shadowkat | (no subject)

(no subject)

Posting during lunch break - too cold to walk, and foot's been bugging me off and on, so giving it a rest - since I need to walk about 20 minutes to get to the ferry tomorrow. Going to the Poconos again for Thanksgiving, or rather slightly south east of the Poconos. Visiting the Aunts. So will be thankfully offline and away from the internet for the duration - should you miss me, that is. Considering I've been in a right funky posting mood of late, I somehow doubt it. Work, life, the universe and everything...won't bore with details.

Read all about the reboots/sequels/remakes of movies and tv shows in the paper and online this week. To date:

Tron 2 - The Legacy. Can't imagine many people will see this sequel to the 1980s cult hit. At least I think it was 1980s. Interestingly enough - I saw it and enjoyed it at the time. (Sci-fi geek - I've pretty much seen all the sci-fi movies that weren't gross and gory and monster flicks. ie. the cult ones.)

The Tourist - a remake of the critically acclaimed but poorly received French film Arthur Zimmerman (I think - can't remember the title exactly.)

Let Me In (it's still out there somewhere) - a remake of the Swedish film, Let the Right One In.

The Buffy Reboot by Whit Anderson - which everyone who is still a big fan of Buffy and follows these things and is on my flist or associated with it, has commented on. Including every entertainment news feed out there, and everyone peripherially involved who could possibly have an opinon on it. Whedon's was hilarious - although 85% of the people who read it took it seriously. Proof that self-deprecating snark really does go over people's heads. Particularly when it has a grain of truth inside it. (Which if you aren't careful makes you sound more whiny than snarky. Whedon, in my opinion, was treading a very fine line between the two. That's the problem with off-the-cuff remarks - which I'm guessing his was, it can get misinterpreted. And unlike me, he can't just delete or retract it. Fame? Not all it's cracked up to be.)

I don't get the whole urge to remake, reboot crap. Sequels? Sure. But why re-do it? Is it this urge to make your own mark on it? To show people how you view the thing? Lots of things have been rebooted and remade of late: La Femme Nikita has been remade and rebooted at least four times (Alias, Nikita, Dollhouse, Covert Affairs.) X-Files? Seen lots and lots of versions of this one. They used to remake Hithcock films - I know, Why???? Do you really want to be compared to Hitchock? Shakespeare - I get, he's been dead over 200 years, and well was theater, people redo plays all the bloody time. But film is harder - because we get to look at the original for comparison.

Back to work.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The reboot thing was even in the Austrian papers today and they cut Whedon's quote in half and left out the bit about Avengers, so it sounds like he's serious.

Yep, the same thing happened in England with the Guardian. The problem with witty or self-deprecating sardonic (snark) comments - is if you don't read them carefully and excerpt the entire comment, you lose the snark and the whole tone changes. I've noticed this happening a lot with my own posts. I'll get comments that are somewhat similar to what happened to Whedon. And I'll think...okay, I didn't say that. WTF? Which I'm guessing is what is most likely going through Whedon's head at the moment.

I was just having this conversation with a friend of my daughter's who was wondering why there are so many remakes of Red Riding Hood.

I can't get too fussed about the concept of reboot, remix, rework, reword, because I am a fan of fanfic, which is all about riffing on the building blocks left by others. Like jazz. I'm also a fan of professional fanfic: Wicked, Zorro (a re-imagining of The Scarlet Pimpernel, which in its turn took elements of the Robin Hood story), Clueless (a re-work of Jane Austen's Emma), Greek myths, etc. The only thing I can complain about is the execution of the concept, which can be seriously lacking in either imagination or the impulse of the remaker to say something new and important.

I get that the examples I am using are older works getting a dusting off, which makes me think that there is a stretch of time after which reinterpretation is more effective, but I am not expert enough to say whether it is 7 years or 70. If Wes Anderson wants to adapt Fantastic Mr. Fox for the screen, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt that it will be interesting and new, because of his track record. If some hack wants to do the same, I'm less inclined to be generous with my expectations.

Everything you listed were books or adaptations of a book into a film or into another media. Which isn't the same thing as say remaking the Hitchcock film Psycho or the Buffy Movie. Also, Wicked isn't a rewrite of Wizard of OZ, it's a fanfic - not the same.
Very very different.

I think the distinction here is important to underline.

I think if you told Gregory Maguire that he was writing fanfic, he would probably faint dead away or fight you to the death or something. Doesn't make is less true.

I also liked the redo of Battlestar Galactica, the movie versions of Charlie's Angels, The Addams Family, the rebooted Ocean's Eleven, and The Thomas Crown Affair. I've seen many, many versions of A Little Princess that took more from other film versions than they did the original text. So just what are they remaking?

I fail to see the distinction between an adaptation of a beloved (or not so beloved) work, regardless of its original medium, and these remakes, reboots, do-overs, or what-have-you. The only distinction that matters to me is whether it's done well, with imagination and conviction, or not.

Edited 2010-11-24 21:16 (UTC)

Most likely not, considering he's admitted to it( and please don't ask me to find the interview or link, believe me or not, your perogative). So I doubt he'd faint dead away.;-) (There's a lot of published fanfic out there at the moment.)

I fail to see the distinction between an adaptation of a beloved (or not so beloved) work, regardless of its original medium, and these remakes, reboots, do-overs, or what-have-you. The only distinction that matters to me is whether it's done well, with imagination and conviction, or not.

Sigh. It's not an adaptation. An adaptation is something that is produced by adapting it from another media or form.

Example of an adaptation: the movie To Kill a Mockingbird is an adaptation of the novel of the same name. Or the film versions of Harry Potter are adaptations of the original book. OR Trueblood is an adaptation of the Charlain Harris novel. An adaptation is separate from the original work, often comments on it, or will change it in some way to fit a new medium.

A remake is taking the source material and remaking it, you basically take the script, the setting, the world, the plot and provide new actors, and an updated setting. Example is Stephen Spielberg's The Haunting - a remake of Robert Wise's classic The Haunting, which in turn was an adaptation of Shirley Jackson's novel The Haunting of Hill House. They used the same ideas as Wise. Another example of a remake - is Psycho, in which Gus Van Synte remade Alfred Hitchcock's classic film Psycho - using more or less the same story. Both were adaptations of Block's novel.
Rear Window has been remade twice - once by Brian De Palma and once in the movie Suburbia (Surbubia - had a young boy as the protagonist) and the one by De Palma - a woman. The best was Hitchcock - both the others got kicked because people couldn't help but compare them to the originals.

A reboot - is Battlestar Galatica. This is when you take the source material but interpret it in a completely new way, often flipping genders and subtracting characters. Reboots are actually more interesting than remakes. But to be effective, it helps if the audience has forgotten the original first. It's notable that the fan base of the original BSG (who were still into it) hated the reboot. Original, and still passionate fans tend to hate reboots with few exceptions. Another example is Star Trek - the film by Abrahams. Purist's hate reboots, they also hate remakes and adaptations. (For the record, I am NOT a purist. I actually do love remakes, adaptations and reboots.)

The Buffy Movie by Whit Anderson appears to be a reboot. It could be interesting. It can't be much worse than the original Buffy movie - which was atrocious. But I doubt it will be anywhere near as good as the tv show was - for several reasons, the main one being that the tv show was seven seasons, had a spin-off, and had top-notch writing. Also the reboot appears to be focusing on the least interesting character of the series - Buffy. But mileage clearly varies about this. It could be brilliant or it could be mediocre. Depends on who directs and whether the writer is any good. I doubt it - she sounds like a pretty but failed actress who is now trying her hand at screenwriting. Actors generally suck as writers, but there are a few exceptions here and there. Notably the amazing Tom Tyron.

I guess that remake/reboot can be either a sign of laziness and lack of original ideas or a true challenge. But it's rarely the latter in my opinion.

And there's also the business angle. For some reason people behind reboots think they can surf on a previous success and make a lot of money without effort.

Yet I'd say that remaking a masterpiece or even a very good work is the worst idea ever. Remaking something that wasn't very good but had potential on the other hand...

BSG is a wonderful remake but it's based on a poor tv show. I enjoyed it as a kid, but it was anything but deep and smart, and it was so kitsch! In that case the reboot was alchemy. They turned lead into gold. It takes great sorcerers to do that.

Perhaps they should try to remake Space 1999 !

I'm pretty sure the reboot has to do with the people who bought the original script Joss wrote at age 19, which they made the inferior movie from, would find that their copyright will end if they don't do something new with it... so they sold it to Warner Bros.

I think WB thinks they can churn out a fast cheap film to cash in on the vampire (Twilight, True Blood, etc) craze... but of course we all know that 20th Century Fox will be crawling over the screen play to insure that nothing THEY own the copyright to (all the characters who are not Buffy who were in the TV show) are not used or referred to in any way shape or form. I'm pretty sure that WB doesn't want to have to end up paying any part of their movie grosses (assuming this turkey actually gets made) to Fox.

So Fox owns the TV series rights, and the Kuzie/Dolly Parton group owns the original movie rights or the script Whedon wrote at 19 while he was on Roseanne? I think he was older than 19, actually. Because he was 32 when Buffy the TV series got made. And there wasn't ten years between the two. More like five, if that.
(I swear I saw the Buffy movie in the mid-1990s (in Lawrence, KS), and I was in my late 20s, and Whedon is three - five years older than me. )

I'm guessing it's not a remake but a reboot. That means - they are just using the idea of Buffy as a vampire slayer and a watcher, and just making it happen later. Dumping everything else.

would find that their copyright will end if they don't do something new with it... so they sold it to Warner Bros.

I think you are confusing trademark law with copyright law. Copyright doesn't end if you don't do anything with it. It will continue past death. You own it - you own it until you sell it.
Unless there's a clause in the contract stating otherwise...but we have no way of knowing that. (That stuff is kept confidential). Trademarks on the other hand - you have to keep using as your brand name or it will end. Same with domain names (internet urls are domain names).

So, no, they didn't have to do it for that reason. No, I think they did it to make money.

I think WB thinks they can churn out a fast cheap film to cash in on the vampire (Twilight, True Blood, etc) craze...

Yep. I completely agree. I swear the vampire genre has been done to death now. There's nothing new that can be said about it. It's rapidly moving towards cliche.

I agree. Although from what I read I think this is supposed to be a reboot. Which is slightly different. They appear to be doing a much older and darker Buffy - I'm guessing more sex? Or more violence? And without the Scoobies or the Vampires (darla, dru, Angel, and Spike) who actually made the story interesting and were the only characters I'm interested in seeing more about. We'll probably get Giles...in some form or other (but I'm going to have troubles with anyone but Head in that role, having already seen Sutherland camp it up...I know whereof I speak - also the only reason I tried the series was Head (I was into Head at that time and the Buffy movie truly sucked, although not nearly as bad the novelization.). A remake - would be in high school and have the Scoobies. So definitely a "reboot".

From what I read, which isn't much, it sounds as if they are trying to attract the people who didn't like the original or thought it was for teenagers. Which may mean the whole watcher bit will be quite different - she could be romantically involved.

They are wise to keep the details under wraps.

And there's also the business angle. For some reason people behind reboots think they can surf on a previous success and make a lot of money without effort.

I agree. It feels lazy to me. And uncreative. I can't come up with my own idea, so I'll ~~steal~~ option someone else's.

BSG which is actually a reboot not a remake - in that they didn't use the same script and changed it completely - is a good example of it done well. (Although the original fans hate it. Fans and by fans - I mean hard-core, passionate, obsessed fans - tend to hate reboots). An example of a remake is Gus Van Sant's Psycho and Let Me In (remade from the original Let the Right One In - which I skipped for much the same reasons I skipped the remake of The Vanishing, when the original is amazing why wast money on a remake?)

Yet I'd say that remaking a masterpiece or even a very good work is the worst idea ever. Remaking something that wasn't very good but had potential on the other hand...

Agreed. Even Star Trek reboot worked, because let's face it the original was pretty campy. Also there was about 40 years in between...and they honored the original. So...if the Buffy reboot honored the original that might work. But, you are right - this is hard to do with something done well, with a fanbase that loved it and owns the DVD's. There's a chance you can get
new viewers....

Perhaps they should try to remake Space 1999 !

Now that's a much better idea. Why don't they do that? Maybe I'll write a script and send it to WB.

Sigh. My problem with the Buffy reboot is they are obviously riding the Twilight bit. I don't know about you? But I'm tired of vampires. It's been done to death now. We passed the market saturation point two years ago. It's no longer a trend, it's a cliche. Bring on zombies or werewolves or something else. As much as I enjoy Trueblood and Vampire Diaries...I'm starting to feel like I've seen it all before.

Maybe the George RR Martin series on HBO will bring something fresh to the mix?

Is it this urge to make your own mark on it?

If the film is going to be successful, that is for certain what will need to happen.

I do wonder why sometimes that people don't look at film-- and having other writers or directors try to "put their own mark on it"-- in the same way that most musicians look at other musicians performing their work. Sometimes the other versions are poor, but sometimes they are stunning. Johnny Cash doing a Nine Inch Nails tune? Sounds ridiculous, but I think it was better than the original. Cowboy Junkies doing Lou Reed's "Sweet Jane"? Likewise amazing. Reed even stated that it was probably the best version of the tune he ever heard.

And of course in the classical music genre, there is always discussion of the aspect brought to the performance by the specific orchestra, soloists or conductors.

I think Buffy has become an icon sooner than Joss expected her to, and while undoubtably disconcerting to him, it's kind of a compliment. And if the movie is crappy, what are the fans going to say? "Well, of course, what did you expect? It wasn't Joss's movie!"

BTW, I was slightly amused by your comment that Buffy was the "least interesting character". To each their own, but Buffy was always, and still is, my favorite character of the series. Even the Season 8 shenanigans aren't going to change that. If I don't like it after Issue #40, I'll just write my own version. Already kind of (mostly) did that for Angel Season 6.

Sometimes I think, rightly or wrongly, that one reason there are so many remakes is that the studios already have the scripts in their archives and they may as well use them. No worry about another writers' strike killing production. But I can be cynical at times.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only