Please Explain: "Don't touch my classic!"

Short and sweet. Glee's doing an episode dedicated to covers of Rocky Horror Picture show. A lot of people I know are mad that a company is doing a cover of RHPS. Wil Wheaton has tweeted both Glee for doing a cover, as well as MTV who is doing an unrelated project.

I don't understand this, but I've seen it elsewhere. Why do people get like this? No one's going through and burning old copies of RHPS. No one's calling your version less legitimate.

This bothers me, and it pervades a lot of media. Don't touch this franchise, because I liked the original.

People, this is important: No one planted a kill switch in your product that makes it stop working simply because a different version is out there.

Well, except maybe George Lucas.

Picture vaguely related. Columbia rocks.

*shrug* I liked Phantom of the Paradise better.

Nostalgia is a potent drug.

Goofiness aside, I see where you're coming from, Marcian. Matt Smith doesn't invalidate Patrick Troughton, Zach Quinto doesn't mean Leonard Nimoy never was Spock, and in no way does Rob Zombie's effort erase John Carpenter's "Halloween" from history.

Of course, you're free to like the remakes, too. Except Zombieween.

For those insist it must be the original, here's Shakespeare in its original pronunciation and wording.

I don't remember any complaints when this aired. Though then again, I don't think I was looking around for it either.

Oh, and I'm not a huge Glee fan - I've enjoyed the few episodes I've seen, but I'm definitely catching this episode - as a fan of RHPS.

I with you, Marcian, I don't think a new version of something invalidates the old one. In fact, as you point out with Shakespeare, we've been doing it for ages.

I do think one complaint hinges on the fact that we view ourselves as stupid. People think, subconsciously or not, that the new thing will become more well known than the old thing, the thing they love, and the version they love will be forgotten. They don't think people wil lbe able to differentiate between We're in Love (1979) and Love, We Are In (2010, Yoda Version). It's not so much that the old work will be erased by the new one, but it will be tossed aside by newer versions.

Don't touch my classic...what you want the world to ignore something you like and let it fade into obscurity? If anything a remake tends make the original relevant again as people usually will go back and check out the it. I know I've gone back and watched the originals of a various movies as a direct result of the new version coming out. It draws attention to something you like, ultimately even if you don't care for new version then people will likely come to same answer if the newer one just sucks that bad as you did.

Thanks all for the explanations. I find them elucidating.

With me it isn't a so much 'don't touch my classic' as 'atleast try to do it justice!'.

I get that America is incredibly conservative when it comes to these things, just the age rating difference on the DVDs alone (American RHPS release is rated equivilent to an 18 whereas here in Blighty it is a 15) shows there is a difference in views.

I accepted that, yes, there were going to have to be some changes made to RHPS for a more mainstream and younger American audience.

I love the fact that the Glee version is causing a whole new audience to seek out the original I honestly felt the version of Sweet Transvestite in it was just a touch too Pop for my personal tastes, I felt it lacked the boombastic feel it has in the original but then you really can't match Tim Curry when it comes down to that but the Glee version was definitely an A for Effort, C for delivery in my books.

Despite what you say Marcian things DO get replaced in the public mind, to most joe public Assault on Precient 13 is just another action movie and they know nothing of the original version which was much less action, much more character developement and as a result much more tense in atmosphere. It made the whole action scene at the end a much bigger payoff.

Take a look at the Dawn of the Dead remake, one which John A. Romero has officially disowned (and went with supporting Shaun of the Dead instead), the original was once again, more character driven (there were only 4 main characters, compared to the 8 or 9 in the remake) had a good story, some really great moments. The remake bunged in extra characters purely to kill them off for more action scenes.

However Dawn of the Dead is one of the few ones where the public does know of the original and will actively seek it out. To your average schmo who wants tits and action will decry it as plodding and dull because there isn't enough 'tits and guns' (if you dislike it for more legitimate reasons, fair play though).

There is also the problem of (insert redneck voice here) 'I don't watch movies to read!' that will never watch a really good foreign original if a crappy English version is available which doesn't help matters when trying to promote the much better original. Some are kind of odd like REC and Quarantine where they're pretty much shot for shot but there does seem to be something lacking about the English remake.

The problem is that the remake will suddenly become the staple, and if it doesnt capture the esscence of the original, then the fans of the original can feel as if newer fans to the franchise are being cheated, or missing out.

My own personal examples;

Hitchikers Guide to the galaxy - I was at Uni at the time that came out at the cinema, and the drama society put this on, and I got to play Marvin. After our aftershow party we went to see this at the cinema, and we were all sorely dissapointed.

About a week later at out next auditions we had quite a large number of people turn up with no intent to audition, but to tell us our version of Hitchikers was better at capturing the esscence of it than the movie was, we were much pleased.

Transformers - 1980's Generation 1 including the 86 movie, which I own 1 blueray, 2 DVDs, 2 VHS ,1 UMD and 1 rip on the computer needless to say I love it. And the counterpoint, each new franchise including the new movies.

In both examples I'm less sadened by the fact that I feel a bit cheated that somebody didnt remake the franchise in the way that I would see best, and more saddened by the fact that in 20 years time, some 24 year old bloke will be sat typing about Transformers defining his childhood, and he won't mean the good transformers, he'll mean tthe new stuff... that makes me sad

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoodooGirl [*]Watching out for the Spinning Disco Portal of D00M!*

I have little but contempt for remakes of any stripe.

Was the original well made? Then why remake it.

Was the original crummy? Then why remake it.

Remakes are, always and forever, naked grabs for money and attention. Why do they exist? Because they can get financing. Why can they get financing? Someone figures the idea worked once, so it'll work again.


I like to have at least the pretense that a project got made because someone creative believed in it, that it has some motivating force other than nakedly capitalist opportunism.

Remakes highlight everything I hate about high stakes mediums like movies and television.

Sometimes, the remake somewhat replaces the original . . . or makes the original less popular or less available. In some cases, the remake may do some things better than the original, but not certain key parts that made the original so charming.

One of my favorite examples is a story/movie that keeps being done over and over: A Christmas Carol. No actor has ever been able to play Scrooge better than Alistair Sims. The 1951 version has Sims with just the right amount of angry, miserable miserly Scrooge in the beginning, and giddy, overjoyed, almost insane Scrooge in the end. Other actors from Rich Little to Patrick Stewart to Bill Murry to the Muppets to the recent CGI version have made good attempts, but nobody has been as good as Sims.

And yet, because there are so many versions and that is an old black&white version, it is hard to find and too few people have seen it. Newer versions have better ghosts or lots of color or more humor, but Mr. Sims' performance outshines them all. The remakes have diluted the market.

Many people feel the same way about Jeremy Brett's portrayal of Sherlock Holmes. While the recent Downey version was a fun action flick, it was not really Holmes.

I was in college when Rocky Horror first became a cult favorite. It was daring and bizzare back in the late 70's. I went about a dozen times, but I knew people who went every week. The people who "knew" were kind of a secret club. We all knew that it was cheesy and funny and anyone who didn't "get it" thought it was perverted. Seeing Rocky Horror sung by young people with modern views in the mainstream kind of invalidates those memories.

On the flipside, sometimes a remake can make the original, smaller known movie more famous and have that first film enter the public spotlight.

It is rare, but it can happen. I see the press for the Let Me In/Let The Right One In and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo American remakes mention the originals a lot and I know some people who went to see the originals because of that press.