How Dare They?

Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Muffin Of Doom, Sep 19, 2019.

  1. Dry Bones 37

    Dry Bones 37 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    Location:
    fireproof78
    Because there are so many moving parts to it, and probably stems from theater days, where local troupes could do the same play, and let audiences determine which they preferred. And the theater experience was far more interactive with the audiences, and could see a wide variety set design, performance and costuming.

    Each performance was quite unique but, until we had film, couldn't be fully replicate each performance. So, it is far more acceptable to have several different performances. And that seems to carry over within the film world.
     
  2. ichab

    ichab Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    Here is an article on the subject.

    The article expands the subject to include revivals and reboots, which are something completely different and IMO, far more interesting.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2019
  3. ichab

    ichab Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    That is a very interesting analogy.
     
  4. Spocktoberfest!

    Spocktoberfest! Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Location:
    Marsden is celebrating Spocktoberfest!
    This movie in particular is a peculiar case. It's got just so damn many quotable quotes in it that what would a new version do? Repeat them or change them? Neither sounds desirable.

    And if some trends follow through, I really don't want to see a dark and gritty remake of The Princess Bride.
     
  5. FormerLurker

    FormerLurker Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    I just thought of an ideal comparison.

    Once upon a time, Laurel and Hardy made an adaptation of Babes In Toyland that, for copyright reasons, they called March of the Wooden Soldiers. About thirty years later, Disney studios made their own version, that because of Disney clout, they were able to call Babes In Toyland. Both follow the basic story, and both are well done. But because the Laurel and Hardy version was so iconic, Disney felt compelled to include their own version of the characters Laurel and Hardy played. Were they right or wrong to do so?

    A new version of The Princess Bride is, to be honest, inevitable. Much as I like the original, and much as I respect the likes of Cary Elwes as an actor, the idea that a remake would only result in diminishing the original is foolish. No remake is going to be perfect, any more than the original is (it isn't, there are parts from the book missing due to time constraints). But if no less a studio than Disney can feel compelled to add characters that call back to a previous version of their new film, any remake of The Princess Bride that refers back to the original, even by accident, won't be denigrating it in any way. They'll be doing their own take on the source material, while acknowledging that they aren't the first to do so. And the audience of each has no right to expect anything less, or different.
     
    Greg Cox and Turtletrekker like this.
  6. Owain Taggart

    Owain Taggart Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Location:
    Northern Ontario, Canada
    Yeah, that's an interesting scenario. I personally prefer the Laurel & Hardy version as I find it more charming. The Disney version feels a bit soulless, especially in light of the fact that they've copied the Laurel & Hardy characters almost verbatim, and despite that I still feel the Laurel & Hardy version is more iconic. And I think that says a lot for Laurel & Hardy.
     
  7. Dr. San Guinary

    Dr. San Guinary Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Location:
    Mr. Laser Beam is in the visitor's bullpen
    I admit that, at one point, I was curious who would star in a (hypothetical) remake of Airplane!.

    I've since abandoned that thought.
     
  8. ichab

    ichab Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    I feel that Disney did the same with it's theatrical version of Pinocchio. They really sanitized it compared to how it was in the book. It's fascinating to me that Walt thought children's stories from 50 years prior were too "dark" for modern audiences and that is a constant reminder every time I try and sit through one of those old,soft Disney movies.

    Also, the Laurel and Hardy version WAS called Babes in Toyland , but got renamed March of the Wooden Soldiers by a separate company that released the film later in 1950. Plus the Disney remake's plot, and in some cases the music, bear little resemblance to the original, as Disney had most of the lyrics rewritten and some of the song tempos drastically changed, including the memorable song "Toyland", a slow ballad, which was sped up with only the chorus sung in a march-like rhythm. Based on the mixed reviews, I'd say Disney should have either skipped remaking it or tried to be more faithful to the original story.
     
  9. FormerLurker

    FormerLurker Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    According to the links in your post, the Disney version is the more faithful of the two, even with the adapted music.
     
  10. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Lancaster, PA
    It's interesting how stuff from one adaptation can migrate from one version to another, until it seems as though it's always been there. Examples:

    1) There is NO seductive panther woman in H.G. Well's original novel, The Island of Doctor Moreau, but the 1932 movie version added her to the story and some version of her has popped up in every film version since.

    2) Sunlight did not destroy Dracula in the Bram Stoker novel, but that's been a staple of Dracula movies since Nosferatu way back in 1922.

    3) The 1920 silent version of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde (starring James Barrymore) was possibly the first movie adaptation to illustrate the protagonist's double life by pairing him with two very different women: a virginal fiancee for Jekyll and a lower-class tart for Hyde. This is nowhere in Stevenson's novel, but has become standard in film and stage versions.

    So, yes, chances are elements of The Princess Bride movie could find their way into future adaptations of the book, which is why the line between "remake" and "new adaptation" tends to be blurry.
     
  11. Owain Taggart

    Owain Taggart Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Location:
    Northern Ontario, Canada
    Yeah, I remember hearing about that. In fact, in the past when they've shown it on TV in the 80's and 90's, it would sometimes show up under both titles, which made it confusing, as I remember the guide listing the Laurel & Hardy version under the Babes in Toyland title and being confused when it wasn't really Laurel & Hardy.
     
  12. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Lancaster, PA
    I always had that problem with THE RAVEN. There were two classic horror movies by that name, made thirty years apart, but both starring Boris Karloff. And, yeah, I learned early on never to trust the TV listings in the paper when it came to distinguishing between them. You never knew which version you were going to see until you tuned in. :)
     
  13. Owain Taggart

    Owain Taggart Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Location:
    Northern Ontario, Canada
    That must have really been confusing. Interesting coincidence of having the same actor in both. I assume they were two completely different stories? I've sometimes seen remakes that do star at least one actor who previously played in an earlier version, but in a different role.
     
  14. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Lancaster, PA
    Completely different stories, although both claimed to be "inspired" by the famous poem by Poe. The 1930s movie is about an insane surgeon (Bela Lugosi) disfiguring Karloff on purpose, in order to turn him into a monster. The 1960s version is a horror-comedy featuring Karloff and Vincent Price as dueling wizards. (With Peter Lorre as the titular raven.)

    Not all that uncommon in horror really. Lugosi starred in two different movies titled THE BLACK CAT, while Price played different parts in two different versions of TOWER OF LONDON.

    I suspect one of the reasons I'm so blase about remakes is because I grew up on old horror movies, where this sort of thing is par for the course. Heck, there were at least three different movie versions of Jekyll & Hyde in 1920 alone!
     
  15. JD

    JD Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Location:
    Arizona, USA
    They're not scary, but there are Capybaras, which weigh between 77lbs and 146lbs according to Wikipedia.
     
    Turtletrekker and XCV330 like this.
  16. FormerLurker

    FormerLurker Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    My introduction to the capybara was a nature film about the Amazon. It showed a capybara falling in the water, where it was eaten by piranha. It was filmed to minimize it, of course, but it made it look like the fish ate it so fast it didn't bleed.
     
  17. Spocktoberfest!

    Spocktoberfest! Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Location:
    Marsden is celebrating Spocktoberfest!
    My introduction to the capybara was when The Tick had one as a pet.
     
  18. suarezguy

    suarezguy Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    If it's mediocre, a lot of its fans may well denigrate the original to try to boost it.
     
  19. Dry Bones 37

    Dry Bones 37 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    Location:
    fireproof78
    I have yet to see that succeed where the original is so beloved. so, let them denigrate. They'll denigrate the original just because. That's the culture we live in.
     
    Greg Cox likes this.
  20. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Lancaster, PA
    If it's mediocre, how many fans could it have? And, seriously, if it's that mediocre, the original film's reputation is probably safe.

    More importantly, people who love the original will still love it. Nothing can change that.

    PLANET OF THE APES is probably my favorite SF movie. That didn't change just because of the mediocre Tim Burton remake. And, last time I checked, the original's reputation was still secure.

    Mediocre movies get forgotten. Classics endure.

    But, if you're lucky, you get another classic . . . .
     
    That's So Bane likes this.