|
Post by Fickle81 on Nov 25, 2005 3:23:42 GMT -5
by your argument then i guess we can all agree we have Sigmund Freud to thank for Psycho and even Hitchcok owes credits to him for his "reimaging" of his Oedipus complex. Sigmund Freud=Person...NOT artistic expression Oedipus complex=Scientific theory...NOT artistic expression Psycho novel by Robert Bloch=A fictional story,which requires much creativity...which makes it an artistic expression Adaptation= ANY alternate forms of artistic expression that is based on the VERY FIRST artistic expression form (in Psycho's case,the novel),whether it be loosely or tightly based. Similarities between adaptations don't change the fact that they're both based on the VERY FIRST artistic expression form...which makes them seperate adaptations,not one being a remake of the other.
|
|
|
Post by seahag on Dec 2, 2005 12:33:20 GMT -5
All you need to know is.. van sant saw a movie he liked (doesn't matter where the idea for the movie came from), copied it. Remake. As for the thing, remake/adaptation.. i'd love for someone to break out Carpenter's take on it. If you have the Criterion Edition of Videodrome there's a special feature that's a roundtable discussion with Cronenberg, Landis, and Carpenter. Carpenter says in it that The Thing is not a remake of The Thing From Another World, it's adapted from Who Goes There. It's not a remake.
|
|
Count Dragula
Untouchable
completely baffled by a backward indication
Posts: 99
|
Post by Count Dragula on Dec 2, 2005 23:45:40 GMT -5
All you need to know is.. van sant saw a movie he liked (doesn't matter where the idea for the movie came from), copied it. Remake. As for the thing, remake/adaptation.. i'd love for someone to break out Carpenter's take on it. If you have the Criterion Edition of Videodrome there's a special feature that's a roundtable discussion with Cronenberg, Landis, and Carpenter. Carpenter says in it that The Thing is not a remake of The Thing From Another World, it's adapted from Who Goes There. It's not a remake. I do have it and have seen the feature you mention althoe that statement alludes me.. As I said to begin with it could go either way and I still believe that, it all depends on what you consider a remake. Carpenter was obviously greatly influenced by the original and it's easily shown in his version.
|
|
|
Post by seahag on Dec 4, 2005 18:17:09 GMT -5
While this isn't verbatim, in the discussion he says that he realized that he couldn't remake The Thing From Another World so he decided to adapt the story Who Goes There. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Apr 12, 2006 19:43:02 GMT -5
Ok,you know what? From now on,anybody that says The Thing,The Ring,or any other film in which they or their prior counterpart films come on published works are remakes are automatically an idiot...I don't care what other smarts they've shown or what kind of good taste they have...if you're that asshated retarded that you not only can't see the difference,but also try to pick and choose how and what you classify as film adaptations without any correctly logical reasoning whatsoever,then you're beyond any hope and should join all the idiots that think The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a slasher movie in being bulldozed into a giant meatgrinder...
Its not for you to form an opinion or debate on...its for you to accept...I don't say my way of thinking is fact alot (whether some of you other dipshitted sphincter munchers think or say otherwise),but this is one of those times in which it is...
Fact:Any artistic interpretation or expression (film,literary,music,etc) that is based on another different artistic interpretation or expression (film,literary,music,etc) is called an adaptation.
Fact:Films based in any way on any sort of published material are normally considered film adaptations of said published material.
Fact:The Thing,The Ring,Psycho,and each of the prior counterpart films that came before them are based on published material.
Fact:That makes all the films above,according to facts #1 and #2,seperate film adaptations of published material.
Fact:Anybody that would normally and rationally label most other movies based on published material film adaptations,but make special accomodations for the above films by labeling them remakes,are idiots.
Thats the way it is,the way it was,and the way it always will be...
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Nov 1, 2006 11:00:08 GMT -5
So I'm sitting here at work,checking all my regular sites on my downtime before I head out to lunch,and I read THIS shit in the BD thread "Modern Classics" that litterally made my eyes twitch in disgust...it disgusted me so much that I even actually considered breaking my vow and making a new account just to tell the individuals who responded to the first quote how big of dipshits they are... Ferox13:Jeremy-V1:VoodooKitchen:Micheal_Myers:I seriously can't believe there are idiots out there that still don't get this fucking simple concept...theres no fucking bandwagon either...it's a fact: www.answers.com/topic/adaptationad·ap·ta·tion (ăd'ăp-tā'shən) n. 1. a. The act or process of adapting. b. The state of being adapted. 2. a. Something, such as a device or mechanism, that is changed or changes so as to become suitable to a new or special application or situation. b. A composition that has been recast into a new form: The play is an adaptation of a short novel.You have a short published story,which is a composition,called Who Goes There written by John W. Campbell Jr. (who is even given fucking writting credits in BOTH films)...said composition is then made into 2 seperate movies (Thing From Another World and The Thing,the latter being the more faithful of the 2),which are new forms of the composition...without the original composition,the new forms (the movies) don't exist...just like without the original composition of I Am Legend,The Last Man on Earth,The Omega Man,and the I Am Legend film in the works wouldn't exist...but hey,I guess by the idiotic consenses,The Omega Man is now considered a remake of The Last Man on Earth...as is Cruel Intensions being a remake of Dangerous Liaisons...as is The Punisher 04 being a remake of The Punisher 89... All of those,including both Thing movies,are adaptations by the definition of what an adaptation is...you can either accept that as the fact that it is,or continue to argue it like drooling retards... UPDATE:I came back from the Wendys across the street with my lunch and checked the same thread again while eating my junior bacon cheeseburger to find yet another brillient contribution to the subject: cubbiechris:You all better thank your lucky stars that I decided to refresh the page and found that Ferox13 responded...because if he hadn't,I was almost about to hit the register button... Ferox13:Micheal_Myers:Ferox13:I sure as fuck would like to know the answer to that as well...it's awfully funny that a noob to the boards understands the concept of the difference between a remake and an adaptation,yet the experienced regulars don't have a fucking clue... cubbiechris:Oh great,another one of THESE worthless cocks that tries to use the "I'm just joking" copout to get out of being called on their idiocy... Dobe Dobe:Glad I'm not the only one that sees it as such... VoodooKitchen:He can call it a remake however many times he wants...he's wrong just like you and everybody else that says it's a remake is wrong...just because the director of a movie says something about said movie doesn't mean it's right...David Fincher says Alien 3 is a bad movie and he's wrong too...By all means,keep being a retard as I said though...
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Nov 19, 2006 9:30:28 GMT -5
I would actually appreciate it if this were linked to the person being addressed... N2NOther:I already explained to your dumbass way back that a script is NOT a seperate artform expression because they're NOT published and are written FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of making the content of the script into a film,so they're technically part of the FILM artform...keep trying though... And as I've said,he can say it's a remake as many times as he wants...he's wrong,you're wrong,and all of the dumbshits that call it a remake are wrong... You should very much care,unless you like being retardedly wrong... For the record,I disagree with Sea Hag's assesment of how much a plot is changed being used to judge whether a movie is a remake of another or not (dispite how much of the original plot it changed,Dawn of the Dead 04 is still a remake of Dawn of the Dead 78)...but the mere fact that movies that reference published written material or any other viable artform makes them adaptations... The Wall is a film ADAPTATION of the musical album of the same name...The 1979 Halloween novel is a written and published ADAPTATION of the film of the same name...The Last Man on Earth,The Omega Man,and the upcoming I Am Legend are all seperate film ADAPTATIONS of the 1954 novel I Am Legend (as much as it may have been INFLUENCED by IAL,Night of the Living Dead ISN'T an adaptation just in case you want to go there)...Dangerous Liaisons and Cruel Intensions are both seperate film ADAPTATIONS of the 1782 novel Les Liaisons dangereuses (the play is also a seperate ADAPTATION)...Ringu and The Ring are both seperate film ADAPTATIONS of the 1991 Ringu novel...Both Psycho films are both seperate film ADAPTATIONS of the 1959 novel of the same name (their similarities in scenes and other filming methods is completely irrelevent,even if Van Sant had never read or even heard of the novel)...Both Punisher movies are seperate film ADAPTATIONS of the published comic book of the same name...Both film versions of The Fly are seperate film ADAPTATIONS of the 1957 short story of the same name published in Playboy...Both Scarface movies are seperate film ADAPTATIONS of the 1925 novel of the same name...and finally,both The Thing From Another World and John Carpenter's The Thing are both seperate film ADAPTATIONS of the 1938 novelette Who Goes There? www.answers.com/topic/who-goes-there-1
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Nov 21, 2006 10:17:02 GMT -5
N2NOther:
Too bad none of those very narrow definitions cover things that are based on other forms of art,making them adaptations...
So according to you,1 movie based on published material is an adaptation but 3 others aren't? All because a second movie hasn't been made from the same published material as the movie you claim is an adaptation? Thats some award winning logic at work...
To put an end to this debate,heres how it is:
Movies based solely on a previous movie=Remake Movies based solely on a previous movie that is vastly different from the original=Remake under the term "Reimagining" (but it's still a remake) Movies based on a completely different artform (such as published literature,music,etc)=Adaptation
I submit that the only reason why Scorsese doesn't consider The Departed a remake is because it's actually based on 3 movies rather than 1...but what he and others of the same logic don't realise is the mere fact that it being based on any movies at all,no matter how many,makes it a remake. He's wrong about his movie not being a remake just as Carpenter is wrong about his movie being a remake.
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Nov 22, 2006 12:51:23 GMT -5
N2NOther:
So now inspiration and name of a film is supposed to change the fact that without the original published source material,neither movie would exist? You're just reaching for any possible loophole aren't you? Too bad you're not gonna find one. It doesn't make a fuck what Carpenter wanted or implied...it's an adaptation whether you or him like it or not. Disagreement with it denotes idiocy.
|
|
|
Post by pureevilmatt on Nov 23, 2006 6:02:16 GMT -5
Both Psycho films are both seperate film ADAPTATIONS of the 1959 novel of the same name (their similarities in scenes and other filming methods is completely irrelevent,even if Van Sant had never read or even heard of the novel). Movies based solely on a previous movie=Remake Movies based solely on a previous movie that is vastly different from the original=Remake under the term "Reimagining" (but it's still a remake) Movies based on a completely different artform (such as published literature,music,etc)=Adaptation Could you possibly explain further why you think Gus Van Sant's Psycho is not a remake, when it is clearly based not off of the book, but instead solely based off of Hitchcocks's filmed version? It seems to fit your definition of Remake perfectly, yet you list it as an Adaptation.
|
|
iamlegend
Untouchable
Go Fuck Yourself
Posts: 93
|
Post by iamlegend on Nov 23, 2006 21:13:49 GMT -5
Could you possibly explain further why you think Gus Van Sant's Psycho is not a remake, when it is clearly based not off of the book, but instead solely based off of Hitchcocks's filmed version? It seems to fit your definition of Remake perfectly, yet you list it as an Adaptation. because he is a fucking idiot.
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Nov 23, 2006 22:49:30 GMT -5
Could you possibly explain further why you think Gus Van Sant's Psycho is not a remake, when it is clearly based not off of the book, but instead solely based off of Hitchcocks's filmed version? It seems to fit your definition of Remake perfectly, yet you list it as an Adaptation. Because without the alternate artform it's based on (the book),Hitchcock's Psycho wouldn't exist...therefore neither would Van Sant's...so by default,Van Sant's is also based on the book,making it an adaptation...If there was no book in the picture whatsoever and Hitchcock's Psycho was a completely original film piece,THEN AND ONLY THEN would it be a remake. The key word is SOLELY. because he is a fucking idiot. That don't mean all that much coming from you,Mr.#36...
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Nov 23, 2006 23:45:53 GMT -5
N2NOther:
I'd make myself a part of it directly if I could...but since I can't and have no desire in starting a new account out of principle,I found another way to do so...
So in other words,you concede...awsome...
N2NOther...You can "argue" it till the cows come home...The Thing is an adaptation. Period. End of story.
Wow,that was easy...I should have used that a long time ago...
|
|
iamlegend
Untouchable
Go Fuck Yourself
Posts: 93
|
Post by iamlegend on Nov 24, 2006 0:19:16 GMT -5
for the record i think you should be reinstated so you can argue this at BD. for the record i think i should have been higher than #36. for the record i think Sea Hag is one cool muther-effer. for the record i think porn is good. for the record i think The Thing is a remake because JC didnt name his movie "who goes there?" but the thing, ala the thing from another world. he obviously took things from the source and from the OG movie, but lets be real, who really gives a fuck? its a semantic argument at best. you say this i say that, in the end it doesnt matter one iota what you call it as opposed to N2N or anyone else. its a movie. for the record i think Psycho is not as good as Rear Window. for the record this is Veronika Zemanova and anyone else who claims to dig her as much as I do is just an I am Legend wannabe!: for the record this a picture of Kef taken last week at his debate team meeting: for the record you can all go fuck yourselves.
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Nov 24, 2006 1:03:38 GMT -5
for the record i think you should be reinstated so you can argue this at BD. Good...and for the record,your banning was complete hypocritical bullshit just as mine was... for the record i think i should have been higher than #36. So you think you're a bigger idiot than I do? Ok... for the record i think Sea Hag is one cool muther-effer. I don't...he was,but not no more... for the record i think porn is good. That it is... for the record i think The Thing is a remake because JC didnt name his movie "who goes there?" but the thing, ala the thing from another world. he obviously took things from the source and from the OG movie, but lets be real, who really gives a fuck? its a semantic argument at best. you say this i say that, in the end it doesnt matter one iota what you call it as opposed to N2N or anyone else. its a movie. There being semantics would imply that theres another possible correct way to classify it,and there isn't...It's an adaptation according to the definition of the word...what its called and the intial inspiration means absolutly 2 things: #1:Jack and #2:Shit I give a fuck because under the normal circumstances,people would consider a movie thats based off of a different form of art (published fiction,play,album,etc) to be an adaptation...but for some reason,The Thing and a few other movies are considered remakes as if the circumstances were any different...which is the epitome of stupid... for the record i think Psycho is not as good as Rear Window. For the record,I don't think either of them are as good as North by Northwest...or Vertigo... for the record this is Veronika Zemanova and anyone else who claims to dig her as much as I do is just an I am Legend wannabe!: While I dig her,I don't dig her nearly as much as you obviously do...so I guess I'm not an "I Am Legend wannabe"...oh well,I'll live... for the record this a picture of Kef taken last week at his debate team meeting: A)I've never been on any debate team...ever... B)I've never had braces...ever... C)My glasses are nowhere near as big... D)I don't wear a buttoned dress shirt under casual circumstances... E)My hair is much MUCH longer and a little darker... F)I'm roughly 15 years older than the boy in that picture... for the record you can all go fuck yourselves. For the record,you make that phrase stale...
|
|