" is rather preposterous.
The technology & talent for music has evolved quite a bit over the years but yet you don't see bulk covers every year. Sure, covers are done all the time by musicians but to the same degree as movies are? Hardly. You know, they should have Justin Timberlake do a cover of Louis Armstrong's What a Wonderful World but with a new techno beat. That would just be swell; I'm sure that the cover would be treasured for generations to come. But, if we're going to keep to the 80's, maybe a better choice would be Lady GaGa doing a cover of Madonna's Like a Virgin -- I'm that sure that'd be an instant hit. Digital books are starting to catch on and in (my guess) 10 years so we'll be seeing a media shift for books just like we are seeing with music today; does that mean we'll be seeing a bunch of novels "re-telling" works before them? Not unless the "new talent" is fan of lawsuits and/or the copyrights to the original work has expired. Hey, maybe JK Rowling would be up for rewriting Christine but with a 2009 Corvette instead. Great story but retold using new talent would be just great, right? See many "new talent" digital artists using "new technology" to recreate canvas artworks from 20 years ago? No. It is not something even that would be considered.
But yet for movies you seem to think that is is perfectly normal for movies to be remade as a common practice. Under your pretense, the recent remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still (random example) reflects updated talent & technology. Well, yeah... the remake might have been a lot more shiny but for story telling I will stick with the original. I'll take a well crafted movie over a pop-corn movie any day. Yes, the Wizard of Oz that many hold dear was not the first telling of the story but the flip side is that you won't find too many people thinking of The Wiz when you ask them to name the movie that had Dorothy & Toto going to Oz. There have been many retellings of Oz and yet it is a 70 year old movie that still has a place in our culture instead of all of those "new talent" & "new technology" remakes. Hhhmm.... The Muppets version of Wizard of Oz was entertaining though.
In regards to the TV series In Plain Sight, debating what changes may be coming in a new series of an ongoing storyline has zero to do with remaking an existing work. When In Plain Sight is eventually canceled and in a few years somebody decides to remake the series starting with the original episode #1, then you might have a valid comparison. At least if you went with something valid, like the "re-imagining" of Battlestar Galactica, then you would have at some meat for your argument in regards to fans expectations when the remake was announced versus their same responses now a few years later.
In short... there is no reason why a movie, or any other work, should be remade using a flimsy excuse of "new talent" and/or "new technology" as the justification. Trying dismiss criticism of remakes as fear of change is a stance with no legs to stand on.
Denying it is rather preposterous.
Sorry, but that's not the case. It's like apples and oranges. The technology related to genre-oriented video presentations has changed about a million times more than the technology related to music. As a matter of fact, some folks feel that music has lost some, technology-wise, while, of course, with video, we've gone from 480i/mono to 1080p/DD5.1 and better.
Reality sucks, sometimes, I know.
And despite the fact that there has been so little technological advancement in music over the years, there have still been lots of covers.
Yes.
I think your assertions are impressively emotional, but not really so much supported with the facts. I understand you don't like change; that's your prerogative. You can simply bypass the remakes you don't want to see. Don't think that your proprietary feelings in this regard should have any impact on what's available to those of us who do want what is being offered.
Speaking of facts, you seem to be avoiding them completely. Don't let facts get in the way of a good argument, eh? Well, there is always somebody playing Devil's Advocate; life would be boring without them.
It has nothing to do with liking change or not. If I had a problem with change than my choice of profession would be quite a conundrum since I essentially need to relearn my skill set every couple of years. But don't let that stop you from making your assumptions.
For some reason you are confusing "change" with remaking prior works of art. As pointed out above already your example of a TV series new season has nothing to do with remaking movies. You yourself gave Wizard of Oz as an example but seem to conveniently forget that there have been dozens of takes on the story but yet is the 70 year old version that people remember and none of the remakes with "new talent" and/or "new technology" used. There is a reason for that.
Let's take this into a different direction with a simple question... can you think of any movie remakes in the past 10 years or so where the remake outshines the original? I am not talking about profits but movies that are so memorable that it could be said that the remake is heads & shoulders above the original and that in time it is the remake that will be considered a classic, much in the same way as the 1939 version of Oz is.
So that basically means stalemate. You have your opinion. I have mine. Mine is the one that is indicated by the actions taken by the people who have a financial interest in having the facts.
You do the math.
Without the objective evidence in hand, yes, that's all it has to do with.
Not the same. Beyond that, many people who live a frenetic life at work want peace and harmony at home. Let's stick to the topic.
You're not going to submit to an inquisition, so my best guess, after over 25 years in online communities, is going to be the best we're going to get. You're going to withhold whatever relevant information there is that discredits your point of view. That's human nature.
For some reasons you're playing with words instead of facing the issue head on. Remaking is a kind of change.
The 1939 remake was that good. It isn't up to you to declare that all originals always are sacrosanct works of art, and that therefore remakes shouldn't be made. You don't like remakes -- okay. Remember, I get that. But again, also remember, that that is just an expression of your own personal preference, nothing more.
But the main point, which perhaps you missed, is that the Wizard of Oz film you prefer was a remake!!!!
Before I submit to your inquisition you have to give me some assurances that you're not just wasting my time. I'll take up your challenge if you let me determine the criteria for "outshine". Then I'll go find movies that are retellings that "outshine" the original based on my criteria.
Or are you going to impose your personal preferences even on my determination of what's better than something else?
Then you're not talking about show business. You're talking about what you like and what you don't like. You value (what's the word you used?) "memorability". As if that was a religious edict. It isn't. Remember, an artist gets to determine what the criteria applied to their art should be, by refusing to work unless they get to keep the rights for their work to themselves. You don't get to impose that decision on the artists. When an artist chooses to grant their rights to another, they are explicitly ceding the right to determine what is "right" and "wrong" related to that work to that other person.
Besides, it is idiocy to ask how memorable a recent movie will be 50 years from now. Utterly silly.
You don't like remakes. I get that. Don't feel bad that the world doesn't conform to your preferences in that regard.
HHhhmm.... I didn't think asking for some recent examples of where you felt the "new talent" & "new technology" brought to the table in a remake was seen as a positive thing would have been a hard question considering your stance on the subject.
I'll open up the question to anybody out there who may be reading.... what are some recent (as in the last 10 years or so) remakes that you think outshine the original? If the question was opened to all of time, then I'd go back to the 80's and give John Carpenter's The Thing a nod since that is now the version generally remembered. But with the recent spate of remakes it seems that the goal is more to just turn out content rather than quality. So refresh my memory on some recent remakes... there must be some out there that fit the bill.
I'll open up the question to anybody out there who may be reading.... what are some recent (as in the last 10 years or so) remakes that you think outshine the original? If the question was opened to all of time, then I'd go back to the 80's and give John Carpenter's The Thing a nod since that is now the version generally remembered. But with the recent spate of remakes it seems that the goal is more to just turn out content rather than quality. So refresh my memory on some recent remakes... there must be some out there that fit the bill.
Tim
Creative Writer
Storyline, characters, storyboard, actors and direction. The core of a film!
Or so says almost every review of the new film: Moon. $5 million and 33 days shooting with model dioramas.
New Scientist likes the movie, although questions the corporate business financial understanding of workforce, and also inconsistencies with gravity scenes.
'Moon' movie mines inner space
Admittedly not a remake, but going to prove that modern technology in remakes is not the be all and end all of the experience that pushes it to a greater film than it's predecessor.
Or so says almost every review of the new film: Moon. $5 million and 33 days shooting with model dioramas.
New Scientist likes the movie, although questions the corporate business financial understanding of workforce, and also inconsistencies with gravity scenes.
'Moon' movie mines inner space
Admittedly not a remake, but going to prove that modern technology in remakes is not the be all and end all of the experience that pushes it to a greater film than it's predecessor.
Moon is actually one of the few movies that I'm looking forward to. Though it is set in a sci-fi'ish environment the movie is really a character study of a man in isolation. It is not Mrs. Kevin's kind of movie so I'll watch it on DVD when available.
Totally agree. Using the example of The Thing from earlier... sure, the creatures got spiffed up a bit in Carpenter's remake but they actually don't have much time on the screen. It is really the superb nail-biting tense scenes between the stranded crew that makes it stand out. It is akin to the first Jaws movie where little of the shark was actually scene but people still remember it as a great thriller.
What's funny is that my earlier comments about the *volume* of remakes got turned into a twisted banter of I not wanting any remakes when the point was totally missed. A remake is fine when it can be justified but doing remake after remake just for the sake of pushing out content is silly. With very rare exceptions has a remake ever turned out better than the original.
Oh... besides the The Thing I'll toss out another recent remake that stirred up a bit of controversy amongst movie fans.... I Am Legend with Will Smith. Three different movies, three different versions of the same source story, but which was best? Some fans give the nod to the Will Smith telling while others prefer Heston in The Omega Man or even Vincent Price in The Last Man on Earth. Of course there are those that also cite the original novel as the inspiration for many other films so the best advice may be to read the book and go from there.
The original example I gave, the 1939 remake of The Wizard of Oz, was more than enough proof. Therefore, no offense, but your question just seems like busy-work, intended to have me waste time.HHhhmm.... I didn't think asking for some recent examples of where you felt the "new talent" & "new technology" brought to the table in a remake was seen as a positive thing would have been a hard question considering your stance on the subject.
You mean this comment?
That mad icon you put right before your thread title, sure seems like your comment is directed at a movie that you haven't seen yet.
Define "silly".
Define "better".
There are rhetorical inquiries, of course. My point, which perhaps wasn't clear, was that different people have different criteria. You make your own choices based on your own personal criteria, but that doesn't mean other people who make other choices based on other criteria are any less rational than you are. Again, there is a difference between not liking something and it being the wrong thing to do.
I did a quick Google search, by the way, and here's a bunch of remakes that some people feel are better than the originals:
The Maltese Falcon
The Thomas Crown Affair
Casino Royale
Oceans 11
Hills Have Eyes
The Thing
Texas Chain Saw Massacre
Dawn of the Dead
The Ring
The Thing
Gone in Sixty Seconds
The Lord of the Rings
The Man Who Knew Too Much
The Fly
King Kong
Heat
Cape Fear
The Producers
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
The Blob
House on Haunted Hill
Toolbox Murders
Black House
The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe
White Christmas
The Man Who Knew Too Much
My Fair Lady
The Magnificent Seven
The Bourne Identity
Titanic
Alien
Evil Dead II
And of course, all those personal opinions aren't really the point...
Again, your interpretation is a bit off.
People trying to defend a bunch of puff-piece remakes with no substance.
Again you seem to think I have something against all remakes.
Oh, so now there is a defintion for "Better" available? Interesting list, especially considering you even included the same example I gave earlier (not reading my comments and skipping straight to a response seems to be a recurring theme), but either way some of the remakes on that list are a bit laughable. I would have to question if the people who think some of them are "better" have even seen all of the originals. Oh, and don't confuse sequels with remakes and watch that copy & pasting so you don't end up with duplicates.
Apparently it is the point for you else me saying that I don't like bulk remakes would have never bugged you in the way it seems to have.
Now, stop relying upon Google to come up with lists and share what remakes you feel are better than the originals. Or are you going to continue avoiding any real answers?
Not with regard to the point I was making; not at all. It sounds like you don't understand the point I was making though.
In other words, you disagree with them, and so you dismiss their right to have an opinion contrary to yours.
Nothing more.
No, I haven't said anything about "all". My point was very clear, that reasonable people can disagree and so ANY qualitative generalization about remakes, whatsoever, are nothing more than personal opinions.
Don't ask me... I just did a Google search for you. I didn't say anything about the list except to dismiss it as irrelevant.
No, not really. I don't care very much about remakes specifically. My point is, again, specifically about making qualitative generalizations.
As I said before, I've already proven my point sufficiently, so that responding to you inquisition would be nothing more than you trying to get me to waste my time with busy work. Defend your points yourself. Don't try to get me to do the hard work for you.
So, now, stop relying on trying to make me do busy work, and respond to the issue: Why should your qualitative generalization prevail, over my assertion that reasonable people can disagree about this?
<sigh> Again, no answers. I don't mind the occasional eTag match with somebody playing Devil's Advocate but they should be prepared to defend their stance.
[... redacted ...]
{I wonder if I should create a new forum just for people who like to go back & forth on topics. Seems like once a year or so we get into this situation. Let me know if you guys/gals would like to see such a forum and if so, suggest a name. Any volunteers out there who would want to moderate such a forum?}
[... redacted ...]
{I wonder if I should create a new forum just for people who like to go back & forth on topics. Seems like once a year or so we get into this situation. Let me know if you guys/gals would like to see such a forum and if so, suggest a name. Any volunteers out there who would want to moderate such a forum?}
Denying the points that I made isn't the same as me not having made them.
I think separate forums is a good idea on paper, but operationally it cannot work out, because, for example, the condemnation of the remake that started this thread should, rightfully, have been in that "other" forum.
What I've found that folks want, quite often, is an unrebutted soap-box, where they can bash some favored target, without having to be concerned about there being a dissenting view voiced in response. In regard to a thread like this, you would have a forum devoted just to bashing the new and extolling the virtues of the old. Other dichotomies that often present themselves would prompt for a forum to bash business and to foster consumerism; and a forum to bash government and celebrate anarchy; to bash other countries/cultures and cheer on ethnocentrism. And then, of course, matching forums in each case, with the roles of the two sides reversed.
I think separate forums is a good idea on paper, but operationally it cannot work out, because, for example, the condemnation of the remake that started this thread should, rightfully, have been in that "other" forum.
What I've found that folks want, quite often, is an unrebutted soap-box, where they can bash some favored target, without having to be concerned about there being a dissenting view voiced in response. In regard to a thread like this, you would have a forum devoted just to bashing the new and extolling the virtues of the old. Other dichotomies that often present themselves would prompt for a forum to bash business and to foster consumerism; and a forum to bash government and celebrate anarchy; to bash other countries/cultures and cheer on ethnocentrism. And then, of course, matching forums in each case, with the roles of the two sides reversed.