How Dare They?

[fireproof78]

However in theatre and movies we accept copies and remakes as wonderful, new, fresh and innovative. When did it become acceptable and why? What is the difference between redoing an old film or redoing an old painting? Why is one 'natural' and acceptable while the other is considered lesser?

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.

 

[ichab]

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.

 

[ichab]

From my perspective, copying a famous painting is tedious and may indicate lack of creativity on the part of the artist. Which is fine for an amateur, but not something for the paying public.
Who would go to the Louvre to see 1000 renditions of the Mona Lisa?
Study the line, the color, the stroke, then use it in an original painting.

Study the elements, lighting, character interplay, action, set design, and camera angles, then apply it something original.

That is a very interesting analogy.

 

[Marsden]

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.

 

[FormerLurker]

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.

 

[Owain Taggart]

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?

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.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I admit that, at one point, I was curious who would star in a (hypothetical) remake of Airplane!.

I've since abandoned that thought.

 

[ichab]

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.

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.

 

[FormerLurker]

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.

According to the links in your post, the Disney version is the more faithful of the two, even with the adapted music.

 

[Greg Cox]

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.

 

[Owain Taggart]

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.

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.

 

[Greg Cox]

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.

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.

 

[Owain Taggart]

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.

 

[Greg Cox]

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.

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!

 

[JD]

Who wants scary realistic rodents of unusual size? I don't even think they exist.

They're not scary, but there are Capybaras, which weigh between 77lbs and 146lbs according to Wikipedia.

 

[FormerLurker]

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.

 

[Marsden]

My introduction to the capybara was when The Tick had one as a pet.

 

[suarezguy]

The way I see it, it's a no-lose proposition.

If the remake works, we still have the first movie.

If the remake is great, we now have two good movie adaptations of the novel.

Don't see a problem there.

If it's mediocre, a lot of its fans may well denigrate the original to try to boost it.

 

[fireproof78]

If it's mediocre, a lot of its fans may well denigrate the original to try to boost it.

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]

If it's mediocre, a lot of its fans may well denigrate the original to try to boost it.

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 . . . .