|
Post by Fickle81 on Oct 31, 2005 6:01:06 GMT -5
If theres one thing that irks the fuck out of me,its the fact that people still consider Carpenter's movie to be remake of the 1951 cult classic The Thing From Another World...allow me to educate some of you nimrods,eventhough I've said this countless times. A movie is only a remake of its original movie if the original movie's source material was written SPECIFICALLY AND EXCLUSIVELY for the big screen...thats not the same as a screenplay in which its written source material is an INTERPRETATION or ADAPTATION of ALREADY PUBLISHED LITERATURE...hence is the case with BOTH Thing From Another World and The Thing: www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/b0000683rl/ref=dp_proddesc_1/103-5333926-8819820?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155&v=glanceBasis of the 1951 cult horror film, The Thing From Another World, Campbell's frightening novelette appeared in ASTOUNDING in early 1938. He had become editor of that magazine five months earlier.So by some of you people's dumbass logic,2004's The Punisher is a remake of the 1989 Dolph Lundgren Punisher movie...nevermind the fact that both movies are seperate adaptations of the comic book series...and by some of you people's dumbass logic,Cruel Intentions is a remake of Dangerous Liaisons...nevermind that both are seperate adaptations of Choderlos de Laclos's 1782 novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses... Oh yea,Ringu and The Ring? Both based on a 1991 Ringu novel...so The Ring isn't a remake either... Hell,even Arrow in the Head knows The Thing isn't a remake: More of a direct take on John W. Campbell Jr's story “Who Goes There?” than a remake of the 1951 film “The Thing From Another World”Now please...shut the fuck up about this nonsense of The Thing being a remake...
|
|
|
Post by mattfnpython on Oct 31, 2005 13:05:59 GMT -5
So youre saying The Punisher 2004 isnt a remake of The Punisher 1989.
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Oct 31, 2005 19:07:47 GMT -5
So youre saying The Punisher 2004 isnt a remake of The Punisher 1989. Thats exactly what I'm saying yes ;D And while I'm on the subject,I'll add another one to the list that I forgot all about last night...this is gonna piss some people off,but I don't care because its the cold hard truth. Van Sant's shot for shot version of Psycho ISN'T a remake either...because Hitchcock's original film was based on a novel...
|
|
Count Dragula
Untouchable
completely baffled by a backward indication
Posts: 99
|
Post by Count Dragula on Oct 31, 2005 23:49:39 GMT -5
Van Sant's shot for shot version of Psycho ISN'T a remake either...because Hitchcock's original film was based on a novel... So? Van sant was inspired by hitchcocks film (i've yet to see it myself but like you say it's almost shot for shot with hitchcock), who cares what hitchcocks inspiration was.. so yeah, remake. As for the thing I guess you could interpret it both ways, but i've seen a few interviews where carpentor stated his love for the original thing movie, and said that's pretty much were the idea for making the movie was spawned from.. whether based more towards the book or film, it's still a remake of an already established movie idea.
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Nov 1, 2005 0:30:36 GMT -5
So? Van sant was inspired by hitchcocks film (i've yet to see it myself but like you say it's almost shot for shot with hitchcock), who cares what hitchcocks inspiration was.. so yeah, remake. Who gives a rat's ass what Van Sant or any other film maker was "inspired by" when they decided to do a movie in which the original movie's source material came from published work? They can claim whatever the fuck they want as inspiration until they're blue in the face...it still doesn't change the fact that the original movie's source material was based on published literature,which makes it a movie ADAPTATION of said published material rather than a movie with its own exclusive material...so no it isn't a remake,no matter how close it is to the first film. As for the thing I guess you could interpret it both ways, but i've seen a few interviews where carpentor stated his love for the original thing movie, and said that's pretty much were the idea for making the movie was spawned from.. Again,he can say it was the first movie that inspired him until he is blue in the face...still doesn't change the fact that the original movie is an ADAPTATION of published literature,which therefore makes Carpenter's version an ADAPTATION as well...plus,I'm pretty sure there is an "Inspired by the short story WHO GOES THERE by John W. Campbell Jr" bit in the credits. whether based more towards the book or film, it's still a remake of an already established movie idea. But where did the first's movie's "established idea" come from? It came from published literature...so it wasn't the movie's idea at all...the movie was a film ADAPTATION of the published literature's idea...THATS the difference...and notice that the word adaptation is bold whenever I use it... adaptation n. 1.The act or process of adapting. 2.A composition that has been recast into a new form: The play is an adaptation of a short novel.You can most definatly put "movie" in the place of the word "play" because a movie is essencially a complex and filmed version of a play....
|
|
Count Dragula
Untouchable
completely baffled by a backward indication
Posts: 99
|
Post by Count Dragula on Nov 1, 2005 1:56:58 GMT -5
I'm not going to read all off that.. hurts my eyes just looking at it but..
Van sant copied hitchcock not the book, ask him and he'll say I loved hitchcocks film.. He didn't try to remake parts from the book, but whole scenes hitchcock had done and came up with on his own and put his own flair to, not from the book..
re·make 1. The act of remaking. 2. Something in remade form, especially a new version of an earlier movie or song.
So there was a movie called the thing, john made a new modernized version of it drawing from the movie and yes the book.. that equals remake.
You can argue till you fingers are numb, the films were already made.. they both made new versions of them (shit had it not been for the movie john may never of even read the story), by definition there remakes.
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Nov 1, 2005 2:55:45 GMT -5
I'm not going to read all off that.. hurts my eyes just looking at it but.. You really should...if you did,everything you say after this statement would be proven false... Van sant copied hitchcock not the book, But Hitchcock was going by the book's premise/idea,so in copying Hitchcock,Van Sant ALSO goes by the book's premise/idea...again,this is what an ADAPTATION is...a movie form of an idea or premise that comes from published literature,whether it be loose (Thing From Another World) or tightly faithful (Carpenter's The Thing). ask him and he'll say I loved hitchcocks film.. Again,irrelevent and doesn't change the fact that the premise and idea for Hitchcock's movie came from a book. Hitchcock nor the screenwritter came up with the idea/premise themselves. He didn't try to remake parts from the book, but whole scenes hitchcock had done and came up with on his own and put his own flair to, not from the book.. The Thing From Another World didn't go specifically by the book either...but its idea and premise (people in Antartica are terrorised by an alien life form) is damn near IDENTICAL...again, ADAPTATION.re·make 1. The act of remaking. 2. Something in remade form, especially a new version of an earlier movie or song. So there was a movie called the thing, john made a new modernized version of it drawing from the movie and yes the book.. that equals remake. See this is why semantics are so important...because you forgot the little detail of the original movie's idea and/or premise being referenced from published literature,which opens up the world of ADAPTATION.Let me simplify it for you: Dawn of the Dead: Screenplay written specifically and exclusively to be made into a movie...idea and premise not based on any sort of published literature...Movie was the very first artform expression of idea/premise...Therefore Dawn 04 is a remake. The Thing From Another World: Screenplay written referencing the short story Who Goes There to be made into a movie version of the story,albight a lose ADAPTATION of said story...idea and premise based on published literature just the same...Short story was the very first artform expression of idea/premise,NOT the movie...Therefore,because Thing From Another World's idea/premise is taken from a short story,so is Carpenter's The Thing,rendering it a seperate ADAPTATION,NOT a remake of Thing From Another World. Is it sinking in yet? You can argue till you fingers are numb, the films were already made.. they both made new versions of them (shit had it not been for the movie john may never of even read the story), by definition there remakes. So then,Punisher 04 and Cruel Intensions are remakes? Please tell me they are...so I can never take anything you say seriously again... And again,Carpenter not knowing about the book until he saw the movie doesn't change the fact that the movie was based off the story...So thats irrelevent...
|
|
Count Dragula
Untouchable
completely baffled by a backward indication
Posts: 99
|
Post by Count Dragula on Nov 1, 2005 3:19:32 GMT -5
Van sant copied almost scene for scene an already established movie, remake. You can word it a remake of hitchcocks addaptation or what ever but it's still a remake. It's not based off the book but the previous movie. Anything else is "irrelevant".
The thing, john got the idea from the movie.. Based much of his own movie from the original movie and the story. It depends on how you look at it, for me it's a remake/adaptaion.. but yeah remakes in there.
Never seen cruel intentions, don't care to.
As for the punisher, haven't seen the new one but I assume it was based on the charactor and that they never even payed attention to the original movie.
But carpenter did on the thing, big difference.
|
|
|
Post by travis83 on Nov 1, 2005 10:22:52 GMT -5
I agree with the good Count on Psycho. It was a shot by shot recreation of the original Psycho=remake. Albeit a far suckier film. Van Sant probably doesn't even know Psycho was originally based on a novel by Robert Bloch John Carpenter's the Thing: I really am not knowledgeable enough about that film or it's inspiration so I have no opinion. I've always just heard it was a remake. All that matters really is that it's one of the best horror films ever.
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Nov 1, 2005 12:47:53 GMT -5
Van sant copied almost scene for scene an already established movie, remake. You can word it a remake of hitchcocks addaptation or what ever but it's still a remake. It's not based off the book but the previous movie. Anything else is "irrelevant". Original movie=based off a book Therefore... New movie=based off a book Simple as that...The fact that its shot for shot with Hitchcock's movie doesn't matter...because Hitchcock's movie was referencing the book. The thing, john got the idea from the movie.. And where did the idea for the original movie come from? Thats right class...a book/short story. Based much of his own movie from the original movie and the story. It depends on how you look at it, for me it's a remake/adaptaion.. but yeah remakes in there. There is no other way to look at it...Thats how it is... Never seen cruel intentions, don't care to. Its a modern day retelling of Les Liaisons Dangereuses (which the movie Dangerous Liaisons is based on)...SAME EXACT idea/premise,with a few minor changes...anyone who has never heard of the novel that has seen both movies would probably be foolish enough to consider Cruel Intentions a remake of Dangerous Liaisons because of how similar they are. As for the punisher, haven't seen the new one but I assume it was based on the charactor and that they never even payed attention to the original movie. But the fact remains that BOTH movies are based on published work just the same... But carpenter did on the thing, big difference. How the crap do you figure? Punisher movies=based off published literature The Thing movies=based off published literature Does that look like a big difference to you? I agree with the good Count on Psycho. It was a shot by shot recreation of the original Psycho=remake. Albeit a far suckier film. Van Sant probably doesn't even know Psycho was originally based on a novel by Robert Bloch Again,it DOES NOT MATTER that Van Sant doesn't even know about the novel...All that matters is that Hitchcock's movie IS BASED on said novel...Thats all you need to know. If Hitchcock's movie was its own seperate artform expression with a completely original premise/idea not taken or referenced from published literature, THEN AND ONLY THEN[/u] would Van Sant's movie be a remake...
|
|
Count Dragula
Untouchable
completely baffled by a backward indication
Posts: 99
|
Post by Count Dragula on Nov 2, 2005 4:02:15 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.
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Nov 2, 2005 5:48:33 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. Sorry but it does matter...very much so... As for the thing, remake/adaptation.. i'd love for someone to break out Carpenter's take on it. Carpenter's take on it is what doesn't matter...Lets say for the sake of argument that he WAS influenced by the first movie to make his own version and had never even heard of the novel...The first movie is based off that piece of published literature that he had never heard of,so whether he knows it or not,his movie is ALSO based off that piece of published literature that he had never heard of...This is why his inspiration to make his version doesn't matter...
|
|
Count Dragula
Untouchable
completely baffled by a backward indication
Posts: 99
|
Post by Count Dragula on Nov 2, 2005 19:11:31 GMT -5
Sorry but it does matter...very much so... Nope Carpenter's take on it is what doesn't matter...Lets say for the sake of argument that he WAS influenced by the first movie to make his own version and had never even heard of the novel...The first movie is based off that piece of published literature that he had never heard of,so whether he knows it or not,his movie is ALSO based off that piece of published literature that he had never heard of...This is why his inspiration to make his version doesn't matter... That's just your opinion,just because something is a fact to you doesn't mean it holds true to the rest of the world.
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Nov 3, 2005 2:31:27 GMT -5
Yep... No it isn't...Its fact... just because something is a fact to you doesn't mean it holds true to the rest of the world. Its not a fact just to me though...its a fact period. You can't be selective with what movies are adaptations of published literature just because a film maker was inspired by a movie adaptation rather than the written work said film inspiration was based on...These rules apply to EVERY movie thats based on published work,knowingly or otherwise. I don't even see any room for you to argue...like I said,even if a film maker thats making a new version of a movie they liked that happened to be based on published literature,then BY DEFAULT WHETHER THEY KNOW IT OR NOT,their movie is also going to be based on that piece of published literature...because it will have the exact same idea and premise which was FIRST expressed IN THE PIECE OF LITERATURESimple formula: Because Original movie=based on published literature Then New movie=based on published literature
|
|
|
Post by mattfnpython on Nov 3, 2005 2:42:53 GMT -5
If you want to get extememly technical then Kefka is correct and there isnt much room for arguing other than your own personal opinion which doesnt really matter to the topic which is being dealt with.
|
|