|
|
Post by pureevilmatt on Nov 24, 2006 1:52:22 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. Ok. I see... but still, wouldn't that make it a movie adaptation of a movie adaptation of the book? To me, a "movie adaptation of a movie" is a pretty good definition of "remake". To me, it doesn't get any more remake than Gus Van Sant's Psycho. If you think about it, your opinion is "absolutist" in the exact opposite way that N2N is... he thinks that if something is even 1% remake, then it's a Remake, and you think something is only a remake if it's 100% remake. The problem still seems to be that everyone has a slightly different definition of what constitutes a remake... but whatever. iamlegend is right, it's a pointless arguement. 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 called it "the thing", because that's what the monster was called in "who goes there", the story on which it was almost 100% based. 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. I agree. for the record i think Psycho is not as good as Rear Window. I agree. |
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Nov 24, 2006 2:43:41 GMT -5
Ok. I see... but still, wouldn't that make it a movie adaptation of a movie adaptation of the book? What? Even if there was such a way to incorrectly overcomplicate the term "adaptation" like you just did,the fact remains that it's still an adaptation: 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.A movie of a story is a new form from a published novel containing the same story...and the whole "the first movie being an adaptation and the second a remake" argument is a complete crock of shit. How does the amount of movies made change the fact that the original source referenced in both films (the first referencing it automatically means the second one is as well) came from a different art source or form? Especially with such a concept as interpretation of the source material (loose or faithful)? Theres no alternate way to argue it. It's an adaptation. To me, a "movie adaptation of a movie" is a pretty good definition of "remake". A movie can't be an adaptation of another movie because it's the same form...that instance is called a remake...in order for a movie to be an adaptation,it has to be based on an ALTERNATE SOURCE OR ARTFORM. It can be based on another movie at the same time,but the mere fact that the alternate source or artform came first (before the first and new versions) makes it an adaptation of the alternate source or artform. To me, it doesn't get any more remake than Gus Van Sant's Psycho. If there wasn't any book or any other alternate source or artform in the picture,you'd be right. Shot for shot is completely irrelevent. Without the Psycho novel,which came first,neither movie exists which means they are both adaptations. Hell,the author of said novel is even given writting credits in Van Sant's version,so the whole "Van Sant doesn't even know about the novel" defense is a load of shit. If you think about it, your opinion is "absolutist" in the exact opposite way that N2N is... he thinks that if something is even 1% remake, then it's a Remake, and you think something is only a remake if it's 100% remake. Well first off,it's not merely my opinion...it's fact according to the definition of the word...The definitions of the word remake that N2N used,while technically correct,are completely narrow in his application and don't remotly cover things that are based on a completely different source or artform,rendering his "opinion" on the matter void. There are very simple guidelines to follow that I've already covered to determine whether a film is a remake or adaptation. Theres no in between percentages involved. It's either 100% or 0%. Yea it is an "absolutist" way of thinking...because it needs to be as any other school of thought on the matter goes against the standard established by factual application,which is stupid to do... The problem still seems to be that everyone has a slightly different definition of what constitutes a remake... but whatever. iamlegend is right, it's a pointless arguement. And the fact that any different definitions exist is fucking idiotic when theres a very simple factual formula to follow: Movies based solely (meaning without any other artistic source or form in the picture) on a previous movie=Remake Movies based on a completely different artform (such as published literature,music,etc)=Adaptation Theres really nothing to form an opinion on or debate about...Thats the way it is and needs to be accepted...Period. |
|
iamlegend
Untouchable
Go Fuck Yourself
Posts: 93
|
Post by iamlegend on Nov 24, 2006 20:28:59 GMT -5
He called it "the thing", because that's what the monster was called in "who goes there", the story on which it was almost 100% based. no shit? maybe i should reevaluate my position then! least i learned me something new on this one. either way i actually do agree with Kef, ive stated that long ago, i just like to disagree to piss him off. The Thing is an adaptation of the book , but i dont think it woulod have happened without the movie being done first. lets call it a re-adaptation and move the fuck on shall we? |
|
|
|
Post by pureevilmatt on Nov 24, 2006 20:50:34 GMT -5
Your definition of Remake is so rigid that it's practically useless. And you also artificially limit your definition of "adaptation" to just different art forms... that is an error in your interpretation of it's definition.
Adaptations are works that have been adapted to different forms or mediums for the purpose of appealing to a different audience. To adapt a work do a different audience, there are lots of other things you can change aside from it's medium. The work can instead be adapted to appeal to a different age group, language, culture, etc. Where do movies like that fit into your definitions?
(The color scheme on this messageboard makes quotes difficult to read.)
|
|
iamlegend
Untouchable
Go Fuck Yourself
Posts: 93
|
Post by iamlegend on Nov 24, 2006 22:50:26 GMT -5
from here: www.outpost31.com/movie/trivia.htmlwe have this: [glow=red,2,300]Carpenter and crew adamantly stressed they were *not* re-making Howard Hawks 1951 "The Thing" but making a film version of the 1938 original novella "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell. To promote this they had the short story printed up in a re-release booklet complete with movie artwork[/glow] the end? |
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Nov 25, 2006 2:54:14 GMT -5
Your definition of Remake is so rigid that it's practically useless. And you also artificially limit your definition of "adaptation" to just different art forms... that is an error in your interpretation of it's definition. Oh shut the fuck up...it's not MY definition of adaptation...it's THE DICTIONARY definition,meaning FACTUAL and NOT OPEN TO ALTERNATE INTERPRETATION,reguarding instances such as this thats applied to an absolute T,meaning theres no error in it whatsoever...film is a form of art...published literature is a seperate and different form of art...the definition states that it's a composition thats made into a NEW (meaning DIFFERENT) FORM...in this case,it's source material thats in one form made into a different NEW form...a new version of a movie that references its predecessor movie (making them the same FORM),which was the first form of the source material referenced,is what a remake is in reguards to what an adaptation is...Don't agree with that? Tough shit cause thats the way it is...deal with it. I'm not surprised in the slightest that you refuse to get this,seeing as how you tried to say Return of the Living Dead was a parody because it imitated Night of the Living Dead's style and characteristics when it did no such thing...people like you and swivel that think they're special enough to argue against 100% tried and true fact should be made to serve a prison sentence AND pay a high monetary penalty... Adaptations are works that have been adapted to different forms or mediums A different medium and form are one in the same...nice job in contradicting yourself... for the purpose of appealing to a different audience. To adapt a work do a different audience, there are lots of other things you can change aside from it's medium. The work can instead be adapted to appeal to a different age group, language, culture, etc. Where do movies like that fit into your definitions? ALL works are done for the purpose of appealing to different audiences...adaptations,remakes,and original works alike...thats not something thats strictly limited to adaptations...would it really hurt you to apply SOME form of critical thinking before typing? Jesus Christ... |
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Nov 25, 2006 2:55:08 GMT -5
from here: www.outpost31.com/movie/trivia.htmlwe have this: [glow=red,2,300]Carpenter and crew adamantly stressed they were *not* re-making Howard Hawks 1951 "The Thing" but making a film version of the 1938 original novella "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell. To promote this they had the short story printed up in a re-release booklet complete with movie artwork[/glow] the end? I wish it were that simple...unfortunatly the false notion that it's a remake has spread so deep into the subconscious of the moronic consensus to the point that the pure definition of an adaptation apparently means absolutly ziltch... |
|
|
|
Post by pureevilmatt on Nov 26, 2006 13:27:04 GMT -5
Oh shut the fuck up...it's not MY definition of adaptation...it's THE DICTIONARY definition,meaning FACTUAL and NOT OPEN TO ALTERNATE INTERPRETATION This exact point is why I corrected you on your flawwed interpretation of that definition. A different medium and form are one in the same...nice job in contradicting yourself... Since you're handy with the dictionary, look up the definition for "medium", and then look up the definition for "form". And then go ahead an tell me that I'm contradicting myself again. Then I'll call the "100% tried and true fact police" and have you put away for life. "Form" and "medium" are in fact two VERY different things... and even if were the same thing(which they most definitely are not), it still wouldn't be a 'contradiction'... it would simply be redundant. |
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Nov 27, 2006 11:22:19 GMT -5
This exact point is why I corrected you on your flawwed interpretation of that definition. Too bad it's YOU that has the flawed interpretation...the word "new" in that definition means different...I'll give you a slightly different and even more limited definition of the word that proves this: www.thefreedictionary.com/adaptationThis definition is not entirly correct because it's limited to just published written works,but it's overall meaning is the same as the overall definition,which is a work of fiction/source material thats made into a new,meaning different,form. If you're telling me my 100% accurate interpretation of this is flawed,then you're also saying the very factual definition is wrong cause thats what I'm going by... Since you're handy with the dictionary, look up the definition for "medium", and then look up the definition for "form". And then go ahead an tell me that I'm contradicting myself again. Then I'll call the "100% tried and true fact police" and have you put away for life. "Form" and "medium" are in fact two VERY different things... Upon further thinking about this I've determined that you're correct in this instance of the 2 not entirly being the same,so my bad. However,that actually STRENGHENS the definition that you claim is mine because the medium used still has no bearing on what makes an adaptation just like target audience has no bearing either. Something thats in the visual/film form (whether the medium is television,movie theaters,or whatever) made using the fictional source material from something in the published literary form (whether the medium was a book,magizine,etc) is still an adaptation no matter what medium is used. A TV movie or mini series that uses source material from a feature lengh movie ISN'T an adaptation because their form (film) is still the same,therefore not new. The FORM is what has to be different,not the medium. and even if were the same thing(which they most definitely are not), it still wouldn't be a 'contradiction'... it would simply be redundant. Thats actually not the contradiction I was refering to... First you said: And you also artificially limit your definition of "adaptation" to just different art forms...that is an error in your interpretation of it's definition. Then immediatly after you said: Adaptations are works that have been adapted to different forms or mediums Your first statement is you denying that adaptations are works adapted to different art forms,only to immediatly say they are in your second statement,thereby making a contradiction. Since I just established that the medium used has no relevence based on the definition,you're still left with this: And you also artificially limit your definition of "adaptation" to just different art forms...that is an error in your interpretation of it's definition. Adaptations are works that have been adapted to different forms Which is even more of a contradiction... |
|
|
|
Post by pureevilmatt on Nov 27, 2006 13:59:39 GMT -5
Too bad it's YOU that has the flawed interpretation...the word "new" in that definition means different...I'll give you a slightly different and even more limited definition of the word that proves this: www.thefreedictionary.com/adaptationThis definition is not entirly correct because it's limited to just published written works,but it's overall meaning is the same as the overall definition,which is a work of fiction/source material thats made into a new,meaning different,form. If you're telling me my 100% accurate interpretation of this is flawed,then you're also saying the very factual definition is wrong cause thats what I'm going by... You're trying to include the example in the definition... That's where you're going wrong in limiting your interpretation. Stick to the literal definition of "a work that has been recast in a new form", and you'll have it right... otherwise, you have the definition of "Version", not the defintion of "Adaptation." The FORM is what has to be different,not the medium. If you change mediums, by necessity you also change forms. However, if you change the form of something, it's perfectly possible to have the medium stay the same... which is what I've been saying the whole time. You can create an Adaptation without changing the medium... Your first statement is you denying that adaptations are works adapted to different art forms,only to immediatly say they are in your second statement,thereby making a contradiction. I didn't deny that adaptation are works adapted to different art forms... I simply said you were incorrectly limiting your interpretation of the definition to that. Following that, I purposefully made a distinction between medium and form for this reason. Secondly, for the purpose of this conversation, I believe I've done a good job of differentiating medium and form... but I appologize if I've failed you in some way. To clarify: "ART FORM" is functionally equivalent to "MEDIUM". However, "Form" is roughly equivalent to appearance, shape, or structure. Since I just established that the medium used has no relevence based on the definition Maybe you made a mistake here? Because it sounds like you're agreeing with me. Typically, Adaptations include a change of medium, but it is by no means a requirement for a work to be considered an Adaptation. When it comes to Adaptations, the medium doesn't really matter... the sole determining factor is the form: the appearance, shape, or structure. This is what makes it possible to adapt one film to another... this is the point I've been arguing. Adaptations are works that have been adapted to different forms Which is even more of a contradiction... "art forms" are equivalent to "Medium", and are different from "form". Again, sorry if that wasn't 100% clear. and again... you really need to change the color scheme on this site. |
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Nov 28, 2006 17:13:26 GMT -5
You're trying to include the example in the definition... That's where you're going wrong in limiting your interpretation. Stick to the literal definition of "a work that has been recast in a new form", and you'll have it right... otherwise, you have the definition of "Version", not the defintion of "Adaptation." I never once said an alternate version of something couldn't also be an adaptation of something else. Theres 2 very slightly different film versions of Psycho,but they're both adaptations because they're expressing the source material from the novel in a different form (the film form). Again,the word new in the definition only means different. To avoid further confusion,here are the forms of fictional artistic expression: -Film -Music -Video Games -Published Literature -Stage (yes it's technically a different form from film dispite the huge similarities because film can be manipulated in ways that can't be done with plays and other stage acts) If you change mediums, by necessity you also change forms. However, if you change the form of something, it's perfectly possible to have the medium stay the same... which is what I've been saying the whole time. You can create an Adaptation without changing the medium... ...That doesn't really make any sense at all. The film form can be channeled through more than 1 medium (such as big screen theaters,televisions,etc),but it's still the form of film. The medium doesn't change that at all. You might be thinking that other elements involving other mediums,like TV sitcoms having specific time limitations and being filmed before a studio audience,is what makes the form different when it doesn't. A TV mini series version of Dawn of the Dead wouldn't be an adaptation because the form is no different. It's still considered film no matter what is used to show it and/or the format in which it's shown,so that would be a remake. Same thing with published literature. The medium channels used in publishing it (book,magizine,etc) and the limitations that may come with them doesn't change the fact that it is the published literature form of artistic expression. I didn't deny that adaptation are works adapted to different art forms... I simply said you were incorrectly limiting your interpretation of the definition to that. Following that, I purposefully made a distinction between medium and form for this reason. How? How am I remotly limiting my interpretation of the definition? Does the definition not say that it's a composition thats recast into a new (again,meaning DIFFERENT) FORM? Cause I'm pretty sure it doesn't say "a composition thats recast into a new form/medium" or "a composition thats recast into a new form in the literal sense". If you go by the latter,any new version of something,different art form or not,would be an adaptation and there wouldn't be any need for words such as remake or reimagining (which is still a remake OR an adaptation depending on the form,so that word is redundant). While not entirly correct and limited,the extra definition of the word I gave proves that way of thinking to be incorrect. Making any distinction between the form and medium,for whatever reason,doesn't change the form as I've explained. This is how the definition applies...you have different forms of fictional artistic expression...you express something in 1 original form (like say,a film thats shown in mini series format)...the source material from that 1 form being transfered to a DIFFERENT form (like say,published material such as a novel),no matter how many times/versions,is an adaptation according to the definition...so again,how is that remotly limited? Sounds to me like it's a 100% accurate application of the definition. Maybe you made a mistake here? Because it sounds like you're agreeing with me. Typically, Adaptations include a change of medium, but it is by no means a requirement for a work to be considered an Adaptation. I counted at least 4 different mistakes on your part in that last paragraph alone...you're trying include mediums in the definition no matter how you word it...I say the mediums have no relevence in said definition,which prompts you to say it sounds like I'm agreeing with you...then in the very next sentence,you once again try to apply mediums in a definition that doesn't include them AT ALL by saying "Typically, Adaptations include a change of medium",which leads me to believe you don't understand your own deferentiating between forms and mediums ON TOP OF that statement actually supporting my previous incorrect statement about there being no difference between forms and mediums...then you once again contradict yourself by saying "When it comes to Adaptations, the medium doesn't really matter... the sole determining factor is the form",which is what I've been saying this whole time that your "you also artificially limit your definition of "adaptation" to just different art forms..." statement is in firm disagreement with. I'm gonna clear this up right now...here are the definitions of the word form that apply in this matter: www.thefreedictionary.com/formNow here are the definitions of medium that apply: www.thefreedictionary.com/mediumFilm is a form of artistic expression...the lengh,whether it's feature lengh or short,or any other limitation that comes with the medium doesn't change this...the mediums used to convey this form include big screen theaters,television,computers,and others...published literature is a form of artistic expression...the lengh,whether it's novela or novelette,or any other limitation that comes with the medium doesn't change this...the mediums used to convey this form include paperback and hardback books,magizines,newspapers,and others...something thats in the same FORM,no matter what MEDIUM used,can't be an adaptation by definition of the word...which is why films CAN'T be adaptations of other films...are you getting any of this yet? "art forms" are equivalent to "Medium", and are different from "form". Again, sorry if that wasn't 100% clear. No they really aren't...you're once again agreeing with a statement I made that you said was incorrect,which I agree was in fact wrong,which is yet another contradiction on your part. They aren't the same even if you apply another definition of the word that only looks like it supports that statement: The medium is whats used to convey or channel the form or,according to the above definition,the materials and creative technique used to express the form. If you correctly apply the part in bold and underline of the definition,you come up with the mediums used in the film form,such as digital video or film stock,the equipment used,etc. None of that,nor any of the limitations that come with the channeling mediums,changes the fact that it's the art form of film. Oh,and art form is a form of art...form=form... and again... you really need to change the color scheme on this site. You were outvoted even before you registered here... kefchat.proboards59.com/index.cgi?board=talk10&action=display&thread=1127846381&page=1It also might not be the color scheme that makes quotes hard to read,but rather the size of the text in the quotes which is the same no matter what color scheme is used... |
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Nov 30, 2006 9:48:08 GMT -5
N2NOther:kefchat.proboards59.com/index.cgi?board=talk13&action=display&thread=1130756466&page=3#1164343553Eventhough N2N is correct in the argument with you (it IS the exact same zombie crisis from film to film and they ARE sequels to each other),I just thought I'd point out the fantastic bit of irony of me PROVING that The Thing is an adaptation by the very factual definition of the word,to which he basically responded in the same "whatever,you're wrong and I'm not gonna argue it anymore" fashion as you did that he used to damage your credibility...
|
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Dec 3, 2006 14:10:09 GMT -5
Shoulder-Devil666:
Both based on published material...both are adaptations...the different mediums used for both don't change the fact that they are MOVIES based on a book...
I don't have to look at anything and as you even said,how the story unfolds in the films is irrelevent...the source material for both movies came from another DIFFERENT form of art,making both movies...wait for it...GASP...adaptations...So because of this FACT,what you think ain't worth a shit because you're wrong...
Too bad neither movie was based on any other form of art other than film...thats the difference...TCM 03 is a remake of TCM 74 because of this fact...
The only mongoloid is you because you don't seem to realise that the source material for both Ring movies came from a novel (called Ringu) published in 1991,LONG before either Ring movies were ever made...there was also no published written material involved for ANY of The Grudge movies,so that comparison was complete shit...
I also never said that my "choice of films/plays/Cds/operas that are all adaptations and nothing more". A song based on another song isn't called an adaptation...it's called a cover,which is basically the musical term for remake...what I SAID WAS source material that COMES FROM one form of art thats made into ANOTHER DIFFERENT form of art IS IN FACT an adaptation BY THE VERY DEFINITION OF THE GODDAMN WORD...it's so simple that I'd expect even the most retarded to figure it out...guess I'm giving the retarded too much credit...
Oh yea he REALLY won when he made his be all end all assertion that no matter what FACTS I present that say otherwise,The Thing is still a remake,followed by BOTH a "period" AND an "end of story" to really make sure his assertion couldn't be questioned...either that,or he realised how retardedly wrong he was and instead of admitting it,he just decided to basically quit because he couldn't argue his way out of established fact...so if he's won your vote on the matter,then have fun in dipshit land right along with him...
|
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Dec 3, 2006 15:09:18 GMT -5
pureevilmatt:Good fucking lord...Can you GET any more retarded? One more time for the cheap fucking seats... www.answers.com/topic/adaptationwww.thefreedictionary.com/adaptationThe added definition above to the one before it AND the examples in BOTH imply that the word NEW means DIFFERENT in the context of the definition...which means they are NOT the same thing no matter what kind of rancid smoke you blow and try to pass off as logic...a movie based COMPLETLY AND SOLELY on a previous movie doesn't change the form...so it isn't called an adaptation,but rather a remake,for this very fucking reason...any other spin or interpretation of it is completely unnessasary,contradictory to fact,and most of all moronic... It don't make a rats ass what "elements" from each it has...the source material used for the movie originated from a completely different form of art (a published novelette)...so it's a 100% adaptation by the definition of the word I've provided...it can't be both,it has to be one or the other... I love it when you disreguard the factual definition of the word "adaptation" thats provided and try to make your own interpretation of it (which it seems you have a history of doing with other things established by fact)...it really restores my faith in the public education system... Almost only counts in horse shoes,hand grenades,and death charges...even if we do apply your ridiculous percentage system,a movie thats 99% remake and only 1% adaptation is still a 100% adaptation by definition...and no taking a character from published material and putting them in an ORIGINAL story thats in film form wouldn't be an example of the "99%/1%" ratio because the story thats in the film form is the first time that said source material is developed... Again with this "more than" bullshit...it either 100% is or it isn't...thats the way it is according to fact...and once again,you monument of neanderthal,a movie can't be an adaptation of another movie because they are THE EXACT SAME FORM OF ART...you're interpreting the word "new" in the litteral sense when thats NOT how it's to be interpreted...you're also not interpreting the word "form" correctly either...I keep telling you this while using FACT to support it,but you keep completely ignoring it like you always do when you disagree with fact...so by all means,keep making yourself look like the poster child for Down Syndrome...
|
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Dec 4, 2006 8:36:32 GMT -5
tibber:Thats EXACTLY what I'm claiming...   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychowww.answers.com/topic/adaptationwww.thefreedictionary.com/adaptationYou can argue the scene and filming similarities and intial influence to do it all you want and it won't make a damn bit of difference...the mere fact that the source material for BOTH movies came from a published novel,IE a DIFFERENT FORM of fictional artistic expression,makes both films seperate film adaptations of the novel by definition of what an adaptation is... You should be,what with your complete ignorance to the factual difference between a remake and an adaptation and the very simple means to tell them apart... CJ_01976:Somebody who isn't stupid enough to put somebody on ignore only to talk shit about them and not have to deal with any deserved replies that come from them...sounds like you doesn't it Mr.#46? N2NOther:HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Ignoring facts? This coming from the guy who is so selective and contradictory as to acknowledge 1 movie thats based on published literature (Jaws) to be an adaptation but 3 others (The Thing,The Fly,The Ring) aren't,using the basis of more than one movie using the source material being made thereby completely ignoring the concept of "loose or faithful interpretation" of the source material...This coming from the guy who won't even REMOTLY acknowledge the FACTUAL definition of what an adaptation is and instead choses to give up in the form of "whatever,you're wrong and thats that" like a little bitch who can't find anything more to argue with because his argument has been completely destroyed,but gets on others for doing the exact same thing... At least I've acknowledged your factual definitions of what a remake is by telling you that the definitions and your interpretations of them were too narrow in instances such as this and didn't remotly cover said instances where the source material for something was based on something else made using a DIFFERENT form of artistic expression...theres a reason why the words remake and adaptation exist apart from each other and mean something different,but people like you seem to think that you can be selective in what qualifies movies as such when the FACTS say otherwise...and when shown the facts that prove people like you wrong,you try to come up with all sorts of ridiculous loopholes in an attempt to make movies that are adaptations into remakes...that makes people like you complete idiots and douchebags who are taking away oxygen from those more worthy of it... If only there was a way to slap somebody over the internet...I could see myself pulling a Sgt. Hartman on dumb motherfuckers all day long... "What kind of movie is John Carpenter's The Thing,Private Into Another?!" "A REMAKE SIR!" SLAP!"What kind of movie is Dawn of the Dead 04,Private matt?!" "AN ADAPTATION OF THE 1978 SCREENPLAY AND MOVIE BY THE SAME NAME SIR!" "ARE you SURE Private matt?!" "YES SIR!" SLAP!
|
|
?