(no subject)

[shadowkat]

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.

Comments

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

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.

[rebcake.livejournal.com]

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.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

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.