|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Dec 6, 2006 23:29:30 GMT -5
hahaha, soooo damn close. but oh well. i don't think we're ever gonna agree on the terminology so long as we're stuck on the meaning of the word "form" in the definition of adaptation. I'm not stuck at all because I'm interpreting it properly according to the example given...the same exact example given in 2 slightly different definitions no less...proper interpretation is the very reason why definitions give applicatable examples...if the definition was meant to be interpreted the way you're interpreting it,it would have provided examples that supported your interpretation,common or not... but as long as people agree that van sant's psycho is based on hitchcock's psycho which is in turn based on bloch's psycho... i couldn't care a less if they choose to call it an Adaptation or a Remake... so long as they are aware of the hierarchy of it's sources. If there was no book or any other artform in the picture,THEN AND ONLY THEN would Van Sant's Psycho be based on Hitchcock's Psycho...but since there is a book involved that predates both films,both films are adaptations of,therefore based on,said book...even the mere fact that Hitchcock's movie was based on the book murders your entire argument because that would mean Van Sant's also is via association by default... As for the John Carpenter's "The Thing", I'd say it's ~75% based on "Who goes there", and ~25% based on "The Thing from another world." Does that make it a remake or an adapation? I no longer care. 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 since all of this is according to fact,it's not open to interpretation nor disagreement...facts are supposed to be accepted as air tight truths...at least according to those with functioning brain cells... |
|
|
|
Post by pureevilmatt on Dec 8, 2006 19:22:18 GMT -5
If there was no book or any other artform in the picture,THEN AND ONLY THEN would Van Sant's Psycho be based on Hitchcock's Psycho. I have decided to cease using any form of the Noun "Adaptation" when in conversations with you. This includes "Remake" "Reimagining" "Readaptation", etc. ...but since there is a book involved that predates both films,both films are adaptations of,therefore based on,said book...even the mere fact that Hitchcock's movie was based on the book murders your entire argument because that would mean Van Sant's also is via association by default... Yet, I'm disagreeing with you because in combination with your 100% doctrine, it sounds as though you're saying that Van Sant's Psycho isn't in any way based on Hitchcock's Psycho. I disagree with that, because it is CLEARLY wrong. Unless the Bloch novel also comes with an accompanying storyboard showing camera angles, and editing cues, then Van Sant's Psycho is primarily based on Hitchcock's Psycho which is in turn based on the Bloch novel. Again with this "more than" bullshit...it either 100% is or it isn't...thats the way it is according to fact... Something can be based on more than one thing, correct? |
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Dec 10, 2006 2:05:53 GMT -5
I have decided to cease using any form of the Noun "Adaptation" when in conversations with you. This includes "Remake" "Reimagining" "Readaptation", etc. Good...don't start using any of those words again until all of the following happen: A)You realise your interpretation of the word adaptation is wrong and you conform to and accept the factual one,which is the one I've been applying from jump street (and at the same time,realising that I don't believe it's factual simply because I say it is)...this includes you realising that you can't make an adaptation of an adaptation because it would still be considered an adaptation of the original source and not the other adaptation. B)You realise that a remake ISN'T a form of adaptation and that there is a very simple difference between the 2. C)You realise that the word reimagining is basically another word for remake and is not really needed. D)You realise that there is no such word as "readaptation" Yet, I'm disagreeing with you because in combination with your 100% doctrine, it sounds as though you're saying that Van Sant's Psycho isn't in any way based on Hitchcock's Psycho. ONLY in how its filmed and nothing more...but that isn't enough to qualify it as a remake and not an adaptation because the SOURCE MATERIAL used for Van Sant's film came from the book...thats all thats nessasary to consider it an adaptation and the very reason why a percentage system is ridiculous and useless because the end result (source material for film came from book,AKA a different form) will be the same no matter how you needlessly weigh it out... I disagree with that, because it is CLEARLY wrong. Unless the Bloch novel also comes with an accompanying storyboard showing camera angles, and editing cues, then Van Sant's Psycho is primarily based on Hitchcock's Psycho which is in turn based on the Bloch novel. As I just said,source material overides filming similarities...so it's CLEARLY NOT wrong... Something can be based on more than one thing, correct? When it comes to how something is considered an adaptation,no...all the new forms of the source material used are all solely based on the original form in which the source material was concieved...because without that intial form in which the source material was concieved,none of the other adaptations can exist...thats one of the reasons why your tree analogy comparison sucked... |
|
|
|
Post by pureevilmatt on Dec 11, 2006 19:14:32 GMT -5
Something can be based on more than one thing, correct? When it comes to how something is considered an adaptation,no...all the new forms of the source material used are all solely based on the original form in which the source material was concieved...because without that intial form in which the source material was concieved,none of the other adaptations can exist...thats one of the reasons why your tree analogy comparison sucked... My tree analogy, although admittedly very basic, at least recognized the full source of the movie. Your laser like focus solely on the litterary consideration of 'adaptation' is ignorant of so many other aspects which can be adapted. What you are saying is essentially that the way a film is presented to the audience is inconsequential in determining it's basis. Thats just wrong. If movie #2 bases the very way it is presented almost 100% on the way movie #1 is presented, then that is a movie that is based on another movie, regardless of what movie #1 is itself based on. We are talking about film as a 'form of fictional artistic expression'... if the audio-visual presentation of a film is overlooked when talking about it, then we're not talking about the art of film we're talking about the art of story telling. In that sense, I agree with you, the script for both Psycho movies are the same interpretation of the Bloch novel, so the story contained in both Hitchcock's and Van Sant's Psychos is based on(and thus by your interpretation, an adaptation of) the Robert Bloch novel. But there's a lot more to the art form of film than simply telling a story. In the case of Van Sant's Psycho, you're ignoring the other facets of the art that accompany story; the audio and visual components. The score & cinematography were obviously not based on the novel, nor were they original interpretations: the source material for those was Hitchcock's film. Van Sant's Psycho is primarily based on Hitchcock's Psycho which is in turn based on the Bloch novel. |
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Dec 16, 2006 8:55:08 GMT -5
My tree analogy, although admittedly very basic, at least recognized the full source of the movie. Your laser like focus solely on the litterary consideration of 'adaptation' is ignorant of so many other aspects which can be adapted. It didn't recognise shit in a brown sack...first of all,even remotly thinking you can compare the structure of a tree to the structure of how adaptations of art forms work is retarded in it of itself...thats like trying to compare the structure of a house starting at its foundation to the structure of a multi stacked ice cream cone from the bottom up...2 entirely different concepts that don't remotly compare,not even metaphorically...secondly,even if we ignore that minor detail just for the sake of argument,your particular application of said comparison is completely whopper jawed...all parts of a tree,from the roots all the way to the tiniest of brances,all encompass the same form...the form of a tree...or more specifically,a form of plant life...using parts of the tree to turn it into something else,like say a wooden shelf or table or something that can be made with wood from the tree in question,would be an adaptation of the tree...if we apply Psycho to that,all that happened was the wood from the tree was used to make 2 near identical wooden shelves...making a clone of the tree or turning it into a different plant would be remaking it...now what I REALLY want you to chime in with next is trying to tell me that changing it to a different plant would be changing its litteral form,therefore making it an adaptation...then not only would I be able to remind you of how litteral you're taking the word "form" in the definition (because it's still a FORM of plant life),but also come full circle and once again remind you of how utterly uncomparable your tree analogy comparison is based off the first point in this paragraph... What you are saying is essentially that the way a film is presented to the audience is inconsequential in determining it's basis. Thats just wrong. If movie #2 bases the very way it is presented almost 100% on the way movie #1 is presented, then that is a movie that is based on another movie, regardless of what movie #1 is itself based on. Really? Well where does source material fit into that? You know,source material? As in everything entailed in the fictional plot/story that drives the movie or any other artistic work of fiction to begin with? Because without that,all you have of a movie are filmed images without any cohension...you can argue presentation all you want...the FACT is without the source material,the presentation is pretty much worthless and irrelevent...and the FACT is that the source material for both Psycho films came from the Psycho novel...so the FACT is that both films are based on that novel,and since they are in the form of film and not the form of published literature like the novel is,the FACT is that they're both adaptations of the novel... We are talking about film as a 'form of fictional artistic expression'... if the audio-visual presentation of a film is overlooked when talking about it, then we're not talking about the art of film we're talking about the art of story telling. Umm...film being used as a form of fictional artistic expression also makes it an art of storytelling genius...the oppertive word in that is FICTIONAL... In that sense, I agree with you, the script for both Psycho movies are the same interpretation of the Bloch novel, so the story contained in both Hitchcock's and Van Sant's Psychos is based on(and thus by your interpretation, an adaptation of) the Robert Bloch novel. You really should have stopped right there,for you reached your point of coming full circle... But there's a lot more to the art form of film than simply telling a story. In the case of Van Sant's Psycho, you're ignoring the other facets of the art that accompany story; the audio and visual components. The score & cinematography were obviously not based on the novel, nor were they original interpretations: the source material for those was Hitchcock's film. All the score and cinematography does is complement the story that the film presents...something like that is to be expected when you change to a different form to tell the story...that still doesn't change the FACT that without the story/source material,you essentially have no movie(s) (thats to be taken both LITTERALLY AND FIGURETIVLY)...or at least no sort of cohesive and coheirent movie... I'll go ahead and fix the next quote for you... Van Sant's Psycho,while having the near identical filming structure of Hitchcock's Psycho,is primarily based on Blochs novel of the same name. |
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Dec 16, 2006 8:57:22 GMT -5
Shoulder-Devil666:Isn't that amazing? Even somebody that sees both (Van Sant's) Psycho and The Thing as remakes knows how to properly interpret the definition of the word adaptation...eventhough that makes them more of a dunce for recognising (Van Sant's) Psycho and The Thing as remakes,it also makes matt look more like a dunce for steadfastly sticking to the blatently wrong interpretation of the definition of the word when more than 1 person AND the dictionary says he's wrong... pureevilmatt:YES...THERE...IS...www.answers.com/topic/adaptationThe example CLEARLY defines the change in form as going from one form of FICTIONAL ARTISTIC EXPRESSION to a DIFFERENT one...and before you try to spoon feed me the same "it's simply the most common example" heap of shit: #1:Movie adaptations of novels are argubly more common than stage adaptations,rendering your assertion void. #2:Said example was given to specifically stress the kind of change in form that it's meant to be interpreted as and made sure NOT to include your type of interpretation,which also renders your assertion void. Either that,or seeing how the story gells or plays out in a different form,because something that looks or feels good written might not look or feel good in film form...actually,it's just the latter...because as you even said,changing the FORM (theres a difference between form and medium as I've already outlined) doesn't particularly affect the audience... The oppertive part in that is "To me" (me being you)...we've already established that your interpretive opinion on the matter is worthless because the concept simply isn't open to an interpretive opinion because said interpretive opinion goes against FACT...it's like if you were to say "in my opinion,George Romero sells PCP to children"...thats unsubstantiated and false according to fact as is your interpretation of what an adaptation is...so you can stop being wrong any time now...
|
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Jun 8, 2007 19:57:07 GMT -5
I am a HORROR movie!!!:
Nope. The Thing IS an adaptation. No two ways about it.
mcilroga:
ad·ap·ta·tion(dp-tshn)
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.
Yep,it's pretty much an adaptation,no matter if a previous film based on the material has been made...but I guess that definition doesn't matter as you'd rather go by one thats WAY more vague...so then I guess I Am Legend will be a remake of The Omega Man which was already a remake of The Last Man On Earth,eventhough the novel all of them are based on is called I Am Legend? You fucking morons...
|
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Jun 9, 2007 0:48:58 GMT -5
mcilroga:I don't give a shit what YOU consider a remake or not...Carpenter's The Thing is an adaptation according to the definition of the fucking word,so get the fuck over it. BUUUUUZZZZZ...WRONG! 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] EXACTLY...BOTH FILMS come from the SAME SHORT STORY...that makes them SEPERATE ADAPTATIONS of that short story,you fuckhead. Thats not even close to being a valid comparison...Halloween isn't based on any other work from a different form of media...The Thing is,which makes it an adaptation...you fucking idiot. Who gives a rat's fuck what 99.9% of people think? So because a large amount of people think something is right automatically makes it so? You'd probably drink Drano if enough people said it doesn't kill you. I dunno...everything? Of course it's a remake. Know why? Because Halloween and it's plot/story was made as a movie FIRST and NOT adapated from any published novel or short story...THAT is the fucking difference you worthless choad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Jun 9, 2007 0:52:33 GMT -5
BlackMary:
No they fucking aren't...you shut the fuck up as well...
|
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Jun 9, 2007 1:15:12 GMT -5
You know what,enough is fucking enough. I've told my friend Red Spyder,who still has a BD account and logs in every once in awhile to check for namedrops (hence how I knew about Mossy's earlier today) to send superfry the link to this thread so he'll have solid ass stomping backup against any of the morons who like to be selective with what qualifies films as remakes and adaptations. This is what he sent:
This bullshit is getting so ridiculous that I feel these people's idiotic perceptions need to be throughly shattered,so let the party commence...
|
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Jun 9, 2007 1:30:52 GMT -5
BlackMary:
Oh my fucking god...the fucking plot/story/premise is EXACTLY the same...a killer named Michael Myers kills his sister and is then put into an asylum,then many years later,he escapes from that asylum to kill again while wearing a mask...you can add all the changes like the one you listed in the world and the plot/story/premise would be EXACTLY the same...and since the plot/story/premise was concieved in movie form FIRST,this new movie based on it is a FUCKING REMAKE...Reimaging is just a different unneeded word that in this case means REMAKE...Game Over.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Jun 10, 2007 10:27:03 GMT -5
ShinJuggalo:
The ones in bold and underline are all based on works in other forms of media and artistic expression (House of Wax as a play and the rest as published literature),making them adaptations,NOT remakes...nice job looking like an idiot...
|
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Dec 28, 2007 2:15:21 GMT -5
I'm a tad bit bored,so I thought I'd bring this thread back from the dead,since I still see an abundant number of occurances of The Thing being called a remake. This is for any stupid motherfucker that still selectivly classifies The Thing and any films like it that based on other different pieces of artistic media as remakes: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Legend_(film)But wait! By the logic of dipshits that think The Thing is a remake,I Am Legend is actually a remake of The Omega Man,which in turn was a remake of The Last Man on Earth,dispite the fact that all 3 were based on the novel I Am Legend...science sure could learn a lot from the idiocy of these cro magnons...but personally,I'd prefer if they'd all be pushed into a flaming pit. Seriously though,you morons haven't got any solid ground left to stand on. The Thing,as well as Thing From Another World,are both adaptations of Who Goes There. If you come to any conclusion other than that,you're a fucking idiot. Period. Fin. |
|
ite
Untouchable
Posts: 65
|
Post by ite on Jan 20, 2008 6:33:29 GMT -5
The Thing IS a remake.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Jan 20, 2008 18:42:10 GMT -5
The fact that YOU think it is only further proves my point that it isn't...so thanks... |
|
