Jedi Council Forums - Should the OT be remade??

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

« 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 - Previous | ~~Next~~ | Reload

Author	Topic: Should the OT be remade??
Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Registered: Dec '00	Date Posted: 1/15 6:44pm Subject: RE: Should the OT be remade??
	Merlin_Ambrosius69 posted: in fact there are many examples of myths for which only one version exists. Examples? Merlin_Ambrosius69 posted: Also, you're putting forward an elitist idea that I disagree with. The masses make something culturally significant and lasting, not a small group of devoted cultists. But the masses only make things significant and lasting to the extent that they become devoted cultists to the work in question. Also, significant and lasting =/= considered good. The film 3 Ninjas had a significant and lasting effect on many members of my generation. Just go up to someone and start chanting "Rocky loves Emily" and you'll see what I mean. I myself probably watched it several dozen times on VHS. That doesn't mean 3 Ninjas is anywhere on my list of top ten or even top 100 films of all time - even top 1000 is doubtful. 3 Ninjas, like a lot of films (such as the Manchurian Candidate remake) is a generational flash in the pan. It may have had an impact on those who were around for the original release, but few if any people in later generations are going to look at it and say "Oh yeah, I totally understand why this was such a big deal!" Beach blanket movies were before my time. They were really popular when they were released, and hold a special place in the hearts of many people my parents' age, but they just don't do anything for me, and I doubt they'll do more for my children. On the other hand, I was born several years after RotJ was released. I love the original Star Wars trilogy. I was born more than a half century after Modern Times was released. It's one of my favorite films. There have been, are, and will be many films that resonate with the generation to whom they're released but fall flat with everyone afterwards, prompting the phrase "I guess you had to be there." When you talk about a crappy Star Wars remake being eaten up by "the masses", this is the kind of movie I imagine. But if you're talking about a film that will resonate for generations to come, then I have no problem with it taking a place in film history beside the originals. Merlin_Ambrosius69 posted: If STAR WARS is going to last the ages, which I perfectly expect it will do, it's got to do so in the form in which it currently exists, which is as cinematic masterpieces, not second-rate re-makes involving dubious hearthrobby casting choices (which is exactly what would happen), re-writes of questionable taste and necessity, and an over-abundance of CG-eye candy. This is the problem you're missing. Thanks to Lucas's efforts, when 'the masses' go to Blockbuster to rent a DVD of "the original Star Wars" they're ALREADY getting dubious heart-throbby casting choices (the ghostly Hayden in RotJ), rewrites of questionable taste and necessity (Greedo shooting first/at all, the unnecessary Jabba scene in SW, the Emperor's altered dialogue and "Alert my Star Destroyer...to prepare for my arrival" in ESB, the redone musical number in Jabba's palace in RotJ), and an over-abundance of CG eye candy (pretty much ALL of Mos Eisley, including Jabba and Boba's cameos; shock waves when Alderaan and the Death Stars blow up; a bunch of redone shots in SW's final battle; Bespin's new windows, Jabba's CG palace singers, Sarlaac beak and extra tentacles). As far as 'the masses' are concerned, "Star Wars" barely lasted 20 years. Once Lucas started labeling the Special Editions as the real deal and the actual original films as 'bonus features' it was all over. He's already shown that he has no problem destroying classic films to make them fit better with the new ones, therefore the ideal solution is for new films to take place in a separate continuity so that they don't HAVE to match the old ones. The story can be told from the beginning to the end in order, so that no existing films have to be altered in the name of the 'saga'. -----signature----- Personally if treating homosexuals with respect and dignity is the definition of 'anti-Christian' then I hope that Obama is the friggin' anti-Christ. - FIDo
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Merlin_Ambrosius69 Registered: Aug '08	Date Posted: 1/15 9:57pm Subject: RE: Should the OT be remade?? - Date Edited: 1/15 10:00pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Merlin_Ambrosius69
	Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon posted: Merlin_Ambrosius69 posted: in fact there are many examples of myths for which only one version exists. Examples? Contemporary examples: Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. If you want to argue that both cinematic and literary "versions" exist for these modern myths, then you must allow the same for STAR WARS, which of course has not only novelizations from the films, but infinite spin-offs and multiple sequential art (comic book) versions, easily fulfilling even your invented rules for what constitutes mythology. Other examples: Norse mythology, the totality of our understanding of which derives from the 13th century Eddas. Any of the dozens of Native American mythologies, from Iroquois to Blackfoot to Choctaw to Navaho and on and on, each of which is distinct and derives from a singular oral tradition, unique to that tribe. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon posted: Merlin_Ambrosius69 posted: Also, you're putting forward an elitist idea that I disagree with. The masses make something culturally significant and lasting, not a small group of devoted cultists. But the masses only make things significant and lasting to the extent that they become devoted cultists to the work in question. Also, significant and lasting =/= considered good. Look, you're kind of getting lost in the rhetoric here. My concern is that STAR WARS weathers the ages to become part of the fabric of global culture. It's already on a clear trajectory to achieve this, and has been for the last 30 years. If new versions are produced which are inferior to the originals, these new craptacular versions will supplant the earlier works in the minds of the masses, thereby losing popular favor and eventually interest in the Saga. I'm not interested in some kind of semantic game, trying to prove that the masses = cultists or whatever it is you're doing up there. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon posted: The film 3 Ninjas had a significant and lasting effect on many members of my generation. Just go up to someone and start chanting "Rocky loves Emily" and you'll see what I mean. I myself probably watched it several dozen times on VHS. That doesn't mean 3 Ninjas is anywhere on my list of top ten or even top 100 films of all time - even top 1000 is doubtful. 3 Ninjas, like a lot of films (such as the Manchurian Candidate remake) is a generational flash in the pan. It may have had an impact on those who were around for the original release, but few if any people in later generations are going to look at it and say "Oh yeah, I totally understand why this was such a big deal!" Beach blanket movies were before my time. They were really popular when they were released, and hold a special place in the hearts of many people my parents' age, but they just don't do anything for me, and I doubt they'll do more for my children. On the other hand, I was born several years after RotJ was released. I love the original Star Wars trilogy. I was born more than a half century after Modern Times was released. It's one of my favorite films. None of this has any bearing on my point, so far as I can discern, nor speaks to my involvement in this thread, so I'm just going to let it go. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon posted: There have been, are, and will be many films that resonate with the generation to whom they're released but fall flat with everyone afterwards, prompting the phrase "I guess you had to be there." When you talk about a crappy Star Wars remake being eaten up by "the masses", this is the kind of movie I imagine. But if you're talking about a film that will resonate for generations to come, then I have no problem with it taking a place in film history beside the originals. Any remake of the OT will not, cannot be as good as the originals for the simple reason that the original filmmakers have already discovered the best possible way to tell that story. With the arguable exception of some of the elements of ROTJ, there is no better or more intense or more perfect way to present the story of the OT than what we already have. 'ANH' and ESB are textbook examples of how to make moving action-adventure cinema that resonates spiritually with people AND gets them cheering, gasping and/or laughing in their seats. It simply cannot be done better than what has come before. Therefore it should not be attempted. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon posted: This is the problem you're missing. Thanks to Lucas's efforts, when 'the masses' go to Blockbuster to rent a DVD of "the original Star Wars" they're ALREADY getting dubious heart-throbby casting choices (the ghostly Hayden in RotJ), rewrites of questionable taste and necessity (Greedo shooting first/at all, the unnecessary Jabba scene in SW, the Emperor's altered dialogue and "Alert my Star Destroyer...to prepare for my arrival" in ESB, the redone musical number in Jabba's palace in RotJ), and an over-abundance of CG eye candy (pretty much ALL of Mos Eisley, including Jabba and Boba's cameos; shock waves when Alderaan and the Death Stars blow up; a bunch of redone shots in SW's final battle; Bespin's new windows, Jabba's CG palace singers, Sarlaac beak and extra tentacles). I'm not "missing" that point: I just don't agree with it. I understand you don't like that the SEs have supplanted the original films as the de facto versions in the public mind. But at this point, don't you see, there is nothing we can do about that. LFL is not suddenly going to reverse its stance, remove all copies of the SEs from broadcast and circulation, and put forward the original versions as definitive. That boat has sailed -- though fortunately we who care about the originals do possess them and can watch them. The best we can do now, as far as preserving the OT in as close to its original form as possible in the mass consciousness, is to refuse/reject/deny/rebuke/shout down any attempt at a remake. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon posted: As far as 'the masses' are concerned, "Star Wars" barely lasted 20 years. Once Lucas started labeling the Special Editions as the real deal and the actual original films as 'bonus features' it was all over. He's already shown that he has no problem destroying classic films to make them fit better with the new ones, therefore the ideal solution is for new films to take place in a separate continuity so that they don't HAVE to match the old ones. The story can be told from the beginning to the end in order, so that no existing films have to be altered in the name of the 'saga'. Your goal/wish/desire seems to be to support the remakes so that, once they've been released as the new, official "Saga-continuity" OT episodes, LFL will return the original versions to definitive status. This is so absurd I can't even begin to fathom your line of reasoning, let alone concoct a suitable rebuttal. -----signature----- "Chance makes playthings of us all." -- Seneca Shameless non-Manager Emeritus sock of Vortigern99. Fan of George RR Martin, JK Rowling and JRR Tolkien.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Nordom Registered: Jun '04	Date Posted: 1/16 6:56am Subject: RE: Should the OT be remade??
	Merlin_Ambrosius69 posted: I can't think of any remake where people have thought as the second version as "the real deal", even if the remake was good. The Wizard of Oz (1939). Frankenstein (1932). Dracula (1931). The Thing (1981). Scarface (1983). The Mummy (1999). Casino Royale (2006). Disney's Beauty & the Beast (1991). The Lord of the Rings (2001-2003). Battlestar Galactica (TV, 2000s). All the above are remakes. All are now considered the 'de facto' version of the work in question. Granted, these example are all (arguably) superior to the originals, which is in part why they've replaced the earlier versions in the public's mind. First I will say that I agree with you that the OT should not be remade and that there are remakes that overshadow the original film. I have some minor nits about some of the films you listed, The Wizard of Oz (1939). Frankenstein (1932). Dracula (1931)Casino Royale (2006) and The Lord of the Rings (2001-2003). None of these I would call remakes. Why? Because the original is not a movie but a book. These are simply different adaptations of the same source novel. PJ's LOTR is in no way a remake of Bakshi's film. There are similarities yes but most of these come from the fact that they are based on the same book. Casino Royale (2006) is also not a remake of the earlier film or the TV film, it is just based on the same book. Remake to me is a new version of an original film. Is every movie version of Hamlet a remake of whatever first film that was made or simply adaptations of the same play? About the OT, I would prefer that the OT is not remade at all but if I had to choose between even more SE versions and constant tinkering or a remade film then I would probably prefer a new film. Regards Nordom -----signature----- "I think, therefore I am.. I think" "Morte, how do you stay afloat?" "Flatulence, you stupid polygon"
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Merlin_Ambrosius69 Registered: Aug '08	Date Posted: 1/16 11:54am Subject: RE: Should the OT be remade??
	Interesting points about the exact definition of a remake. Apparently, we're to conclude that a "real" remake is a film that is based only on a previous film, and not on any other source material. According to this line of reasoning, if Hollywood announced that a new Gone with the Wind were to be made, this would not be a remake, but merely an all-new version of the Mitchell novel. Hence the new Day the Earth Stood Still is a remake, but John Carpenter's The Thing isn't (because both that 1981 film and the Hawks original were based on the short story Who Goes There?). The 1983 Connery Bond picture Never Say Never Again isn't a remake because it's based on the Fleming novel Thunderball and not on the 1965 film, the new 3:10 to Yuma isn't a remake, the Knightley Pride & Prejudice isn't a remake, Coppola's Dracula isn't a remake, the Branagh Frankenstein isn't, and so on and on. This drastically reduces the number of "real" remakes in existence. I understand your line of reasoning, but I cannot agree with it, since it contradicts the usage this term has enjoyed for the last several decades. -----signature----- "Chance makes playthings of us all." -- Seneca Shameless non-Manager Emeritus sock of Vortigern99. Fan of George RR Martin, JK Rowling and JRR Tolkien.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Arawn_Fenn Registered: Jul '04	Date Posted: 1/16 2:25pm Subject: RE: Should the OT be remade??
	Nordom posted: PJ's LOTR is in no way a remake of Bakshi's film. Certain scenes are modeled on the Bakshi film, such as the scene with the Nazgul in the Eastfarthing. But that's about it. -----signature----- "You're both from strange little backwater planets. You both have odd powers. You're male and she's female. What more do you need? Believe me, buddy, if I were you, I'd go right up there and ask her if she wants to ride on my rancor." - Han Solo
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Nordom Registered: Jun '04	Date Posted: 1/16 2:29pm Subject: RE: Should the OT be remade??
	Merlin_Ambrosius69 posted: According to this line of reasoning, if Hollywood announced that a new Gone with the Wind were to be made, this would not be a remake, but merely an all-new version of the Mitchell novel. Hence the new Day the Earth Stood Still is a remake, but John Carpenter's The Thing isn't (because both that 1981 film and the Hawks original were based on the short story Who Goes There?). The 1983 Connery Bond picture Never Say Never Again isn't a remake because it's based on the Fleming novel Thunderball and not on the 1965 film, the new 3:10 to Yuma isn't a remake, the Knightley Pride & Prejudice isn't a remake, Coppola's Dracula isn't a remake, the Branagh Frankenstein isn't, and so on and on. This drastically reduces the number of "real" remakes in existence. I understand your line of reasoning, but I cannot agree with it, since it contradicts the usage this term has enjoyed for the last several decades. But the point is WHAT you remake. What is your source of inspiration, why are you doing the film? If the source is a book or a play then I would call it unfair to give all credit to the previous film no matter how different the new film might be. Take Casino Royale, the previous film did not resemble the book very much while the new film did. But apparently the book is irrelevant and it was just redoing the previous film despite there not being much resemblance between the two. Also this usage is inconsitent. I have never heard that Gibsons Hamlet or Branaghs Hamlet are remakes of a previous FILM version of Hamlet. Rather they are adaptations of the same play. This usage also, in my mind, ignores plays, books or novels and somehow pretends that the FIRST film adaptation is an original work and not an adaptation. That anyone who wants to adapt Hamlet is only remaking some film version and not actually adapting a play. Is Akira Kurosawa's Throne of Blood a remake of Orons Welles Macbeth? By your logic yes. It does not matter that they are based on the play by William Shakespeare. Whatever movie that got made first is the original and all others are just remakes of that film. I think it boils down to what it is you are remaking. Take Kubricks The Shining and the Shining TV-series. Is the later a remake of the former? I would not say so. Both are based on the same book but Kubricks film deviates from the book in many ways while the TV-series is much closer to the book. So here I would say that the TV-series is not trying to redo Kubricks film but try and make a closer adaptation of Kings book. King was not too happy about some of the differences in Kubricks film and he worked on the TV-series, trying to get that closer to his book. In the end I think it did not work that well and I hold Kubricks film far above the TV-series despite it being closer to the book. In closing I think that your way is a little too crude and too broad. It makes far too many films into remakes in my mind. If you adapt a book or a play that has been adapted before, it does not matter how similar or dissimilar you are, it is still a remake of that previous film, even if the cast and crew has never actually seen it. Lastly would you really say that PJ's Return of the King is a remake of Rankin and Bass animated Return of the King? Regards Nordom -----signature----- "I think, therefore I am.. I think" "Morte, how do you stay afloat?" "Flatulence, you stupid polygon"
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Merlin_Ambrosius69 Registered: Aug '08	Date Posted: 1/16 6:03pm Subject: RE: Should the OT be remade??
	Ultimately this sidebar discussion we're having is a semantic argument. In fairness, you make a lot of really insightful points about what should qualify as a remake, points that I've been making for years in defense of such films as The Thing, which is really not a remake at all except for the title. Yet the media, and just about everyone else, calls such films "remakes" regardless of the source material. Once we remove from the "remake" category every film that derives from some earlier source material rather than a previous film, the list of actual, fully qualified remakes becomes pitifully small. In fairness to myself, I never brought Shakespeare into the discussion because obviously these are different interpretations of the same written-in-stone source material. If we can agree that films made from earlier source material are not remakes, which I am perfectly willing to concede, then we can end this pointless bickering... and get back to whether a STAR WARS OT remake should or should not be made. By now, you know where I stand on that topic, I trust. -----signature----- "Chance makes playthings of us all." -- Seneca Shameless non-Manager Emeritus sock of Vortigern99. Fan of George RR Martin, JK Rowling and JRR Tolkien.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
jedimasterbac Title: CT and Fan Design Manager Registered: Jun '04	Date Posted: 1/16 6:25pm Subject: RE: Should the OT be remade??
	Merlin_Ambrosius69 posted: If we can agree that films made from earlier source material are not remakes, which I am perfectly willing to concede, then we can end this pointless bickering... and get back to whether a STAR WARS OT remake should or should not be made. Trust me, TLJ and I both prefer this over the endless stream of "NNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOO" posts. -----signature----- Star Wars: Episode I - The Chosen One (my fan fic) http://boards.theforce.net/the_saga/b10476/30225011/p1/?3
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Merlin_Ambrosius69 Registered: Aug '08	Date Posted: 1/16 6:51pm Subject: RE: Should the OT be remade??
	And yet, that endless, terrifying and terrified scream has fueled every one of my posts in this thread so far. -----signature----- "Chance makes playthings of us all." -- Seneca Shameless non-Manager Emeritus sock of Vortigern99. Fan of George RR Martin, JK Rowling and JRR Tolkien.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 - Previous | ~~Next~~ | Reload