What is aceptable to you?
so i am sure anyone that has known me for any length of time is probably sick of hearing me rant about sequels and remakes, even those that agree with me. But one in particular has really been pushing my buttons of late
( Read more... )
In the case of foreign film remakes, the setting can change. In a lot of remakes actually (look at Shakespeare plays updated in time and place). If the first movie was shit, then you are free to change a lot. Case in point, Judge Dredd, which is being "rebooted" again. Or the second Punisher ignoring the Dolph Lundgren version.
2) How much needs to stay the same to keep the same name?
The characters and the overall story. Robin Hood had all the same characters, but never told the Robin Hood story. Arthur got away with that because it wasn't called "King Arthur" or "Camelot" or anything that required it to follow the original tale. Robin Hood should have been called Robin of the Hood or Nottingham or something. Naturally, Karate Kid needs to have actual Karate in it at the BARE MINIMUM to keep the name. Otherwise, it is every Kung-Fu movie ever made. King Kong added characters, but kept the original ones, too, as well as the original story, just with more padding.
3) Would you prefer they changed a lot including the name, or change a certain amount and kept the name?
Yes to both.
4) Is there a level a movie can achieve which you wouldn't want to see it remade? What is that level to you?
I don't think so. While reading this post, I thought, "I would love to see the balls on the guy who decides to remake Star Wars!" Remaking a movie doesn't make the original any worse...in many cases, it makes it look better (Clash of the Titans, anyone?). It's still there, unchanged.
5) Is there a point that a story can get to that a sequel seems excessive? if so, what is that point?
A clear conclusion to the tale and the characters. I was thinking, while watching Robin Hood, that it isn't a movie that can be sequel-ized (not that Ridley Scott realized this). It is its own self-contained story. Like Cinderella. Once she gets the Prince and her life changes, a sequel would be silly. Which is why, I think, many sequels to movies that have happily ever after endings tend to strip their heroes of what they earned in the firrst movie. Because you don't wanna watch a movie about Cinderella being a Princess. You wanna see her slum it again...so knock her back down and waatch her do the same thing, basically, as the first movie.
6) how long should one wait to make a sequel (minimum and maximum)? for a remake?
Death at a Funeral, anyone? I think it all depends on the success of the first one. Death at a Funeral? Not a success. Put out a remake and very few people would care. Star Wars? Huge success. You're gonna have to wait until the original generation dies to remake that one.
As for sequels, though...that really depends on the way the movie ended. You walk out of Iron Man and you go, "hurry up and make the sequel already!" But if a movie isn't set up for a sequel, then you can take your time (Chinatown, for example).
There ya go.
Reply
I hope Mr. Lucas runs into him in a dark ally and beats the shit out of him.
i wholeheartedly agree with you about remaking bad films if you feel you have the formula that could make it a success. Sadly, more often lately people are remaking and sequelling popular films as they see them as guaranteed revenue.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment