Fun Stuff > ENJOY

Remake of Alien

<< < (5/17) > >>

Inlander:
I don't buy the whole theatre argument. I really don't think there are very many directors or producers at all who cross over from theatre to film. Sam Mendes is the only one in recent times I can name off the top of my head (and he's only ever made original films). Sure, there are loads of actors who regularly flit back and forth between cinema and theatre, but there are relatively few actors with the clout to decide what films get made. Most directors these days seem to have a screen background - either T.V. or advertising or short films.

KvP:
Yeah, the crossover between theater and film, where it relates to mainstream film, only ever really applies to actors. With television and film schools being around as long as they have there doesn't need to be any crossover. Darryl's right about it being about money. Is anybody going to remake The Passion of Joan of Arc? Is anybody going to remake Wild Strawberries, or Eraserhead? Fuck no they won't, because remakes come about because of 2 things, in general -

1. Reduced risk - Same principle as infinite sequel syndrome. You don't have to go out on a limb with investors or the public with a new venture. You're going to get free press and people will come into the movie expecting something. If it's something like Raiders of the Lost Ark, then everybody remembers the source material, most people have fond memories of it, and most of those people are not terribly discriminating. Free money!

2. Vanity projects - This happens less often, and it's the only reason why obscure movies get remade (aside from, say, the occasional oscar baiting). In some cases, like Soderbergh's rather boring remake of Solaris, it's an actual homage. In some cases, like Spielberg upcoming Old Boy remake with Will Smith, they think they can put a "different spin" on the material. In other cases, like the Bad Lieutenant remake, nobody cared about the original and an indifferent director and a big star decided to take the material without much input from the original creative team (although that movie looks fucking awesome)

Quality of the material is incidental.

Trauco:
" The story exists in a way that is (essentially) easily and permanently accessible.  Like Sox points out, a film will be the same 50 years after it was made as it was the day it comes out."

Guys you've got to see "Papá o 36 mil juicios de un mismo suceso" it's a chilean movie developed for the dvd medium, it "remakes" itself everytime it is played, since every scene was shoot several times, and they play at random every time the movie is reproduced, so you get 36 thousand different movies :-)

So that makes the fact that movies are a recorded medium (and because of that, static) argument relative.

I mean, it's not like it is impossible to create a procedural movie out of the metric ton of data that google spits every second and using Ms. Dewey to act it out (http://www.therawfeed.com/2006/10/ms-dewey-search-engine-answers-with.html). It would only take a little programming in Processing.

scarred:
I think they should remake Wall-E. That movie was just a little behind its time.

Seriously, how does anyone think this is a good fucking idea? Hollywood makes me sick.

axerton:
First off - I'm not saying that it's a good thing that directors have the theatre mentality towards remakes, all I was trying to do was suggest a possible rational behind it.

I agree that form an audience point of veiw there is a massive difference between stage and screen simply because one is fleeting and ther other permernant. I'm also far far too aware of Hollywood's seceptablity to the alure of an easy and safe dollar. What I'm saying is that from a cast and crew point of veiw, remakes aren't nessisarily bad things. Why should it be perfectly possible for an actor to aspire to play Hamlet, but completley unrealistic to want to put their own spin on Arthur Dent.

One interesting thing I've noticed is the middle ground - where stage plays are adapted to screen, how many times has The Imporatance of Being Ernest been made into a movie, yet no one complains about it.


--- Quote from: Sox on 28 May 2009, 15:37 ---I think the argument about theatre doesn't hold up because those guys usually follow the scripts to a tee. Who in theatre rewrites Shakespeare?

--- End quote ---

Shakespear scripts are always cut down otherwise you'd end up with 5 hour plays - even when they were first put on in The Globe Theatre they were reduced in length - the choice of what should stay and what should go changes the final production imensly. Even then all you've got are the dialogue, the actions that go with what's being said and the way it's being said are all up to the actors and director and that can have huge effects on the outcome - an actor could say something sarcastically where it had been writen straight and change the entire scene, or even the entire play.



--- Quote from: Inlander on 28 May 2009, 17:07 ---I really don't think there are very many directors or producers at all who cross over from theatre to film. Sam Mendes is the only one in recent times I can name off the top of my head (and he's only ever made original films). Sure, there are loads of actors who regularly flit back and forth between cinema and theatre, but there are relatively few actors with the clout to decide what films get made. Most directors these days seem to have a screen background - either T.V. or advertising or short films.

--- End quote ---

I'm not talking about people crossing over from one to another, I'm talking about where people get their first start and really get their passion for drama and chances are they got it from a school production or drama classes or similar. How many people do you think would decide "you know what I'm going to go to film school" without ever having done something of the kind.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page