I'm not sure how I can expain it any better than I have.durdencommatyler wrote:I'm not sure how I can explain it any better than I have. I believe these movies are cash grabs. You don't. So, I was trying to move forward from your POV. If you're right and they aren't just cash grabs, then the "artists" involved should be trying to improve on the original because there's no other reason to re-make it.LoathedVermin72 wrote:How so? I'm not following the logic here. You yourself admitted remakes are often conceived as ways to capitalize on an existing property, which does not imply anyone is trying to improve on it. Then artists are brought in to write and direct it, and in most cases those artists are fans of the original. Rob Zombie wasn't trying to improve Carpenter's Halloween - he just did something new and different with concept. Alexandre Aja wasn't trying to improve Craven's The Hills Have Eyes - he just did something new and different with the concept. The filmmakers are very vocal about it, too. You don't set out to remake something you're a fan of with the goal of making it better; you just do your own thing and don't worry about how its quality relates to the original. You worry about making sure your specific vision is as good as it can be.
"Improvement" is NOT the only reason to revisit a premise (which is all a remake does). Not by any means whatsoever. Trust me, Rob Zombie did not go into Halloween as some kind of bullshit money gig; anybody who knows anything about him knows he wouldn't do that. To dismiss the motives of the filmmakers behind these projects as merely capitalist and uninspired is cynical and condescending. For example, among the many film projects I would like to make personally, some of them are remakes. It has nothing to do with wanting to make money or improve upon the originals: I just saw something in them that I want to explore in a way they didn't. How is that invalid as art? How is basing your film on an existing film any less artful or worthwhile than basing it on a book or a play or an opera or whatever the fuck else? Source material DOES NOT dictate the artfulness of the film in ANY situation.
This is arbitrarily dismissive. Also, self-indulgence/masturbation is a pretty important component of all honest art. A lot of it comes down to that, but that's by no means a bad thing. Self-indulgence can be illuminating.If a fan is remaking something they love just to do it differently, that isn't art. That isn't even interesting. It's self-indulgent and masturbatory. I have zero interest in that. Make something new to honor those things you love so much. Or stay home and write fan fiction and leave me the fuck out of it.
That does not mean they don't want to make the remake they are working on. That doesn't mean they're not passionate about it.And again, most of the people brought in to write and direct these big Hollywood remakes are no-names or people that can be controlled, people looking for a way to make the thing they want to make
So you're saying Razor's Edge was a passion project? Guess what: that was a remake.Didn't Murray only agree to Ghostbusters so he could make Razor's Edge? That turned out well for us).
Disagree completely. This implies that mainstream movies don't have their own ideas, which is absurd. I don't give preference to superficial factors like whether or not it's based on existing source material; that's trivial, incidental. I only care about the work of art itself and I give preference to filmmakers I think are unique and insightful and visionary and interesting, and many of those happen to be within the mainstream.But at least the "art movies" are original or new. At least they're trying and failing on their own ideas. That will always take preference in my book.
