Old Boy remake coming up!

[David.rhsc]

It's not the same movie, and you can even tell from the trailer that they bitch out on the ending too.

Like Cracker said, it's just using the title (and the fact that a hammer plays a key role) for marketing purposes. Pretty weak sauce.

I'd rather watch Sharknado. At this point I have more respect for SyFy and their "Title First, Movie Second" methodology than I do for Spike Lee.

In the original the villain was able to keep an illegal prison secret, even though it was a building in the downtown area of a city. He was able conjure up all these secret resources and things, with no one ever knowing. So if he can do all that, he could somehow get an imposter on a television set, pretending to be the daughter, and it shouldn't be too much of a challenge for him.

A. You're over thinking it, by a long shot.

B. Still wouldn't be the same movie. They might as well take the "Man is locked up for 20 years without knowing why" premise and done something completely different with it, with new characters, and its own title.

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

Fair theory i guess, but I think the makers would know that fans would be annoyed at the removal of the twist, and by suggesting that happens in the trailer, they're damaging themselves? I don't see what they would gain using a trailer, where the most logical assumption is that the twist has been removed.

Most people haven't seen Oldboy, and people who have are only a small part of the target market, so they aren't worried about fans being annoyed.

For people who haven't seen it, the part in the trailer with the daughter may serve to throw them off and make the twist that much more surprising.

I don't get the generalized hate for remakes. If you really like the original (of any film) and don't want to see a different take, don't watch the remake. To me it comes off as a sort of hipster elitism, like someone who always liked the band better 'before they sold out' and disdains anyone who might prefer the latest record now that it's mainstream.

If you do watch the remake and don't like it, fine - but critique it on it's own shortcomings or merits, not just because it's a remake.

Imagine applying the same logic to theater. How many times has Hamlet been staged? How many different interpretations have there been? How many actors have played the same role, how many audience members have seen it played by many of those actors? Why is the process of reinterpreting a work in theater not just encouraged, but celebrated, by theater goers and critics alike? Why is it that the fact that you can still see the original of a film (unlike a play) seems to completely eliminate the possibility for so many people that a new interpretation could be not only worthwhile but good in and of itself?

 

[TheArtist]

I'm disgusted by this remake. And I know t's gonna be much worse when they remake The Chaser.

 

[harmonica44]

SPOILER

Well it's not just me who thinks that the kidnapped woman is a fake daughter diversion. On the Imdb Oldboy forum it has been suggested by others.

Well I go see the movie and if you all are right, and it doesn't keep the twist than I will be disappointed. I know I should judge a remake on it's own merits, and I will do so, but not having the twist brings it down by real serious notches. It will be pointless without it, and I cannot see them coming up with a point to redeem it otherwise.

I will go see the movie and then come back here, and say you told me so. But if they keep the twist, and I will probably like it, if done well, and come back and give my opinion.

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

Just did some research. H44 is

Spoiler

right.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=sPqfb3WEMbjKwfNrKwvnzA&bvm=bv.49478099,d.aWc

 

[harmonica44]

Oh crap, why did you have to say I was right! I'm glad I am, but I did not want to know I was before seeing the movie! I'm not reading that link lol.

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

Oh crap, why did you have to say I was right! I'm glad I am, but I did not want to know I was before seeing the movie! I'm not reading that link lol.

 

[David.rhsc]

I don't get the generalized hate for remakes. If you really like the original (of any film) and don't want to see a different take, don't watch the remake. To me it comes off as a sort of hipster elitism, like someone who always liked the band better 'before they sold out' and disdains anyone who might prefer the latest record now that it's mainstream.

IMO: It's more like choosing to dislike a band because their "big breakout hit single" is just a cover of some song from 10+ years ago.

Also, I think the fact that the original still exists makes the "recent remake" more akin to someone re-writing a recent novel than it is to re-adapting a several hundred year old play.

It's like if I thought 2666 was a cool novel, but decided that it should be re-written to be set in Canada with an English speaking cast. But when I published it I used the same title, exactly, and made sure that my marketing media closely matched the marketing media of the original. No one in their right mind would try this with a novel, why is it okay with feature films?

If Spike Lee wanted to re-adapt the source manga. Cool, more power to him. Change the fucking title, make your own movie, and quit marketing it on the back of someone else's work. He's just riding the coat-tails of the previous film. That's the problem I have with it.

It's the difference between the relationship between Seven Samurai and Magnificent Seven - different films with the same source idea, similar characters, different setting, etc - when compared with the difference between the original Insomia and the Nolan remake of Insomia (which is a less interesting film in every possible way) - remade only bypass a language barrier that I think is less existent than people believe. Money grab with the least possible effort. Nothing more, nothing less.

They might make a good version of the source manga, but I don't have to respect them for it.

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

It's like if I thought 2666 was a cool novel, but decided that it should be re-written to be set in Canada with an English speaking cast. But when I published it I used the same title, exactly, and made sure that my marketing media closely matched the marketing media of the original. No one in their right mind would try this with a novel, why is it okay with feature films?

I'm a big fan of Haruki Murakami. Unfortunately I can't read japanese, so I have to wait until his books are translated into english before I can read them. The translations are never going to be 100% literal to the originals - they would probably make for terrible reading if that was the case - so the translator actually brings a lot to the table. There's a noticeable difference to me between the books translated by Jay Rubin and the books translated by Philip Gabriel - I personally prefer the former. For all I know Philip Gabriel's translations are more true to the originals, and maybe I don't actually like Murakami's writing all that much - maybe what I like is Murakami's writing viewed through the lens of Jay Rubin's translations. Honestly, it doesn't really matter to me - they're great books.

What I'm reading are essentially remakes of the original, re-written with an English-speaking cast. They're published under the same title and the marketing media closely matches the marketing media of the original. This is commonplace for books, so why isn't it ok with feature films?

 

[TheArtist]

This is commonplace for books, so why isn't it ok with feature films?

It's common place with feature films and it's called dubbing*.

I'm all for some serious and thoughtful dubbing with actual translators and voice-actors. But a remake has nothing to do with a translation. When they move the book from Japanse to English, they are just changing the text, not the drawing, not the pacing, not the characters, story and everything else you like about it.

*And even dubbing sucks blass btw. France has a long tradition of dubbing every movie and the results are an ignorant population when it comes to foreign languages. English spoken by a random French dude is laughable for a reason. Most of it has to do with the fact that movies are always in French. That's why they are now moving backwards from dubbing by drastically increasing the subtitled screenings.

 

[David.rhsc]

This is commonplace for books, so why isn't it ok with feature films?

Simple. Because a translator (their influence not being denied) does not claim authorship of the title, and the title is marketed under the original author's name.

A director (more often than not) claims authorship of the film, and it is marketed under their name.

It would be like stripping Murakami's name from the work completely and treating it as though it were an original work penned by the translator.

Translation == subtitles. Film, being a visual and auditory medium, transcends (or should) spoken language. If I can ever remember the title, I'll dig up an old film that was produced in dozens of languages, contains no subtitles, and tells its story flawlessly.

The notion that Americans can only appreciate a film if it has been remade in English is just as elitist (and frankly horrifically xenophobic) as saying that a foreign language film is inherently better than its American remake (not making that case at all, not even trying, it happens that of the ones I have seen I have preferred the original). Shouldn't we be trying to encourage people to embrace films as they stand, instead of reinforcing the stereotype that Americans only like American things?

 

[JoshL]

Also a huge Murakami fan. After Dark would make a great film...not my favorite book, but I think one that would be well suited to the medium.

Dubbing is difficult to do well in film, since the mouth movements won't match. Even poorly done ADR catches people's attention. And of course, there's a history of terrible dubs. Leaving out the jokes about old Godzilla films and Speed Racer cartoons. A good example would be the animated film Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind. The first time I saw the film was a horribly butchered, poorly dubbed version (called "Warriors of the Wind"). Seeing a subtitled version a couple years later not only turned me around on the film, but sold me on subtitles. Fast forward to 2005, Disney is working with Ghibli and put out a better executed dub. It's actually pretty good! In recent years, Ghibli has been splitting the difference with mouth animations...they don't quite fit the Japanese or the English, but they're close enough to both to not be distracting (which is easier with animated films anyway).

So, yeah, dubs have an unfortunate bad rep, but they CAN be done well. I still lean towards the subtitled version, but a good dub definitely will reach a wider audience.

David.rhsc, I agree that Americans should be able to appreciate things in their original state, but I can't think of too many hit films that were subtitled (a few, definitely). Foreign films, generally speaking, don't do as well until they win an Oscar. I can't seem to find any numbers specifically on subtitled films, but that would be interesting. And lots of people do...but not the majority, which is who the big-budget remake is trying to reach.

As an aside, Spike Lee hasn't done anything I've liked as much as Do The Right Thing, and I don't mind a good cover song, even if it is a band's first and/or only hit (Soft Cell's "Tainted Love" is great!)

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

Spike Lee hasn't done anything I've liked as much as Do The Right Thing

One of my favorite movies ever

 

[David.rhsc]

FWIW:

I'm not 100% against these remakes wholesale. I just think that films are, ideally, greater than the sum of their parts and I wish that more distributors would give foreign films a fair shake in the larger markets here in the US. The Host played pretty well given it's limited distribution. With a stronger marketing campaign it, Thirst, and Mother could have translated some of their large market play into more sales in smaller markets. There are lots of very, very good films made worldwide, and I would be more inclined to give the remakers some slack if they gave the originals a more fair shake in the market place.

Maybe I'm just being idealistic, but there ya go.

 

[harmonica44]

It's okay I guess. In a way I want to see the movie more now, since I kind of know they kept it now.

Also a huge Murakami fan. After Dark would make a great film...not my favorite book, but I think one that would be well suited to the medium.

Dubbing is difficult to do well in film, since the mouth movements won't match. Even poorly done ADR catches people's attention. And of course, there's a history of terrible dubs. Leaving out the jokes about old Godzilla films and Speed Racer cartoons. A good example would be the animated film Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind. The first time I saw the film was a horribly butchered, poorly dubbed version (called "Warriors of the Wind"). Seeing a subtitled version a couple years later not only turned me around on the film, but sold me on subtitles. Fast forward to 2005, Disney is working with Ghibli and put out a better executed dub. It's actually pretty good! In recent years, Ghibli has been splitting the difference with mouth animations...they don't quite fit the Japanese or the English, but they're close enough to both to not be distracting (which is easier with animated films anyway).

So, yeah, dubs have an unfortunate bad rep, but they CAN be done well. I still lean towards the subtitled version, but a good dub definitely will reach a wider audience.

David.rhsc, I agree that Americans should be able to appreciate things in their original state, but I can't think of too many hit films that were subtitled (a few, definitely). Foreign films, generally speaking, don't do as well until they win an Oscar. I can't seem to find any numbers specifically on subtitled films, but that would be interesting. And lots of people do...but not the majority, which is who the big-budget remake is trying to reach.

As an aside, Spike Lee hasn't done anything I've liked as much as Do The Right Thing, and I don't mind a good cover song, even if it is a band's first and/or only hit (Soft Cell's "Tainted Love" is great!)

Well in the movie Goldfinger, Gert Frobe's dialogue was all dubbed from German to English and they did such a great job I couldn't even tell. It would help if so many foreign language movies were dubbed poorly instead of badly. If they were done as well as Goldfinger, no one would think low of ADR language translation.

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

Translation == subtitles.

I find that subtitles generally tend to be mostly utilitarian, which is much different than a good translation of a book. They're certainly better than dubbing, but I don't think they generally do justice to the original material. That's just one of the areas where I think there's room for a well-done remake to capture the spirit of the original film better for some audiences than the subtitled version of the original.

Film, being a visual and auditory medium, transcends (or should) spoken language. If I can ever remember the title, I'll dig up an old film that was produced in dozens of languages, contains no subtitles, and tells its story flawlessly.

While films certainly can and do transcend spoken language, I don't think visuals are necessarily a universal language. I think there's a lot of visual symbolism which is culturally specific, and can easily be either lost or misinterpreted by someone who is unfamiliar with a given culture. I'm sure it's possible to tell a story visually that is universally understandable, but that is rarely the goal of any given theatrical film. In fact I'd say it's more common to rely heavily on visual conventions and symbolism that is familiar to the audience in order to more efficiently convey information in the limited running time of the typical feature.

The notion that Americans can only appreciate a film if it has been remade in English is just as elitist (and frankly horrifically xenophobic) as saying that a foreign language film is inherently better than its American remake (not making that case at all, not even trying, it happens that of the ones I have seen I have preferred the original).

There are certainly many americans who appreciate foreign-language films. But I do think that many americans can't fully appreciate many foreign films for the reason I mentioned above - they don't entirely understand either the language or the visuals because they don't have the proper context. That goes both ways - I'm sure many american films don't do well overseas because they don't speak to a foreign audience the way they do to an audience who is intimately familiar with their cultural context.

And I don't think you can argue it's elitist to say that unless you're also going to argue for the inherent superiority of the original films. Either the originals are inherently superior and americans are just too dumb and/or lazy to appreciate that (elitist), or the originals aren't inherently superior and the audience's preference for remakes is not a reflection on their level of taste or intelligence (not elitist).

Shouldn't we be trying to encourage people to embrace films as they stand, instead of reinforcing the stereotype that Americans only like American things?

I don't think it's that clear cut. I feel like that type of approach comes from our heavy cultural investment in auteur theory, which naturally leads to an assumption of the superiority of an original work vs. a remake. If you're not going to argue for the inherent superiority of the original films, how can you argue that it's better to encourage people to embrace those originals rather than remakes?

It seems to me we should be encouraging people to embrace films in general, make their own decision about what they like and dislike, and accept that they may actually know what they're talking about if they decide they like something different than we do. We can then argue our preferences based on the individual merits of the two films, rather than one's status as the original and the other's as a remake.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I think it's perfectly natural to prefer films that are made in your native language. I don't think it's a reflection of laziness in not wanting to read subtitles. One of the basic tenets of filmmaking is that it's a visual medium (shh, don't tell the audio guys ).

Anyway, it's annoying when I want to watch an actors' performance, or catch some details that are in the background of the scene, but I can't because I have to read that lame-ass subtitle. As IDOM says, they are quite literally a distraction.

For that reason alone, I can see the value in remaking a foreign film for an American audience. Especially one which hasn't been seen by too many people. But if you're going to keep the name, and make very obvious nods to the original (the hammer, and the hallway scene), for damn sake, can you at least tell the same fucking story?!

Yeah, I've read the articles posted here, as well as a few others. But based on everything I've seen, I just find it simply unfathomable that they'll be telling the same story. I think it'd be less of an insult to the audience if they stated that it's based on the same source material, and gave it a new title.

 

[David.rhsc]

Actually finding this conversation really interesting, but I am leaving in a few days for a really huge job and will be gone for a while, so I don't want to derail.

And I don't think you can argue it's elitist to say that unless you're also going to argue for the inherent superiority of the original films. Either the originals are inherently superior and americans are just too dumb and/or lazy to appreciate that (elitist), or the originals aren't inherently superior and the audience's preference for remakes is not a reflection on their level of taste or intelligence (not elitist).

Just want to drop a quick reply here though. I don't agree that it is necessary to prefer a "foreign original" to a "domestic remake" in order to make the case for the value in seeing them or the value in widely distributing them here in the U.S. I can't really make a strong case for it without risking diverting the conversation into one that is more socio-political than it is about film.

Let's just say that I firmly believe in the importance in exposing/immersing yourself in as many possible cultures in as many possible art/communication forms as you can. I also firmly believe that the American Lowest Common Denominator (and let's be honest, that's who the EP's are shooting for, as many people as possible) could really, really, really benefit from some of the cultural nuance that you describe in the rest of your post. It is, in fact, that cultural nuance that is why I think they should be seen, irregardless if someone here can do it "better."

There were things about "Attack the Gas Station" that I did not understand until I saw "Go-Go 70s." And in the process I learned a little something about Korean socio-political history. There's value in that, and by diluting that difference of perspective we lose something. Even if the acting is better, the sets are fancier, and the whole thing has higher production value, or is just better in some subjective way there is still something lost in the process that I feel has inherent value.

 

[harmonica44]

Well I did read that part of the article from the test screening of Oldboy:

SPOILER

The article said that the twist was kept the same. I stopped reading after that and did not want to know anymore. From the trailer it seems that the villain using a fake daughter is actually more clever than the original cause he can control the good guy more and make it more plausible where as the original really stretched the limits of plausibility I find.

I think it's okay to change parts of an original for a foreign audience if you got good ideas to throw in. Keep the majority of it the same, but change a few things here and there, to keep it new and fresh from the original. I don't like remakes that are almost exactly the same like the 1998 Psycho remake.

As far as Americans not liking ADR movies, and prefer subtitles, why is that? I mean America loves The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, and that's a movie that is mostly spoken in Italian and Spanish, and all dubbed in English. Yet we all love that movie, and don't care that it's dubbed as oppose to subtitles. Same with Once Upon A Time in the West and the other Sergio Leone westerns. It's funny how if for example, it's Sergio Leone western, than dubbing is okay, but if it's a foreign film from another other country, how dare they do dubbing, instead of subtitles.

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

I think it's perfectly natural to prefer films that are made in your native language. I don't think it's a reflection of laziness in not wanting to read subtitles. One of the basic tenets of filmmaking is that it's a visual medium (shh, don't tell the audio guys ).

Anyway, it's annoying when I want to watch an actors' performance, or catch some details that are in the background of the scene, but I can't because I have to read that lame-ass subtitle. As IDOM says, they are quite literally a distraction.

I agree with you. But I think an audience that does not speak the language that a film is made in should automatically reject it. I also think dubbing can take away from an original actors performance. Imagine Christopher Walken dubbed by a Korean actor .

Watching foreign films makes me want to learn other languages. Maybe one day...