Cinema, Film, Remakes - Coming of age?

[Mr Mystery]

How do?

Just a very quick one....

Recently, Hollywood has been given a lot of flak for the number of remakes and reboots they're attempting. Many see this as the death of Hollywood as a creative entity.

And yet....Theatre has been doing this very thing for centuries, if not millenia (I'm rubbish at history, but Greek plays and that) and nobody has batted an eyelid. You don't hear people complaining about yet another remounting of The Scottish Play. Nobody complains when Romeo and Juliet is adapted to modernise the tale.

So why is cinema catching all this flak? Are remakes not ultimately inescapable? Take the recent Robocop. Whilst not as entertaining as the original, it remains in itself a decent film. They've taken the core story of Robocop, and remounted the tale for an age of entirely modern paranoia about drones, and personal freedom of choice.

[Wolfshade]

Theatre is a slightly different media.

If I watch two different companies put on the same play then it is a slightly different adaptation, John Lithgow as Malvolio was the most brilliant portrayl of the character, and despite saying the same words as others it is slightly different.

However, if I want to watch "the original" X, then I can just stream it or pop in the relevant VHS/DVD/Bluray and away we go. Which you cannot do with theatre.

The other observation is that Shakespear and other fables/mythos/faery tales have become part of our cultural heritage and so using them is the same as using any idiom.

There was once a chap (I forgot whom) who said that there are only 7 (IIRC) story lines so of course they are to be rehashed.

The issue is where the remake is either a clone of the original story, or is worse, which unfortunately is often the case.

Consider Total Recall, the original Schwartze****** film was an action/adventure yarn of its time it was entertaining with some good effects for its age. The story was entertaining (albiet a little silly) and the pacing kept well, the score was fantastic. The more recent Colin Farrell one replaced the red palette with a blue one and had a more believable lead (Arnie doesn't pass as being a normal every day guy), it has better effects, but the story is much less memorable, aside from the flying car car chase scene it is quite bland. So given that it starts with a solid idea it should learn and improve from the old one.

Though they are not all bad Casino Royal with Daniel Craig is far superior to that thing that was released back in the 60s(?)

[energongoodie]

I don't mind a remake
They just aren't always good, but not every movie is.

I'm looking forward to the Mad Max movie with Tom Hardy.
Some buddies are on Tarzan right now. Not that bothered about that one though.
The Star Trek reboots were awesome! etc

I'll try and think of more

p.s [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Basic_Plots[/url]

[daboarder]

I'm looking forward to the Mad Max movie with Tom Hardy.

Thats not a remake though, its a genuine new chapter in the story.

In fact its been in development for 10-15 years, one of the major problems was the location to film in, see Australia has just gone through our long term wet period so the foliage is green (brown really) compared to what it normally is (dead). as such they ended up deciding to film in Namibia unfortunately.

and the second star trek film was so phoned in, that they actually phone spock to figure out how to beat kharn.....ewwww

[Mr Mystery]

Yeah. Into Darkness wasn't that great, especially compared to how brave they were with the first in the reboot series.

[Kirsten]

I thoroughly enjoyed Into Darkness.

Last night I watched the new Robocop and I thought it was excellent, really enjoyed it. I have no issue with reboots, and no issue with things being changed, nothing wrong with trying new stuff around the main subject. Robocop covers all the main points from the original film, with better effects, an up to date storyline, great actors, so what if he looks a bit different?

[energongoodie]

Thanks for the mad max info

I loved into darkness...alot!

I wanted to get on board with robocop but i couldn't I missed the ultra violence of the original.

[Wildeybeast]

When a theatre puts on new version of a play, the director and actors always try to do something different with the performance to get people to view it in new way. This is fine. When a remake/reboot puts a new spin on things, this is also fine. When the film is pretty much a shot for shot copy, made simply because the original was not in English/over 10 years old/people like money, this is not fine. It's existence is based solely on financial motivation and so it is not art.

[DarkLink]

I could care less if it is "art". If it was entertaining, which I found Into Darkness to be, that's all I really care about.

[Wolfshade]

When a theatre puts on new version of a play, the director and actors always try to do something different with the performance to get people to view it in new way. This is fine. When a remake/reboot puts a new spin on things, this is also fine. When the film is pretty much a shot for shot copy, made simply because the original was not in English/over 10 years old/people like money, this is not fine. It's existence is based solely on financial motivation and so it is not art.

This is it exactly.