Damn remakes! Damn them all!

[boombche_stum]

I know remakes have been covered here quite often, but I just found something that got me a little angry. Now, as if it wasn't bad enough The Evil Dead is being remade, the possibility of a Suspiria remake is around the corner and there is a whole plethora of other horror remakes in the works, something new, while just a rumor now, may be on the horizon:

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/index.php?Show=3302&Template=newsfull

The Exorcist! Being remade! I honestly thought this would never happen (I know I should've). This film is still one of my favorites. And I don't see how they could possibly do anything even close to the original. Especially with the writer of... Anaconda. Wow. If this is true then we can expect one big pile of trash (although I'm sure even with a different writer it would still end up this way). If this does happen, I'm lynching some Hollywood execs. Who's with me?

[The Heart Collector]

*looks at dvd shelf*

*finds dvd of 'the exorcist'*

*puts it on*

*realizes movie hasn't changed*

[TheDeadWalk]

"Another remake on the horizon, this time... The Exorcist" (http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=88174&highlight=exorcist+remake)



http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85896&highlight=remakes

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83945&highlight=remakes

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79761&highlight=remakes

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74898&highlight=remakes

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64338&highlight=remakes

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50237&highlight=remakes

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46772&highlight=remakes

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35419&highlight=remakes

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20170&highlight=remakes

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21988&highlight=remakes

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21972&highlight=remakes

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18958&highlight=remakes

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21848&highlight=remakes

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21410&highlight=remakes

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17326&highlight=remakes

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14997&highlight=remakes

[James Logan]

Whar TheDeadWalk is trying to say is that...yeah, we all fucking hate those remakes, too. :)

[LordSimen]

Technechally Batman Begins is a remake, too... I don't see many people complaining about that being remade. =\

[B1rd_Po0p]

Originally posted by LordSimen
Technechally Batman Begins is a remake, too... I don't see many people complaining about that being remade. =\

a remake of what? it's a prequel.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by B1rd_Po0p
a remake of what? it's a prequel.

It's not a prequal. If anything it's a remake. People keep saying words like "Restart," "reimigination," they all mean the same thing: REMAKE!

It's not connected at all with the Burton Schumacher films in any way, shape, or form, except for the name "Batman" in the title.

[SkyNet]

Originally posted by LordSimen
It's not a prequal. If anything it's a remake. People keep saying words like "Restart," "reimigination," they all mean the same thing: REMAKE!

It's not connected at all with the Burton Schumacher films in any way, shape, or form, except for the name "Batman" in the title.

technically that is true.... BUT they still went with 2 villains for this flick that havnt been covered before!

Maybe for future installments they can get Jack Nicholson back to play the Joker... cuz as most know.. he has been dying to play the part again!

As for remakes... ya, it has gotten to be a little pathetic... when the biggest titles of the summer are Remakes (Batman Begins, War Of The Worlds, Charlie And The Chocolate Factory) and im sure many more... the originality has left hollywood.

[B1rd_Po0p]

Originally posted by LordSimen
It's not a prequal. If anything it's a remake.

A Remake Of What? The original Batman? I don't think so...

"Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins explores the origins of the Batman legend and the Dark Knight's emergence as a force for good in Gotham. In the wake of his parents' murder, disillusioned industrial heir Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) travels the world seeking the means to fight injustice and turn fear against those who prey on the fearful.

He returns to Gotham and unveils his alter-ego: Batman, a masked crusader who uses his strength, intellect and an array of high tech deceptions to fight the sinister forces that threaten the city. "

Sounds like a prequel to me.

[Sugar Magnolia]

It's a remake of the Adam West Batman. I specifically remember seeing a can of shark repellant in the trailer...

[B1rd_Po0p]

Originally posted by Sugar Magnolia
It's a remake of the Adam West Batman. I specifically remember seeing a can of shark repellant in the trailer...

Ah, thank you for clarifying - that's why I was asking. I'm looking forward to it regardless...

as for the remake epidemic: I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand - I have enjoyed several remakes. On the other - some films are classics and should be left alone. So I would be a hypocrite if I said I was against remakes.

[jeo4]

I've seen many remakes and enjoyed them. I've seen many more and have not. I take them on a case-by-case basis. If the film is good, then great. If not, then what's the fucking point in making it??

*Eye's CHARLIE'S ANGELS with contempt*

[thedudeman69]

Originally posted by jeo4
I've seen many remakes and enjoyed them. I've seen many more and have not. I take them on a case-by-case basis. If the film is good, then great. If not, then what's the fucking point in making it??

*Eye's CHARLIE'S ANGELS with contempt*

hot chicks-check
Demi Moore in a bikini-check
whips-check
intellegence and brains-OUT THE FUCKING WINDOW! :D

[bigred760]

I don't like remakes, but I don't hate them either. I just try to watch them like they're any other movie. I just hate it that Hollywood feels that the one of the few ways to make a decent movie is to remake one that was somebody else's idea years ago.

And Batman Begins is not a remake. I don't even think it's a prequel. It's a story of the comic book character. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the story of Bruce Wayne's training was never covered in the comic book, right?

[jeo4]

Originally posted by thedudeman69
hot chicks-check
Demi Moore in a bikini-check
whips-check
intellegence and brains-OUT THE FUCKING WINDOW! :D

My thoughts exactly, dude.

[TheRecluse]

I don't really hate remakes, personally, I'm pretty much just indifferent. It doesn't take a whole lot of brain power to take one movie from 20+ years ago and pretty much give it a make over to fit the moder day standards.

Now, what REALLY pisses me off is the people who love the remake but hate the original. I was talking to a guy the other day about the Dawn of the Dead remake. He just would not shut up about how awesome and action packed it was. And I agreed that it had it's cool moments, as well. Then, he just crossed the line when he said "Have you seen the original Dawn of the Dead, man? That movie fucking sucked!"

HOLD THE FUCKING PHONE!! It totally boggled my mind as to how anyone could think the remake of a film was great and the original film sucked. The fucking remake was based off of the original film. It's the exact same plot just with more action and less depth. It's like reading a book and just enjoying it for the pictures.

I guess it's just the world we live in.

[B1rd_Po0p]

Now are we just talking remakes of old movies - or the new trend of taking a TV show and turning it into a movie? Or both? The TV show one kinda has my hackles up a bit just because they don't stay true to the original at ALL. (Perfect example: Starsky and Hutch.) That was a slick, ultra cool 70's show. Then stupid Stiller and Owen get ahold of it and turn it into a caricature. If you were a fan of the original series like I was, you feel a little insulted. I read somewhere that they were planning on making a movie about the A-Team. Now, that is my all-time favorite show EVER and if they fuck that up heads are gonna roll... (From what I've read, they will.)

They ruined Charlies Angels (I didn't even bother with the second one, the first one was so stupid.) and I hear they're making what - Bewitched now? Or is it I Dream Of Genie?? Either way, Get Some New Material... Nothing is fresh or original anymore... alas, I lament...

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by SkyNet
As for remakes... ya, it has gotten to be a little pathetic... when the biggest titles of the summer are Remakes (Batman Begins, War Of The Worlds, Charlie And The Chocolate Factory) and im sure many more... the originality has left hollywood.

RE:

None of those are remakes. They are adaptations of books and comics. They are using literal source material, they are *not* using another movie as a source.

Peter Jackson's LOTR was not a "remake" of Bakshi's LOTR. They were simply movies drawing from the same literal source material. This is an entirely different thing than remaking another movie.

As for the Exorcist rant which started this thread, the story was originally a book. It was then adapted as a movie. If they are going to make a new adaptation using primarily the book as a source, then it's not a remake.

For example the 50's version of The Thing was based on Campbell's novel "Who goes there?". Then Carpenter made his own adaptation in the 80's. But Carpenter didn't use the earlier movie as a source, he adapted the novel and the final result is more loyal to the novel than the 50's version.

In other words: Carpenter didn't make a remake. He simply made another adaptation of a book.

[adamjohnson]

Originally posted by B1rd_Po0p


Sounds like a prequel to me.

Everyone involved with the production has been calling it a restart.

Its more faithfully adapting the original material.

[arto_j]

Originally posted by Tuukka
RE:


As for the Exorcist rant which started this thread, the story was originally a book. It was then adapted as a movie. If they are going to make a new adaptation using primarily the book as a source, then it's not a remake.



Maybe so, but it's still redundant. It's one of the most famous and popular films ever.

The Godfather was a book. So was 2001. It'd be awful hard not to think of possible new adaptations of those books (just like the Exorcist) as anything else but remakes. And unnecessary ones, at that.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by arto_j
Maybe so, but it's still redundant. It's one of the most famous and popular films ever.

The Godfather was a book. So was 2001. It'd be awful hard not to think of possible new adaptations of those books (just like the Exorcist) as anything else but remakes. And unnecessary ones, at that.

RE:

It depends. Apocalypse Now is one of cinemas great classics. But still Nicolas Roeg made a new adaptation of Conrad's novel "Heart Of Darkness" with a cast of Tim Roth and John Malchovich, in 1994. I've understood that Roeg's version is more loyal to the book than Coppola's version. The two films are VERY different.

I have a hard time believing that anyone would call Roeg's film a remake, despite the fact that Apocalypse Now is a classic.

[HeavyFknMetal]

Manchurian Canidate Spoilers



Overall I am pretty indifferent when it comes to remakes. There are 2 in particular that really piss me off though.

1. The remake of The Manchurian Canidate. It's been a good while since I've read the book so some of my arguments maybe flawed, and I expect no less than harsh criticism if I am wrong. Anyhow, my problem is twofold. 1. The main character didnt kill himself in the end as he did in the original, this really pissed me off. And 2, the director tried to make it seem like the mother had some sort of incestious fantasy about her son. Now I dont remember the latter in the book at all. When a director is remaking a past classic, he should know not to stray to far from it, even if hes trying to play more to the book than the first movie. It wold hurt his movie more to ruin the name of a classic, than to play more towards the book.

2. I haven't seen the remake of Charlie and The Chocolate Factory, and to be honest, I'm not to sure I want to. From seeing the previews it reminds me more of an LSD trip than of the classic kids novel from John Dahl, or from the classic movie staring Gene Wilder. It has all the Tim Burton set designs that everyones come to know and love, but magnificant sets and special effects are not what the movie, or the book for that matter, are all about. The movie has yet to come out so I can't really be to critical on it, yet, and i really hope I'm wrong, but from the previews it looked as thought I would be very pissed.

[boombche_stum]

Well, first off, the Exorcist rumor was dispelled just a day or two after I started this, so I can breathe easy on that one. And I know it was based on a book, but the way they described the supposed remake was that it was going to be a reimagining of the film, not the book. Anyway, I guess the main reason I'm against most, if not all, remakes is because to me that spells that Hollywood in general has run out of juice and has no creativity left. Now, what pisses me off about that is that there are plenty of great ideas out there to be looked at and yet Hollywood is content on just cashing in on remakes. For instance, most of the Oscar nominated films were either not financed by a major studio or the studio only pitched in a little bit. But why? What about indie films too? Why not release those as well and start financing some of these projects that are normally denied by major studios?

Of course that would be wishful thinking to believe Hollywood would take risks like that, but I guess I'll continue to wish. After all, Hollywood was built on risk taking, it was built by tremendous films and semi-original ideas (I say semi-original because nothing is original really, it's all in the execution of the idea that seperates it from the rest).... so maybe we'll see at least somewhat of a return to that someday.

[coconut84]

Peter Jackson's LOTR was not a "remake" of Bakshi's LOTR. They were simply movies drawing from the same literal source material. This is an entirely different thing than remaking another movie.

Jackson was also drawing from the Bakshi's scenes as well... Watch the animation and then check the Jackson's version. Some scenes are pure replicas...

[Carpicon]

Now, what REALLY pisses me off is the people who love the remake but hate the original.

HOLD THE FUCKING PHONE!! It totally boggled my mind as to how anyone could think the remake of a film was great and the original film sucked. The fucking remake was based off of the original film. It's the exact same plot just with more action and less depth. It's like reading a book and just enjoying it for the pictures.

I guess it's just the world we live in.

Normally I would agree with you wholeheartedly, but I will say that Cape Fear is the exception to the rule. The remake is vastly superior to the original, even with Gregory Peck and Robert Mitchum.

[arto_j]

Originally posted by Tuukka


I have a hard time believing that anyone would call Roeg's film a remake, despite the fact that Apocalypse Now is a classic.

Couldn't comment on that, having not seen it, but as you said...It depends entirely on what is being remade or re-adapted. I can't imagine a new Exorcist being terribly different from the original, so I would see it as pretty much a pointless exercise.

[Zebra 3]

http://img198.exs.cx/img198/9076/taylor8mq.png
"You did it, didn't you...
You maniacs! You fucked it up!
Damn you! God damn you all to hell!"

[Ted Pikul]

Now if only David Soul & Paul Michael Glaser had turned up at the end of Starsky & Hutch using the exact same lines.

;)

[HeavyFknMetal]

They're have been a shit load of great remakes out there though.

The Last Man Standing was a remake of Yojimbo and that was amazing

The Magnificent Seven was a great remake of Seven Samurai

Oceans 11 was pretty damn good

You win some, you lose some, thats all there is to it. Somedays you get Citizen Kane, and some days you get Pootie Tang.

[coconut84]

I totally agree! I must admit that I hate myself for liking Magnificent Seven more that Seven Samurai (and because of that guilt I only have Seven Samurai DVD ;)

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by Tuukka
RE:

None of those are remakes. They are adaptations of books and comics. They are using literal source material, they are *not* using another movie as a source.

In other words: Carpenter didn't make a remake. He simply made another adaptation of a book.

I highly disagree with this.


Mainly because books and film are a totally separate medium. When you choose to adapt a book and bring it into the realm of film, you are essentially creating your own test tube baby.

You mix all of the elements and resources together, and then give birth to this new realm of entertainment; a film.

If someone else chooses to take the same elements and resources (basically the exact same DNA) and bring forth the creation of another adaptation, they will find that there is already a withstanding film in this realm. In this medium, that film already exists. Thus, it is a remake.

Sure you can call it another adaptation, that's fine. But when something in this realm already exists under title and synopsis, it should qualify it as a remake.

[Mr-Blonde]

You guys neglected to mention the best remake EVER.

http://porkypig.free.fr/1983/scarface.jpg

[pyscho dude]

Speaking of Scarface(one of the best movies ever made by the way:cool: ), has anyone noticed that some of the best remakes came from the 80s? The Thing, Scarface, The Blob.

[Beeblebrox]

Speaking of Peter Jackson, his new film King Kong is not only a remake, but it's the second time the original classic has been remade.

Not only have all the anti-remake ranters NOT complained about this film, they usually go out of their way to explain why this one is justified.

Films like this are the reason why it's stupid to make a "principle" out of hating remakes. Some are good, some are bad. It just depends on the film. But that's true of remakes, original films, adaptations, etc.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
.

Not only have all the anti-remake ranters NOT complained about this film,


King Kong blows. It really hasn't hit my radar at all, because I don't give a flying fuck about it. I don't care for giant apes climbing buildings and swatting down jet planes, nor do I care for giant fire breathing lizards destroying downtown Tokyo.

I hope it bombs, not really because it's a remake, but because I've always found the films to be uninteresting pieces of shit.

I don't think this is being remade for name value as something like "The Amityville Horror", as much as it is that Hollywood is trying to make sure that once or twice every Summer now we can sit down for two hours and watch a CGI circus on the latest hyped disaster film.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
I highly disagree with this.


Mainly because books and film are a totally separate medium. When you choose to adapt a book and bring it into the realm of film, you are essentially creating your own test tube baby.

You mix all of the elements and resources together, and then give birth to this new realm of entertainment; a film.

If someone else chooses to take the same elements and resources (basically the exact same DNA) and bring forth the creation of another adaptation, they will find that there is already a withstanding film in this realm. In this medium, that film already exists. Thus, it is a remake.

Sure you can call it another adaptation, that's fine. But when something in this realm already exists under title and synopsis, it should qualify it as a remake.

RE:

Nope. I have to STRONGLY disagree with this. According to your logic Peter Jackson's LOTR is a remake of the Bakshi cartoon. Which it isn't.

Also Batman Begins would be a remake of the Batman serial movies from the 40's.

And all the dozens (if not hundreds) Hamlet adaptations would really be REMAKES of the Melies version from 1907.

Passion Of The Christ, and all the other movies concerning Jesus, would really be remakes of the Le Christ marchant sur les flots from 1899 (again by Melies). And I think this would be a ridicilous claim by any standards.

So I don't think your argument holds water.

Sure, some "adaptations" are clearly remakes. For example Van Sant's Psycho is clearly a remake of Hitchcock's Psycho, not a new adaptation of the original novel by Robert Bloch.

It all depends whether a movie is using as it's main inspiration either the pre-existing book, or the pre-existing movie.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by Tuukka
RE:

Nope. I have to STRONGLY disagree with this. According to your logic Peter Jackson's LOTR is a remake of the Bakshi cartoon. Which it isn't.

Also Batman Begins would be a remake of the Batman serial movies from the 40's.

And all the dozens (if not hundreds) Hamlet adaptations would really be REMAKES of the Melies version from 1907.

Passion Of The Christ, and all the other movies concerning Jesus, would really be remakes of the Le Christ marchant sur les flots from 1899 (again by Melies). And I think this would be a ridicilous claim by any standards.

So I don't think your argument holds water.

Sure, some "adaptations" are clearly remakes. For example Van Sant's Psycho is clearly a remake of Hitchcock's Psycho, not a new adaptation of the original novel by Robert Bloch.

It all depends whether a movie is using as it's main inspiration either the pre-existing book, or the pre-existing movie.

As for Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings, I wouldn't say they are a remake of a cartoon, because I would have to consider cartoons to be an entirely different medium of entertainment.

Batman Begins: Now this one I'm not sure about. I've never seen the serial films of the 40s you vaguely described. However, with the information that I know about the Batman films, I would have to say that it is not a remake, just another un-related chapter, as has been Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forver, and Batman and Robin. The Batman franchise of the modern era has left itself somewhat in a shaky connection to the rest of the batman legion, to where each is an independant film that holds no other as a frame of reference. Different volumes, if you will.

But I do think that if a film with said title and premise on almost any occassion is a remake of any other film with said title and same premise.

Take Riders of the Purple Sage, by Zane Grey. The film was originally made in silent version in the 1920s, and then remade again in color in 1996. Both stories featured Jim Lassiter coming into town and kicking some asses for the same reasons. Same villain, same town, same characters, same basic entertainment medium: film.

When an adaptation is made, there is a complete crossover. The film expunges itself from the shell of the book which it was based upon, and stands on the shelf as it is. Anything else that enters that medium should be treated under the same jurisdiction.

If Pulp Fiction were made into a novel by you, and I decided ten years later to take Pulp Fiction and make my own novel version of it, how would that not be a remake of the same work of art? I find it to be the same thing, only in reverse. Once there is one Pulp Fiction novel, any other will be a remake.

[Tuukka]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
As for Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings, I wouldn't say they are a remake of a cartoon, because I would have to consider cartoons to be an entirely different medium of entertainment.

RE:

I don't understand this. Because you have expressed certain principles such as:

Take Riders of the Purple Sage, by Zane Grey. The film was originally made in silent version in the 1920s, and then remade again in color in 1996. Both stories featured Jim Lassiter coming into town and kicking some asses for the same reasons. Same villain, same town, same characters, same basic entertainment medium: film.

...According to this, it does not matter whether a film is a cartoon or not. According to your criteria a "remake" is defined by the content of the story. Plot, location, characters, etc. Cartoons are "films" as well. Bakshi's and PJ's LOTR have all the same basic ingredients. Therefore PJ's LOTR is a remake of Bakshi's LOTR.

Can you give me an analytical, detailed answer why cartoons are not considered as a same art form as live action movies? The fundamental principles you have brought up about what defines a remake should apply to cartoons as well.

"Batman Begins: Now this one I'm not sure about. I've never seen the serial films of the 40s you vaguely described. However, with the information that I know about the Batman films, I would have to say that it is not a remake, just another un-related chapter, as has been Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forver, and Batman and Robin. The Batman franchise of the modern era has left itself somewhat in a shaky connection to the rest of the batman legion, to where each is an independant film that holds no other as a frame of reference. Different volumes, if you will.

RE:

This also seems like a very vague. For example Burton's Batman is an origin story based on the comic books. Nolan's Batman is also an origin story based on the comic books. Nolan's Batman is not a sequel to the Burton's version. Saying that there are different "volumes" should mean that they are not telling the same story in different ways (which is what adaptations do). But this two films are both origins stories based on the same source material.

So according to your criteria it seems to me that Batman Begins is a remake of Batman. Can you debate in detail why this is not the case?

If Pulp Fiction were made into a novel by you, and I decided ten years later to take Pulp Fiction and make my own novel version of it, how would that not be a remake of the same work of art? I find it to be the same thing, only in reverse. Once there is one Pulp Fiction novel, any other will be a remake.

RE:

It would be entirely dependent whether the novel would use the movie or the novel as it's primary source material. If Pulp Fiction would be translated to novel, it would go through many changes. If two separate writers would write an adaptation of the movie with total freedom of adaptation (which is something movie adaptations usually have), they would result in two totally different novels.

Do you really claim that all adaptations of Hamlet are really remakes of the Melies version from 1907?

Do you really think that all the movies about the story of Jesus are remakes Le Christ marchant sur les flots from 1899?

It's also worth noting that during the 18 years of his career, from 1896 to 1914, Melies directed 564 movies. A great percentage of them were adaptations of classic novels. So by making these films which mostly nobody has seen Melies put himself into a position where by filming a classic novel filmmakers are automatically just "remaking" the works of Melies.

But I guess it means nothing to you that these newer "remakes" have everything to do with adapting the book and they have NOTHING to do with the previous adaptations Melies did.

[Tuukka]

Also, I would like to add that according to you criteria Charlie's Angels and Starsky And Hutch are not remakes. They are just new "volumes" of an established franchise. Everything you said about Batman applies to them as well.

So I'm pretty confused on what your criteria actually is.

[TheDeadWalk]

...According to this, it does not matter whether a film is a cartoon or not. According to your criteria a "remake" is defined by the content of the story. Plot, location, characters, etc. Cartoons are "films" as well. Bakshi's and PJ's LOTR have all the same basic ingredients. Therefore PJ's LOTR is a remake of Bakshi's LOTR.

Can you give me an analytical, detailed answer why cartoons are not considered as a same art form as live action movies? The fundamental principles you have brought up about what defines a remake should apply to cartoons as well.


A car is not a plane, or a ship. Detailed drawings with voice actors I don't view as being the same thing as a live motion picture, recorded on a set, with live actors. I am being extremelly subjective with this. To me, cartoons has its place, and it is apart from the film industry.

The same thing with your Starsky and Hutch comparison. Starsky and Hutch is not a remake, because we are entering the portal of film, and escaping the former portal where Starsky and Hutch was a television series. (An Adaptation!) A television series is indeed different from an actual movie, I feel. I don't know how much more I can elaborate this, you have books, television, cartoons, music, comics, and film. They are all separate forms of media entertainment in their own right.

By implying that Starsky and Hutch should be considered a remake, is to imply that any adaptation would be considered a remake when brought into the world of film.

You used what I said about having the same basic ingredients, but didn't apply the clause that I said about something having to be a film. We know what films are, and we know the difference between animation and films. If the two are combined, it would depend on the context the format is being displayed. Is it a "film" or is it a "cartoon"?

...According to this, it does not matter whether a film is a cartoon or not.

If we aren't talking about two films, then this simply does not matter!

This also seems like a very vague. For example Burton's Batman is an origin story based on the comic books. Nolan's Batman is also an origin story based on the comic books. Nolan's Batman is not a sequel to the Burton's version. Saying that there are different "volumes" should mean that they are not telling the same story in different ways (which is what adaptations do). But this two films are both origins stories based on the same source material.

Comic Book.

Comic Book becomes adapted into a film.

50 years later, another movie about the comic book emerges.

It is either a remake, or a sequel. Depending on the context. I really don't follow with the Batman films enough to make a logical point about them, so I'll use some of your other examples as a frame of reference from here on out, because it is currently being debated whether or not Batman Begins is supposedly a prequel or remake to the 1989 Batman, and I have only vague distinctions about this from pretty much posts from other schmoes that I have stumbled on. If I continue with this subject, I have to admit I will get eaten alive, because you seem to have a vast understanding of the Batman series, and using that terrain will only serve to help your point(s). I have no clue where to look at the Batman series from here on out, and am actually disinterested in the topic.

Also, yy usage of the term "different volumes" has seemingly conflicted with your knowledge of it.

Do you really claim that all adaptations of Hamlet are really remakes of the Melies version from 1907?

Do you really think that all the movies about the story of Jesus are remakes Le Christ marchant sur les flots from 1899?

It's also worth noting that during the 18 years of his career, from 1896 to 1914, Melies directed 564 movies. A great percentage of them were adaptations of classic novels. So by making these films which mostly nobody has seen Melies put himself into a position where by filming a classic novel filmmakers are automatically just "remaking" the works of Melies.

Yes, yes, and yes.

When you decide to make a film on Hamlet, you are not just making a film on Hamlet. You are making another film on Hamlet. Or you are making yet another film on Jesus Christ.

I am not saying that someone is remaking the works of Melies, I am saying that from a basic frame of reference, once you create a film that is already existing as another film somewhere else, it is the second film made from that adaptation. NOT a remake of Melies works, but a remake of that particular adaptation! It has been made anew again, it has been given a breath of fresh life again in this medium that we call film. It is remade in form, from the substance material from which it was given, into this form of entertainment we call film.

Your form and definition of a remake is substantially different from mine, and the way that I perceive. You seem to be looking at things as if a remake has to be directly from the film source that was spawned, and if it avoids that film and shoots straight from the literary work, then it is separate and void from the remake label. I simply disagree, stating that the first film on the adaptation is and always will be the original. Any other attempts at adapting a novel or novella will result in it being a 'remake' of said adaptation, seeing that there is already said film existing in the realm of film.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
To me, cartoons has its place, and it is apart from the film industry.

RE:

Talk to any animator in the world, and they disagree with you. Cartoons are definitely films, and they are defnitely part of the film industry. You are allowed to have your opinion, of course, but both the makers of animation films and in general the audience who watches those films, are inclined to disagree.

For example The American Film Institute considers Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs as one of the greatest american FILMS ever made.

The same thing with your Starsky and Hutch comparison. Starsky and Hutch is not a remake, because we are entering the portal of film, and escaping the former portal where Starsky and Hutch was a television series. (An Adaptation!) A television series is indeed different from an actual movie, I feel. I don't know how much more I can elaborate this, you have books, television, cartoons, music, comics, and film. They are all separate forms of media entertainment in their own right.

By implying that Starsky and Hutch should be considered a remake, is to imply that any adaptation would be considered a remake when brought into the world of film.

RE:

Starsky and Hutch started with a 90-minute pilot. That's 90 minutes. Meaning that it was at the lenght of a full feature film. It was also a stand alone piece.

Since there was already a 90-minute S&H feature, does that make the newer version a remake? If not, why?

And if you claim that the 90 minute pilot doesn't cut it as a feature film, then I have to ask: Why? It has all the ingredients of a feature film. All of them.

Yes, yes, and yes.

When you decide to make a film on Hamlet, you are not just making a film on Hamlet. You are making another film on Hamlet. Or you are making yet another film on Jesus Christ.

I am not saying that someone is remaking the works of Melies, I am saying that from a basic frame of reference, once you create a film that is already existing as another film somewhere else, it is the second film made from that adaptation. NOT a remake of Melies works, but a remake of that particular adaptation! It has been made anew again, it has been given a breath of fresh life again in this medium that we call film. It is remade in form, from the substance material from which it was given, into this form of entertainment we call film.

Your form and definition of a remake is substantially different from mine, and the way that I perceive. You seem to be looking at things as if a remake has to be directly from the film source that was spawned, and if it avoids that film and shoots straight from the literary work, then it is separate and void from the remake label. I simply disagree, stating that the first film on the adaptation is and always will be the original. Any other attempts at adapting a novel or novella will result in it being a 'remake' of said adaptation, seeing that there is already said film existing in the realm of film.

RE:

Well, you are of course allowed to have your opinion. But in order to be loyal to this principle, you have to go to bizarre lenghts in stating that one film is a remake of another. I wonder what Mel Gibson would say to you if you claimed that his film is a remake of Le Christ marchant sur les flots. He would just look at you as if you were crazy.

Kenneth Branagh would do the same thing if you would discuss with him about his adaptation of Hamlet.

But like I said, you are entitled to your opinion. I do understand your logic, and in general I don't find your logic to be flawed, except that there seems to be a set of very subjective boundaries there.

But for me your take on what qualifies as a remake and what doesn't comes off as pretty bizarre. Your criteria is the harshest and broadest base for remake arguments I've ever heard. I can't really relate to it in any way.

So we just have to agree to disagree here.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
King Kong blows. It really hasn't hit my radar at all, because I don't give a flying fuck about it. I don't care for giant apes climbing buildings and swatting down jet planes, nor do I care for giant fire breathing lizards destroying downtown Tokyo.

I hope it bombs, not really because it's a remake, but because I've always found the films to be uninteresting pieces of shit.

I don't think this is being remade for name value as something like "The Amityville Horror", as much as it is that Hollywood is trying to make sure that once or twice every Summer now we can sit down for two hours and watch a CGI circus on the latest hyped disaster film.

Actually, PJ's stated reason for doing King Kong is that it was what got him into filmmaking in the first place. I don't think anyone in Hollywood was clamoring for another remake of this movie. I just think that PJ was extremely enthusiastic about making it. And after the success of LOTR he can pretty much call his own shots.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
Actually, PJ's stated reason for doing King Kong is that it was what got him into filmmaking in the first place. I don't think anyone in Hollywood was clamoring for another remake of this movie. I just think that PJ was extremely enthusiastic about making it. And after the success of LOTR he can pretty much call his own shots.

True, but it just seems like the Summer disaster flicks have become a norm.

We've got aliens attacking (WOTW and ID from a few years back), last year it was the weather (Day after tomorrow), and now this year along with WOTW, we have a giant beast taking over.

I think you're right, no one was really asking for it, but it does seem to fit in quite nicely into the scheme of things though.

[Tyler_Durden_208]

What's your point? Every fall/winter we also have about a half dozen existential/independent/WTF movies, but you're not complaining about them. Does no one know how to have fun at the movies anymore? Sin City wasn't a deep thought-provoking movie. It was just pure fun. It made me love film all over again. It reminded me why I love going to the theater.

[BadCoverVersion]

Originally posted by HeavyFknMetal
2. I haven't seen the remake of Charlie and The Chocolate Factory, and to be honest, I'm not to sure I want to. From seeing the previews it reminds me more of an LSD trip than of the classic kids novel from John Dahl, or from the classic movie staring Gene Wilder.

Ah yes, that classic kids novelist whose name is actually ROALD Dahl.

Dahl HATED the original "Wonka" by the way...absolutely HATED it!