Remakes

j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
I think this should be set in the context of Public Domain. In that case having a 'remake' or a 'retelling' does involve the creative process by a large number of people, each with their own reasons for the 'remake'.

In the case of copyrighted material, it is the 'same', modulo management/ownership/staff changes, and based on that companies own opinion as to what may 'sell'.

In the case of "A Chrstimas Carol", since it is PD status, any number of efforts may be made to adapt the story to film... some may work, others not... but it is not based on one entity's decision to make a new adaption or not.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it's public domain but copyright is a recent invention and an anomally in the history of storytelling. My post was to illuminate the fact that storytelling (and music and any other form of performance expression for that matter) has traditionally been propagated through retelling. It was just to provide some historical perspective to place movie remakes in a wider context. Historically people want to hear the stories they like over and over, each storyteller making it their own.

Copyright coincides with modern mass distribution...it is primarily a function to protect the financial interests of publishing entities rather than the artist's intellectual property. I chose A Christmas Carol for my example as an indisputable popular story in all it's iterations so as not to distract from the point I was making. There is no difference to the OP whether it is PD or CP (haha three 'p' acronyms in a sentence). The only difference is whether the filmmakers have to pay for rights to the story. A PD classic (especially with a seasonal connection) is obviously going to have the most remakes. In general I'm not a huge fan of remakes but there are some exceptions - for example, the myth of King Arthur was important to me as a child and I will watch/read anything connected to it. Journey to the West is another.
 
I am not saying that they should never remake a movie of course if the originial was bad then yes there is a need to remake it and try to make it better, but there is no reason to remake a movie like Psycho. Psycho changed the horror genre really it changed the film business in gerneral, plus they used Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates no one can play that part but Anthony Perkins. There as been talk of remaking Jaws so that they can make the shark look more real, I don't think the shark looks that fake and in one of the scenes they used a real great white shark.
 
Psycho wasn't a remake, it was a duplication. A direct copy can only be inferior to the original. As for Jaws, with the increase in shark attacks in recent years it's topical (even if the real reasons behind it are a cover up - here in Western Australia it's directly related to live sheep exports, the dead sheep being thrown overboard amounts to burley - the sharks are following the ships which is bringing them closer to the shore. But it's big business so the connection is being suppressed). If they want to remake it, let them. My nephew prefers the new star wars movies over the originals. This next generation is already lost, let them have their cgi shark. The rest of us can keep the spielberg original.
 
We really don't have to let them continue to remake movies, it will take some time but if people stop spending money on these pointless remakes then eventually hollywood will see that the fans don't want to see the same movie over and over agian.
 
They won't stop going to see them because it's what they want. Especially comic book nerds. It takes a perfect storm of geo-political circumstances to put the general public into an experimental mood, open to new ideas. It happens every decade or two, usually when wars end, a period of economic stability and political passion coincide. Fear not, you know you have taste when most people disagree with you. Taste is exclusive. Popular culture is inclusive. You won't find passion amongst fans in the mainstream like you will in niche genres. Be elitist and revel in it. You won't convince the unwashed masses to change their tastes any more than the metalhead will convince grandma about the subtle nuances of the blast beat. The best thing to do is know you're right and accept you can't change anything. These forces are out of your control.
 
Egg Born Son said:
Historically people want to hear the stories they like over and over, each storyteller making it their own.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but, historically the stories had to be retold in order for people to hear them. For most of man's existence, there were no books, no printing press, no movies or television. People received stories orally, from their elders, or through plays and ceremonies. I don't think humans have a need to hear the same exact story over and over. They just have a need to hear stories, and previously that was the only way to receive them. Now there is no compelling reason to have somebody retell a story when you can pick up a book or dvd.
 
Last edited:
But audiences do indeed have tastes and preferences which allow for a lot of remakes and pre-packaged material, and that's not going to change.

Here's the thing -- the audience is never wrong.
 
True Battuta. And this is a period of time that has busted apart traditions and devolved into cat videos. But historical context is still a tradition and even cat videos lovers are constantly seeking new cat videos even though they are all mind numbingly the same. The classic line traditionally is "tell me the one about...". We do it with storytellers. When we are young we ask our parents/grandparents to endlessly repeat our favourite stories about family lore and the like. Even now I let Dad tell his stories and spiels, never telling him I've heard his limited repertoire a hundred times. My nephew wants the same book read to him each night I stay over. A good tall tale or urban legend never dies. I know you watch your favourite dvds over and over but that's not really my point. Because every time live stories are told they are different. Even when read from a book.

It doesn't mean by extension that films should be remade. And I can't believe I'm sort of defending remakes because on the whole I'm not a fan. I'm challenging my own prejudice in a lot of what I've said in this thread. But the truth is that those of us who choose to make new stories are the anomalies. We aren't a good sample audience because we are the ones compelled to make new stories, the few who are dissatisfied with the crap that is peddled to us. And when we don't get new stories we seek to make them. I certainly know that everytime a movie ends predictably I feel a little more compelled to get off my butt and do it right and a little more ashamed I haven't made more of an effort.
 
David Jimerson said:
But audiences do indeed have tastes and preferences which allow for a lot of remakes and pre-packaged material, and that's not going to change.

Here's the thing -- the audience is never wrong.
Click to expand...

But we're talking about remakes specifically here. There is a difference between a remake of a successful film, and an adaptation of pre-packaged material. I understand someone wanting to see a movie version of their favorite book, or comic book hero. But I don't think people really want remakes. They just get them, and see them out of curiosity.
 
I suspect there are a lot of movies that audiences don't know are remakes. I can count on one hand the number of people I know who knew 3:10 to Yuma was a remake.

But even if they're just seeing them out of curiosity, then they do have a taste for it and it's profitable to make them.

If you want passable originality, the cineplex really isn't the place for you anyway, and that's what Hollywood makes -- movies for the cineplex. At least that's what they put their big money into, the stuff that mass audiences will see and pay for and make the investment worth it. If you want what the OP is complaining about, then film festivals and art house theaters (and failing that, Netflix) are where you want to be. Otherwise, you're really complaining that there aren't enough cricket matches at Yankee Stadium.
 
Another meaningless post:

Why do bands cover old songs? Country bands specifically are bad for this. Not because they are making a good song, it reminds the audience of a great song.
Not applicable to film I don't think. So there goes that theory.

Why remake movies? Why not? Let the audience decide. I liked The War of the Worlds remake. There is no right or wrong here imo.

//The Fly is another great example. That worked. Didn't we cover this in a previous thread?

Gord Taylor: Thread Killer. -beers.
 
Last edited:
If audiences like remakes then why do they always get low ratings and negative reviews? Audiences like original over pointless remakes, as I said before remakes show the laziness and greed of hollywood.
 
fobers95 said:
If audiences like remakes then why do they always get low ratings and negative reviews? Audiences like original over pointless remakes, as I said before remakes show the laziness and greed of hollywood.
Click to expand...

I realize that you're very young, and everything seems so clear-cut and black and white to you, but think about what you're saying.

First, they don't "always" get "low ratings" and negative reviews. And if they do, it has nothing to do with the moviegoing public. Many universally-panned movies have been very commercially successful.

Second, it's not "laziness" and "greed"; it's making a product that they can sell, which is the point of business. Movie studios are businesses.

But most importantly, third, if audiences didn't want to pay to see remakes, then there could be no "greed" involved, because there would be no money it. If there's money to be made (what you call "greed"), then enough people -- the audience -- are willing to pay to see it. So yeah, it's what the audience wants.

It's also about not being able to take the kinds of risks on original properties that they could in years past. Between rampant piracy and low-cost, on-demand distribution, there's a lot less money to be made, so they have to put their big dollars into projects which are more sure of making a return. Established properties have built-in audiences and far less risk. That's not "greed," that's just an economic fact of life.
 
Ok I went a little far to say that they always get low and negative rating but the majority of them do, and its from moviegoers . Here are a few examples This from IMBD user ratings Halloween (1978) users rated it 7.8 out of 10 Rob Zombie's remake got 6 out of 10, I have seen both versions and the 1978 version is far Superior to Rob Zombies. Psycho (1960) 8.6 out of 10, (1998) 4 out of 10.

Total Recall (1990) 7.5 out of 10, (2012) 6.3 out of 10, War of the Worlds (1953) 7.1 out of 10, (2005) 6.5 out of 10.

The reason I call it greed is because they are making money off of someone elses story.
 
OK, and then there's also True Grit, Ocean's Eleven, The Maltese Falcon, Ben-Hur, The Man Who Knew Too Much, The Thing, Little Shop of Horrors, Twelve Monkeys, The Ten Commandments, The Quiet American, A Star is Born, An Affair to Remember, Airplane!, Scarface, The Fly, The Departed, and so on, and so on. There are many, many good remakes, and quite a few which are more well-regarded the originals.

Almost every movie is made based on "someone else's story," whether it's a remake or not.
 
I am not saying not every remake is bad but the majority of them are awful. There is just no reason to remake movies. Which The Thing are you talking about John Carpenters or the 2011 version? John Carpenters was great but the 2011 version was awful.
 
The 2011 version wasn't a remake; it was a prequel.

As for no reason to remake movies, fans of the movies I listed -- especially the ones most people don't even know are remakes -- would tend to disagree.
 
Yeah, many remakes are new to a huge segment of the classic demographic for movies. Younger audiences haven't seen the older versions in many cases. I do agree, the ones that add NOTHING and move backwards quality wise really annoy me. Remakes should be taken with the same care as other movies...if you're going to do it...do it right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top