Dear Will Smith, Go **** yourself. -G

[IcedNote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxBQS_Qn5m8





-G

[Corlyss_D]

Maybe you better give us a link.

[IcedNote]

I posted a YouTube video. You don't see it?

-G

[Brendan]

I don't either. I thought it was just me until I saw Corlyss' post.

[IcedNote]

Ah, embedding has been disabled.

Posted the link above it.

-G

[jbuck919]

I posted a YouTube video. You don't see it?

-G

I see it. I'm not sure I get your point. You're, ahem, prejudging this remake on the basis of this (not bad, really) trailer?

[IcedNote]

I see it. I'm not sure I get your point. You're, ahem, prejudging this remake on the basis of this (not bad, really) trailer?

Precisely. On a personal level, I hate that they're remaking one of my favorite movies from when I was young. But besides that, I hate the idea of "remakes" to begin with. Unless you can truly add something to the film (e.g. the remake of Clash of the Titans with the ridiculous visual effects that make the movie more engaging/believable/etc.), make an original movie. And I REALLY HATE the Hollywood remakes of foreign films (e.g. Vanilla Sky). More often than not they are dumbed down for American audiences. Idiots.

And I can't stand Will Smith. And his son is highly irritable.



-G

[Corlyss_D]

Wow! Where did they find THAT kid?????

[IcedNote]

Wow! Where did they find THAT kid?????

Jaden Smith....Will's son.

-G

[Prometheus]

I see it. I'm not sure I get your point. You're, ahem, prejudging this remake on the basis of this (not bad, really) trailer?

Precisely. On a personal level, I hate that they're remaking one of my favorite movies from when I was young. But besides that, I hate the idea of "remakes" to begin with. Unless you can truly add something to the film (e.g. the remake of Clash of the Titans with the ridiculous visual effects that make the movie more engaging/believable/etc.), make an original movie. And I REALLY HATE the Hollywood remakes of foreign films (e.g. Vanilla Sky). More often than not they are dumbed down for American audiences. Idiots.

And I can't stand Will Smith. And his son is highly irritable.



-G

I agree with you on the issue of remakes. I do not go to many movies, but I find the trend of remakes to have become overdone. If the original is so good, I would rather watch it and be reminded of why it is.

Additionally, I think that remaking films takes away from the skill of creating new films.

I respect remakes as some directors want to pay homage to favorite films of theirs and it may be a personal way for them to honor the films that influenced them, but it just isn't for me.

[Corlyss_D]

Wow! Where did they find THAT kid?????

Jaden Smith....Will's son.

-G

Well, who's doing his stunts? A midget?

[DavidRoss]

I respect remakes as some directors want to pay homage to favorite films of theirs and it may be a personal way for them to honor the films that influenced them, but it just isn't for me.

This one appears to be a vanity project--Will Smith's effort to promote his son. The switch to China & kung fu instead of L.A. & Okinawan karate offers some visual appeal evident in the trailer that was not present in the original, and Jackie Chan in Pat Morita's role as shifu/sensei might offer some of his own special magic. I'll try not to judge it until I see it...which I might, if the DVD is available through redbox some day when I'm at the grocery store and have nothing planned for the evening.

[moldyoldie]

Just curious: Why are multiple stage adaptations of Hamlet and The Glass Menagerie, or interpretations of Beethoven's Ninth and Don Giovanni, such noble endeavors while remaking favorite old movies rates a big "Go f**k yourself"?

FWIW, I enjoyed all three film adaptations of Mutiny on the Bounty.

[IcedNote]

Just curious: Why are multiple stage adaptations of Hamlet and The Glass Menagerie, or interpretations of Beethoven's Ninth and Don Giovanni, such noble endeavors while remaking favorite old movies rates a big "Go f**k yourself"?

I think it's quite simple. It's the same reason that museums don't carry replicas of the Mona Lisa...or why I haven't rewritten Catch-22 word-for-word and sold it as my own. Films are definitive, finite products, just like works of the visual arts and books. They are known as final results, not processes. Plays and musical scores by their very nature are meant to be redone over and over (well, unless you take the philosophical stance that the true work of art in such cases is the paper they're written on or the idea, not the actual performance).

-G

[moldyoldie]

Just curious: Why are multiple stage adaptations of Hamlet and The Glass Menagerie, or interpretations of Beethoven's Ninth and Don Giovanni, such noble endeavors while remaking favorite old movies rates a big "Go f**k yourself"?

I think it's quite simple. It's the same reason that museums don't carry replicas of the Mona Lisa...or why I haven't rewritten Catch-22 word-for-word and sold it as my own. Films are definitive, finite products, just like works of the visual arts and books. They are known as final results, not processes. Plays and musical scores by their very nature are meant to be redone over and over (well, unless you take the philosophical stance that the true work of art in such cases is the paper they're written on or the idea, not the actual performance).

-G

I've purposely avoided responding to this since I'm not sure I can buy into IcedNote's rationale. Thinking it over a few mornings, it seems that the only thing that makes films "definitive, finite products" are the costs involved in producing, distributing, and promotion; much of which is ultimately decided by mass market research. Using IcedNote's reasoning, if Shakespeare had written screenplays instead of stage plays, we'd never see more than one adaptation of Hamlet. I fail to grok!

I'm loath to think that I'd never get the chance to see epic remakes of films such as Ben-Hur and King of Kings if IcedNote was at the despotic helm of the film industry.

Someone, preferably a third party, or even a few third parties, please settle this!

[DavidRoss]

Someone, preferably a third party, or even a few third parties, please settle this!

OK. You have your opinion. Garrett has his opinion. If they've acquired the rights, movie makers are free to remake films if they wish...and moviegoers are free to watch them or not, according to their preferences. Settled!

Personally, I see little difference between different movie directors realizing their own visions of a screenplay and different stage directors realizing their own visions of a stage play, or different painters' visions of an historical or literary event (how many "Martyrdoms of St. Sebastian" have we seen?)--or different conductors' visions of a score.

[moldyoldie]

Thank you, David. Sibelius would've approved ...I think.

[Corlyss_D]

while remaking favorite old movies rates a big "Go f**k yourself"?

Garrett's got an interesting take on movies as a product. I don't have an opinion on his take.

From my POV the answer to your questions is simple: remakes are usually infintely worse than the original, often altered in some way to suit more modern or current sensibilities, frequently with actors whose skills are inferior to those of the actors in the original, often made with camera shots heavily influenced by TV camera styles, often now with CGI that puts me completely off, and inferior music. Often remakes of blockbusters seem to be based on the idea that if it sold big once, it will sell big again. Aside from that, I have nothing against remakes.

Many times remaking a classic that dealt with contemporary social problems is anachronistic by the time it gets remade. Case in point: Toys in the Attic in the 1930s version had to allude to lesbianism very indirectly because of the code, and according to Hellman, was much more in keeping with the aura of ambiguity in her story and made for tenser film. It was remade in the 60s, and while technically more true to her story, didn't keep that aura of ambiguity in part because the 60s was a time of freer standards the production staff didn't need to be coy. What prejudice would Gentlemens' Agreement be made about today, because Jews are not kept out of societies like they once were. Or To Kill a Mockingbird? The Big Clock was "remade" as No Way Out 30 years later and while both are good movies, they are the same plot in a completely different settings. The former was pitched to Hollywood's antipathy for corporations (a civilian setting), while the latter was pitched to Hollywood's traditional disdain for the military, so to me they are really different movies with totally different implications.

IMO remakes are actually lower down on the artistic scale than sequels, which are usually pretty lame if not completely execrable, Godfather II excepted.