Red Mosquito

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:So use his text. But it's okay to excise some of it. Or tell the same story with a new script. But if you're going to do it, use his text.

I...I'm still confused?

How can I clear this up for you, buddy?

I just don't know, Joey. In any case, you should watch Throne of Blood. Everyone should. It's awesome.

He's saying that you should either do Shakespeare's macbeth as it is (more or less) or just make an original movie based on the story (like the lion king with hamlet)

tommymtcom wrote:He's saying that you should either do Shakespeare's macbeth as it is (more or less) or just make an original movie based on the story (like the lion king with hamlet)

Pretty much, yeah.

durdencommatyler wrote:

tommymtcom wrote:He's saying that you should either do Shakespeare's macbeth as it is (more or less) or just make an original movie based on the story (like the lion king with hamlet)

Pretty much, yeah.

But...isn't that what I said? I didn't say you should change the dialogue; just excise a lot of it.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tommymtcom wrote:He's saying that you should either do Shakespeare's macbeth as it is (more or less) or just make an original movie based on the story (like the lion king with hamlet)

Pretty much, yeah.

But...isn't that what I said? I didn't say you should change the dialogue; just excise a lot of it.

You and Joey go together like peas and carrots

Strat wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tommymtcom wrote:He's saying that you should either do Shakespeare's macbeth as it is (more or less) or just make an original movie based on the story (like the lion king with hamlet)

Pretty much, yeah.

But...isn't that what I said? I didn't say you should change the dialogue; just excise a lot of it.

You and Joey go together like peas and carrots

We seem to get our wires crossed a lot in communication.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tommymtcom wrote:He's saying that you should either do Shakespeare's macbeth as it is (more or less) or just make an original movie based on the story (like the lion king with hamlet)

Pretty much, yeah.

But...isn't that what I said? I didn't say you should change the dialogue; just excise a lot of it.

You did. I wasn't really arguing, just spring boarding. Did I quote you initially? I didn't mean to do that.

But, yeah, I guess, if I was to take issue with anything you said it would be the idea of cutting the soliloquies. Those are pretty fucking important to the Shakespearean text.

durdencommatyler wrote:if I was to take issue with anything you said it would be the idea of cutting the soliloquies. Those are pretty fucking important to the Shakespearean text.

Yes, completely agreed. But they're not necessarily important to a good film adaptation, as (I think) Polanski's movie displays.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:if I was to take issue with anything you said it would be the idea of cutting the soliloquies. Those are pretty fucking important to the Shakespearean text.

Yes, completely agreed. But they're not necessarily important to a good film adaptation, as (I think) Polanski's movie displays.

That's a fair point. My argument would be what I said earlier about doing your own thing then.

To me, the allure of Shakespeare is the language. If you're going to adapt Shakespeare to film, part of what you're trying to convey or achieve should be the language. If one isn't interested in that, one should create a new script. That's all I'm saying.

The times I've seen Shakespeare adapted and changed, they've been very faithful in what is cut. It's precise and exact. And faithful to the original text/meter/rhythm of the master's poetry.

You can cut Shakespeare, but you have to be careful with that kind of thing. And soliloquies are a very important part of what Shakespeare was doing. If you want to cut those for your film, fine. Whatever. But I believe that artist is doing herself a disservice, and corrupting something that's inherently better.

So what's this movie about?

So dude makes bad choices. But they weren't really choices because everything is predestined.

durdencommatyler wrote:So dude makes bad choices. But they weren't really choices because everything is predestined.

Stannis?

Mecca wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:So dude makes bad choices. But they weren't really choices because everything is predestined.

Stannis?

He's not in Macbeth.

durdencommatyler wrote:

Mecca wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:So dude makes bad choices. But they weren't really choices because everything is predestined.

Stannis?

He's not in Macbeth.

then what's the point?

Mecca wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

Mecca wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:So dude makes bad choices. But they weren't really choices because everything is predestined.

Stannis?

He's not in Macbeth.

then what's the point?

Soliloquies.

durdencommatyler wrote:

Mecca wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

Mecca wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:So dude makes bad choices. But they weren't really choices because everything is predestined.

Stannis?

He's not in Macbeth.

then what's the point?

Soliloquies.

i often think of my RM posts as soliloquies

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:if I was to take issue with anything you said it would be the idea of cutting the soliloquies. Those are pretty fucking important to the Shakespearean text.

Yes, completely agreed. But they're not necessarily important to a good film adaptation, as (I think) Polanski's movie displays.

That's a fair point. My argument would be what I said earlier about doing your own thing then.

To me, the allure of Shakespeare is the language. If you're going to adapt Shakespeare to film, part of what you're trying to convey or achieve should be the language. If one isn't interested in that, one should create a new script. That's all I'm saying.

The times I've seen Shakespeare adapted and changed, they've been very faithful in what is cut. It's precise and exact. And faithful to the original text/meter/rhythm of the master's poetry.

You can cut Shakespeare, but you have to be careful with that kind of thing. And soliloquies are a very important part of what Shakespeare was doing. If you want to cut those for your film, fine. Whatever. But I believe that artist is doing herself a disservice, and corrupting something that's inherently better.

I think we're gonna tread similar ground to our remake debate here and wind up in a place of fundamental disagreement.

Source material should not be viewed as any kind of marker for an adaptation's quality, and the person making the adaptation should not feel any duty to that material. Slavish reverence is boring. It's a drag. All that matters is the adaptation's quality as a standalone work of art, and the artist should feel free to do what they want to do with it.

Everyone knows why Shakespeare is important. That's great. I am by no means dissing him or his language (though I would argue the allure of Shakespeare goes much deeper than just his language). But an artist should be free to adapt him as loosely (or as slavishly) as they see fit. Personally, I tend to be more interested in loosely, because I could just read Shakespeare's text if I wanted that. What's the point of making a beat-for-beat adaptation of anything? I've never understood why that's interesting. Make it your own, I say. Think only about what's important to it, not what's important to what you're adapting. The only way an artist is doing themself a disservice is if they aren't honest to their own impulses, idiosyncrasies, and interests.

And I fundamentally disagree with the concept of any work of art being "inherently better" than any other, regardless of who created it.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I think we're gonna tread similar ground to our remake debate here and wind up in a place of fundamental disagreement.

Source material should not be viewed as any kind of marker for an adaptation's quality, and the person making the adaptation should not feel any duty to that material. Slavish reverence is boring. It's a drag. All that matters is the adaptation's quality as a standalone work of art, and the artist should feel free to do what they want to do with it.

Everyone knows why Shakespeare is important. That's great. I am by no means dissing him or his language (though I would argue the allure of Shakespeare goes much deeper than just his language). But an artist should be free to adapt him as loosely (or as slavishly) as they see fit. Personally, I tend to be more interested in loosely, because I could just read Shakespeare's text if I wanted that. What's the point of making a beat-for-beat adaptation of anything? I've never understood why that's interesting. Make it your own, I say. Think only about what's important to it, not what's important to what you're adapting. The only way an artist is doing themself a disservice is if they aren't honest to their own impulses, idiosyncrasies, and interests.

And I fundamentally disagree with the concept of any work of art being "inherently better" than any other, regardless of who created it.

Sure. And I agree in principle. But there are exceptions to every rule and when an artist is as universally regarded as Shakespeare, I'm confident calling him the exception. So, yes, his art is inherently better. But I'll concede the pretentiousness of that for the sake of furthering the conversation.

Source material absolutely does matter. If you don't want the source material, don't use it. Do something else. This is very different from a re-make or whatever. The source should be valued. Cutting and pasting isn't art.

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I think we're gonna tread similar ground to our remake debate here and wind up in a place of fundamental disagreement.

Source material should not be viewed as any kind of marker for an adaptation's quality, and the person making the adaptation should not feel any duty to that material. Slavish reverence is boring. It's a drag. All that matters is the adaptation's quality as a standalone work of art, and the artist should feel free to do what they want to do with it.

Everyone knows why Shakespeare is important. That's great. I am by no means dissing him or his language (though I would argue the allure of Shakespeare goes much deeper than just his language). But an artist should be free to adapt him as loosely (or as slavishly) as they see fit. Personally, I tend to be more interested in loosely, because I could just read Shakespeare's text if I wanted that. What's the point of making a beat-for-beat adaptation of anything? I've never understood why that's interesting. Make it your own, I say. Think only about what's important to it, not what's important to what you're adapting. The only way an artist is doing themself a disservice is if they aren't honest to their own impulses, idiosyncrasies, and interests.

And I fundamentally disagree with the concept of any work of art being "inherently better" than any other, regardless of who created it.

Sure. And I agree in principle. But there are exceptions to every rule and when an artist is as universally regarded as Shakespeare, I'm confident calling him the exception. So, yes, his art is inherently better. But I'll concede the pretentiousness of that for the sake of furthering the conversation.

Source material absolutely does matter. If you don't want the source material, don't use it. Do something else. This is very different from a re-make or whatever. The source should be valued. Cutting and pasting isn't art.

But it's the same thing: a remake's source material is the original film. They're all just adaptations. Reworkings. Remimaginings. New works of art based on old ones. There's a bit of cutting and pasting to all art; everyone is influenced by other things. But you arrange those pieces into something new, something unique. You bring a new angle to things. You express yourself and your worldview, and influences are going to inexorably entangled within that worldview. It's unavoidable. It's all the same thing, really.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I think we're gonna tread similar ground to our remake debate here and wind up in a place of fundamental disagreement.

Source material should not be viewed as any kind of marker for an adaptation's quality, and the person making the adaptation should not feel any duty to that material. Slavish reverence is boring. It's a drag. All that matters is the adaptation's quality as a standalone work of art, and the artist should feel free to do what they want to do with it.

Everyone knows why Shakespeare is important. That's great. I am by no means dissing him or his language (though I would argue the allure of Shakespeare goes much deeper than just his language). But an artist should be free to adapt him as loosely (or as slavishly) as they see fit. Personally, I tend to be more interested in loosely, because I could just read Shakespeare's text if I wanted that. What's the point of making a beat-for-beat adaptation of anything? I've never understood why that's interesting. Make it your own, I say. Think only about what's important to it, not what's important to what you're adapting. The only way an artist is doing themself a disservice is if they aren't honest to their own impulses, idiosyncrasies, and interests.

And I fundamentally disagree with the concept of any work of art being "inherently better" than any other, regardless of who created it.

Sure. And I agree in principle. But there are exceptions to every rule and when an artist is as universally regarded as Shakespeare, I'm confident calling him the exception. So, yes, his art is inherently better. But I'll concede the pretentiousness of that for the sake of furthering the conversation.

Source material absolutely does matter. If you don't want the source material, don't use it. Do something else. This is very different from a re-make or whatever. The source should be valued. Cutting and pasting isn't art.

But it's the same thing: a remake's source material is the original film. They're all just adaptations. Reworkings. Remimaginings. New works of art based on old ones. There's a bit of cutting and pasting to all art; everyone is influenced by other things. But you arrange those pieces into something new, something unique. You bring a new angle to things. You express yourself and your worldview, and influences are going to inexorably entangled within that worldview. It's unavoidable. It's all the same thing, really.

The difference with remakes, though, is that they are using original scripts. Which is fine. Make a Macbeth movie and call it Macbeth and write your own script. If you want Shakespeare, then do Shakespeare.