The Eminent Domain of Movie Remakes

Even if you believe that a particular message is "better" suited to a particular story and vice versa, it's still a matter of which combinations YOU like better.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

Only in the useless everything-is-subjective sense. Taking the structure of The Lord of the Rings to tell a story about how absolute power is a good thing would be technically possible, I guess. And I guess it'd be technically subjective if I said the idea was stupid and that the form would have to be inelegantly contorted to fit the new message. But it's also incredibly obvious. When something is made for a purpose, using it for another purpose usually makes it less effective. This is true of everything from remaking movies to propping your desk up on computer manuals.

I said about as much earlier:

"This is technically true; there's no unavoidable link here that says swiping someone else's premise means your movie will be suck, or even be worse than the original. But I think there's a correlation, and I think the theory that describes the evidence does a good job of explaining why. The ideas in question are: 1) when you care more about making a point than making a good movie, the art suffers. And 2) that when you divorce a story from its message, there will inevitably be some degree of clumsy retrofitting. These both seem like pretty agreeable ideas, even if you disagree about the conclusions I draw from them, or the emphasis I place on them.

I am, of course, hardly the first person to note that remakes are usually inferior to the originals. I'm just talking about why."

If your only issue with the essay is that you actually believe we don't see a fairly clear trend of remakes being bad compared to the original, so be it. It's obvious enough to me to treat it as a given for the purposes of the argument.

So you're happier with remakes that espouse your views, but a different viewpoint in a remake is reason to like it less.

And would you be writing an essay complaining about remakes being inferior due to "separation of message and story" if the new messages were all agreeable?

Let's stop there. That is a perfectly acceptable idea for a movie.

Do I need to explain why?

Yoda is arguing in a vaccum.

Hollywood rarely re-imagines in remakes or adaptations. It happens more in adaptations than remakes. Still controversial is Robert Altman's re-imagining of Raymond Chandler's The Long Goodbye. I think it was a brilliant film and superior to the novel which was one of Chandler's weaker efforts.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

Aren't these the same thing?

I honestly couldn't say. The argument that I wouldn't have would be that we all believe lots of things, but to sit down and write something it has to be stuck in your mind a bit more firmly, and that things that upset us stick in our mind more. That's possible. But my motivations are intellectually distinct from the idea I'm presenting to others and whether or not they should agree with it, anyway.

Here's a good question, then: can anyone think of any remakes that go the other way? I can't, off the top of my head, but I can tell you that if there are any, I'd expect them to be (as a piece of art) inferior.

Please do. But note, again, how the question has shifted. I said such retrofittings are awkward and produce inferior art; I didn't say they were "unacceptable ideas for movies."

You see, Chris, some of us like art that challenges our beliefs, not just re-affirms them.

And I said otherwise...where? Do I need to show you my Fahrenheit 9/11 ticket stub?

People can reject something out of hand because it challenges their beliefs. Or they can reject it because they've considered the ideas being espoused and remain unconvinced. And in both cases, they can like the art and dislike the message.

Anyway, your statement remains purely hypothetical as it applies to me. One of the perks of being a conservative is that you're never lacking for films that challenge your beliefs.

"Awkward and inferior" because of a message you disagree with?

At this point you're almost exclusively asking questions I've already answered. No, awkward and inferior because it's generally putting politics before quality and it's retrofitting something for unintended use. As I said before:

"When something is made for a purpose, using it for another purpose usually makes it less effective. This is true of everything from remaking movies to propping your desk up on computer manuals."

Right, but disagreeing with the film's message isn't the same as judging it inferior as a film on that same basis

At this point you're almost exclusively asking questions I've already answered. No, awkward and inferior because it's generally putting politics before quality and it's retrofitting something for unintended use. As I said before:

"When something is made for a purpose, using it for another purpose usually makes it less effective. This is true of everything from remaking movies to propping your desk up on computer manuals."

Correct, they are separate considerations. I have no problem with someone who dislikes a film because they think its message is terrible (I know you probably feel otherwise, but so be it), but that's different than saying it's a badly made film. I made the distinction because you asked very broad questions about what I was "happier" with, which is impossible to answer when applied to two measures of quality that might be moving in different directions.

And, again, I think there's a pretty strong correlation in regards to remakes, even if there's no law that says they can't be as good (or better). They certainly aren't usually.

See, again, you're just repeating yourself. It doesn't necessarily make a film awkward and inferior to change the message. There's nothing wrong with "retrofitting" or updating a story to try to regain relevance or to explore alternative ("unintended") views.

You are primarily concerned because you dislike alternative viewpoints, as you admitted.

If you are talking about The Manchurian Candidate, they were not putting politics before quality. They didn't set out to make an inferior movie. They didn't make the changes to make a political statement. They wanted to tell the story in a contemporary setting and the Chinese are no longer that kind of enemy. They don't want or need to have a stealth president leading the United States through brainwashing. They want to be an economic giant and influence him that way.

And as I said from the first, a subversive remake is a perfectly valid way to approach it, just as valid as a remake that is faithful in its message.

Of course I'm repeating myself: you're asking the same question without acknowledging or incirporating the answer given the first time. For example, it just happened again: yes, it doesn't necessarily make a film awkward. I've said that, like, three times (see this post). But in actual reality, we see a strong correlation. You can delight in the Pyrrhic victory that it isn't a law or a rule, which I agree with, but it's a strong correlation that common sense deductions can elegantly explain.

I idea that I "admitted" I dislike alternative viewpoints is kind of odd. It's built into the definition of the words. If their existence was perfectly neutral to me, they wouldn't be alternative viewpoints. But no, I'm not primarily concerned with them, nor are they the focus of the essay.

Anyway, looks like my disclaimer a half-dozen posts ago was right on the money.

You're avoiding the counter to this that I've given multiple times. So I'll cut right through it: do you think, in total, that remakes have been inferior to the originals?

Er, nobody actually sets out to make an inferior movie.

Based on what?

So? They didn't have to use the Chinese. They could have used a terrorist state or organization. Heck, they didn't have to remake the film at all. None of the purported reasons you're giving here support the conclusions you're giving.

I wasn't asking you anything there, Yoda. I'm satisfied I understand now, and I disagree. There's no need to "incorporate" your opinion, since it's wrong.