Count Dragula
Untouchable
completely baffled by a backward indication
Posts: 99
|
Post by Count Dragula on Nov 3, 2005 3:33:09 GMT -5
whether it's a remake of an adaptation or a remake period, it's still a remake.
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Nov 3, 2005 13:27:20 GMT -5
Jesus Christ,I feel like Stan did in that episode of South Park where he was trying to convince the audience of John Edward's douche tricks...
Ok...Lets back up...you're saying its different for the Punisher movies,both based on The Punisher character/comic (which is published literature)? How is it different from other films,new and original versions,that are based on published literature? You're trying to pick and choose which movies follow under adaptations and remakes...I think maybe its because the published literature is more well known or something. They stayed more faithful to the comic's character this time around? No shit? And thats somehow supposed to change the fact that the original movie was ALSO based on the comic? Loosely,but still based off it.
Seriously,without the book,where does the idea and premise for the ORIGINAL Psycho come from? Nowhere...you have nothing. You essencially HAVE NO original Psycho. Just like without The Punisher comic books,you would essencially HAVE NO Punisher movies. This is why movies that are made using the EXACT same idea and premise as the piece of published literature,knowingly or otherwise,are called adaptations...each movie IS A SEPERATE ADAPTATION. Aesthetics comparisons (meaning how close a new adaptaion is to any old ones) doesn't matter,because you're still copying the PUBLISHED LITERATURE'S idea and premise,not the other adaptation...even if you have never even heard of the published piece.
In order to be considered a "remake" and not an adaptation,the movie must NOT be based on any published material. Its the VERY FIRST source and expression of a story,premise,and idea.
|
|
Count Dragula
Untouchable
completely baffled by a backward indication
Posts: 99
|
Post by Count Dragula on Nov 3, 2005 17:50:24 GMT -5
Doesn't matter where the original idea came from, it's the movie that was remade.
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Nov 3, 2005 19:38:01 GMT -5
Doesn't matter where the original idea came from It very much does...without the published source the original idea comes from,you have no movie that uses this idea...There wouldn't be a Hitchcock Psycho without the book...therefore,there would be no Van Sant Psycho without the book... it's the movie that was remade. But the movie didn't come up with that idea and premise first...the book did...
|
|
Count Dragula
Untouchable
completely baffled by a backward indication
Posts: 99
|
Post by Count Dragula on Nov 4, 2005 2:57:50 GMT -5
But the movie's what was remade..
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Nov 4, 2005 15:47:46 GMT -5
Can't remake a movie based on a book...you're remaking the book in another movie form...which is an adaptation...
|
|
Count Dragula
Untouchable
completely baffled by a backward indication
Posts: 99
|
Post by Count Dragula on Nov 5, 2005 2:48:22 GMT -5
Sure you can.. just as van sant did.
|
|
|
Post by minion on Nov 5, 2005 15:59:38 GMT -5
I was trying to explain to my mate the other day it is only a remake if the source material was originaly intended to be a film. Pride and prejudice isn't a remake it is a new film interpritation of a novel.
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Nov 5, 2005 17:39:44 GMT -5
I was trying to explain to my mate the other day it is only a remake if the source material was originaly intended to be a film. Pride and prejudice isn't a remake it is a new film interpritation of a novel. I'm glad I'm not the only one who understands this simple concept... Sure you can.. just as van sant did. Seriously,without the book,where does the idea and premise for the ORIGINAL Psycho come from? Nowhere...you have nothing. You essencially HAVE NO original Psycho. Just like without The Punisher comic books,you would essencially HAVE NO Punisher movies. This is why movies that are made using the EXACT same idea and premise as the piece of published literature,knowingly or otherwise,are called adaptations...each movie IS A SEPERATE ADAPTATION. Aesthetics comparisons (meaning how close a new adaptaion is to any old ones) doesn't matter,because you're still copying the PUBLISHED LITERATURE'S idea and premise,not the other adaptation...even if you have never even heard of the published piece. Can't remake a movie based on a book...you're remaking the book in another movie form...which is an adaptation...
|
|
|
Post by seahag on Nov 16, 2005 19:35:43 GMT -5
I agree that The Thing is not a remake. I could go on forever about it but I did that not too long ago and it drained me "Who Goes There" is alot different from "The Thing From Another World".
|
|
iamlegend
Untouchable
Go Fuck Yourself
Posts: 93
|
Post by iamlegend on Nov 25, 2005 2:17:04 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. wrong. Kef makes leaps of faith in his argument that dont apply sometimes, but which in certain examples hold true. if one guy writes a song based on his love for a girl, then 20 years later some new band covers that same song, its a cover of the song, not the girl that inspired the song. for a true example of the difference, look to I am Legend the book and these two movies, which are both based off it but go in 2 totally different directions: Last man on Earth and The Omega Man. in this case...........not a remake. in the case of Psycho.....remake. as to the thing, JC himself said he was inspired by both the original movie and the book, but he went more for the book when doing his version, which HE himself considers a remake, but on this one, i agree with Kef, he did this one from the book ( i just doubt if he would have done it without the original movie being done first)
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Nov 25, 2005 2:36:47 GMT -5
if one guy writes a song based on his love for a girl, then 20 years later some new band covers that same song, its a cover of the song, not the girl that inspired the song. You're right...because the girl herself is not a form of artistic expression...the song is. Therefore,that statement doesn't remotely apply or compare. for a true example of the difference, look to I am Legend the book and these two movies, which are both based off it but go in 2 totally different directions: Last man on Earth and The Omega Man. in this case...........not a remake. in the case of Psycho.....remake. And as I've said,similarities between adaptations mean absolutly nothing. The fact remains that without the source material both Psycho films were based on,neither film would exist...just like without I Am Legend,neither of the films you named would exist.
|
|
iamlegend
Untouchable
Go Fuck Yourself
Posts: 93
|
Post by iamlegend on Nov 25, 2005 2:44:30 GMT -5
dude , did you say : You're right...because the girl herself is not a form of artistic expression...the song is. Therefore,that statement doesn't remotely apply or compare. because if this isnt artistic expression i wanna know what is: and if you are still trying to say that the psycho with VV is not a remake of the original, your a fucking idiot.
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Nov 25, 2005 2:58:59 GMT -5
because if this isnt artistic expression i wanna know what is: The artistic expression would be if I wrote/made a song/book/movie/painting about how her titties are too goddamn big or anything else about her...she herself is not the artistic expression form. and if you are still trying to say that the psycho with VV is not a remake of the original, your a fucking idiot I most certainly am saying it...because the fact that nobody has been able to dispute is that without the book,Hitchcock's Psycho would not exist because that movie is based on said book...therefore,by default,Van Sant's Psycho wouldn't exist because by default,it ALSO is based on the book. Don't believe me? Compare the IMDB pages for both films: www.imdb.com/title/tt0054215/www.imdb.com/title/tt0155975/Notice Robert Bloch's name in the writting credits? I think that says it all...and before you try to say that Joseph Stefano is also in the writting credits for both,consider the fact that he wrote the screenplay based entirely on the book...without the book,the screenplay would not exist...therefore,neither movie would exist...
|
|
iamlegend
Untouchable
Go Fuck Yourself
Posts: 93
|
Post by iamlegend on Nov 25, 2005 3:11:35 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.
|
|