Pajiba

I wanted to see Smith go as balls-out crazy as Oh Dae-Su does at the end of Oldboy...

sansho1 >> BRAVO!

And here's a hypothetical question for everyone to ponder: Steven Spielberg is only going to make one more movie, and you are forced to watch that movie on an endless loop. Your choices are the fifth Indiana Jones installment (under the guidance of George Lucas, of course) or Spielberg's take on Oldboy. Based on Crystal Skull, which do you think has the greater odds of being an abominable blight on your senses? Which do you think will feel more like the dreaded "remake" even it is under the guise of "sequel"? Or is that one simply the much more dreaded "retread"?

"And here's a hypothetical question for everyone to ponder: Steven Spielberg is only going to make one more movie..."

Here's my hypothetical: How about, he retires.

I don't think the original was good enough to warrant a remake, albeit to make a more terrible version, I'm sure.

You know what? This remake hate? I don't get it. Or to be clear, I don't get why folks automatically thought the remake would be sanitized because of Smith and Spielberg. Yeah, they made some family-friendly films. But think about it.

Will Smith, despite the enduring odor of Fresh Prince emanating from him, has shown some dramatic range, as many of us that enjoyed the first 2/3rds of I Am Legend will attest. And it isn't like he is utterly incapable of doing adult material. Hell, Pajiba just started highlighting Tom Hanks' early career, specifically because it is so out of sync with his later film choices. I certainly didn't expect Joe to escape the volcano and become a mob hitman, but there you have it.

And you are honestly telling me that Steven "Yeah I did E.T. and Indiana Jones, but I also did Jaws, Schindler's List and Munich, which were more my bag anyway" Spielberg wouldn't have been capable of doing anything dirty or grimy with the material? AT ALL?

You want to bitch about remakes? Go right ahead! But acting like this was the absolute WORST pairing possible? That is fucking stupid. Just nail to the skull junkyard lobotomy dumb.

Y'all already sorted this out, but...

Slim >> You don't like Spielberg. I get it. And, yeah, the class warfare was a straw man. The rest of his argument still stands, though. How does a remake of anything diminish the original at all?

And, yeah, what Vermillion said about Spielberg and Smith. Spielberg has some darkness in him, and when Smith isn't making those paycheck movies, he does branch out occasionally. They've both certainly gone into R-rated territory, and they both are not 100 percent "bland" and "family-friendly." Hell, now that they have all this goodwill, they can afford to push the envelope a little. I also don't know how on earth anyone could apply the term "mediocre" to the director of Raiders and Jaws, for which he deserves our eternal gratitude. If you think he sucks in the 2000s, that's one thing, but I believe he's still relevant and talented in the craft, even in spite of that 2008 travesty which he inflicted upon us.

Anyway, vic is right. It's moot now.

That is, it's moot until Brett Ratner or Michael Bay get a hold of the Oldboy rights. Then I'll be the one up in arms - not on principle, but just because it's destined to be crap.

I mean, how do you think director Chan-wook Park reacted to the news that Spielberg and Smith were interested in the same source material as his six-year-old movie? And I'm assuming the original manga creators took the call, don't you think?

sansho1 >> I don't think it's necessarily either one of those things that drive most of the complaints, although perhaps it's a little more of the latter than the former.

I think there's just this passionate instinct to protect our memories of the books and films that we love. For me personally, I've never felt that remakes or adaptations adversely affect my appreciation of the original material. I guess that's not true for some people. For example, I had a friend who was so in love with Tolkien's Lord Of The Rings that he refused to ever watch Jackson's films, regardless of their quality. He did not want any images associated with that story but the ones his mind had created while reading.

Don't get me wrong; I prefer new ideas, but I maintain that it's not a big deal. After all, those looking for pretentious exclusivity don't have to watch the new one, and they can always get on their high horses and say, "Oh, you mean you saw the remake. Well, I saw the original..." And those who don't want to sully their memories don't have to watch it. I realize film is a different medium, but the anti-remake frenzy almost leaves me wondering if the protestors would have preferred that Hamlet be left in its original state as performed at the Globe Theater and never staged again.

Remakes should either be superior to or an interesting take on the original material. Not just a little bit different. There should be something brought to the table. That's why everyone rags on the remake of Psycho...it wasn't so much that it was bad, it was just unnecessary. Having the main characters speak a different language isn't enough of a change to warrant a remake.

DarthCorleone,
I totally understand your friend not watching Lord of the Rings. For me, seeing an adaptation of a novel destroys the vision I had in my head when I read it.

While I can't deny my snobbish/disappointed feelings, my argument against remakes is that I'd like to see the originals in theaters. I like watching movies in a theater. To me, it is an experience that can't be bested. What are these businesses gonna do, show ten smaller films, or wait for two of them to be remade(generally inferior) in English and clean up? So, I see the end result of remakes as me being denied the opportunity to see good movies in the theaters.

I don't think people in general would support these movies over being able to watch a movie without subtitles anyway, but we'll never know if people aren't given the chance. But I do know that Pan's Labyrinth was fucking packed when I went to see it(in Arkansas, no less).

pissant >> I don't see how remakes prevent anyone from seeing the original movies in theaters. By the time a remake is made, the original already had its shot at distribution in the theaters. Is your claim that removing all remakes from theaters makes room for only original material? Are we to make an ironclad rule that there will be no remakes ever? There are a couple problems with that in my mind.

One, there isn't enough new under the sun to fill the theaters with new material that the studios will see as financially profitable. We're not going to be able to twist the arms of distributors and theater owners to convince them what to show.

Two, there are some good remakes. Do you want absolutely none of them to exist? If not, who judges what should and should not be remade, and what are the criteria?

If anything, as mentioned above, a mainstream remake raises awareness of the original material and perhaps makes it more likely that after seeing the new one in the theater, a curious viewer could seek out the original. Maybe a kid mentions to his parents that he's going out to see The Truth About Charlie, and the parents tell the kid, "Hey, you really ought to see Charade!" And then the kid watches Charade. Perhaps it's not in a theater, but now the kid has better taste and demands more from the theater experience. Viewpoints are altered and perhaps general taste is slowly transformed. Then the distributors might be willing to take more shots at what was formerly viewed as financially risky distribution.

It's unfortunate that you're in Arkansas and thus feel deprived of all the viewing opportunities in theaters you might enjoy, but out here in LA, I'm never at a loss on any given weekend to see a new movie in the theater, a remake in the theater, or perhaps even the original version of some remake playing as a revival at a theater.

So, the only solution I see is for you to move to Hollywood. :- )

slim >> Predators could very well suck. I don't begrudge it its right to exist, though, and it's not going to lessen my enjoyment of the original.

pissant >> I see what you're saying, and I respect your voting with your pocketbook. I just don't think that the reluctance to show the original Oldboy at the average multiplex - overlooking the content, of course - has anything to do with the fact that it might or might not be remade and everything to do with the subtitles.

Do you not have any arthouse theaters at all where you live that will show the indies and foreign films? Tough break if so. I'd say barring moving out of Arkansas, the only thing to do is raise awareness locally and try to generate the demand for one. Or perhaps you could start a new career and open one yourself.

I almost went to school in Conway, so I have a little experience with Arkansas. I just thought maybe in the last decade a few more cinemas have cropped up in the in-between places. The south is still home to me, but I guess I've gotten spoiled living in big cities since college.

Yes, Hendrix. Financially it was a better deal for me, but in the end, San Antonio just had more appeal to me than Conway.

Who's Chris?