Does it bother you when they remake one of your favorite movies? Why?

[JD]

I still haven't heard any rational explanation how a poor sequel/prequel/reboot/remake hinders the original.

I've given example of arguably good movies that have had arguably poor follow-ups that haven't suffered "damage."

I also don't get the 'I'll ignore it' argument. Are we really pretending that these movies don't exist? or is it for the sake of being canon with the other movies in the series? I've had conversations with people that refuse to acknowledge certain movies exist... and frankly, that's just childish.

The SW Prequels are a different story. Kids really seems to enjoy them and well, I was a kid when the original came out and every generation tends to have different tastes and in some ways scorn the generation that follows (and vice versa). There definitely seems to be a more timeless feel to the ANH and ESB than the rest... I'll give you that (and well, RotS actually comes close to that feeling at times for me).

 

[Mola Rob]

Really it boils down to the individual, some are bothered by remakes and/or lesser quality prequels or sequels, and some are not bothered. As Solo4114 said neither way is right or wrong it's just the way different people think about it.

Trying to force a way of thinking on someone or trying to understand how someone else thinks is like trying to force ten gallons of water into a pint glass. In other words don't bother you will just waste the water.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

One last attempt to explain and then I'm out. I think this might work though.

A good movie is MORE than a movie to some people. Although we all know it's fiction some people really form a tie with the characters and they become real to them. Therefore anything down the road that affects that character is hard to remove.

For them it's not the movie itself that gets spoiled. It's the CONTEXT of it. The nuances. If you feel that the character is real to you you form a connection to their story and can't omit aspects.

Using Lance Armstrong again, could you watch his victories again and feel the same pride as you did then? No. I don't think anyone could. That's because you know something about the character that you didn't know then that "spoils" it for you.

If you form the same kind of connection with say, Anakin, then of course it's detrimental to see him as a kid saying "Yipee!". It spoils your interpretation of the character.

I don't think it's a lack of will power, I think it's a by-product of being way too in to a film. The reason you don't hear a lot of whining about most remakes/reboots is because they don't have the same effect on audiences. Your ease of "letting things go" is inversely proportionate to how much you identify with the characters.

I recall Jaws being mentioned here before. I LOVE the first film, the sequels don't hurt it at all for me but every time I see Sean Brody it makes me a little sad knowing that in a sequel that little boy dies. Does it hurt the movie? No. Does it ruin it? No. It does affect it though, and the Jaws sequels are EASY to forget in comparison to others.

 

[Solo4114]

One last attempt to explain and then I'm out. I think this might work though.

A good movie is MORE than a movie to some people. Although we all know it's fiction some people really form a tie with the characters and they become real to them. Therefore anything down the road that affects that character is hard to remove.

For them it's not the movie itself that gets spoiled. It's the CONTEXT of it. The nuances. If you feel that the character is real to you you form a connection to their story and can't omit aspects.

Using Lance Armstrong again, could you watch his victories again and feel the same pride as you did then? No. I don't think anyone could. That's because you know something about the character that you didn't know then that "spoils" it for you.

If you form the same kind of connection with say, Anakin, then of course it's detrimental to see him as a kid saying "Yipee!". It spoils your interpretation of the character.

I don't think it's a lack of will power, I think it's a by-product of being way too in to a film. The reason you don't hear a lot of whining about most remakes/reboots is because they don't have the same effect on audiences. Your ease of "letting things go" is inversely proportionate to how much you identify with the characters.

I recall Jaws being mentioned here before. I LOVE the first film, the sequels don't hurt it at all for me but every time I see Sean Brody it makes me a little sad knowing that in a sequel that little boy dies. Does it hurt the movie? No. Does it ruin it? No. It does affect it though, and the Jaws sequels are EASY to forget in comparison to others.

This. You form emotional connections with the characters and the material, then those connections are affected by what happens next or what came before. It's not rational or logical. It's emotional.

 

[Macrossmaster]

I still haven't heard any rational explanation how a poor sequel/prequel/reboot/remake hinders the original.

I see people like you all the time, and I don't mean that to sound insulting. You want your opinion to be at the top of the food chain because somehow you've overcome the dumber humans and your logic stands around you like a fortress.

These are subjective opinions about an art form! No one leaves a theater hating a movie until, saved by the logic fairy, they suddenly convert to "properly liking a movie because they were shown the light."

Brother, if you could even REMOTELY approach this feat, Hollywood would snatch you up and place you in obscene wealth and luxury. Art is art. Some like it, some hate it.

 

[Jannix Quinn]

I like sequels but I don't like remakes. Tell me a story I don't already know.

 

[JD]

One last attempt to explain and then I'm out. I think this might work though.

I'll agree that this horse is getting beaten to death. But, I think some of it has been good, honest and open discussion. I appreciate your view and time OB and thanks for not being a jerk about it.

A good movie is MORE than a movie to some people. Although we all know it's fiction some people really form a tie with the characters and they become real to them. Therefore anything down the road that affects that character is hard to remove.

For them it's not the movie itself that gets spoiled. It's the CONTEXT of it. The nuances. If you feel that the character is real to you you form a connection to their story and can't omit aspects.

I guess I understand what you're saying. My ties to Star Wars and a few others are very strong... I guess I have the ability (or the will or conviction, if I may) to separate them from "real life." It seems like some se/prequels/etc have cause some people severe distress and that just sits odd with me.

I accept the films for what they're worth. They're fiction. The next movie, book, TV show can come along and rewrite that history.

The AFI put Star Wars on their top 100 films of all time list... because it stands on its own. It didn't let any other film in the series jade their view, it let it stand for what it is, not what other films or other things may (or may not have) done to color that their opinion.

Did the Holiday Special ruin Star Wars for folks that they didn't go see ESB? Did C-3PO cereal dillute the SW legacy? Maybe we should've all just quit on the franchise in 1978.

Using Lance Armstrong again, could you watch his victories again and feel the same pride as you did then? No. I don't think anyone could. That's because you know something about the character that you didn't know then that "spoils" it for you.

I missed your original mention of Lance Armstrong... but, I think you're comparing apple to Space Shuttles. One is real life and one's fiction... in real life, we hold a personal accountable for their actions and we strip away their titles when they're caught cheating.

 

[JD]

I see people like you all the time, and I don't mean that to sound insulting. You want your opinion to be at the top of the food chain because somehow you've overcome the dumber humans and your logic stands around you like a fortress.

These are subjective opinions about an art form! No one leaves a theater hating a movie until, saved by the logic fairy, they suddenly convert to "properly liking a movie because they were shown the light."

Brother, if you could even REMOTELY approach this feat, Hollywood would snatch you up and place you in obscene wealth and luxury. Art is art. Some like it, some hate it.

You're most definitely insulting and out of line. Some of us here were having an actual, real discussion here. I have no problem accepting other folks' opinion... oddly enough the one line you quoted from me was trying to reach for further explanation.

It's a shame that you can't handle and accept that someone has an alternate viewpoint and can discuss things like an adult without trying to bully your way through an opinion or discussion.

This is not just about the subjective opinions of a film. To me, this is more about some people not being able to accept that this 'art form' is not changed by another movie... it's the inability for people to separate a movie from others that might follow it.

I have no idea what the rest of your post about the "logic fairy" and me making millions means. Perhaps it was supposed to be posted in another post?

 

[Michael Bergeron]

I'll agree that this horse is getting beaten to death. But, I think some of it has been good, honest and open discussion.

I think most of it has. :thumbsup

You can have opposing views and still be civil!

I missed your original mention of Lance Armstrong... but, I think you're comparing apple to Space Shuttles. One is real life and one's fiction... in real life, we hold a personal accountable for their actions and we strip away their titles when they're caught cheating.

I guess that's the core of my argument then. Some people look at an apple and because it's REALLY tasty they think it's a space shuttle! :lol

Thanks for the debate JD.

 

[NormanF]

For me it is not too big of a deal. I think that is because I am just so used to it and the hatchet jobs when books are made into movies. A couple of Batman and Superman reboots, two remakes of King Kong, Disturbia was a knock off of Rear Window. The weirdest for me is when they basically remake a movie or tv show and all they do is use actors from the country where it is being made. But I do hate a bad book adaptation such as Starship Troopers and everbody's favorite, Blade Runner.

For the people who do not like reboots/remakes: What if it is actually closer to the source material? An example of this is Carpenter's The Thing. It was a LOT closer to the original book.

Sent from my Etch-A-Sketch

 

[Too Much Garlic]

For the people who do not like reboots/remakes: What if it is actually closer to the source material? An example of this is Carpenter's The Thing. It was a LOT closer to the original book.

Well, that should be the whole point of remakes. Doing something the original failed to do, such as being more true to the source material. But when we are talking about book adaptions being remade, it isn't so much a remake, as that hints at remaking the first movie, instead of doing a new adaption.

Dracula, for instance, is rarely referred to as being remakes, because people understand that it is actually a new adaption of the book instead of redoing an earlier movie version. The fact that they still haven't made a faithful adaption of Dracula speaks volumes about potential new adaptions being made in the future.

But where the original movie was close to the source material... you can sorta call the new movie a remake, if it is not adding new stuff from the source material and in general is basically just a slimmed down and streamlined version of the first or previous movie adaptions. War of the Worlds fall into that category, as it was evident that it was heavily using the fifties movie as the base to build on, just adding the tripod look from the book, but otherwise ignoring the book and favoring the old movie.

I don't mind new adaptions of books or comic books if the original strayed from the source material or only told part of the story.

 

[JD]

I'm pretty much done beating this dead horse. But, had to respond...

Well, that should be the whole point of remakes. Doing something the original failed to do, such as being more true to the source material.

Says who?

A point of a remake could be many things... to be truer to (possible) source material, just a different take on the same concept, total reimagining of the idea, homage, modernizing - just an outright cash grab.

There are hundreds of potential reasons for a remake. Please don't mistake your personal thought or opinion on what should be done - that's just opinion.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Yes, says I, which is why I said it. .)

 

[JD]

I apologize to Too Much Garlic, I was in the midst of making a simple edit to my post and it turned into more a remake (lol)... so what he read originally changed significantly since his reply.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Apology accepted. .)








Damn... the geek in me so wanted to finish with "Captain Needa"

 

[Bigdaddy]

I don't really care if there is a remake or not, "charlie and the chocolate factory" in no way affected my enjoyment of the original.
The SW prequals don't effect my enjoyment of the OT....until Haden shows up ( "special edition ************!!!" LOL). I would love to see the OT released on BR without the upgrades .
I saw the Highlander in the theater when I was 13, and have managed to avoid seeing any other parts of the "franchise". This was fairly easy as I had no interest in the sequals, and haven't had a TV signal in my house since 1986. I did see the directors cut (european release) and thought it was great. I doubt seeing the TV show or sequels would "ruin" the original for me. I just re-watched it with my daughter (her 1st time) and it was great to see Conner's story from beginning to end, without any "alien" garbage floating around in my thoughts. LOL

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Apology accepted. .)


Damn... the geek in me so wanted to finish with "Captain Needa"

lol:lol

You win the thread!

 

[Chief Brody]

Nothing will ever change the fact that Jaws is a terrific movie so who cares if Jaws 3 and Jaws the revenge sucked. Besides they're really funny so grab a beer and go all MST3K on them. :lol

I don't even count the sequels...there is only one Jaws. I have watched Jaws 2 and occasionally still watch it, but if Spielberg didn't direct it, it isn't Jaws.