Psycho. The Postman Always Rings Twice. The Omen. Sunset Boulevard. The Birds. The War of the Worlds. The Italian Job. [Rec]
As Bart Simpson once quoted, "Woah, woah, woah, let's not tamper with the classics."
If only Hollywood had took note of this and thought about what they were doing to the art of cinema. Recently I had seen a trailer for Quarantine, a film remake of Spanish horror film [Rec], which recieved praise and a couple of awards. Then Hollywood gets involved. Not only do they remake the film (and I have heard sources that it is shot for shot remake), but they have the guts and patheticness, for lack of a better word, to bring it out just a year later. Is that the sort of films we are meant to witness now? Shot for shot remakes made solely on the basis that nobody has any original ideas anymore, and all Hollywood want is money?
I plan never to get myself involved in a remake, even if it is of a poor film that could've done better, as I like to think film is art. Would you see someone try to remake a famous painting? No, because it does not need to be done. People want originality. And that is what is lacking in Hollywood right now.
It is sad to think people will more likely see remakes such as upcoming The Day The Earth Stood Still rather than films that are actually intellectual and stunning such as Baz Luhrmann's Australia. Next time you are going to see a remake of a film, think again, watch the original, then see a decent film that hasn't been made purely to make money.
Tuesday, 2 December 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think it's important to remember that Hollywood IS in it to make money. That's what they want. They don't care how good or deep a film is; the execs want money from it.
And there are some very good remakes out there, such as War of the Worlds (even though we all hate Tom Cruise), 3:10 to Yuma, Fist of Legend (a remake of Bruce Lee's Fist of Fury), et al.
But I agree that shot-for-shot remakes are annoying. I watched the remake of the Omen not ling ago. I was a huge fan of the original as a kid (it scared the shite out of me) and the remake was literally the same. A few people died differently, but other than that...
The thing is - it was released on 6/6/06. Hollywood saw this as a way of making loads of cash and it opened it up to a whole new generation. So yes - Hollywood does it SIMPLY to make money.
Oh, and as for the cage fight - it's still in the beginning stages, but I hammered out one hell of a brutal fight scene!
What's your opinion on remakes that are years apart, such as Vladmir Nabokov's "Lolita", made first in 1962 by Kubrick and again in 1997 by Adrian Lyne? I personally thought the two films were really quite different in their approach and effect on the viewer. This might be due largely to the differences in censorship and filming certain things, I guess, as the latter version portrayed a lot more sexual elements than the former dared to reveal.
Also, what's your take on adaptations of novels, seen as that's a form of "stolen idea"...
I've been talking in my blog about the adaptation of Virginia Andrews' series of novels, Flowers in The Attic, and how atrocious the film adaptation was of the first novel. I think perhaps if a director were to try and re-do a badly made adaptation, it wouldn't be so bad. After all, the aim is to portray a story in the most effective way possible. If it means a lot to the director/writer, then there's no harm in expressing their "version".
Having said all that, I totally agree that a take for take remake is just taking the piss...
Wow. For a first time blogger you sure have got me thinking! It's actually a really intetresting subject you've brought up there. Welcome to the blogosphere, Richard! :)
Post a Comment