posted
Not sure if it's appropriate or not (if not, just let this one die a quiet death), but the talk of movies and remakes perked up my geeky ears.
THE TAKING OF PELHAM ONE, TWO, THREE is indeed being remade by Denzel Washington. I say, Washington because I don't know who's writing or directing, but this movie is being made only because Washington is attached to it. I don't know how one can improve or remake PELHAM 'cause it is so firmly entrenched in New York in the '70s. The decidedly non-PC dialogue, and the broad caricature of the NY mayor is something that today's audiences wouldn't go for. I think.
Of course, Washington also remade THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, which I thought couldn't be remade, but the remake does work in its own way. Same thing with INSOMNIA, a movie I never would've thought would've made a good American film. But it worked.
I think what makes those remakes work is that they take the same premise, but a slightly different angle. So in MANCHURIAN, Washington's character is more paranoid than the Sinatra character in the original; and INSOMNIA shows the Pacino character may not be the good cop we thought he was, and certainly gives a decidedly different philosophical slant than the original.
Which, I guess, brings up the question: Why aren't more books remade? Or are they constantly being remade, with slightly different philosophical slants than the originals? I mean, how many times do we see blurbs comparing writers to other writers, in the hopes that readers buy into the comparison?
posted
I think it may be easier for another studio to get the rights to a published book even if a successful movie was made. Most book-movie deals arrange to have the rights revert to the writer after a period of time...and said rights can be resold, whether a movie has been made or not. (Unless the original deal prevents it---which is why you go over these contracts clause by clause before you sign, no matter how much money is waved under your nose.)
Seems to me that there are too many remade movies, rather than too few. I can't see any way that "The Taking of Pelham One Two Three" could be made better---and, according to one of my reference books, it has already been remade once, as a TV movie in 1998---and as I see it, greed and / or vanity are the likely reasons for remaking it, and artistic concerns don't play into it.
posted
Well, if you consider that many of Shakespeare's plays have been re-interpreted as other stories (not only in movie form, but also in written form), and the same for other classics, as well, then I guess there have been remakes. But something that is still under copyright really can't be "remade" except by the author (and OSC is the only author I know of who has done that).
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
The remake that frustrated me most was Psycho. Nothing was different, there was no reinterpretation involved. Even the camera angles were identical. As far as I can tell, the only point for remaking this film was so that the blood could be in color. Don't these people realize that they could've fed a third-world country with the money they wasted on remaking a film the exact same way as the original?
I've been waiting for an opportunity to vent about this. Sorry I did it here. Oh, well.
One of the more poignant reinterpretations of Shakespeare I encountered lately was the movie "A Thousand Acres." The story of King Lear is retold from the point of view of the mad king's "wicked" daughters. Since seeing the movie, I've been searching and brainstorming for my own interpretation of one of the classics. No luck yet.
posted
"Public Domain" does also inspire quite a few remakes. Nothing makes a book adaptation easier than not having to pay the creators or their heirs. I don't actually know if "Phantom of the Opera" is in public domain, but I've counted at least ten movie versions of it, in one form or another. I suspect it is...
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the reality of it is that with it costing upwards of 100 million to make a decent movie by today's standards, and far more if you're looking to do something along the lines of PJ's LOTR trilogy the money controls what ideas are made into movies. And the bankrollers think nothing is scarier than original ideas. They might be good, there's a slim chance they are good, and will resonate with people and make those people a lot of bucks, but there's a statisticly greater chance that they are only mediocre or really truly suck, and the movie might be a total bomb and not even make back its creation costs.
But with a remake, one has some assurrance that enough money will be wrung out of the whole deal because an almost guaranteed certain number of people will go see it because they liked the book, or the original movie, or have nostaligic feelings for their childhood... Which combined with a slick marketing buzz seem to guarantee a certain level of return that keeps the hollywood investors happy. And if it really is good, those same investors just might make an awful lot of money...
posted
"...only point for remaking [PSYCHO] was so that blood could be in color."
And the masturbation scene. I think Hithcock made PSYCHO in about a day and a half for about $6.38. Van Sant, for whatever lame-brained reason, decided to do it 'cause he always wanted to. There's a lot of things I want to do, too, but I can't seem to get any studio interested in giving me money for them. Though I'm tempted to watch the remake of PSYCHO, I refuse to on principle 'cause I don't want anyone to make money off that.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
