Sometimes a Remake Isn't a Remake
Filed under: Newsstand, Remakes and Sequels, Fan Rant
This just in! Hollywood is remaking a lot of movies! Everything is fair game!
It's easy to get really pissed off and frustrated about this trend -- in fact, it's right to do so. (There's a few exceptions -- Darren Aronofsky's Robocop is still a pretty exciting prospect.) But we need to save our rage for the eye-rolling remakes (The Karate/Kung Fu Kid, Footloose) and shrug off The NeverEnding Story for the simple fact that the latter is based on a book.
It's not a remake if it's based on a book. It's a new interpretation. That's something everyone forgot (even Gene Wilder) when Tim Burton decided to "remake" Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. People were furious and I can understand, as the Wilder version is beloved by a lot of people. But it strayed pretty far from the Roald Dahl original, which left a lot of leeway for a new version. (Frankly, the Burton one leaves just as much critical room for a third attempt.)
I may be dying for original ideas as much as anyone else, but I'm just fine with Hollywood going back to the bookshelves a second try -- even if it's for something as iconic as True Grit. (It definitely skirts the line though -- The African Queen was a book too, but I don't know that anyone should ever try it again.) To me, it just isn't a remake if you're returning to the original source material. No one blinks an eye when a new version of Pride and Prejudice or Hamlet gets the green light, even if you do consider one particular version rather definitive. Each adaptation of Charles Dickens offers something new, each actor and actress puts their own spin on a legendary character, each version inspires someone to discover the novel. You may love the new version, you may hate it, but each adds something to the cultural dialogue -- which is something no remake of Footloose or Romancing the Stone is ever going to do.
It's easy to get really pissed off and frustrated about this trend -- in fact, it's right to do so. (There's a few exceptions -- Darren Aronofsky's Robocop is still a pretty exciting prospect.) But we need to save our rage for the eye-rolling remakes (The Karate/Kung Fu Kid, Footloose) and shrug off The NeverEnding Story for the simple fact that the latter is based on a book.
It's not a remake if it's based on a book. It's a new interpretation. That's something everyone forgot (even Gene Wilder) when Tim Burton decided to "remake" Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. People were furious and I can understand, as the Wilder version is beloved by a lot of people. But it strayed pretty far from the Roald Dahl original, which left a lot of leeway for a new version. (Frankly, the Burton one leaves just as much critical room for a third attempt.)
I may be dying for original ideas as much as anyone else, but I'm just fine with Hollywood going back to the bookshelves a second try -- even if it's for something as iconic as True Grit. (It definitely skirts the line though -- The African Queen was a book too, but I don't know that anyone should ever try it again.) To me, it just isn't a remake if you're returning to the original source material. No one blinks an eye when a new version of Pride and Prejudice or Hamlet gets the green light, even if you do consider one particular version rather definitive. Each adaptation of Charles Dickens offers something new, each actor and actress puts their own spin on a legendary character, each version inspires someone to discover the novel. You may love the new version, you may hate it, but each adds something to the cultural dialogue -- which is something no remake of Footloose or Romancing the Stone is ever going to do.
_thumbnail.jpg)
'New Moon' Smashes 'Dark Knight's' Opening Day Record!
Black Friday Movie Deals: Best Buy
Sex and Nudity Don't Draw You to the Movies?
What Makes a Real Vampire?
Robert Downey Jr. Wants to Retire?
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-07-2009 @ 8:47PM
doa766 said...
there's a big difference between a remake and a re adaptation of the original material
chocalate factory is not a remake, even if you're more familiar with the earlier film version than with the book
Reply
4-07-2009 @ 8:05PM
Wayne said...
Kenneth Brannagh's "Hamlet" should be the defining version. Jack Lemon is the only thing that holds it back. Maybe George Lucas can digitally replace him with someone who understands iambic pentameter. Even Jar Jar would have been better than Jack Lemon in the role.
Reply
4-07-2009 @ 9:57PM
Joe said...
I don't get how any one could hate Charlie and the Chocolate one with Johnny Depp. I may not be a big fan of the film but how could some one hate the film when this version was more based of the book were the other version was not.
Reply
4-07-2009 @ 10:43PM
Zacqary Adam Green said...
It's possible that such people haven't read the book, or that they thought the changes made to the Gene Wilder version appealed to them more. It's entirely possible to love a movie and hate the book it's based on – The Shining is a pretty bad novel, in my opinion, and I loved the film. By that logic, taking a film adaptation in a different direction might appeal more to some people, despite the fact that it's not the book.
For the record, I think the Wilder/Stuart version was crafted better than the Depp/Burton version, but I think the underlying concepts of both are apples to oranges.
4-08-2009 @ 9:15AM
ML said...
"The Shining is a pretty bad novel, in my opinion, and I loved the film" -- while I don't necessarily put The Shining in the category of classic literature, the dramatic structure was solid and it paid off. The movie script removed most of the dramatic payoffs in my opinion (one big investment went hello, pft! Good for a laugh, not a scare). The main reason I found the movie entertaining was because I found it hilarious; I find it baffling that it continuously turns up on highly-rated lists. Oh, well, thank goodness we don't all have the same opinions ... Sorry, off topic, but really ...
4-08-2009 @ 2:47AM
McD said...
Selfish, but, I know for me, the real pain with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and the upcoming Neverending Story is simply that I hate to see the films that made such an impact on me (especially as an impressionable child!) changed/reinvented/readapted at all. There is no other interpretations of these films that are going to make me feel the way I did when I saw the originals, and part of me finds it sad that other kids won't get to see it the way I did. (They'd probably be bored due to the lack of effects anyhow.)
It kind of feels like when anyone covers the Beatles. Wrong. Feels wrong, doesn't mean it is wrong.
Obviously artists have a right to reinvent whatever they want - or whatever they have the money to cover the rights to. But, I would rather see money wasted on 10 remakes of Footloose before one remake of The Neverending Story.
(FTR, I didn't hate C&CF, but I'm not taking my chances on TNS)
Reply
4-08-2009 @ 10:45AM
Rivndellelf said...
I think that you hit the point of so many people's anger exactly... No one likes to see their favorite movies (especially those from childhood) remade, no matter what they were based on. I think you're also exactly right that kids now would probably be bored by half the movies we loved as children.
However, I almost think that makes the remakes a bit more valuable... We loved these stories and these characters. Sure, no remake will ever completely capture the exact same essence as the original. But it at least will expose a new generation to the story that we all loved to begin with, and in turn, hopefully, make them fall in love with it, too!
It's like a mother passing on her wedding dress to her daughter. The daughter may make some alterations so that it fits her style and personality, but she still gets to have the same warm feelings and happy experience her mother did with the dress.
As an English teacher, I often deal with this dilemma when I have to teach Romeo and Juliet to my freshmen. I can either show the Zeffirelli film (which is a really great adaptation of the play) or the Luhrman film (which doesn't hit every point from the play, but is a bit flashier). More often than not, I've chosen the Luhrman film simply because it gets the kids into the action a bit more, makes them invested in who these characters are and what the story is. It's by no means a replacement for Zeffirelli's version, but it is a way in to that world, which--lets face it--seems pretty foreign to lots of kids. But once I can get them into the story and characters, they actually can get almost as much complexity out of this film version as they would have out of Zeffirelli's. It's by no means the same film, but the newer version gives them a chance to look at Romeo and Juliet in a way similar to how I looked at it when I saw the older version. And that's what really matters.
4-08-2009 @ 9:44AM
Wayne said...
Three words for Hollywood:
Bromancing the Stone
Reply
4-08-2009 @ 2:18PM
pAT said...
I was resistant to the remake until i saw Zack Snyder's Dawn Of the Dead. It was a rare case where I loved the original version and the new one as two similar but appropriately different movies, with the remake lovingly faithful to the original in just the right ways.
That lightening hasn't struck twice for me (yet). Now I accept remakes as a sad but unavoidable product of the Hollywood system. I agree with Rivndellelf though that remakes can add value to the originals, especially when they're horrible, over-the-top, CGI spectacles that cut out the heart of the original characters, story, etc. The silver lining of these abominations is that they make me appreciate the original movies all the more.
Reply
4-27-2009 @ 2:19PM
Jim said...
Quote:
"To me, it just isn't a remake if you're returning to the original source material."
The definition of "remake" from Merriam Webster:
"to make anew or in a different form ."
To me, your observation doesn't ring accurate.
In general, Hollywood obsessively remaking more and more past classic films, only illustrates their lack of any original ideas of their own. The vast majority of remakes are only created to try to capitalize on the originals profits. Not to "make a better film" as you suggest.
Quote:
"No one blinks an eye when a new version of Pride and Prejudice or Hamlet gets the green light, even if you do consider one particular version rather definitive."
Yes we DO blink an eye. That is WHY many people are not fans of remakes. Remakes (re~imaginings, reboots, etc), are usually unoriginal, uninspired, and unlike ,the original in countless ways.
Hollywood needs to give gifted, imaginative writers creations a look. It takes no talent to steal, rehash and rework what was done successfully previously. That to many, is considered plagiarism.
Quote:
"Each adaptation of Charles Dickens offers something new, each actor and actress puts their own spin on a legendary character, each version inspires someone to discover the novel. "
Still a remake.
Reply