Remakes, Yea or Nay?

The difference is Shakespeare remains regarded as the ultimate playwrite of all time and is heavily embraced by academia, which not only doesn't teach film the way they do literature, but still have a generally demeaning view of television and film compared to the classic novels. Shakespeare will always have a voice to represent him, hopefully. I thought the same was true forclassic films when Hollywood rose up against colorization, but now that the people who were complaining have a venue in which they can get their fingers in the pot, no longer, it seems. And having Jackson's Kong shit in the forest won't help matters much, either, when it comes to commanding respect which will reflect favorably on the original (besides, that joke has been done to death already, as far back as Caveman in the 1980's, so it isn't even funny anymore).

You know, a sequel would have made so much sense. A remake makes none for any good artistic reason I can think of. That's reason enough in my mind to dislike it - on the concept alone.
 
DR_Visual_FX said:
The difference is Shakespeare remains regarded as the ultimate playwrite of all time and is heavily embraced by academia.
Click to expand...

But Kong is considered the ultimate monster movie of all time, and embraced heavily by cineastes and film scholars. I just don't see it disappearing the way you believe it will. I'll give you the strong possibility that the PJ version will outshine the original in the hearts and minds of those introduced to the big hairy guy by this version, but I just can't see a world existing where no one says, "Hey, ever see the original Kong?"

Poke
 
"but I just can't see a world existing where no one says, "Hey, ever see the original Kong?"

The world was halfway there when DeLaurentis remade it in '76, i remember it very well.

As far as Kong being the ultimate monster movie, i don't see that at all, really, from a world point of view; just as many people can say that about Frankenstien, Alien, a whole list of different people's personal favorites. It was conceived by Cooper to be the ultimate adventure, and that's closer to the mark probably, but this "ultimate" definition is really a subjective opinion.

This will sound confrontational but isn't: since you are playing devil's advocate on the issue (or I am, depending on one's point of view) I'm now curious about how you judge the idea of remakes simply being little more than a testiment to a lack of imagination on the part of the film makers, and the money, no matter how you view the issue, would be better spent - along with time and talent - creating new classics. Every classic made since King Kong - or anything else - would be one less classic in the world if those film makers had chosen to remake a pervious movie.
 
I don't know if this is still relavent or not, but I just happened to be reading an old issue of Wired the other day, and Peter Jackson was interviewed. Here's one Q and A:

Why remake King Kong?

PJ: King Kong is my favorite movie - I love the original. It was initially the excapism that drew me to it. The adventure. Being swept onto an island. But it's 70s years old, and there is a generation of kids who don't have the tolerance for old blank & white films. This will be a new version. I'm trying to recapture what I loved about the film when I saw it when I waws 9.
Click to expand...

I wish more bad movies would be remade instead of classics. I really hope no one ever messes with this original piece of cinema.
 
I'm now curious about how you judge the idea of remakes simply being little more than a testiment to a lack of imagination on the part of the film makers, and the money, no matter how you view the issue, would be better spent - along with time and talent - creating new classics. Every classic made since King Kong - or anything else - would be one less classic in the world if those film makers had chosen to remake a pervious movie.
Click to expand...

A true enough statement. However for the most part film has never been about the art but about the profit. Was the original kong made out of a selfless desire to explore the deeper truths of life. Nay, they wanted to make a buck. Perhaps as viewers we occasionally get lucky and a film is produced that steps above the din to become something more. And maybe sometimes a film strikes a balance between art and commercialism. But at its core most film is about makin' a buck.

Please don't misunderstand, I am all for art for arts sake, but that is not what we are discussing. These things that we call classics were/are financial successes. A film that isn't seen can not be classic and one must pay, in some form, to see a film. This motivation of profit is what moves the film industry along and to condemn it would be to condemn a system that allowed the originals to be made in the first place.

And sure money could be better spent. I would love to see more high quality films produced. I would love to see more talent developed. I would love to see new, inventive ideas and methods of story telling. However I personally will be satisfied with the few gems that can be found.

In a nut shell.... yeah it sucks but we have to suffer through the bad to get the good.
 
Commander Goat,

What a fantastic example you found to illustrate what this discussion is about!

Yeah, it's sad and sick. It's funny, but only to a certain generation, but that humor I think is tempered with a sort-of horror of what can be done to old films. And the catch line for the ad, "the original, but updated" is a perfect seque into Jackson's explaination you quoted. Now you've me fired again and I'll dissect it's obvious flaws quickly for the sake of the discussion:

"Why remake King Kong?

PJ: King Kong is my favorite movie - I love the original. It was initially the excapism that drew me to it. The adventure. Being swept onto an island. But it's 70s years old, and there is a generation of kids who don't have the tolerance for old blank & white films. "

This is an insulting assumption regarding the intelligence of the current generation old enough to appreciate films. I find quite the reverse is true: thanks to MTV and a whole host of venues with alternative styles, B&W is valid again. When I was a kid in the late 60's B&W movies were "old fashioned". Jackson himself now appears old fashioned to think such a thing. I'm not sure I'm convinced it's anything more than an excuse for plunder a national treasure, however.


"This will be a new version. I'm trying to recapture what I loved about the film when I saw it when I waws 9."

He did that, perhaps, with Lord of the Rings. He could do it with a sequel. This is all hokum, I think, because he is clearly too brilliant to not know what he is otherwise doing.

You know commander, there are SO MANY MORE STINKERS THAN CLASSICS. What a treasure trove for those with shallow imaginations. Let them renake the stinkers and leave the classics on hallowed ground. It's like dancing on the graves of those men who regarded those classics as their personal life achievments, and a life is an important thing.

EDIT:

Mikey, you and I were posting at the same time.

" These things that we call classics were/are financial successes. A film that isn't seen can not be classic and one must pay, in some form, to see a film."

I try not to make absolute declarative statements per se, and I apologize for the confrontational sound of this, but the evidence manifestly proves this line of thought invalid. Citizen kane, still widely regarded as the greatest film to emerge from America, had almost no distribution when it was released due to threats and blacklisting by Hearst, and lost alot of money for RKO.

Lots of classics are rarely seen. That is more the trouble with this situation than the explaination for the validity of the circumstance. Indeed, when Jackson says the original Kong is an old black and white film which holds no appeal for younger viewers (he really is making that case, unbeleiveably enough) he is indeed talking about replacing the original with his version. That doesn't necessarily help the original get seen. A SEQUEL would do that much better because then people would want to see what happened before the sequel and many would want to watch the original. And even if people DON'T see it, it will still be the classic it is or would be even if no one had ever seen it, but had been made nevertheless..... as would have been the case with Kane if fate had not swerved just a little and saved the original negative from being burned by RKO when they were under severe pressure to do so.

Many classics also become discovered long after the creator died, and that many years after the creation of the classic.

Does a tree make a sound if it falls in the forest but nobody hears it? Of course, because the air carries sound waves. Just because something is unappreciated or even unseen doesn't mean it doesn't exist - or isn't sublime regardless of a lack of appreciators.
 
Last edited:
DR_Visual_FX said:
Yeah, it's sad and sick. It's funny, but only to a certain generation, but that humor I think is tempered with a sort-of horror of what can be done to old films.
Click to expand...

I thought the absurdness of Gene Kelly breakdancing was hillarious...but if I hadn't of seen the original, I wouldn't understand...so I think this is a good joke for the cultured people. I thought it was cool more than it bothered me...and it actually made me want to watch Singin' in the Rain again....I just posted it for fun I guess.


The one thing that bothered me about Jackson's answer was "it's my favorite movie." If I had to pick a favorite movie, I would probably say it's Fight Club, and there is no way in hell I'd ever dream of trying to remake it. Nothing I could do would possibly live up to the original and I wouldn't want to try to live up to the original. So I don't really understand his reasoning there. If it's his favorite movie, it should be more sentimental to him....but on the other hand, if you watch some his video dairies, he is completely obsessed with King Kong. I think he will try to stay very true to the original feel...and for some reason, I'm getting this feeling he will include the Original 1933 version on the DVD when it comes out. He's just that kind of guy.
 
" These things that we call classics were/are financial successes. A film that isn't seen can not be classic and one must pay, in some form, to see a film."

A poorly thought out statement indeed. However....


Does a tree make a sound if it falls in the forest but nobody hears it? Of course, because the air carries sound waves. Just because something is unappreciated or even unseen doesn't mean it doesn't exist - or isn't sublime regardless of a lack of appreciators.
Click to expand...

A true enough statement, however I have never quite understood the sentiment. Can a classic be a classic without an audience, however small? A tree falling will have an effect on the world regardless of spectators, however film can only have an effect if it is seen. As I said before, art for arts sake is fine but with out an audience its greatness will neither be heightened nor reduced. Its effect on the world however.....

And does a remake really reduce the greatness of the original, or does it just reduce its numbers of appreciators? Some seem to believe that a remake will only rekindle interest. I don't know. I do agree that it is sad that so many would choose mediocraty over greatness, that they would choose profit over art.

I would like you to know that I don't neccesarily disagree with what you have to say, I suppose I am just feeling a bit fatalistic this evening. The remake is inevitable.

As far as the commercial is concerned, I laughed and then I was horrified. I imagine it would have stayed amusing for me except that it was being used to sell something. I hate commercials.
 
Commander Goat,

" If it's his favorite movie, it should be more sentimental to him...."

This is really so much at the heart of all this. As far as his obsession, it may just be a gimmick: he did the same thing about Lord Of The Rings, going so far as to run around in the snow in his bare feet like a Hobbit. Somehow I think he goes home and chuckles at all us asses. No one can be that brilliant and an idiot at the same time, regardless of apprearances. Einestein, Hitchock and others all seemed to be eccentirc geniuses, but Einstein just didn't care about his appearance and Hitchcock was all show for the audience. This is different.

Mikey,

Not trying to be a pain in the ass here, but for discussion,

"A tree falling will have an effect on the world regardless of spectators, however film can only have an effect if it is seen. "

Well, the MAKING of a film can have a profound effect on the people making it, directing lives and all those other domino effects, so it really is like a tree falling in a forest. Both have impacts regardless of whether anyone appreciates either.

My take on the commercial was that I though it was going to make a powerful statement about tampering with classics for shallow effect, only to discover it was an EXAMPLE of what I hoped it would make a statement about.

Awful.
 
I don't have the expertise and knowledge of film history many of you here seem to exhibit...but in my opinion, I think pro and con sides of the remake issue stem from the dichotomous nature of film.

Even before Melies (father of expressionism...film's 'entertainment aspect') and the Lumiere Brothers (fathers of documentary...film's pedagogical part)...we've had arguments regarding the nature of 'seeing'. Newton believed it was primarily a physical act of light striking object and entering the eye...Goethe believed that what we saw was shaped by our perception, the mechanics of vision and how each brain processes that information...objective and subjective each. Light sensitive materials were exploited by astronomers as well as portrait artists as well as LIME -lighting snake-oil salesmen. (ha , I guess that would be tri-chotomous)

I believe that if one views film as strickly 'art' then remakes make absolutely no sense...influence/inspiration, of course, but for a new work. If one views film as strictly entertainment/investment, well then..the biggest bang for your buck with nothing out of bounds. Hell, maybe the lime-lighting, salesman WAS right...spectacle for money-making AND suffering for his 'art' (some 1st degree burns if i'm not mistaken). :lol:

"A tree falling will have an effect on the world regardless of spectators, however film can only have an effect if it is seen. "
Click to expand...

Not if you subscribe to the idea of morphic resonance.... :D
 
"The one thing that bothered me about Jackson's answer was "it's my favorite movie." If I had to pick a favorite movie, I would probably say it's Fight Club, and there is no way in hell I'd ever dream of trying to remake it."

Fight Club would be very hard for anyone to remake. It's very "of the time." "King Kong" on the other hand, is a sort of timeless story Man v. Beast/Beauty and the Beast. And plus, in the end, King Kng is about going to the theatre and being "wowed." It's about spectacle. When it first came out, the special effects blew people away. Kids today see it and may laugh. Jackson is making a King Kong for a new century. People will go to the theatre and be "wowed." I have no problem with that.

The original is a classic, and will stand the test of time, but mostly for cinephiles. I think Jackson is looking recreate the magic of the first one for a new generation. I don't understand why one would question his motives.
 
"Fight Club would be very hard for anyone to remake. It's very "of the time." "King Kong" on the other hand, is a sort of timeless story Man v. Beast/Beauty and the Beast. And plus, in the end, King Kng is about going to the theatre and being "wowed."

King Kong is really also very much of the time; much of its idealistic/romantic nature stems directly from the values of that time, the late-1920's/ 1930's, which was contemporary then. The best anyone can do - and Jackson is making a period piece tsaking place in that era - is to try to interpret or imitate what was stemming organically from the time and place naturally both visually and dramatically. Kong is no different in that regard. Or maybe even more so.

Kong is also generally regarded cinematic art, regardless of what people believe the intentions of the makers or subjective value might otherwise be. That makes it rather valuable, as human value goes.


"I think Jackson is looking recreate the magic of the first one for a new generation. I don't understand why one would question his motives."

Honestly, I think that has kinda been addressed in this thread.

Once again, the idea that modern audiences - the younger side - is too lacking in the appreciation of when the original film was made is an insult to their individual and collective intelligence. In fact, I see them as being alot more open-minded than we were at that age - for me, more or less when the DeLaurentis remake came out. They don't need to be spoon-fed the original in remade form like three-year-old morons with lots of new-fangled suger on top. They're quite able to appreciate the original in context. Those who don't will be the minority who think the Kong pop joke will be the best part of the new one, but they are, in my opinion, not the majority to aim for.

People tend to think the new Kong will be like Lord Of The Rings, but his choices are making it seem more like another Jackson film, The Frighteners, which is likely very bad news indeed for the great ape.

Once again, if Jackson feels compelled to thrill people, by all means he should make a good, thrilling, ORIGINAL movie. I'm not sure what is so complicated about that concept. Yes, he WANTS to remake Kong, which is why he's doing it, but I'm not sure that's the issue being discussed. Or even a good reason. If he loves Kong so much he needs to embrace it creatively, then he can work the character in a sequel. But that's not what he said. He said he's making it accessible to a younger audience, and that, in my opinion, simple isn't a credible explaination for someone who has had many years to cointemplate the pros and cons of such a thing. You know, let him make his OWN classic, and respect the work of those who came before.

Bird,

I appreciate your intellect on the issue of the zen of seeing (not my phrase, but a good one), but I do think this is more a personal value issue than a strictly eye/mind perceptual one; this issue goes alot more into the processing of the information than that. But please do keep us on our toes - out on a limb, where all artists, either artistically or financially driven, need to be! :-)
 
Last edited:
All I was saying, was, because film is a hybrid (art, entertainment, and product) there may not be the same reverence (or respect) for the medium as say a sculpture by Michealangelo, a building by Wright, or a painting by Klee and that 'tude may be what makes remakes acceptable. If no one can even agree that film is strictly art or product then who would be considered the masters of the medium...or have we even seen them yet? It's a long way from cave paintings to the Renaissance (and that's just a joke, I have no empirical knowledge to back up there being a 'Mona Lisa' of Lasceux(sp)or not.
 
"Once again, the idea that modern audiences - the younger side - is too lacking in the appreciation of when the original film was made is an insult to their individual and collective intelligence. "

It's not a matter of "spoonfeeding," or insulting people's intellegence -- it's just that people like "new" products. If King Kong were re-released in the theatres, it would be a largely older audience at art houses. There wouldn't be lines out the door at the local multiplex. The Jackson remake will be draw in a audience that would not have otherwise ever seen this story.

There are always going to be people who search out classic films, including many of us on here. But the fact is, a lot of people don't give a fuck about the "classics." Lots of people want to see the best Hollywood has to offer when they go to the boxoffice. Generally, I don't like remakes. Most of the time they're are pointless exercises. But I'm excited to see King Kong. It's great story and Peter Jackson is a great fantasy director. And you can't overlook the technological aspect. I think Jackson will create a fun and movie that makes people go "whoa." What's wrong with that?
 
"I think Jackson will create a fun and movie that makes people go "whoa." What's wrong with that?"

In my personal opinion and under the circumstances, plenty, but I've already made my point on the issue. Anything else would be redundant..... *AGAIN*! :-)

Bird,

nteresting points, as always. I think we have today the perception that fine art of the past was for its own sake. If that were true, it would not have been sold, or more specifically, commissioned. So we get into the definition of "what is art".... and I've had this one before and ultimately the discussion heads into an excersize on the validity of existentialism, which to me, is a fruitless discussion except to throb one's brain cells.


General,

I'm not sure intent defines fine art. many never strive for it. Jean Cocteau said, "I never attempt to write poetry, the mere mention of the word frightens it away", and he was a great poet and film maker. The makers of Kong were looking to create mass entertianment, and created art. Art can be elusive, but conversely, art HAPPENS (with a given set of parameters of course, but intention to create something hailed as fine art, i believe, is not one of them. )

Remember, this is the same Jackson who gave us The Frighteners and Meet The Feebles.

By the way, at first - a year or so ago - I assumed that because it woul be done anyway everyone, including stop motion fans of the original, should get behind it. But the thoughts have settled, and as they settle more, the idea of remaking it strikes me as nothing more than a greedy attempt to cash in on a name and pretend his imagination is on the same par as those who made the originals. And as the Frighteners prove, without authorship behind him - like Tolkien - there doesn't appear to be much, alas. And that's perhaps what irritates me most.

But he has his devoted fans, and now I'm just pissing off those among them on this board, which isn't fair, so I'm done. I've said my peace, and the conversation is getting redundant on my part..... again, AGAIN!
 
Last edited:
So we get into the definition of "what is art".... and I've had this one before and ultimately the discussion heads into an excersize on the validity of existentialism, which to me, is a fruitless discussion except to throb one's brain cells.
Click to expand...

Throbbing my brain cells :lol: So that's what I was doing at University for three years!
 
You do realise that NONE of us have seen PJ's King Kong yet and so i think we should probably stop using it as an example until we know what we are talking about....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top