Maybe Remakes Are Actually Good? -- THE VICE PIT

Topic started by No_name_here on Feb. 22, 2014. Last post by Vapovile 5 months ago.
Post by No_name_here (854 posts) See mini bio Level 11
Staff

Follow Tom's Twitter and Sam's Twitter to see what happens next!

Recent Vice Pit sessions on...

Recent sessions in Vice Pit: Undercover...

You can check out every episode of the Vice Pit here.

Be sure to submit questions and topics for a future Vice Pit session here. We will answer them!

Post by Kino88 (192 posts) See mini bio Level 6
I agree that a remake done the same as it's source Is pretty pointless, for me a good remake should only contain The essence of its original source, Better yet a remake of something that was poorly Executed the first time, there could be potential in that,
Post by Marshal Victory (1,968 posts) See mini bio Level 13

The whole gag with Goemon Ishikawa XIII is that hes a man out of place in time. Hes set on traditon an learned his swordmanship threw tradition. the line "Once again I have cut a useless object". is used alot because his sword is a faimly treasure threw the ages. Its a magical mcguffin sure but it serves as a joke line as well.

The director slides the character into modern cloths with modern quirks hes not the same guy. Point was then he was just as much out of place in the 70s.That was part of the character. Which all of the lupin characters are ecentric in one form or another. Dull that ecentricty down an they are not the same characters.

Last I read was the director wanted to do a mission imposible but this will be as close as he gets. The anime has already spoofed that with out a drastic change of character.An yes over the years the movies an series has uped the time line with out distroying the core of the characters from the manga.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/remake

In movies, a remake is a motion picture based on a film produced earlier. The term remake can refer to everything on the spectrum of reused material: both an allusion or a line by line change retake of a movie. However, the term generally pertains to a new version of an old film. A reproduced television series could also be called a remake.

Where as most "remakes" are really just adaptions of the other movies. I would argue that remake is used to often when adaption should be.

Film adaptation

A film adaptation is the transfer of a written work, in whole or in part, to a feature film. It is a type of derivative work.

A common form of film adaptation is the use of a novel as the basis of a feature film. Other works adapted into films include non-fiction (including journalism), autobiography, comic books, scriptures, plays, historical sources, and even other films. From the earliest days of cinema, in nineteenth-century Europe, adaptation from such diverse resources has been a ubiquitous practice of film-making.

Most anime are adaptions of manga or light novels. Where as a live action is adaption of the source or a adaption of a adaption. Thats why the copy of a copy doesnt look as good.

Point would also make is why make a adaption when you could just do a original story. The more the "film" is adapted an copies of copies from its source the less the fans of the source will like it. So the built in audiance turns into a negative force. An yes this does happen alot.

Also Robocop (2014) not a good example of a adaption doing extremely well. At this post it cost $100 million to make an its earned world wide $146 milion only 46million of that was domestic.Budget costs rarely include advertising which seem to average a quarter of the budget. Source http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=robocop2013.htm its holding its head above water but not a smash hit by any means. Feel sorry for any one who worked on it geting "net" pay.

I also could play dirty an link http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=catwoman.htm an how those same arguments ya made Tom apply there as well. But I dont think you are up for that amount of drastic changes to a character.But it should be the poster child warning for all "adaptions".The changes to Goemon Ishikawa XIII would be just as crapy.

An lastly if im a super user does that make spelling my .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kryptonite !?

Post by Dream (7,265 posts) See mini bio Level 20
Moderator

It would depend on what the intentions of the studio are in remaking said franchise. If said remake involves adding a new spin on an older title out of genuine interest for the original material while maintaining the basic elements of the franchise that originally made it popular or to create a more faithful adaptation than the original version, then I would say a remake is justified. If said remake is there just to make a quick buck off fans of said older franchise, then I would say it's a waste of time and money.

Post by Vapovile (1,812 posts) See mini bio Level 16

Remakes CAN be good for the franchise in my opinion, but if the director of the film decides to deviate too far from the source material, what is the purpose of calling it an adaptation from that series in the first place? I know some people might say that it's for name recognition, and thus it will bring in more people to see the film, but the people who are genuinely interested in the franchise will dislike how little they take from the source material. The two most notable cases that I have seen are Dragon Ball Evolution and World War Z's film adaptations.

I know a lot of you guys hated Dragon Ball Evolution, and so did I. They completely changed Goku's basic character of being a dumb, but strong fighter who's main purpose is to go on adventures to get stronger. In this movie, he is a white high school student who has to stop Piccolo, who looks and acts like Skeletor and The Mask had a baby together and produced him. In my honest opinion, this movie could have spared itself at least some of the hate that it got if it called itself another title, and changed the character's names to non-DB ones.

World War Z is a different story in my book because, unlike DB Evolution, the director of this film used NOTHING from the source material besides the name and the fact that it had zombies in it. I have read World War Z the novel around 3 times prior to seeing the movie, and I had told myself that I wasn't going to see any trailers or read any reviews before seeing it. I was extremely disappointed, however, when I found out it was just a film about Brad Pitt being a generic action protagonist jumping to different zombie-infested countries with only the tiniest of plot threads holding it all together. They could have titled the movie "Brad Pitt Kills Zombies For 2 Hours" and it would have been more relevant, since, as I have said, NOTHING was taken from the book besides the title. Not even Brad Pitt's character existed in the book. This movie was just a prime example of a movie company using a successful book's name to pull in more people for their generic action movie, which was terrible at making any sort of suspense meaningful.

I do, however, agree with you that Robocop and Star Trek were great remakes, mostly due to both of them holding true to the original material, but adding now things like improved special effects that the producers at the time couldn't dream of using. But to sum up my points; I do think that remakes to improve upon the source material, so long as the remake stays true to the basic ideas of the source as to not alienate the fans who do love the universe and the basic traits of the characters.

Top Editors
Top Posters
zaldar
71 posts
takashichea
65 posts
Marshal Victory
64 posts
sickVisionz
41 posts
Kino88
28 posts
NickyCharisma
19 posts
Daniel_Newton
19 posts
FoxxFireArt
16 posts
Dream
15 posts
metalsnakezero
13 posts
Mandatory Network

Submissions can take several hours to be approved.

Save ChangesCancel