Remakes, sequels and adaptations.

Batutta

Batutta

Major Contributor
I just read about the umpteenth remake, a film based on the tv show Kung Fu, and started thinking about the death of originality in Hollywood. It seems like every announcement about a new project these days is of a remake, a sequel or an adaptation of a book. We're even starting to get remakes of remakes. There was a bit in the film The Yes Men, where the men pretend to be McDonald's executives pushing a new concept of recycling fecal matter back into hamburgers, and am starting to feel like this is what the film industry is doing, selling **** back to us.
 
It's all about selling you shi* that they know you'll pay for, and what better proof than if you've already paid for it before?
 
Well the good news is that if they remake Kung Fu, there is a good possibility that Quentin Tarantino will buy himself the spot as director.
 
Heard yesterday that there is a remake planned, of The Day the Earth Stood Still.

Talk about pointless...
 
They're doing a remake of A Clockwork Orange starring Johnny Depp. I love Johnny Depp but that's just blasphemy!
 
Sad Max said:
Well...A Clockwork Orange *is* an adaptation from another medium...
Click to expand...

Well, yes.... but brilliantly realised, I think we can all agree. Of course you can always say you're not remaking the film, but creating another adaption of the book, like Soderbergh with Solaris :D
 
I appreciated Soderburgh's Solaris, as much as I liked Tarkofsky's. For their differences, as much as for anything else.
 
The adaptation-from-another-medium is not an "idea," it's a fact.

The original work was a novel, by Anthony Burgess.
 
Sad Max said:
The adaptation-from-another-medium is not an "idea," it's a fact.

The original work was a novel, by Anthony Burgess.
Click to expand...

I know, I love Anthony Burgess' book. I just think Kubrick filmed it perfectly and there is no need to do it again. The idea of someone shooting another film is what I find pathetic. Its like the Psycho film that came out a few years back. You just have to ask why?
 
Sad Max said:
I appreciated Soderburgh's Solaris, as much as I liked Tarkofsky's. For their differences, as much as for anything else.
Click to expand...

Soderbergh's Solaris was a watchable film to me, but isn't on the same level as Tarkovsky's film (which next to Kubrick's 2001 may arguably be one of the best sci-fi pictures ever). I think Soderbergh far too much concentrated the plot on the dead wife (but hey, that's his interpretation of Lem's novel, and Tarkovsky also used only part of it). Soderbergh's film had some over-acting in it, by that Snow guy (who turns Snaut into Snow anyway?), and Soderbergh seemed to be too busy with showing off 'cool CGI' (Tarkovsky's FX are by far superior), missing the point that Tarkovsky makes excellently clear: We humans do not search for strange worlds and alien lifeforms out there; We look for another earth.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top