tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2849079484752984816.post8374929418328573536..comments2023-10-28T09:22:13.667-04:00Comments on Batter Fried Bacon: More film crapkevthegreathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07534021259136291277noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2849079484752984816.post-30984794190786932482008-05-14T14:01:00.000-04:002008-05-14T14:01:00.000-04:00I'm not saying all remakes are horrible. I even ga...I'm not saying all remakes are horrible. I even gave just a few exceptions in this post of remakes I liked. There are always exceptions. I mean, I am actually looking forward to the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still, just as I actually did look forward to the remake of Planet of the Apes. I hope I'm not so immensly dissapointed this time. Some films, especially those in the SF genre, lend themselves to potentially good remakes. <BR/><BR/>The problem I have is that remakes tend to be a bastion for unoriginal hack studios looking to make a buck on an already established name. Since they own the rights to the film, they can do what they want, but I'm still gonna be pissed and bitch when they destroy the reputation of a classic by putting out shit with it's name attached. But, obviously, there are exceptions. I don't consider War of the World one of those exceptions, though. I thought the remake totally dropped the ball on a film that really did need a remake.kevthegreathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07534021259136291277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2849079484752984816.post-43438386283139413902008-05-14T13:42:00.000-04:002008-05-14T13:42:00.000-04:00Remaking a film isn't always "taking a movie, rapi...Remaking a film isn't always "taking a movie, raping it of it's originality and any controversial tones." (I won't argue that it's not to make money.) That's a serious over-reach. I think that Scarface, War of the Worlds, The Fly, The Magnificent Seven, and in some ways Dawn of the Dead, are all films which I really like, but also like the originals quite a lot too. Sometimes for different reasons.Scholanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12933906551105000203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2849079484752984816.post-24582492391528197732008-05-14T13:30:00.000-04:002008-05-14T13:30:00.000-04:00But, Easy Rider with a happy ending IS a completel...But, Easy Rider with a happy ending IS a completely different film, don't you think? Wouldn't that seriously change one of the central messages of the film?Scholanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12933906551105000203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2849079484752984816.post-3834349278018788562008-05-14T12:09:00.000-04:002008-05-14T12:09:00.000-04:00re: RemakesLook, these stories that are being reto...re: Remakes<BR/><BR/>Look, these stories that are being retold, they are there for anyone to see. There is no reason to retell a majority of these stories, because they were told so well the first time. The reason many remakes are produced is because there was a great movie that has a small audience because it is old or foriegn so a studio buys the rights and makes a shitty Hollywood blockbuster from it. If remakes were made for the sake of art, I'd have no problem. Instead, it is a process of taking a movie, raping it of it's originality and any controversial tones in order to make money.kevthegreathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07534021259136291277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2849079484752984816.post-62167744053914451112008-05-14T12:05:00.000-04:002008-05-14T12:05:00.000-04:00re reediting:Look, I'm not saying art can not be c...re reediting:<BR/><BR/>Look, I'm not saying art can not be created from recycled material. It obviously can. My problem is with reediting a film to make it more appealing to you. I think it shows a lack of respect for the artist who created it. It's like going into an art exhibit and telling the artist, "You know, I think I'd like this sculpture better with a hat." and then putting a hat on it. You should respect the vision of the artist. Now, if you were to create a completely original work of art from that sculpture, then more power to you. Same with film. If you just want to reedit "Easy Rider" to have a happy ending, then I say you're a douche for doing that. If you want to edit Easy Rider and produce a completely different film from it, then aside from the legal issues with doing that, I say go for it.kevthegreathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07534021259136291277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2849079484752984816.post-52416487843457480932008-05-14T11:10:00.000-04:002008-05-14T11:10:00.000-04:00Regarding remakes: Remakes are just retellings of ...Regarding remakes: Remakes are just retellings of the same story. This is our cultural heritage as human beings. Stories worth telling get passed down from generation to generation, and get altered/refined/tweaked in the process. Sometimes, when you get far enough away from the original source, the story is taken as fact (Bible anyone?). So movies, as one of our culture's primary storytelling media NEED to be remade for new audiences to keep a valuable story or idea alive. <BR/><BR/>The Matrix remake to come out in 2030 is going to be fucking awesome.Scholanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12933906551105000203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2849079484752984816.post-37845168743223299412008-05-14T11:05:00.000-04:002008-05-14T11:05:00.000-04:00Kev, you're placing way too much absolutism on "go...Kev, you're placing way too much absolutism on "good" and "bad". There may be academic pursuits to catalog good and bad movies, or filmmaking techniques, or whatever. But I think that's mostly all bullshit anyway. I enjoy watching the greatest ever blaxploitation film "Black Shampoo" more than I enjoy watching "Citizen Kane." I can appreciate Welles' abilities as a revolutionary filmmaker - way ahead of his time. But "Citizen Kane" doesn't have a bad-ass dude banging white chicks and fighting mobsters with a chainsaw. "Black Shampoo" has some of the world's worst acting, some very poor technical aspects to its direction, etc etc., but man, it's an entertaining film. <BR/><BR/>What set you off though, is re-editing. Let me give you an example from photography. Several years ago at the Getty Museum in LA had an exhibit called "Departures." It had several artists who were to pick an piece of art already at the museum, and make a new piece of art in relation to it. One guy picked this famous ancient mummy-like sculpture of Kouros, that was kind of controversial because it may be a modern forgery. He made a copy of it out of painted styrofoam, and photographed himself hanging out with the statue at home, or jumping on a trampoline with it, and doing all kinds of random shit. And called teh series "Kouros and Me." Funny, but also deep. Now, surely bouncing on a trampoline was not the vision of the artist who carved the original Kouros. Is that "wrong" in the Kev school of art?<BR/><BR/>There's no reason you can't do the same thing with film. Is Mystery Science Theater wrong? They are purposely desecrating the artistic vision of (bad) directors.Scholanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12933906551105000203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2849079484752984816.post-39230763235743241122008-05-13T18:49:00.000-04:002008-05-13T18:49:00.000-04:00But most remakes aren't "artistic interpretations"...But most remakes aren't "artistic interpretations". They are more like commercial applications. Take a great idea from a good movie and dumb it down in order to make it more palatable to mass audiences.kevthegreathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07534021259136291277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2849079484752984816.post-51549386068898992772008-05-13T18:47:00.000-04:002008-05-13T18:47:00.000-04:00I think the problem lies within the term "remake"....I think the problem lies within the term "remake". I kind of think that it should be phased out in terms of artistic terminology. Ultimately, a remake by definition would mislead people to belive that it IS the older movie again. Since that mere definition would make it pointless and possibly illegal, I think we should can the term and call them something like artistic interpretations. Or "inspired by"s....just like perfumes/colognes!phishbone23https://www.blogger.com/profile/15089642149736105405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2849079484752984816.post-65986645826194796842008-05-13T17:43:00.000-04:002008-05-13T17:43:00.000-04:00By the way, this is how I hoped the blog would be ...By the way, this is how I hoped the blog would be when I started it. Great discussion guys! Keep up your comments in the future! I still won this one, though. And, to anyone lurking, feel free to join in any discussions and call us nasty names. It's all in good fun.kevthegreathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07534021259136291277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2849079484752984816.post-47343663696034094452008-05-13T17:41:00.000-04:002008-05-13T17:41:00.000-04:00There's already enough biased against any film tha...There's already enough biased against any film that's over 20 years old. People automatically think a remake must be better than the original since we have better special effects, and people back then were stupid and lame. I don't think I've ever tried to watch one of my favorite movies with someone who didn't groan when they realized it was either in black and white or subtitled. And forget it if it was a silent film! I guess my whole point of these arguments is: People! Get over your dumb hang ups and watch the classics! Ignore the remakes, because they almost always suck! DON'T FEAR BLACK AND WHITE OR SUBTITLES!!!!! You're missing the greatest films ever recorded.kevthegreathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07534021259136291277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2849079484752984816.post-23275629710804329342008-05-13T17:36:00.000-04:002008-05-13T17:36:00.000-04:00Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho was a shot by shot...Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho was a shot by shot duplication, and still managed to suck balls. See, my biggest problem with remakes is that they almost always suck and then cast a poor light on the original for those who have yet to see it. Let's say you watch the Planet of the Apes remake without seeing the original. After watching that hideous crime against humanity, would you make an effort to see the original, or would you assume that it must suck, too?kevthegreathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07534021259136291277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2849079484752984816.post-72416495050903378562008-05-13T17:28:00.000-04:002008-05-13T17:28:00.000-04:00Has there ever been a movie remake that has been c...Has there ever been a movie remake that has been completely and utterly copied??? That would be pointless as you could just show the original again. I think anything that comes out is still an idea that is attached to the artist that produced it. It may be based on a previous rendering, but I don't think someone is just doing it to blindly copy art. It is a testament to the idea that everyone experiences life in their own way and no one else has the right to stop them from experiencing it. I think X is correct....If you slap some paint on a copy of a masterpiece, it still could be art and the original is still in tact anyways.phishbone23https://www.blogger.com/profile/15089642149736105405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2849079484752984816.post-49983453939682494262008-05-13T17:17:00.000-04:002008-05-13T17:17:00.000-04:00Stop being literal...asshat!Stop being literal...asshat!phishbone23https://www.blogger.com/profile/15089642149736105405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2849079484752984816.post-27000721994861531082008-05-13T16:35:00.000-04:002008-05-13T16:35:00.000-04:00People have to be famous to have a name?People have to be famous to have a name?kevthegreathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07534021259136291277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2849079484752984816.post-57045938369215044162008-05-13T16:27:00.000-04:002008-05-13T16:27:00.000-04:00But if Natalia becomes very famous, at some point ...But if Natalia becomes very famous, at some point in her life, she can let the world know she is Mia and then it would create new interest in who Mia was....if she does not become famous as Natalia, then she is still Mia. Kev, you created a Win-Win situation!phishbone23https://www.blogger.com/profile/15089642149736105405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2849079484752984816.post-80668271937823552972008-05-13T14:37:00.000-04:002008-05-13T14:37:00.000-04:00Ugh, sequels are a whole other argument...Ugh, sequels are a whole other argument...kevthegreathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07534021259136291277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2849079484752984816.post-44608680459673160942008-05-13T14:13:00.000-04:002008-05-13T14:13:00.000-04:00And another thing. Harold & Kumar 2, was just lik...And another thing. Harold & Kumar 2, was just like the first movie. Which would be ok if you have not seen the first movie. But since I had (and plenty of times - its a riot), it was the same jokes, but with a different aspect. Instead of being chased by the police, they get chased by the klan. Instead of a digitalized cheetah, they had a digitalized deer. instead of Harold in love with the girl, it was Kumar. Instead of the scarey gosphel mechanic with a hot wife, they had a scarey insecticious farmer with a hot wife. If you are going to do a remake, find some new jokes. Not the same jokes, just recreated. Needless to say, while it was funny, I was dissapointed.Mikey OOOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07108055361875874248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2849079484752984816.post-70154460083461856082008-05-13T14:08:00.000-04:002008-05-13T14:08:00.000-04:00Your posts are very long and I have a short attent...Your posts are very long and I have a short attention span. Thus, I am just going to throw this in here, even if it doesn't belong. I liked Ocean's 11. Now, I haven't seen the full original, but the remake was entertaining. Considering the technology used in the remake wasn't close to developed during the time of the original, the "Clooney" version did have its own touch.Mikey OOOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07108055361875874248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2849079484752984816.post-84619631414252164702008-05-13T11:22:00.000-04:002008-05-13T11:22:00.000-04:00Sure, her name won't officially be Natalia, but wh...Sure, her name won't officially be Natalia, but what if I have a lot more press coverage than you and whenever I talk about your kid I call her Natalia, so that everyone in the world will now know your daughter as Natalia? That wouldn't piss you off? It' your kid, you have the right to name her what ever you want, and people should respect that. Who the fuck am I to rename your kid?kevthegreathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07534021259136291277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2849079484752984816.post-70198793392076794122008-05-13T11:06:00.000-04:002008-05-13T11:06:00.000-04:00You can call her whatever you want. It won't chang...You can call her whatever you want. It won't change the fact that her name is Mia. It's on her Social Security card, birth certificate, etc. Sometimes I call her Cutie-pie, or Sweetie. Her name's still Mia. You don't have the power to irrevocably change that, just as I can't irrevocably alter a film - the original will always be there, unchanged.Scholanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12933906551105000203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2849079484752984816.post-64104841686072000372008-05-12T17:04:00.000-04:002008-05-12T17:04:00.000-04:00OK, so it should be ok if I call your kid Natalia ...OK, so it should be ok if I call your kid Natalia since I like that name better than Mia, right? I consider your choice of names for your daughter to be flawed, so I will change it.kevthegreathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07534021259136291277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2849079484752984816.post-55418901446819409852008-05-12T16:42:00.000-04:002008-05-12T16:42:00.000-04:00>I also have a big problem with >people, other tha...>I also have a big problem with <BR/>>people, other than the artist who <BR/>>created it, reediting a film. To me <BR/>>this just shows a complete lack of <BR/>>respect for the artist, unless you <BR/>>edited it in a way to make it <BR/>>completely original from that film.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I understand what you're saying. I just don't think it is necessarily disrespectful. It might be, it might not be, depending on how it would be done. We'll just have to agree to disagree.Scholanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12933906551105000203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2849079484752984816.post-61796785962979246082008-05-12T16:28:00.000-04:002008-05-12T16:28:00.000-04:00I must not be explaining myself well. Every film c...I must not be explaining myself well. Every film can be considered a collage, as they are bits and peices taken from the influences of the artist. I have no problem with this. This is how art works. What I do have a problem with are remakes that are too lazy to add anything, and are there to just copy a formula that worked once, which is what a large majority of them do. I also have a big problem with people, other than the artist who created it, reediting a film. To me this just shows a complete lack of respect for the artist, unless you edited it in a way to make it completely original from that film. Yes, I'd like to edit out the very begining and very end of Saving Private Ryan, as I think the film would benifit greatly from it, but I think it's better to leave it as is. It gives me a better veiw of who Speilberg is, which is a frustratingly sentimental, emotional manipulator. So be it. That's what the artist is, and he has every right to express it, and we have I have a right to bitch about it. But if that's how he wants his film, then that's how it should be.kevthegreathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07534021259136291277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2849079484752984816.post-14738486857843847142008-05-12T15:13:00.000-04:002008-05-12T15:13:00.000-04:00So are photo collage artists wrong if they don't a...So are photo collage artists wrong if they don't always take their own photos to use? There's something legitimate in recycling imagery that your audience is already familiar with, and that invokes an emotion or mental imagery. <BR/><BR/>The same could be done (and has been done) with film. Film is not sacred and untouchable, no matter who makes it or why.Scholanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12933906551105000203noreply@blogger.com