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.
We now return to our regularly scheduled PA Forums. Please let me (Hahnsoo1) know if something isn't working. The Holiday Forum will remain up until January 10, 2025.
Movie remakes and the ethics thereof
Posts
Remakes are rarely merely slightly altered versions. Their someone's attempt at improving on or telling a story differently.
That's an entirely different mess. That's the original artist, the one whose wishes people are whining we should hold above all else, permanently altering his work. You can no longer get the original versions, they practically no longer exist because of the artist and, if he had his way, wouldn't at all. Spielberg remaking this movie doesn't force the other one to cease to exist.
How do you know they aren't? If they change it enough they probably will. If they don't, they won't.
Cashing in on what? Does the original have a small cult following or a giant mainstream one? If it's similar then they'll call it that. If not as much they may very well still call it that. But so long as it's good, why give a shit? Are you as pissy about BSG?
So, what you're saying here is, if it's good you won't care.
People who enjoy watching fine movies and enjoy paying attention to good critics hear about these things. As I said before, most everyone who wanted to see Oldboy had heard about it and probably did watch it. It's just not for everyone, and probably wouldn't have been made by anyone else the way it was. That should be celebrated, not denied. If a Korean director makes a great movie then let him be. There are many foreign movies that are so godamn good, and are worth a little bit of extra reading. Go watch The Hidden Blade, which is an awesome movie, and imagine that being remade.
That being said, I almost want to see a Spielberg-directed Will Smith Oldboy. 'Cus it'll be funny as hell.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
When somebody says this seriously is is what tells me that anything they could possibly say about movies is so wrongheaded and meaningless that they're not worth lsitening to.
-- cashing in on what? The name. Clearly the name holds some importance, otherwise they would just call it something else. Yes, BSG does cash in on the name and character names, and (better or no) the series might not have got off the ground if not for the name.
Spielberg should not have this trouble and need to piggyback in this manner.
Oh I get how this discussion works. And I just told YOU that being considered important enough to remake by a famous director obviously makes the origional more important, even if not better. Did I do it right?
No, I said 'i'm divided on the subject' which means 'it needs more thought', thus indicating that yes, my opinions are conflicted on the matter. In other words, i'd say my post did an adequate job of expressing my opinion whilst pointing out the flaws in my own argument - not foisting my view on you like you were with all the cussing and 'interperatations' of what 'i'm saying' - you gigantic ass.
I can't see what remaking it will bring to the film as a whole in any case, other than the whole "subtitles" argument.
Which irritates me, a lot.
Well, I suppose it can have its merits, in that it enables the viewer to concentrate on the visual aspect of the film, which in the case of Oldboy, is stunning. The whole thing just ties together incredibly well, the geometric themes running through the film, the cinematography, the framing... It's an incredibly rich film that I really don't think can be improved upon. The two male leads are good also. Still, unless it's Gus Vant Sant style remake, I really can't see how it could get better. I suppose that might be the benefit of having the DVD before Tartan went bust.
Ignorance is bliss in terms of remakes I guess. Magnificent Seven and all that.
Also I will be very grumpy if there is not a scene where
And on the subtitle issue, I don't mind subtitles in general but they can absolutely ruin a comedy film that depends on comedic timing for it's jokes.
Or maybe, and this is crazy, they respect the work they're deriving their material from. Why not keep the same title?
So? It's the better version. If anything it probably suffered slightly due to people having seen the original reluctant to think it could be better.
Or, again, he's just being honest about what this movie's about. It's his version of a story that someone else told. There's no reason not for him.
Demonstrate how. You want to claim this positive, prove it. Please, demonstrate what makes them more important other than being first. Yes, someone remade them, that's because even if they created a similar story on their own, they'd be railed against for not creating something new and original.
"Abloo abloo someone forced me to actually justify my views." Sucks for you, but yes, I demand to know why this is bad other than "It's too soon because Lacroix says so"
I vote Jim Carrey.
This varies wildly for me. If it's a straight cover then I don't see the point, and it's usually some mainstream artist cashing in. I do enjoy a band covering another in their own style, giving it their own spin, even if it doesn't work out. At least they did something interesting.
For example, I like the Cardigan's version of "Iron Man" a lot, just because it's so different.
There are other times where I like the cover but don't really like the original. For example, I don't like Coldplay's version of "The Scientist" very much, but I love Johnette Napolitano's (only video I could find on youtube
Anyways, I love covers.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
http://www.uninvitedmovie.com/
FUCK REMAKES
Yeah there are exceptions (The Ring), but for the most part they are unneeded.
To me it says, "We're going to remake this foreign movie so our people can watch it."
This is not a hard concept to grasp. Nobody has said anything about why this movie needs to be made. It's xenophobic and closes out other countries and their artistic influences. Spielberg doesn't need to remake Oldboy and Will Smith doesn't need to star in it. Simple as that.
Quid: all of the examples you have used are for movies are television series that were around for a long time before being remade. The difference between 20 years and the "arbitrary" number I gave you (5) is that in 20 years, cinematic storytelling techniques change. In 5, unless groundbreaking technology is discovered, cinematic storytelling techniques don't. I'm not sure how you can justify this remake by saying, "Maybe it will be better." Spielberg can't possibly respect the source material if he wants to make a "better" version within 6 years of the last one.
You're whining that Spielberg's essentially making a remake of a movie that's never going to get a national release and will, in fact, get it into the hands of many more people for no reason other than fanboyish outrage.
I am comfortable saying that I think an Americanized Oldboy remake would be lacking, however. If it does get made I'll at least read some reviews.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. Oldboy isn't a film I'm clinging on to dearly, it's not a perfect film. Even if I didn't like it, you're completely missing the point.
The movie has a national release. It hasn't been translated and a big-name Hollywood director hasn't remade it (yet), so maybe you haven't seen it everywhere. I don't know why people need to. The people who want to see Oldboy either have or have the means to.
How hard is this to understand, really? This isn't Spielberg's movie. He can take any idea that isn't his, do whatever he wants with it, but the idea still isn't his. Have you totally ignored the fact that this movie is 6 years old?
Fuck it, I'm going to direct an I Am Legend remake starring Will Smith.
What are they adapting it to? Does the poor American public drool at the mouth for Old Boy, but the big, mean old subtitles push them away? Please. This is an obvious attempt to cash in on someone else's work.
Aaaand... what would you call the owners of the Old Boy license who would be selling the rights to Spielberg?
I suppose, at its core, it's the same thing. But Old Boy was a movie that needed funding to be made. Since Old Boy already exists, there is no good reason to remake it. There's nothing that is magically improved upon by filling it with Americans.
Which is completely fucking obvious, at least I thought it was. Apparently not. Have fun guys!
I find no problem with the remake so long as the new product is good measured independently of the original. I can understand the hesitancy to accept what will undoubtly be the Americanization of a very recent movie. With the exception of his serious dramas Spielberg is altogther to cutesy for something like Oldboy.
I also wonder why call it a remake instead of making something similar but unrelated. I guess that's another argument against the remake. The studio is banking on a built in auidence who don't want to see their favorite film changed in the first place.
Holy Christ you're thick.
edit: And your post screams to me that "I want to be special because I watched a movie with subtitles. Why should everyone else get to enjoy it if they didn't want to read them!"
Honestly the fact that it's not the sort of thing he normally does is what I would find fascinating enough to buy a ticket. I'm a big fan of A.I. for example, I think it's underrated both overall and as a Spielberg product, but it took some backlash for being not quite Spielberg and not quite Kubrick. I'm also a fan of Will Smith in general. The fact that these two are so dramatically mismatched with regard to a product like Oldboy makes it compelling. If they do this I will definitely see the original, and hopefully enjoy comparing the two.
Yeah, you don't do a project like this for money. You do it because you find it compelling as an artist.
Sure, of course it's a nice off-shoot that they might get to stoke some creative fire by making this film, but at the end of the day, it's money, money, money which motivates Hollywood.
Will Smith's kid is also going to star in the remake of Karate Kid. Is this some kind of artistic bankruptcy, or is a studio sitting on a property and itching to make a profit? It's about the damn dollar. Getting into the "artistic ethics" or "creative ethics" of something is one thing, but people make movies to make money. Always and forever.
Please...
and it's not like these guys couldn't afford to do that. Shit, they could afford to bankroll the whole project, distribute it for free, and charge no admission, but...