Last week
I talked about Pusher and it's inferior remake. Then I watched this video about remakes and when they should be made.
My first
knee-jerk reaction was: Never! But then I thought about it and had to
amend my opinion. I have in fact enjoyed remakes, sometimes even more
than the originals. Example: The Fly (1986) is in my opinion far
superior to the 1958 version. Not only do we have 28 years separating
the two versions, but vast increases in movie making technology.
The video
talks about passion, and I agree completely that passion is
absolutely paramount when it comes to creating remakes, but I think
there needs to be more than that.
Time is
essential. Movies age at different rates and that's not just down to
when they were made, although that is important. Generations are
important. A parent who loved an original can take his/her kids to
see the new version and appreciate and debate it together. Beyond the
generations comes technology and how the world has changed. During
certain periods the world changes very quickly and at other times
nothing really happens. A rapid shift allows for earlier remakes than
otherwise. The advent of the internet is an example of how things
change at a brisk pace, and how we suddenly do things in new ways.
This can give a reason to retell a story.
Let's take
Oceans 11. The original was made in 1960, and the remake 2001. That's
41 years difference. Not only has the generations and their
celebrities shifted, everything has changed. It's a completely
different world, and a remake was well in order.
Compare
Oceans 11 to the Batman franchise. Back in 1966 there was the Adam
West TV series so when Tim Burton made Batman in 1989, it was due.
Then the sequels came, in 1992, 1995 and 1997. Besides the 1997
Batman & Robin being atrocious, we don't have an issue here.
Until Christopher Nolan made Batman Begins in 2005. (With sequels in
2008 and 2012).
Batman
Begins is a good movie but it is a relaunch of the franchise. That's
16 years since Batman and only eight years since the last movie over
all. Way too soon to retell the origins of the caped crusader. If it
had been a bad movie it would have been a disaster, but Nolan pulled
it off.
Okay, to
be absolutely fair, Batman Begins is not a carbon copy remake of
Burton's Batman, but an origin story is an origin story, and we all
know how Bruce Wayne became Batman.
Beyond
time, we have geography. There are many examples of Asian movies
being remade in the West (usually the U.S.) and at times this can be
very valid. East and West functions differently in many ways and
sometimes a remake is smarter than dubbing. Martin Scorsese's The
Departed (2006) is a remake of Infernal Affairs (2002) . Instead of
Hong Kong we get Boston, and in general issues we in the west are
familiar with. Nuances are often lost when watching films from the
other side of the world. I have seen several Asian movies and enjoyed
them greatly, but I always wonder what I missed.
We can't
ignore the genre shift either. Sergio Leone's A Fistful of Dollars
(1964) is a remake of Kurosawa's Yojimbo (1961). Only three years
between them but we have both a geographical and a genre shift.
Another example is how Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress (1958) became Star
Wars: A New Hope (1977). These are more than valid reasons to remake
movies, because you bring something new to the table.
But why
remake Robocop? The Ladykillers? The Omen? Point Break? Poltergeist?
Easy money, that's why. Remakes have been a part of the movie
industry as long as there has been a movie industry, but the remakes
have been coming at us faster and more frequently than ever, and
that's a problem. Yes, new original moves are being made, good ones
too, but unless Hollywood finds their spines in whatever drawer they
lost them, the move industry is going to stagnate more and more.
Okay,
enough rambling. My ultimate point is, remakes aren't always a bad
thing. Just usually.
So until
next time, have a fun and original week!
The video in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ffu1dWHDy7k
No comments:
Post a Comment