Post by Fickle81 on Sept 12, 2008 19:35:28 GMT -5
Ok while this has nothing to do with The Thing,it DOES have to do with the concept of individuals grossly misusing the term "remake",so rather than just waste my time creating a DDOTW segment just so I can highlight this dumbass,lets just get this over with and cover it right here...I'm not gonna highlight each and every single one of this dipshit's post on the subject...I'll just cover the first one
www.bloody-disgusting.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1275901&postcount=6287
gunshotgolfer:
Too bad that definition is way too vague and doesn't take into account other aspects,such as a movie being based on another fictional work from a different form or artistic expression...fucking moron...
Sorry,but all the titles in bold and underline are NOT remakes,but rather adaptations,and anybody that considers them remakes are complete and utter moronic failures...
Because it's based on a comic book,hence making it an adaptation,fuckstick...
None of that matters seeing as how all Batman films are based on the comic books,which makes all of said Batman films adaptations of said comics...dipshit...
Wait,so because this movie did something entirly different from other Batman films,it's neither a remake or an adaptation,but something else entirly? Like an original piece of fiction? Cause thats the only thing it could possibly be if it's not either of the other 2...and if you honestly believe that,you need to be euthanised immediatly...
What the fuck does comparisons between the performances of the same villian have to do with determining whether or not a film is a remake,adaptation,or original work,shitstain?
Not if theres other factors involved,like the work of fiction being based on another work of fiction from a different artform source,dumbfuck...
It's only a reboot in the sense that it starts with a brand new continuity and film world,but that doesn't change the fact that ALL the Batman films,same continuity or not,are all based on a comic book,which makes them ADAPTATIONS.
First of all,the sequels aren't considered remakes...they're usually considered sequels because they are brand new stories that are not connected with the original film that the previous film remade or adapted...second of all,they're considered remakes only if the original film being remade wasn't based on another work of fiction from an alternate artform source (such as published literature).
No,it isn't...it's an adaptation any way you slice it...and the sad thing is,when somebody else brought the concept of adaptations to your dumbass attention,you started going off on some tangent about originality,as if that has ANYTHING to do with the fact that without those comic books,NO Batman film would exist at all,just like without any of the other alternate forms of fictional artistic expressions,none of the films that are based on these would exist...you fucking tardbo.
To anybody reading this,do me a favour and link this thread to this fucking cro magnon fucktard...I can see I'll have some real fun with him...
www.bloody-disgusting.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1275901&postcount=6287
gunshotgolfer:
yes it is and it is a great film but look up the definition of remake in the dictionary and it will tell you a new version of something done before, hence batman and joker has been done before.
Too bad that definition is way too vague and doesn't take into account other aspects,such as a movie being based on another fictional work from a different form or artistic expression...fucking moron...
Dawn of the Dead, The Thing, Planet of the Apes, King Kong and the soon to be realeased The Day The Earth Stood Still are quite obviously considered remakes,
Sorry,but all the titles in bold and underline are NOT remakes,but rather adaptations,and anybody that considers them remakes are complete and utter moronic failures...
Dark Knight isn't why??
Because it's based on a comic book,hence making it an adaptation,fuckstick...
cause it has a little different plot, well those movies have some different plot as well as different character names(dawn of the dead) but at its core it is still the same basis of the joker trying to kill batman, batman catching crimimals.
None of that matters seeing as how all Batman films are based on the comic books,which makes all of said Batman films adaptations of said comics...dipshit...
Begins is an in depth origin story of batman which burton's batman did not cover.
Wait,so because this movie did something entirly different from other Batman films,it's neither a remake or an adaptation,but something else entirly? Like an original piece of fiction? Cause thats the only thing it could possibly be if it's not either of the other 2...and if you honestly believe that,you need to be euthanised immediatly...
Why is Heath Ledger's Joker constantly compared to Jack Nicholson's Joker becasue it has been done before.
What the fuck does comparisons between the performances of the same villian have to do with determining whether or not a film is a remake,adaptation,or original work,shitstain?
remake, reimagining, reboot they are all the same,
Not if theres other factors involved,like the work of fiction being based on another work of fiction from a different artform source,dumbfuck...
I heard sonmbody say once thats it a reboot because it was a series before{so what)
It's only a reboot in the sense that it starts with a brand new continuity and film world,but that doesn't change the fact that ALL the Batman films,same continuity or not,are all based on a comic book,which makes them ADAPTATIONS.
most of all these horror remakes were series before and are now spawning sequels but yet they are considered remakes.
First of all,the sequels aren't considered remakes...they're usually considered sequels because they are brand new stories that are not connected with the original film that the previous film remade or adapted...second of all,they're considered remakes only if the original film being remade wasn't based on another work of fiction from an alternate artform source (such as published literature).
anyway you slice it it is a remake, but yet it is a great film
No,it isn't...it's an adaptation any way you slice it...and the sad thing is,when somebody else brought the concept of adaptations to your dumbass attention,you started going off on some tangent about originality,as if that has ANYTHING to do with the fact that without those comic books,NO Batman film would exist at all,just like without any of the other alternate forms of fictional artistic expressions,none of the films that are based on these would exist...you fucking tardbo.
To anybody reading this,do me a favour and link this thread to this fucking cro magnon fucktard...I can see I'll have some real fun with him...