The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Let Me In | Are remakes of good films appropriate?
Cojones
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Let Me In is an English-language adaptation of John Ajvide Lindqvist's 2004 novel Let the Right One In, later turned into a critically-acclaimed movie of the same name.
One point of contention raised while the movie was in production was by the 2008 adaptation's director, Tomas Alfredson, who said:
If one should remake a film, it's because the original is bad. And I don't think mine is
remakes should be made of movies that aren't very good, that gives you the chance to fix whatever has gone wrong. I'm very proud of my movie and I think it's great, but the Americans might have another opinion. The saddest thing for me would be to see this beautiful story made into something mainstream. I don't like to whine, but of course – if you spent years on painting a picture, you'd hate to hear buzz about a copy even before your vernissage!
I saw this film a few days ago and am still amazed at how sublime the performances of Kodi Smit-McPhee and Chloe Moretz were. I found that the chemistry between them was immense, and Richard Jenkins is amazing.
Not only that, I'd suggest that Let Me In was made a better adaptation of Lindqvist's novel than Alfredson's version by successfully trimming the fat by cutting screen-time with largely irrelevant side characters, and concentrating on the love story at the film's heart with sensitivity and beauty.
Thoughts?
Cojones on
0
Posts
Regardless, I do think remakes should be reserved for bad movies, but when a movie is only seen by a handful of people, like Let The Right One In was; then I really don't see the harm in remaking it to cater to a different audience.
I suppose my problem with a lot of Hollywood remakes recently is that they take amazing foreign films and essentially put them into English. I guess it's the bigger audience thing, but I don't see why people can't just deal with subtitles.
Also, I think that there's a vicious circle where foreign language films aren't promoted very well because the studios think that people won't go and see a film with subtitles, so people don't go and see subtitled films and when ask say so, so studios don't promoted subtitled films.
EDIT: Also, the new version would have to be absolutely amazing to be better than Alfredson's film. I haven't seen it yet.
I know a lot of people who just flat out won't see a movie if they know it has subtitles. I don't see foreign-language remakes of movies to be a great offense. Was there any outrage like this when Ring was remade in english? It's just trying to reach a larger audience, plain and simple. I don't see anything wrong with that.
More and more I'm suspecting this animosity towards English-version remakes is just a new avenue for people to be pretentious. The English version doesn't change or alter the previous version in any way, shape or form. It's just a new way for people to say they liked it before it was popular.
I suppose a lot of my feelings towards this come from the fact that I don't really understand why people wouldn't want to watch a film subtitled in English. It's one of those things where I know that people have a problem with it, but I don't really understand why. This may have something to do with the fact that nearly everything I watch has the subtitles turned on due to a strange problem I have with loud TVs and migraines.
That being said, Let the Right One In was a masterpiece, and it is pretty rare for a movie as good as it was to be remade. I've also heard the new version was also exceptional, so maybe this is really a non-issue?
I agree, this mentality is hugely prevalent and crops up whenever English remakes are made. It doesn't help that English-language remakes have a track record of being markedly worse than their originals.
I find it more useful to frame LMI as another adaptation of the LtROI novel, rather than a remake of the film.
On the other hand, if Hollywood studios didn't waste their time and resources with almost shot-for-shot remakes of foreign films, maybe they could devote their resources to producing more original films. I mean, come on, did the world REALLY need Quarantine, when it had [Rec]?
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I like the movie, though. Did it need to be made? No, not really. It did have a slightly different mood towards the end of the movie though, compared to the original, but other then that it didn't really provide anything I didn't already get in the original.
I can't complain too much however, since it's rare to get good vampire material these days. I guess an American (good) remake would let more people get to see what a decent vampire movie is
Then, of course, it completely bombed and barely anyone saw it anyway
As am I. However, for that to work, you need base material that supports that many different kinds of interpretation. Not many works can do that. That's why Shakespeare is The Man.
Yojimbo to Last Man Standing
Seven Samurai to Magnificent Seven
Ran to The King of Texas
Same story. More gun fights.
Funny you bring up Quarantine, since that's where I first started formulating my opinion there. I saw Quarantine before I saw [REC], and enjoyed Quarantine more. I suspect it's because I saw it first, so it was more fresh. My wife saw [REC] first, and then saw Quarantine, and she enjoyed [REC] more.
Well, Ran was already a retelling of King Lear.
Sometimes... it can be proven that a remake would be unnecessary.
IMO, Rec, Ringu+sequels, Ju-on+sequels, Dark Water, Pulse, and the like NEVER needed American/English remakes. I'll admit, The Ring had me creeped out for a few days, and The Grudge was pretty decent, but Quarantine was laughable as a remake of Rec (now that I've finally seen it).
Audition and Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon proved they didn't need remakes (I doubt anyone in Hollywood short of Rob Zombie would dare to try to remake Audition)
Am I going to be excited about a remake that turns out to be shitty, or a cash grab? No.
But whenever a remake of a good film is also good, then you have two good films. Where's the problem?
Well, Hollywood clearly makes remakes because its very profitable. That sentiment isn't very insightful though. I would suggest that English language remakes are successful for two related reasons. First, that many people will not watch any movies with subtitles, no matter what (or dubbing either, apparently). Secondly, American society is rather isolated from the rest of the world, meaning most of the American movie watching public has no knowledge of any foreign language movies at all, meaning a large amount of potential profit is left on the table for any foreign language film.
Hollywood studios knowing the two reasons I stated above are just taking the opportunity to make profit. I used to think a lot of remakes were of lower quality. I still believe that to some extent, since I greatly value originality in movies. But you rarely saw any complaints about The Departed being a scene for scene remake of Infernal Affairs (seriously watch them both sometime, its uncanny how similar each scene is. It's like someone specifically said 'Make this movie again, but with different actors and in English').
So I do enjoy that good films are getting a wider audience, especially since all of that audience includes my friends and family, but I wish people would just watch foreign films.
Really?
I thought it lost a lot in the remake in terms of atmosphere. Though it is really difficult to objectively assess a remake when one has seen the original - you can't go in with a clean slate, I guess.
The sequel to Quarantine isn't going to be a remake of REC 2, so I think it was good it was remade.
Also, Let Me In was fantastic.
Edit: English version of the Ring was superior in my eyes as well.
Two words: The Departed.
He doesn't care if someone remakes one of his movies as long as he gets that sweet, sweet check.
Edit: The Nightmare on Elm St. remake may be the worst movie ever made, if we're talking bad ones.
The Departed, for example, was pretty much the best damned remake of a critically-acclaimed film that you could ever ask for. Ocean's 11 was pretty solid as well. But that's Scorsese and Soderbergh.
Most re-makes (of good films, at least) are pretty awful, though
La Femme Nikita - Luc Besson original.
Black Cat - Stephen Shin HK Action remake of Nikita (really not bad... the ice bullet was a nice touch)
Point of No Return - American shit film remake Nikita.
Same story, with wildly differing levels of goodness.
I also really liked that in the American version, Naomi Watts figures out what she's done herself, and doesn't need hallucinations of freaking Towel-Head(tm) to point at the VCR for her.
"There are no bad ideas, just poor executions."
While there certainly are films (and other things) that are so iconic and so large a part of the greater culture that remaking them seems completely pointless, some thing done well and with masterful execution is always appreciated, whether it infringes on a sacred cow or not.
In the case of Let Me In, I thought it a remarkably good adaptation, but since I was a fan of the original, I also felt it served no particular purpose to me personally. All it means now is that for a certain group of people I'll refer them to the Swedish version, and for a certain group I'll refer the American. Is the Swedish version better? Empirically. But it's not for everyone.
Some remakes/adaptations are good, some are not.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
I know that it's heresy to admit this, but I too very much preferred Snyder's '04 DotD to Romero's - if only for the sheer entertainment value that that film brought to the table.
As far as LMI "bombing" goes, I expect that the film will see a significant return on DVD/BD sales and should comfortably break even.
1. The original had problems that more talented people, more money, and/or the wonders of modern technology can solve. (The Thing is a great example.)
2. The new film is not just remaking the original but commenting on it. (Cape Fear, for instance.)
3. The new film is not just remaking the original but finding a new interpretation on it, perhaps by being more faithful to the original source material (Let Me In).
(Van Sant exemption: The new film intends to prove with scientific accuracy that Hitchcock was awesome.)
Nowhere in that list is "we accidentally created a franchise here and want to remilk it" (Red Dragon), "we're desperate for some easy money" (every horror remake of the past decade that wasn't in a foreign language), "it's been twenty years and old people feel nostalgic" (Tron Legacy, all the A-list horror remakes), or "it's been twenty years and teenagers won't realize we're just copying something else" (all the B-list horror remakes--I'm looking at you, Prom Night).
Even a remake with artistic aspirations can fail--look at Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. But a remake made with the worst intentions is almost sure to.
I'm unsure where English remakes of foreign films fit into this; there seems to be no hard and fast rule, as you can see from the American versions of The Ring (superior in almost every way) and Let Me In (equivalent in almost every way). So I think it comes down to the individuals involved.
So not really?:P
I'm with Ross here really. A remake is nice when it adds something new and it seems pointless when it doesn't. Of course, I'm used to subtitles and movies in my own language are pretty rare anyways so caring about this one way or another is a bit silly.
I know there will be some sensitivity in the Non-English speaking world about the US remaking their films for the domestic market. And yeah, sure it would be nicer if Americans would just watch your film in the original language, but the wider public just isn't going to do that. So, a remake brings the story to a wider public than would otherwise be possible.
I do to. There's a lot I didn't like at all about the original Dawn of the Dead and while the remake is far from perfect, it does more right in my eyes than the original. Heresy, but whatever.
Haven't seen the remake of Let the Right One In, but I heard they changed some things
That being said, I enjoyed Let Me In even more. It had better pacing, much better performances (I thought Oskar was a bit too wooden in the original, Richard Jenkins was great as always, and Chloe Moretz was just brilliant), and the story/side characters were modified in ways that just allowed it to flow better. I honestly think it's a better film, though I hold the original in high regard. Also the vampire sequences were really well done.
As far as other remakes go, I mean I can go either way. If they can make a good movie, I don't care if it's a remake or not. They're entertainment for me, I don't really get emotionally involved. I like the '04 Dawn of the Dead much more than the original, which I don't feel has aged well at all. Plus Romero's heavy-handed social commentary has annoyed the shit out of me for as long as I can remember.
There have been only two remakes I've ever truly disliked, and they were The Grudge (which I just felt was stupid, I hated every second of it) and A Nightmare on Elm Street. Hell, I'd say I didn't even dislike ANOES, I was just indifferent to it. It was just uninspired, lazy and felt like no one on the production gave a shit. I'd much rather love or hate a film, because that's a genuine emotional reaction. That one I just couldn't care less about.