The death of originality: Remakes

[terry78]

You can only come up with so much original material. I have ideas floating around in my head now, but someone would accuse me of ripping off several earlier works if I expressed them. Fact is, our imaginations are inspired by what we've seen in the past. The only "remake" that needs doing now is The Wizard of Oz, and I don't care who rolls their eyes at it, as there has yet to be a live action adaption of the actual Baum novel. There were so many setpieces and eye candy-type scenarios in the book that were passed over due to 1939 limitations that doing it now would be doing the Baum estate a service I feel.

 

[War Party]

I would love to see a more faithful version of The Wizard of Oz. It must be done. Have you seen Return to Oz?

 

[Mephistopheles]

Films like Charlie and the Chocolate factory and War of the Worlds should not be considered remakes. They are just another adaptation from the same source.

I do agree that remakes recently are out of control. Most of them inferior when compared to the original. But not all are bad.

*remembers Gus Van Sant's Psycho*

 

[KingOfDreams]

Indie's where it's at.

 

[Cyrusbales]

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.

I personally didn't believe in the SFX on WoTW's, they were obviously effects, things like Hellboy where you think, is that a suit, or SFX or puppet or what? Those are better for me. But anyone who uses these effects to make a movie shouldn't be making movies for me, Look at Jaws, the best bits were completely effect free! I think there is no need for CGI to make a good movie, people just get excited because they think it's 'cool' etc, granted, spielberg uses them well(A.I), but still, his directorial skill has long departed from him

 

[Substance D]

I personally didn't believe in the SFX on WoTW's, they were obviously effects, things like Hellboy where you think, is that a suit, or SFX or puppet or what? Those are better for me. But anyone who uses these effects to make a movie shouldn't be making movies for me, Look at Jaws, the best bits were completely effect free! I think there is no need for CGI to make a good movie, people just get excited because they think it's 'cool' etc, granted, spielberg uses them well(A.I), but still, his directorial skill has long departed from him

um how else are they going to do the giant 3 legged machines and aliens? traditional effects? they'd look just as fake. a movie about aliens invading earth kind of needs sfx...

 

[Cyrusbales]

um how else are they going to do the giant 3 legged machines and aliens? traditional effects? they'd look just as fake. a movie about aliens invading earth kind of needs sfx...

fair enough use fx, but get a decent script! And good acting! The camera work was rather primitive also, which was a shame, as the book is such an awesome piece of literature, but this film is poor, the 50's version is better as the apocalytic version of earth is much more stylised

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

fair enough use fx, but get a decent script! And good acting! The camera work was rather primitive also, which was a shame, as the book is such an awesome piece of literature, but this film is poor, the 50's version is better as the apocalytic version of earth is much more stylised

Here i'd strongly disagree, though. A lot of people were turned off by War of the worlds because it didn't follow the usual formula we see in these kinds of movies (Humanity vs aliens in a fight to the death)

Instead, unlike the 50's version, we got (like in the book) a version that didn't show us a fight, but rather a massacre. And from the point of view of normal folks. Which made the movie far closer to an horror experience than an action-sci-fi movie (what the book always was in the first place)

Which was something new on the big screen in these kind of movies (and that is what is incredible here, because even though this one was a remake, Spielberg brought originality to the alien invasion genre).

Btw, Spielberg's version is FAR closer to the book than the 50's version could have ever hoped to be.

Oh, and one last thing, the camera work was FAR from being primitive. It was incredible. Where directors like Peter Jackson would film the first tripod attack from a third perspective (making us detached from the action, more of an observer like he usually does in King Kong or his lord of the rings) Spielberg choose to put the perspective of the camera with the people running in the street. It made for some of the wildest and most imaginative camera work you'll find in such a movie. And I can assure you, making movies myself, that making those kind of camera work is incredibly complicated! I wouldn't even know where to begin to replicate such work. While, I'd have no problem describing you how a director like Jackson uses his in Kong or Lord.

Spielberg has changed a lot as a filmmaker, and learned from it. And I for one am quite glad he did.

 

[Substance D]

Here i'd strongly disagree, though. A lot of people were turned off by War of the worlds because it didn't follow the usual formula we see in these kinds of movie (Humanity vs aliens in a fight to the death)

Instead, unlike the 50's version, we got (like in the book) a version that didn't show us a fight, but rather a massacre. And from the point of view of normal folks. Which made the movie far closer to an horror experience than an action-sci-fi movie.

Which was new (and that is what is incredible here, because even though this one was a remake, Spielberg brought originality to the alien invasion genre).

Btw, Spielberg's version is FAR closer to the book than the 50's version could have ever hoped to be.

Oh, and one last thing, the camera work was FAR from being primitive. It was incredible. Were directors like Peter Jackson would filmed the first tripod attack from a third perspective (making us detached from the action, more of an observer like he usually does in King Kong or his lord of the rings) Spielberg choose to put the perspective with the people running in the street. It made for some of the wildest and most imaginative camera work you'll find in such a movie.

Unlike in nearly every other blockbuster who go for generic camera work we always see.

Spielberg has changed a lot as a filmmaker, and learned from it. And I for one am quite glad he did.

weren't you just complaining earlier about how stale spielberg has become?

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

I personally didn't believe in the SFX on WoTW's, they were obviously effects, things like Hellboy where you think, is that a suit, or SFX or puppet or what? Those are better for me. But anyone who uses these effects to make a movie shouldn't be making movies for me, Look at Jaws, the best bits were completely effect free! I think there is no need for CGI to make a good movie, people just get excited because they think it's 'cool' etc, granted, spielberg uses them well(A.I), but still, his directorial skill has long departed from him

That's very unfair. Spielberg wanted to make an alien invasion movie, with GIANT tripods destroying cities. Of course they'll have to use something else than costumes for those.

Same reason he made jurassic park with so many FX. Now, are the Tripods better done than Hellboy's costume ? Maybe, or maybe not. But the task of making giant aliens destroying a city is far harder than making a costume (no matter which one).

Btw, Jaws had Fx too. we needed to see the shark at one point in the movie. Had they used zero FX back then, we wouldn't have much of a thriller to look at today.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

weren't you just complaining earlier about how stale spielberg has become?

Never, Spielberg is my second favorite director of all time.

He's been a god to me since I was 5, and I cried from the beginning to the end while watching his war of the worlds for the first time last year on the big screen. My hero was making exactly what I had been saying for years should have been done (an apocalyptic movie from the perspective of normal folks, but HUGE!).

What i was complaining wasn't how he adapted for the second time the novel, or how he incredibly put it on the screen, but rather that he, like many of his comrades, made another remake (or second adaptation in this case).

Had he made an alien invasion movie but with a whole new story (i.e. not the same story as the book or the original movie) I would have prefered it even more (no matter how impossible this seem to me, so much I like the movie).

You have misjudged me, and I've told you before. I've never questioned the quality of these directors, but rather I've been disappointed, not in their works, but in the choice of remaking movies.

Not the same.

 

[Substance D]

Never, Spielberg is my second favorite director of all time.

He's been a god to me since I was 5, and I cried from the beginning to the end while watching his war of the worlds for the first time last year on the big screen. My hero was making exactly what I had been saying for years should have been done (an apocalyptic movie from the perspective of normal folks, but HUGE!).

What i was complaining wasn't how he adapted for the second time the novel, or how he incredibly put it on the screen, but rather that he, like many of his comrades, made another remake (or second adaptation in this case).

Had he made an alien invasion movie but with a whole new story (i.e. not the same story as the book or the original movie) I would have prefered it even more (no matter how impossible this seem to me, so much I like the movie).

You have misjudged me, and I've told you before. I've never questioned the quality of these directors, but rather I've been disappointed, not in their works, but in the choice of remaking movies.

Not the same.

it was a question, not a judgement. anyways, speilberg and scorsese and all that generation of filmmakers are getting old. to me, it seems like they got all their great films out of them, when they were young and energetic and had a mission. now, they're old and have the power to make all the films they dreamed of doing, not necessarily caring about making the next big thing. they'll probably try crapping out another classic before they die, just to prove to critics that they still have it, but it won't ever be the same. if you want originality start looking towards the new generation of filmmakers. the new speilburgs and scorseses if you will. like tarantino, rodriguez, cauron, shalamyman, the wakowski bros, etc etc. those guys are still early in their careers and seem to be pushing the boundries and bringing something new.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

it was a question, not a judgement. anyways, speilberg and scorsese and all that generation of filmmakers are getting old. to me, it seems like they got all their great films out of them, when they were young and energetic and had a mission. now, they're old and have the power to make all the films they dreamed of doing, not necessarily caring about making the next big thing. they'll probably try crapping out another classic before they die, just to prove to critics that they still have it, but it won't ever be the same. if you want originality start looking towards the new generation of filmmakers. the new speilburgs and scorseses if you will. like tarantino, rodriguez, cauron, shalamyman, the wakowski bros, etc etc. those guys are still early in their careers and seem to be pushing the boundries and bringing something new.

That's my problem, personnally. I don't care much about the new generation of young filmmakers in Hollywood who do genre movies.

While I like Tarentino, i'm not really impress by his lack of originality. But I do enjoy his movies a lot, which might be what matter, afterall. I won't go into the wakowski brothers, since i've never been too found of them (i'll take the director of Ghost in the shell over them anyday of the week).

But i'll take great directors who began outside of genre films, and went into it after it. From Christopher Nolan to Brian Singer, to interesting films like Children of men by Alfonso Cuarón, these are the kinds of genre cinema that push the industry now.

I think the new generation of great directors is especially taking place outside of Hollywood these last few years, and more specifically in Asia (i'm talking about genre films here, from scif-fi, to horror, to action movies, of course, which is frankly what most of us here enjoy)

From directors like Chan-wook Park (Oldboy), who truly (unlike Tarentino) put a new spin on revenge flicks, to Takashi miike (who's going totally crazy in a hundred different genre) to animated action director Mamoru Oshii (ghost in the shell) to new comers like the director of Memories of murder (Joon-ho Bong) who's putting a new spin with his new movie (The host) on the giant monster genre (unlike Peter Jackson who gave us nothing new with his Kong remake).

There are so many good up and coming great genre director in asia willing to give us our sci-fi fix and monster fix that I doubt we'll miss any of the fun we used to have even if Hollywood isn't these years what it used to be (though, they'll come back. Hollywood always does. Everytime they loose originality, a sort of crash happens, and then they comeback with a vengeance)

 

[Cyrusbales]

Here i'd strongly disagree, though. A lot of people were turned off by War of the worlds because it didn't follow the usual formula we see in these kinds of movies (Humanity vs aliens in a fight to the death)

Instead, unlike the 50's version, we got (like in the book) a version that didn't show us a fight, but rather a massacre. And from the point of view of normal folks. Which made the movie far closer to an horror experience than an action-sci-fi movie (what the book always was in the first place)

Which was something new on the big screen in these kind of movies (and that is what is incredible here, because even though this one was a remake, Spielberg brought originality to the alien invasion genre).

Btw, Spielberg's version is FAR closer to the book than the 50's version could have ever hoped to be.

Oh, and one last thing, the camera work was FAR from being primitive. It was incredible. Where directors like Peter Jackson would film the first tripod attack from a third perspective (making us detached from the action, more of an observer like he usually does in King Kong or his lord of the rings) Spielberg choose to put the perspective of the camera with the people running in the street. It made for some of the wildest and most imaginative camera work you'll find in such a movie. And I can assure you, making movies myself, that making those kind of camera work is incredibly complicated! I wouldn't even know where to begin to replicate such work. While, I'd have no problem describing you how a director like Jackson uses his in Kong or Lord.

Spielberg has changed a lot as a filmmaker, and learned from it. And I for one am quite glad he did.

Well I don't care about the accuracy to the book, maybe blaspehmy to some people, but it's a film, a separate entity to the book. Spielberg's film WASN'T an alien invasion movie, it was a disaster movie, and followed all the generic conventions of the disaster movie, which to me is one of the worst genre's out there. There's nothing unique about his use of camera in this film, a lot of directors could have made this film, at least as good, with the budget he had. So really, for the amount of money he spent, this film was a disgrace! With that much money, so much more could have been done!

As for hollywood talent, I believe there isn't really very much. The supposed 'great' directors, like spielberg(who was great once upon a time) and scorcese(who never impressed me, I actually find him a very dull director), are failing to have worthy output. As other countries are becoming more proficient in cinema, hollywood is becoming less significant in film. Korea is producing the highest general level of cinema at the moment, but other countries are offering directors with fantastic skill also, Kar Wai Won, Pedro Almodovar, Shane meadows, Timur Beckmambetov etc.

As for genre, it's not so important anymore, as the level of understanding of cinema has increased, so people can think outside of the generic bubbles. Hollywood has also recognised the potency of world cinema, so to detract sales from them, they are remaking a great deal of them, the departed for example. Also they are re-making Oldboy! (WHY?), there are loads out there, and frankly it's a disapointment!

 

[GhostPoet]

You know...in some ways I hate remakes...but there are certain films I love to see remade...like if they were too old and had very poor effects...I love to see a remake...SOMETIMES.

For instances...I actually liked Bewitched..I thought it was funny. It was SORT of a remake I guess.

I'm actually looking forward to The Omega Man and a remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still, among other sci-fi classics.

I also greatly enjoyed the War of the World remake. I felt it really captured the life of a family during an invasion. And it got really intense at times.

 

[Cyrusbales]

The day the earth stood still is one the all time greatest sci-fi films and DOES NOT need to be made again. The effects aren't that dated, yes Gort looks a little rubbery, but it makes the metal look semi organic, it should be left alone!

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

The day the earth stood still is one the all time greatest sci-fi films and DOES NOT need to be made again. The effects aren't that dated, yes Gort looks a little rubbery, but it makes the metal look semi organic, it should be left alone!

I've yet to see it, but have wanted for years. Of course, when I decide to, I won't run to see it's remake, but will rather seek what the original one brought to the genre back then.

Sadly, most people will run to a modern remake instead of going back and exploring the history of cinema.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Well I don't care about the accuracy to the book, maybe blaspehmy to some people, but it's a film, a separate entity to the book. Spielberg's film WASN'T an alien invasion movie, it was a disaster movie, and followed all the generic conventions of the disaster movie, which to me is one of the worst genre's out there. There's nothing unique about his use of camera in this film, a lot of directors could have made this film, at least as good, with the budget he had. So really, for the amount of money he spent, this film was a disgrace! With that much money, so much more could have been done!

As for hollywood talent, I believe there isn't really very much. The supposed 'great' directors, like spielberg(who was great once upon a time) and scorcese(who never impressed me, I actually find him a very dull director), are failing to have worthy output. As other countries are becoming more proficient in cinema, hollywood is becoming less significant in film. Korea is producing the highest general level of cinema at the moment, but other countries are offering directors with fantastic skill also, Kar Wai Won, Pedro Almodovar, Shane meadows, Timur Beckmambetov etc.

As for genre, it's not so important anymore, as the level of understanding of cinema has increased, so people can think outside of the generic bubbles. Hollywood has also recognised the potency of world cinema, so to detract sales from them, they are remaking a great deal of them, the departed for example. Also they are re-making Oldboy! (WHY?), there are loads out there, and frankly it's a disapointment!

It's funny, because the monster korean movie I had just mentioned (The host) is being acclaimed for bringing so much originality to this dying genre (not that the monster genre is dead, but Hollywood kind of convinced most people with their lack of originality that it was).

But the thing is, a week before it was even released in Korea (it had a premier in Cannes where it got so well received) Hollywood annonced they were developping a remake!

I mean, JESUS! This is SAD. The movie wasn't even OUT yet! And i'm seeing people defend this stupid morality. Why isn't Peter Jackson, or Spielberg, or whoever that's a big shot in Hollywood inspired to make something better than The host ? Nah, that would ask for too much risks, so instead we'll just be getting the same thing without the originality and most of the time the quality the original one had.

 

[thedeadite]

remakes of asian movies bother me even more than remakes of american movies. atleast most remakes of american movies are from films over 10 years old...

 

[Cyrusbales]

it's a sad world, but then again, we don't have to watch them

 

[Substance D]

when they "remake" asian movies, to me it's more like a translation. alot of americans don't want to listen to crappy dubs or read subtitles, or watch a movie that's in an unfamilier enviroment with different looking people. it's taking the basic concept and using an american setting and characters so it's more relatable to americans. i don't think it's a crime like alot of people here do.

 

[Cyrusbales]

well the films are generally related to location, you can't take the film out of the country, it loses something, look at the wickerman, it's not the same when they 'translate' it. The film stories and characters are designed in relation to the country.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

when they "remake" asian movies, to me it's more like a translation. alot of americans don't want to listen to crappy dubs or read subtitles, or watch a movie that's in an unfamilier enviroment with different looking people. it's taking the basic concept and using an american setting and characters so it's more relatable to americans. i don't think it's a crime like alot of people here do.

The problem isn't just there, though. Usually, these movies are made by pionners in the movie industry. And when Hollywood decides to remake them, VERY rarely do they hire people half as competent as the ones who made the original one such a quality movie.

While the ring had Gore Verbinski and The departed had Scorsese, these are few and far exemples. Usually we end up with bad up and coming directors strongly influenced by producers to make crappy teen movies.

How the hell will they even begin to try remaking Oldboy ??? I would be at lost just thinking about it. I can already picture a badly directed Bruce Willis with an hammer in a movie without any style whatsoever.

Worse, i'm even hearing Walt Disney is thinking of remaking Hayao Miyazaki's adaptation of the novel Kiki's delivery service.

Who the **** would want to try top the god of animation himself ? Crazy hollywood...

What's next, another remake of Seven samurai ? Wait, that's also already in development...

People bashed the godzilla remake years ago when it came out because it was a very bad movie. What most failed to realised, was that the original godzilla worked because of how much of an allegory to the atomic bomb the monster was in his 1954 first appearance on the big screen. Remove the context of the movie, and you loose any dept.

 

[Substance D]

The problem isn't just there, though. Usually, these movies are made by pionners in the movie industry. And when Hollywood decides to remake them, VERY rarely do they hire people half as competent as the ones who made the original one such a quality movie.

While the ring had Gore Verbinski and The departed had Scorsese, these are few and far exemples. Usually we end up with bad up and coming directors strongly influenced by producers to make crappy teen movies.

How the hell will they even begin to try remaking Oldboy ??? I would be at lost just thinking about it. I can already picture a badly directed Bruce Willis with an hammer in a movie without any style whatsoever.

Worse, i'm even hearing Walt Disney is thinking of remaking Hayao Miyazaki's adaptation of the novel Kiki's delivery service.

Who the **** would want to try top the god of animation himself ? Crazy hollywood...

What's next, another remake of Seven samurai ? Wait, that's also already in development...

People bashed the godzilla remake years ago when it came out because it was a very bad movie. What most failed to realised, was that the original godzilla worked because of how much of an allegory to the atomic bomb the monster was in his 1954 first appearance on the big screen. Remove the context of the movie, and you loose any dept.

they should remake the eye. that would be tight.

 

[ord0g]

^ They are remaking The Eye. Forgot which studio it was though.

Although Hollywood is remaking a lot of foreign films as of late it was the complete opposite a decade or two ago in Asia. A majority of the movies coming out of China/HK at the time were ripping off Hollywood films left, right and centre.