Please Explain: "Don't touch my classic!"
By
BafflingBeerMan,
Posted on: 2010-10-26 24:21 in Comic and Hero-Villain Culture
Quote:
Throw it through the screen. End the show tunes.|
Originally Posted by Ironik
Part of it is that people have woken up to the fact that Glee has become a pretentious, preachy, over-exposed, no-fun waste of time and that there are only two decent singers on the show who have extraordinarily limited ranges of songs they're good at.
Other than that, I don't know. |
Quote:
Disagreement. For its time, The Thing From Another World was scary as hell and had a lot of groundbreaking stuff. The people talking over each other in a more naturalistic way was far different from most films of the time which were more mannered. Even the most vibrant pieces from other great films of the era (such as On The Waterfront) feel stilted by comparison. They were also limited by the special effects technology of the day and did the best they could with what they had. For a low-budget exploitation flick, it really is extraordinarily good. Also, awesome last line that's resonated for decades.|
Originally Posted by Local_Man
Two examples: The original version of "The Thing" with James Arness as the giant carrot was pretty lame. The John Carpenter remake was a pretty scary flick and generally well done.
|
What Carpenter's film did was to brilliantly combine the original short story, Campbell's "Who Goes There?", with the original film, updating the special effects to match the story's. The Thing is, to my mind, the perfect remake that should be the template for all other remakes to be compared against.
Quote:
| Most remakes, however, are either bad or, at best, unnecessary. The new version of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is a prime example of "What Were They Thinking???" I would classify the new "The War of the Worlds" as unnecessary. I'm kind of on the fence on the three versions of "King Kong." |
Both King Kong remakes were absolutely atrocious. Jackson's film was so self-indulgent that it bordered on his private self-pleasure flick. I mean, the thing is a full HOUR AND A HALF longer than the original and has exactly zero added value. The special effects are stunning, but aside from that it's just a tedious affair.
Remakes should only be done of films which had good ideas but bad execution or, like Christian Nyby's movie (really Howard Hawks, but Nyby gets the credit), weren't technically able to fully express the source material.
The Alt Alphabet ~ OPC: Other People's Characters ~ Terrific Screenshots of Cool ~ Superhero Fiction
As others pointed out it's I believe it's the nostalgia factor or some very fond memory that can drive people to go into blood rage induced rants against something that is done on a previous film, comic book, song, game, and what have you.
To me it looks like people tend to put these past versions on a high pedastal and refuse to have anything else come in and share the spotlight with them. Feeling it makes it less special if there is another version out there. Going out to call them clones, mockeries, 3rd rate attempts. Not giving them a chance mostly because to it fails to capture the sense of awe and wonder the past version did with them or it's not something they're used to. To view it as some kind of insult to the original vs. a homage.
To get upset just because someone decides to change or put an alternative spin on a favorite series is just ridicu... What's that you say, Megatron has been redesigned as a road warrior style semi-truck for the 3rd Transformers film. Hmmm, excuse me will I go to Hollywood and pound Michael Bay's head in with the Matrix of Leadership.
Quote:
Tell that to my boss and any other people who would tell me this is not the "real" Optimus Prime:|
Originally Posted by Marcian Tobay
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.
|
I'm not kidding. I've actually heard, "no, I mean the real Optimus Prime" in response to seeing this.
New versions do supplant the old in the public psyche. Kelenar's example about Dr. Strangelove is perfect (in fact, prior to reading his post, Dr. Strangelove was the first movie that popped into my head that I'd flip out over if they remade it).
I'm open to remakes, but it's very important to me that they either do their best to be respectful of the source material when it's good, or improve it where it can use improvement. There are some classics that have flaws, and those classics could be remade and improved upon. But most have more to lose than they have to gain.
I also agree with the Goat about translations.
Please try my custom mission arcs!
Legacy of a Rogue (ID 459586, Entry for Dr. Aeon's Third Challenge)
Death for Dollars! (ID 1050)
Dr. Duplicate's Dastardly Dare (ID 1218)
Win the Past, Own the Future (ID 1429)
I think the thought some people have about remakes is that they're afraid the newer version will be the only one young people know about, or will ever see.
For example: Went to see Hereafter yesterday. There was a trailer for True Grit (stars Jeff Bridges, comes out holiday time, looks like it might be good, but I digress). When I first heard about this remake, my first thought was "What was wrong with the John Wayne version?" If someone were curious about the movie, I'd point them toward the Duke every time, no matter how good this new one is because it's John Frikken Wayne. There's a bunch of people that have probably never seen any John Wayne movie (and they're missing out, but I digress again), and might think that this year's movie was the original. The people that are old enough to have seen the classics don't want those movies to fade away when newer shiny versions come around, especially when they tell the exact same story. If they took a different approach to telling the story (set Romeo and Juliet in modern times, for example), then a new version is more tolerable, and can be dismissed more easily if it's not any good.
Loose --> not tight.
Lose --> Did not win, misplace, cannot find, subtract.
One extra 'o' makes a big difference.
For something like RHPS, which has been playing on and off for the last 35 years, that spans generations, that's now out on Blu-Ray starting today. I can understand the overwhelming desire to crush any attempt to recreate it. That's a lot of collective inertia you need to overcome.
However there's been good remakes as well as bad. The problem is the bad ones sting so horribly that nobody remembers remakes that were acceptable. There was a TV remake of the classic film Fail-Safe back in 2000 that I thought was done very well. But then you get something like the remake of The Fog which was terrible and I'm sure people can supply a dozen or two more examples of bad remakes. Enough to make a fan of the original anything (movie, TV, comic book, song) concern when they here a remake is coming down the pike.
Father Xmas - Level 50 Ice/Ice Tanker - Victory
$725 and $1350 parts lists --- My guide to computer components
Tempus unum hominem manet
Quote:
This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about vis a vis both The Thing From Another World and The Thing: the John Wayne version of True Grit is a terrific movie and deserves the kudos and awards it garnered. That said, however, it bears only passing similarity to the book, so there's plenty of room for a remake. There was stuff they weren't allowed to put in back then and there were things that they just didn't put in.|
Originally Posted by White Hot Flash
I think the thought some people have about remakes is that they're afraid the newer version will be the only one young people know about, or will ever see.
For example: Went to see Hereafter yesterday. There was a trailer for True Grit (stars Jeff Bridges, comes out holiday time, looks like it might be good, but I digress). When I first heard about this remake, my first thought was "What was wrong with the John Wayne version?" If someone were curious about the movie, I'd point them toward the Duke every time, no matter how good this new one is because it's John Frikken Wayne. There's a bunch of people that have probably never seen any John Wayne movie (and they're missing out, but I digress again), and might think that this year's movie was the original. The people that are old enough to have seen the classics don't want those movies to fade away when newer shiny versions come around, especially when they tell the exact same story. If they took a different approach to telling the story (set Romeo and Juliet in modern times, for example), then a new version is more tolerable, and can be dismissed more easily if it's not any good. |
Similarly, movies like The Lord of the Rings are also ripe for remakes someday, because of the things they altered, the stuff they left out and the dumb things they enhanced or added for no apparent reason. People love those movies, but there is so much other stuff in the books they could talk about that there's plenty of room for someone else to come along and re-imagine it.
The Alt Alphabet ~ OPC: Other People's Characters ~ Terrific Screenshots of Cool ~ Superhero Fiction
Quote:
I agree with that. I think there are a lot of movies from the 1930s through the 1950s which could stand a remake, simply because they weren't allowed to show/do/say things back then due to the Hays Code. I watched Arsenic and Old Lace on PBS the other day and as great as it is, if you've seen the play you know there's quite a lot they simply weren't allowed to film. Heck, the last line of the movie is, "I'm not a Brewster, I'm the son of a sea cook!" Which is kind of a wet fizzle, since the actual line is, "I'm not a Brewster, I'm a *******!" The whole point back then was being a ******* is a *bad* thing, but in his case it's a *very good* thing. Plus, the line has symmetrical weight and therefore a kind of poetic resonance to it.
|
Originally Posted by Father Xmas
However there's been good remakes as well as bad. The problem is the bad ones sting so horribly that nobody remembers remakes that were acceptable. There was a TV remake of the classic film Fail-Safe back in 2000 that I thought was done very well. But then you get something like the remake of The Fog which was terrible and I'm sure people can supply a dozen or two more examples of bad remakes. Enough to make a fan of the original anything (movie, TV, comic book, song) concern when they here a remake is coming down the pike.
|
The Alt Alphabet ~ OPC: Other People's Characters ~ Terrific Screenshots of Cool ~ Superhero Fiction
I'm just going to say there's a reason they call them cult classics and leave it at that, because it should be obvious.
I personally don't get the point of trying to argue it in this case though. For decades people have been standing up in costumes in movie theaters and acting out RHPS as the movie plays. I don't really see the Glee version as any different, other than in this case it's not a rehash, it's using RHPS in the background to tell their own story.
After seeing the episode I don't see it as any different in concept than Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.
"Null is as much an argument "for removing the cottage rule" as the moon being round is for buying tennis shoes." -Memphis Bill
IMO it greatly depends on the way in which a show like Glee handles the merchandise, so to speak.
As was linked to other shows have done covers of RHPS, like Drew Carey. Why didnt they get alot of flack? Well first off i dont recall a 3 week media blitz saying they were doing it to get all the fans all wild about it. So obviously part of your blame here is the marketing arm for Glee. They obviously know they are dealing with music that has a big fan base, which is why whenever they do a madonna, gaga or whatever show they make sure to advertise the hell out of it.
Now if Glee comes out and just tries to do a 1 hour version of the RHPS then honestly i would scream foul also. Im not a huge fan of the original or anything. Frankly i saw it once on a midnight movie, however my mother thinks i saw it about 40 times because it became an easy excuse to be able to miss curfew and be out until 3am.
However that being said, i think part of the problem is Glee has its own fan base. And that younger fan base that might not have seen RHPS maybe even ever, IS going to scream about how great THEIR show is, and likely few will set out to experience the original work.
I personally dont care. My only concern is context, if Glee wants to do a parody/homage to RHPS i think thats fine overall. If the point is to userp the RHPS and make it associative with Glee for younger fans, then i kinda see the point of the fanbio rage. Its kinda like i love the Robot Chicken star wars specials. However if they ever just tried to make a remake of star wars, i would hate them for it. I love the parody, i love the comedy, i dont need a remake.
Quote:
If the new one edges out the "original" one in popularity and the newer generation subsequently forgets about said "original" because of it, it could be said to have effectively killed the original.
|
Originally Posted by Marcian Tobay
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.
|
Goodbye may seem forever
Farewell is like the end
But in my heart's the memory
And there you'll always be
-- The Fox and the Hound
Quote:
Since when does anyone care what those whippersnappers think?
|
Originally Posted by Tenzhi
If the new one edges out the "original" one in popularity and the newer generation subsequently forgets about said "original" because of it, it could be said to have effectively killed the original.
|
"Null is as much an argument "for removing the cottage rule" as the moon being round is for buying tennis shoes." -Memphis Bill
Quote:
Sorry the 1986 film was franchise suicide. I will gladly take the new films over watching all my favorite characters being slaughtered. Don't tell me this film respected the property when used all original cast as fodder. It bombed for a reason and put the company that made the show, Sunbow out of business.|
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. |
I liked G1 collectively but it was a rough draft into transformers universe. So much better story telling has come since. Particularly in beast wars and animated. I'm guessing majority of people who are outraged by the changes of the films haven't followed the franchise since G1 and failed realize how often they change the characters around.
I'm fine with the notion G1 might be people's favorite era as has alot of iconic characters in it. But it ended 20 some years ago. So much has come since, and plenty of others remade it long before Bay ever touched it. (Kiss players did far worse things than he did.) Always reminds me of This when I see people make posts like that. If you don't like the current batch wait a few years. A new one will show up and may be it's to your liking as there's eras I skipped over the years. (robots in disguise, headmasters, and the unicorn trilogy.)
If nearly every super hero can be changed over the course of their existence(look at all diffent armors ironman has worn.) I fail see what such a cardinal sin to tweak transformers.
- Justice
Lastjustice- lvl 50 defender
Leader of Eternal Vigilance.
- Freedom
Lastjudgment - lvl 50 corruptor
Member of V.A.M.P.
Beware:NERDS ARE THE WORST FANS!!
Quote:
If the original lacks the ability to stay relevant , it effectively dispears into obscurity on it's own. Some things belong to an era and don't speak to the current audience. It has a better chance of coming to light if a remake or release happens than simply left on a shelf. Old movies and shows don't advertise themselves. It's up to someone to champion them or they will fade away. It's never the remakes fault that happens. Just how the world works. If something stayed fresh forever than we'd never have a reason try anything new.
|
Originally Posted by Tenzhi
If the new one edges out the "original" one in popularity and the newer generation subsequently forgets about said "original" because of it, it could be said to have effectively killed the original.
|
- Justice
Lastjustice- lvl 50 defender
Leader of Eternal Vigilance.
- Freedom
Lastjudgment - lvl 50 corruptor
Member of V.A.M.P.
Beware:NERDS ARE THE WORST FANS!!
Quote:
The Carpenter version is somewhat closer to the source, that being 'Who Goes There?' by John W. Campbell but I disagree that the Hawks version was lame. If both were showing on TV at the same time I'd watch the old one. Much better movie, IMO.
|
Originally Posted by Local_Man
Two examples: The original version of "The Thing" with James Arness as the giant carrot was pretty lame. The John Carpenter remake was a pretty scary flick and generally well done.
|
Quote:
If someone remade 'The Valley of Gwangi' and cast Gwangi as, say, a Gorgosaurus rather than an Allosaurus, well, that would be just plain silly. A freaking Gorgosaurus? Pfft. Anybody who would screw up such a critical detail obviously didn't understand the original (probably never even watched it!) and should not be allowed to attempt a remake. That would be a worse blunder than Boromir not blowing his horn as the Fellowship left Rivendell!|
Originally Posted by Marcian Tobay
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.
|
A freaking Gorgosaurus...
Quote:
And while this is an aside, there are types of media where this is essentially false. I'm particularly talking about games, video and especially tabletop. If you want to play them with people, there needs to be a certain critical amount of people who enjoy it enough to play with you. If a new version or remake of a game comes out, it can split the fanbase and directly reduce the likelihood of you getting to play the version of the game that you enjoy.|
Originally Posted by Marcian Tobay
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. |
That said, my personal opinion is sort of a hybrid of Local_Man and Nethergoat's. Most remakes are blatant grabs for money... but some of them are legitimate attempts to redo the original better, whether by having a bigger budget, better technology, or just plain better writers. Unless it obviously falls into the 'blatant grab for money' category, I tend to view remakes with cautious optimism.
Having Vengeance and Fallout slotted for recharge means never having to say you're sorry.
Quote:
Never saw that before, but it was EFF'in awesome!
|
Originally Posted by Bubbawheat
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. |
Quote:
True enough, but until the generation it speaks to is no more, there will always be someone around lamenting the shiny newness trying to push the comfortable oldness into its grave even if it was likely headed there on its own given time. This is as natural a part of the cycle as the replacement of old with new is itself. "Get off my lawn (even if it's going to be your lawn in a few years anyway)!"
|
Originally Posted by Lastjustice
If the original lacks the ability to stay relevant , it effectively dispears into obscurity on it's own.
|
Goodbye may seem forever
Farewell is like the end
But in my heart's the memory
And there you'll always be
-- The Fox and the Hound
Quote:
Serotonin. And a little dopamine.|
Originally Posted by Marcian Tobay
I don't understand this, but I've seen it elsewhere. Why do people get like this?
|
When something gives you pleasure, it floods your brain with serotonin. With repeated exposure, your brain gets a serotonin rush even in anticipation of being exposed. That's why Pavlov's dogs drooled before they were fed -- they knew that the ringing of a bell meant food was coming. If you think about a show you love you get a little rush of serotonin, even before actually seeing it again. You've been conditioned to respond to that specific stimulus with the emotion of bliss.
This is an adaptation that helps memory, you know. Serotonin works with Dopamine to mediate the formation of new memories, which is why the things that make you emotional are more memorable than everyday events. So when you get a serotonin rush your brain remembers it and craves more.
Now let's replace that happy, serotonin-oozing memory with Sanka.
That's the sensation people feel when they hear that something they love is going to be remade. The original stimulus, which their brain has tuned itself to recognize, is going to be replaced with a stimulus that is similar but not quite the same.
This leads us the uncanny valley, which is an expression of the same concept. Human beings are tuned to recognize the human form. Something close to, but not quite the same as the human form is seen as horrible and terrifying. If it's close to the same, it elicits a positive response because we're tuned to have positive reactions to human beings. If it's very different it creates a new stimuli response in the brain. But if it's close to but not quite right, it causes negative reactions as the brain catches itself on all the differences.
So when they remake a show, it needs to be very, very close to the original to ride on the same serotonin response. If it's very different -- a different show with a similar theme, like Star Trek: TNG was to Star Trek: TOS -- then it can create its own positive responses. But usually Hollywood manages to make something close to the original, but not quite right, and it falls right into the uncany valley of our serotonin feedback circuits. Our brain expects a serotonin rush but it never comes, and so we react with shock and horror.
I'm not a brain scientist, so don't take any of this as gospel. It's just my theory on how our brains work, and why old classics should never, ever, be remade.
...
New Webcomic -- Genocide Man
Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass slaughter can be hilarious.
It's not altogether a bad theory. We like what we're used to.
When Gus Van Sant did a (mostly) shot-for-shot remake of Psycho, you have to wonder what he was thinking. Other than as an interesting experiment in copying a master's work, what was the point of that exercise? I get that the use of color and the technological abilities Van Sant employed more closely realized Hitchcock's vision, but you can't really get a sense of that unless you know what Hitchcock thought of the film and the limitations (both socially and technically) he was operating under and if you watch them back-to-back (or close to it).
I know I and a lot of people have looked at Psycho and thought there were ways to improve on it, but those improvements would be so slight as to be unimportant. Were this a new film made today, it would certainly leave off the expository and lengthy ending, but in 1960 audiences needed that in order to digest what they'd experienced. Now it's just tedious. However, that's not really enough of a justification for remaking it.
The film definitely falls into the uncanny valley of being very similar yet too different from the original so that it annoys people. It did so for me. It takes place in the late '90s, so why do they talk and act (and dress!) like they're in the late '50s? That set up so much cognitive dissonance for me that I never got over it. Plus the actors simply aren't as good, which hurts it immeasurably.
The Alt Alphabet ~ OPC: Other People's Characters ~ Terrific Screenshots of Cool ~ Superhero Fiction
Quote:
And if you can do it justice, at least try to do it better. However that is very, very rare; the only example that comes to mind if John Carpenter's "The Thing". The original film was an adaptation of "Who Goes There?" but changed many details while the remake was far more faithful to the source material and a much better film over all.|
Originally Posted by Dr_Mechano
With me it isn't a so much 'don't touch my classic' as 'atleast try to do it justice!'.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lastjustice
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.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nethergoat
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. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Local_Man
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. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RemusShepherd
That's the sensation people feel when they hear that something they love is going to be remade. The original stimulus, which their brain has tuned itself to recognize, is going to be replaced with a stimulus that is similar but not quite the same.
This leads us the uncanny valley, which is an expression of the same concept. Human beings are tuned to recognize the human form. Something close to, but not quite the same as the human form is seen as horrible and terrifying. If it's close to the same, it elicits a positive response because we're tuned to have positive reactions to human beings. If it's very different it creates a new stimuli response in the brain. But if it's close to but not quite right, it causes negative reactions as the brain catches itself on all the differences. So when they remake a show, it needs to be very, very close to the original to ride on the same serotonin response. If it's very different -- a different show with a similar theme, like Star Trek: TNG was to Star Trek: TOS -- then it can create its own positive responses. But usually Hollywood manages to make something close to the original, but not quite right, and it falls right into the uncany valley of our serotonin feedback circuits. Our brain expects a serotonin rush but it never comes, and so we react with shock and horror. |
My only problem with it stems from a conversation I had with a 12 year old when I was dating his mom.
Mr. T came on with one of his WoW ads. I start waxing nostalgic with his mom about the A-team.
The kid over hears us and starts going on and on about how the A-team sucks and they couldn't even do such and such.
He didn't even know that the A-team was originally a campy 80's show.
He thought the movie was all there was.
I'd like a big neon disclaimer for all remakes alerting the new generation to the fact that it is indeed a remake.
This is just my own fear of aging though. As I really enjoyed the Dawn of the Dead remake among others.
Maestro Mavius - Infinity
Capt. Biohazrd - PCSAR
Talsor Tech - Talsorian Guard
Keep Calm & Chive On!
Quote:
That brings up an excellent example of a decent reason for a remake. The original Night of the Living Dead can't be improved on. They captured lightning in a bottle and anything you'd do would simply be different rather than better. Dawn of the Dead, however, had a large number of faults but a cool idea at its core. That's exactly the kind of movie which should be remade.
|
Originally Posted by MaestroMavius
As I really enjoyed the Dawn of the Dead remake among others.
|
The Alt Alphabet ~ OPC: Other People's Characters ~ Terrific Screenshots of Cool ~ Superhero Fiction
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.
size][/center]
Other than that, I don't know.
The Alt Alphabet ~ OPC: Other People's Characters ~ Terrific Screenshots of Cool ~ Superhero Fiction