I'm not wrong. If someone wants to remake an old silent movie, let them. Whether it's successful or not, that doesn't matter. A remake does not hurt the original in any way.

I can't stand people who say that the new xxxx remake is ruining their childhood of the original xxxx. The original's success remains the same.

I define remake as re-imagining and I have no problem acknowledging someone else's interpretation of a previously done movie.

You can never truly remake a movie, it's always re-imagining.



This post was edited by stupidkid282 on Dec 2 2016 02:22pm

Do you think the reasoning behind remakes is artistic reimagining? Or purely exploitation of a classic, with an existing fan base and a solid reputation for financial gain?

I think it can both ways, honestly, more so the latter.

I don't see anything wrong with it. Either support or don't, there doesn't need to be a big fuss.

This post was edited by stupidkid282 on Dec 2 2016 02:45pm

Scarface

I disagree with this. Chloë Moretz's Carrie, for example, is a flat out remake. Basicly 99% of the movie is the same, so you can't really consider it a reimagining. It's not necessarily a bad thing, because Scent Of A Woman for example is better than the original imo, even if it's basicly the same thing.

A reimagining is imo The Magnificent Seven or A Fistful Of Dollars. Or without making such an extreme change, the Planet of the Apes or You've Got Mail are good examples of reimagining.

This post was edited by zarkadon on Dec 2 2016 03:00pm

it's not the same


nothing can be the same.

This post was edited by stupidkid282 on Dec 2 2016 03:08pm

By re-imagining I understand that you are for the most part actually using your imagination (hence the name) to make a movie out of an already existing concept. There's little to no imagination involved if you are flat out copying 90% of the original source material.

We can agree that very few movies are a "copy."

Not really. Let's take Ghostbusters as an example, literally the only reason the first one worked was the people involved. The amount of genius and on-screen chemistry that came from a bunch of people who agreed to do a movie without knowing what was really going on cannot just be recreated. Most great movies have almost a type of magic that came from the specific situations and people. You can't recreate that, it just happens or it doesn't.

Star wars 4-6 vs 1-3 is another good example of this.

In 4-6 a bunch of people worked on it, loved it, wanted to make it and it magically worked out. In 1-3 George got rid of all those people and tried to just recreate the same types of movies and it failed miserably.

This post was edited by Blah58 on Dec 2 2016 04:37pm

I think that there are cultural things that change over decades and could be updated so that younger generations can experience something that impacts them emotionally.

For example, Gone with the Wind is undoubtedly one of the goatest films of all time, but it would not resonate as strongly for a 15 year old girl watching it today. Female empowerment has changed forms over the years such that it would take an different plot to recreate the message that audiences experienced so long ago.

This post was edited by Kayeto on Dec 2 2016 04:48pm