The death of originality: Remakes

[mister Lennon]

Who the hell is speilburg???

 

[Substance D]

Talk about being a crybaby. :

You're really pissed off about Scorcese remaking Internal Affairs aren't you? Even though I watched and loved the original, I am also very much interested to see a visionary filmmaker like Scorcese put his own spin on it.

"Oh, The Departed is twice as long as Infernal Affairs and isn't as good" you say? Watch the bloody film first. There, that sounds like a pretty good idea doesn't it?

I am all for any kind of film - adaptation, original, remake, whatever....as long as it is done well. I had a blast watching the Ocean's 11 remake, King Kong as well as the superb performances in Nolan's Insomnia. If it weren't for these great remakes, I would have never been exposed to the classic originals either.

And I simply can't stand condescending film snobs like you who start throwing a hissy fit just because someone took their favorite foreign film and made it so well that it might have surpassed the original in some way or another.

Putting down revolutionary filmmakers like Peter Jackson, Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorcese are you? Say it ain't another shameless attribute of some hard-nosed foreign film critic who thinks his taste is so much better than everyone else. These are guys have already proved their mettle in the arena of cinema:

Peter Jackson helmed what was quite possibly the grandest, most ambitious and complex project ever undertaken by a filmmaker.

Steven Spielberg, despite his fondness for working with adapted material, has shown to be one of the most versatile and proficient directors of all time, with classics like Raiders of the Lost Ark, Schindler's List and Munich under his belt.

Martin Scorcese? Yeah, another director of many undisputed classics like Raging Bull, Goodfellas and Taxi Driver is suddenly not worth half his stock just because he made a remake of another movie, eh?

Pompous and haughty wannabe critics lashing out at Hollywood even if they do something good for once, because you know, it's just such a hip'n trendy thing to do right now.

is this the tool that was commenting in the departed thread without seeing the movie first? lol, what an idiot.

 

[Fenrir]

is this the tool that was commenting in the departed thread without seeing the movie first? lol, what an idiot.

The very same. :

 

[CAH]

Originality is NOT dead.



Most of us just look beyond the movies that look like something we've seen before, but in truth they are not.

What is your definition of originality anyways? To me, it's creating something everyone has not seen, but something that everyone can love.

 

[SoulManX]

Who the hell is speilburg???

Steven's 3rd cousin removed on his mother's side.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Take Citezen Kane for example, it uses a very cliche'd opening idea, yet warps it entirely for it's own purposes, Originality is new stuff, or new uses or new ways, but yeah, there's not much in Hollywood, So i look elsewhere!

 

[livrule]

Talk about being a crybaby. :

You're really pissed off about Scorcese remaking Internal Affairs aren't you? Even though I watched and loved the original, I am also very much interested to see a visionary filmmaker like Scorcese put his own spin on it.

"Oh, The Departed is twice as long as Infernal Affairs and isn't as good" you say? Watch the bloody film first. There, that sounds like a pretty good idea doesn't it?

I am all for any kind of film - adaptation, original, remake, whatever....as long as it is done well. I had a blast watching the Ocean's 11 remake, King Kong as well as the superb performances in Nolan's Insomnia. If it weren't for these great remakes, I would have never been exposed to the classic originals either.

And I simply can't stand condescending film snobs like you who start throwing a hissy fit just because someone took their favorite foreign film and made it so well that it might have surpassed the original in some way or another.

Putting down revolutionary filmmakers like Peter Jackson, Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorcese are you? Say it ain't another shameless attribute of some hard-nosed foreign film critic who thinks his taste is so much better than everyone else. These are guys have already proved their mettle in the arena of cinema:

Peter Jackson helmed what was quite possibly the grandest, most ambitious and complex project ever undertaken by a filmmaker.

Steven Spielberg, despite his fondness for working with adapted material, has shown to be one of the most versatile and proficient directors of all time, with classics like Raiders of the Lost Ark, Schindler's List and Munich under his belt.

Martin Scorcese? Yeah, another director of many undisputed classics like Raging Bull, Goodfellas and Taxi Driver is suddenly not worth half his stock just because he made a remake of another movie, eh?

Pompous and haughty wannabe critics lashing out at Hollywood even if they do something good for once, because you know, it's just such a hip'n trendy thing to do right now.

Just so we are clear .... King Kong is NOT a great remake ... nor is it "done well".

 

[Cyrusbales]

Just so we are clear .... King Kong is NOT a great remake ... nor is it "done well".

I agree!

 

[vibeke_T]

You know, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, though not a remake but a reimagining of the book wasn't god awful.

 

[Everyman]

I think people here confuse remakes and readaptation. Peter Jackson's King Kong was a remake, but Spielberg didn't remake WOTW: he adapted a novel that has been adapted before. Not with much success IMO, but this was not a remake. Sometimes the line between adaptations and remakes are blurred, of course, for example Keaton's Planet of the Apes was as much a (weak) remake of the 1968 movie as a very free (and still weak) adaptation of Pierre Boule's Planete des Singes. But in general, Dracula, Frankenstein, Moby Dick, Lord of the Rings, Hamlet, Faust, etc. are not remakes, since the source material is literary and not cinematographic. The future Casino Royale is not a remake of the spoof, but adapted from the same source. I would love to see a faithful adaptation of Dracula (as I said in many threads before). The fact that some novels, plays or operas have been adapted over and over again should not discourage future filmakers to find inspiration in other forms of art. It shows that the source material is still relevant nowadays. The problem is more the tendency for the filmakers to think they are smarter than what they are adapting, wether it is another movie or a novel/play/legend, etc.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Who the hell is speilburg???

The diverse imagination of people who can't spell I guess.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

are you really that ******ed? jackson did lotr. it was original. you know, with the awesome special effects, taking fantasy seriously, the epic battle sequences. that **** was unseen before then. sure, he remade king kong, but that was after he left a giant impact with lotr.

and speilburg? i guess you don't remember raiders of the lost ark, close encounters, ET, schindler's list, saving private ryan, jurassic park. how could forget jurassic park? are you telling me he wasn't being groundbreaking or original with that?

and scorsese, a man responsible for some of the greatest films ever made, and you're telling us he's never done anything original?

dude, those guys all made lasting impressions because they were so groundbreaking and original. speilburg made dozens of awesome, original movies. so has scorcese. who the **** cares if they make ONE remake??? seriously, quit being so dramatic. speilburg ****s out great films like minority report, munich and you throw a fit because he remade war of the worlds??? ****, he even gave it an original twist, chose to show it from another perspective.

You're funny.

And you can't read, which makes it even more funny. Have you read where I said these filmmakers were pionners ? I consider some of them cinema GODS, and that is why I am disappointed they have rehashed old materials in the last two years. I've never said anything against Jaws, or Munich, or Lord of the rings. I was talking about the remakes they made recently in a thread about... gosh, remakes. Why the hell would I have mentioned their old works, when EVERYBODY here knows what they have invented in cinema ???

And I love war of the worlds. My favorite second movie of last year. Such an original spin on the book. BUT, no matter how I love it, it is still a concept we had already seen before, and I had to mention it with my other exemples.

But put words where I haven't put them if it makes you feel more secure.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Talk about being a crybaby. :

You're really pissed off about Scorcese remaking Internal Affairs aren't you? Even though I watched and loved the original, I am also very much interested to see a visionary filmmaker like Scorcese put his own spin on it.

"Oh, The Departed is twice as long as Infernal Affairs and isn't as good" you say? Watch the bloody film first. There, that sounds like a pretty good idea doesn't it?

I am all for any kind of film - adaptation, original, remake, whatever....as long as it is done well. I had a blast watching the Ocean's 11 remake, King Kong as well as the superb performances in Nolan's Insomnia. If it weren't for these great remakes, I would have never been exposed to the classic originals either.

And I simply can't stand condescending film snobs like you who start throwing a hissy fit just because someone took their favorite foreign film and made it so well that it might have surpassed the original in some way or another.

Putting down revolutionary filmmakers like Peter Jackson, Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorcese are you? Say it ain't another shameless attribute of some hard-nosed foreign film critic who thinks his taste is so much better than everyone else. These are guys have already proved their mettle in the arena of cinema:

Peter Jackson helmed what was quite possibly the grandest, most ambitious and complex project ever undertaken by a filmmaker.

Steven Spielberg, despite his fondness for working with adapted material, has shown to be one of the most versatile and proficient directors of all time, with classics like Raiders of the Lost Ark, Schindler's List and Munich under his belt.

Martin Scorcese? Yeah, another director of many undisputed classics like Raging Bull, Goodfellas and Taxi Driver is suddenly not worth half his stock just because he made a remake of another movie, eh?

Pompous and haughty wannabe critics lashing out at Hollywood even if they do something good for once, because you know, it's just such a hip'n trendy thing to do right now.

Damn, another one! But this one can actually write. Can't read, though, but at least it's one out of two.

You do know I was slamming these directors because I was disappointed (a word i've used more than once in my post, but it seems you translated it into "I hate these filmmakers").

They are kings among filmmakers, and yet they rehashed old ideas, when once they were making cinema go foward (instead of backward). I WASN'T talking about quality here (which i'm still surprised you couldn't gasp) but rather why they aren't bringing new concept instead to the big screen.

Remember when I wrote "Then Scorsese sees it. Does he say: "wow, I just have to beat those filmmakers and make the damn best cop movie there is" ?

Are those the words of someone with NO respect for Scorsese ????

I'm pretty damn sure you're more of a snob then I am, and you dismised my opinion when you read the first words I wrote, instead of my whole post.

I'm someone who's disappointed my heroes aren't doing what they used to be, bringing original concepts to cinema. And you're someone who calls me a snob because of that.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

is this the tool that was commenting in the departed thread without seeing the movie first? lol, what an idiot.

Of course i'm an idiot for someone like you. You do know I wasn't slamming The departed for it's quality ? (which i'm pretty sure it has a lot, and is one hell of a good movie)

I was slamming it for being a remake, instead of being the new cop movie I would have hoped Scorsese would have made in response to his viewing of Infernal affairs.

And yes, I can comment on the idea behind the making of a movie without having seen it.

But I doubt you'd understand that, or even use your brain to think before calling me an idiot for uncalled reasons.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Originality is NOT dead.



Most of us just look beyond the movies that look like something we've seen before, but in truth they are not.

What is your definition of originality anyways? To me, it's creating something everyone has not seen, but something that everyone can love.

Originality can be different things. But in the cinema world, it is creating something new. Somethings that hasn't been done on the big screen, be it a way to film a movie or to write it.

But the thing is, most of these filmmakers used to bring BOTH new concepts and new executions back then. With War of the worlds, Spielberg brought a new way to film an Alien invasion movie. Brilliant, imo. But he didn't bring a new concept to it.

For anyone else then a filmmaker god like Spielberg, I would applaud. For Spielberg, I cheer, yes, but i'd have died in cinema had I also not know anything about the concept of the movie (i.e. it having an original story).

But at least Spielberg brought new visuals. Most do far less.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

I agree!

I second that. Jackson went the Lucas way, with CGI overload. Worse, CGI which looks like CGI.

Jackson is no Spielberg. I look at War of the worlds, and i'm unsure how most of what i'm seeing is done, because of how much of a master with his camera and his effects he is.

I look at Kong, and I see 10 minutes of CGI fights between a CGI King Kong, a blue screen Naomi Watts, CGI backgrounds and CGI t-rexes. And worse, Jackson, unlike Spielberg, doesn't know how to uses it's camera to hide these CGI effects.

Which, imo, kills most of the sensation the movie is supposed to bring to the audience.

(I'm still going to give the movie a third chance when the extended version comes out, though, because of how much of a giant monster freak I am t: )

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

I think people here confuse remakes and readaptation. Peter Jackson's King Kong was a remake, but Spielberg didn't remake WOTW: he adapted a novel that has been adapted before. Not with much success IMO, but this was not a remake. Sometimes the line between adaptations and remakes are blurred, of course, for example Keaton's Planet of the Apes was as much a (weak) remake of the 1968 movie as a very free (and still weak) adaptation of Pierre Boule's Planete des Singes. But in general, Dracula, Frankenstein, Moby Dick, Lord of the Rings, Hamlet, Faust, etc. are not remakes, since the source material is literary and not cinematographic. The future Casino Royale is not a remake of the spoof, but adapted from the same source. I would love to see a faithful adaptation of Dracula (as I said in many threads before). The fact that some novels, plays or operas have been adapted over and over again should not discourage future filmakers to find inspiration in other forms of art. It shows that the source material is still relevant nowadays. The problem is more the tendency for the filmakers to think they are smarter than what they are adapting, wether it is another movie or a novel/play/legend, etc.

Well, I agree. Somewhat. I've been depating that for the last 3 years. I used to say "No, Spielberg didn't do a remake, he made a new adaptation" and etc.

I used to matter a lot. But now, no matter how I look at it, my problem with remakes are that they are not original ideas, but rather concept we have already seen on the big screen. A new adaptation, while not taking his sources from another movie, still suffer from being a concept already used in cinema before.

You know what i'd like ? People to go and uses their inspiration elsewhere than movies and books and games and comic books.

I look at Goya's painting "Saturn eating his son", and I am inspire to write. There's no script or even much of a story behind that (well, there is a story behind it, but I mean, if you forget the background there for 2 secs) but the painting in itself inspires me to write something new. Something that is all myself, all unique.

And that is what i'd like most of these new movies to try. To take inspiration from frames or painting or places. Maybe not a rollercoaster (though it did work well with Pirates, and might not be such a bad exemple here), but I encourage that.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

The one thing that pisses me off.

There are some fantastic foreign films around the place, yet there are american versions being made of them (usually nowhere near as good as the original), why not just watch the bloody original in the first place.

Look at The Grudge, that was done with pretty much the same crew as the original, same loacations etc. Only SMG was cast in the lead role instead. I see no point to this.

The Departed for instance. I have not seen it yet, but have heard good things. I heard it's an excellent movie, the thing is, Infernal Affairs is an excellent movie. I just think people should be watching the originals instead of Hollywood push their style of movies into concepts that don't need it.

While I entirely agree with you, a lot of people associate Hollywood with better (which frankly is often people who associate cinema with entertainment and very rarely would consider it art), so there is no way in their mind the original foreign version could actually be of any interest. If they see the american remake, they think they've seen all that matters.

It's as much Hollywood's fault for encouraging it as it is the casual viewers' one for being that closed mind.

But the world is opening their eyes. All we need is for one other industry to defy hollywood, and then people will know. Asia right now is the second most popular cinema in the world. It opened my eyes 8 years ago, and it's opening a lot of other people's eyes all around the world. Who knows, maybe in 10 years even americans will be more open minded to cinema outside of Hollywood.

 

[Everyman]

Well, I agree. Somewhat. I've been depating that for the last 3 years. I used to say "No, Spielberg didn't do a remake, he made a new adaptation" and etc.

I used to matter a lot. But now, no matter how I look at it, my problem with remakes are that they are not original ideas, but rather concept we have already seen on the big screen. A new adaptation, while not taking his sources from another movie, still suffer from being a concept already used in cinema before.

You know what i'd like ? People to go and uses their inspiration elsewhere than movies and books and games and comic books.

I look at Goya's painting "Saturn eating his son", and I am inspire to write. There's no script or even much of a story behind that (well, there is a story behind it, but I mean, if you forget the background there for 2 secs) but the painting in itself inspires me to write something new. Something that is all myself, all unique.

And that is what i'd like most of these new movies to try. To take inspiration from frames or painting or places. Maybe not a rollercoaster (though it did work well with Pirates, and might not be such a bad exemple here), but I encourage that.

I can't remember who wrote "we are not writers, we are rewriters", i.e. you reinvent an idea more than you create new ones. I understand that it is important to bring fresh material, but cinema is a medium which encourages adaptations. Even then, it can be said of other sort of fiction as well. Shakespeare didn't invent the characters of Hamlet of King Lear, neither did Moliere or Da Ponte invented the character of Don Juan, Stendhal inspired himself from a newspaper article to write Le Rouge et le Noir, etc. And there are adaptations and adaptations. I doubt that John Huston's Maltese Falcon suffers from the previous adaptation and seriously, Jackson's LOTR was badly needed, if only because Bakshi's version was so unsatisfying. A lot of novels, some famous, some not famous, would deserve an adaptation. The unknown because it would get them known, the well-known (or famous) because they deserve to be done faithfully (Dracula comes to my mind). If I often dislike remakes (and sequels), it is because they are often cynical attempts to cash in a beloved story, while being devoid of the reasons why the original movie was successful in the first place. But there is a difference between them and a genuine adaptation (good or bad).

Oh, and Goya's painting is an adaptation in itself of the story of Cronos.

 

[Cyrusbales]

I second that. Jackson went the Lucas way, with CGI overload. Worse, CGI which looks like CGI.

Jackson is no Spielberg. I look at War of the worlds, and i'm unsure how most of what i'm seeing is done, because of how much of a master with his camera and his effects he is.

I look at Kong, and I see 10 minutes of CGI fights between a CGI King Kong, a blue screen Naomi Watts, CGI backgrounds and CGI t-rexes. And worse, Jackson, unlike Spielberg, doesn't know how to uses it's camera to hide these CGI effects.

Which, imo, kills most of the sensation the movie is supposed to bring to the audience.

(I'm still going to give the movie a third chance when the extended version comes out, though, because of how much of a giant monster freak I am t: )

I wouldn't call spielberg a master of cinema, He made a load of good films, but his run of good films ended with schindlers list, I haven't seen anything of his since then, except AI, that i'd recommend as a piece of cinema

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

I wouldn't call spielberg a master of cinema, He made a load of good films, but his run of good films ended with schindlers list, I haven't seen anything of his since then, except AI, that i'd recommend as a piece of cinema

As far as FX goes, he is, imo. From Jurassic Park, to Close encounters to War of the worlds, most of his movies use FX in a near perfect way. He knows the technology's capacities he use, unlike Jackson, who goes overboard without knowing his limits.

War of the worlds is a perfect exemple of that. Love it or hate it, the way Spielberg filmed it and how he use his FX makes for one of the most realistic looking Sci-fi movie there is, and much more belivable then the dinos FX in King kong.

 

[Cyrusbales]

As far as FX goes, he is, imo. From Jurassic Park, to Close encounters to War of the worlds, most of his movies use FX in a near perfect way. He knows the technology's capacities he use, unlike Jackson, who goes overboard without knowing his limits.

War of the worlds is a perfect exemple of that. Love it or hate it, the way Spielberg filmed it and how he use his FX makes for one of the most realistic looking Sci-fi movie there is, and much more belivable then the dinos FX in King kong.

Great films don't need SFX, look at thirteenth floor, there is a lot of SFX, but you don't ever notice it, that's the point, and the poor structure of WOTW is agonising. It was dull, the characters were badly created and fleshed out, it was a film made for the sake of it, and for money, not for love of film.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Great films don't need SFX, look at thirteenth floor, there is a lot of SFX, but you don't ever notice it, that's the point, and the poor structure of WOTW is agonising. It was dull, the characters were badly created and fleshed out, it was a film made for the sake of it, and for money, not for love of film.

Spielberg makes big movies (or at least he used to, recently WoTW was one of his only big ones).

Now, I wasn't defending the script of the movie (while I love it, here it doesn't matter, and quite frankly, this is way to objective for me to question your taste here, or you mine ).

But the SFX. And while I agree SFX aren't necesarry, they are Mr. Spielberg's strength. He excels in using them, always have, and with WoTW, imo, he proved he always will.

Give 100 millions for FX to the director of thirteen floor, and there are a lot of chances he will not be able to handle it. Give it to Jackson, and he will go overload. Same with Micheal Bay and so many others. But with Spielberg (and again I wasn't talking about the story here, why are people always bringing that up when i'm defending Spielberg's use of SFX ?) you believe in what you are seeing. That first Tripod attack in the street ? Good lord, we where there! There really was a tripod coming out of the ground.

And imo, that's what's missing in most big SFX movies out there. James Cameron was one of the other few ones to equal Spielberg back in the days. Lucas too 30 years ago.

But things have changed. The new young directors are going overloard with the invent of CGI, and while Spielberg knows how to balance real with not real, most of them don't. (King Kong is a great exemple of that, while Lord of the rings was a far better mix of real and SFX than Kong was)

I see very few excuses when you have 3 years and 200 millions to make a movie, and it isn't nearly perfect in the SFX. Very few excuses.

 

[ToddIsDead]

It's not like Scorcese didn't make a remake of Cape Fear fifteen years ago. It's not the first time he's done it, and on both occasions, his versions have been excellent.

 

[Lord Blackbolt]

HEy!!! I liked the Kong Remake.