The Social Network

Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

Nice work, rain bard. I had to IMDB to a fare-thee-well on your list -- never knew about all those silent versions of Mutiny or Around the World; also didn't know A Man for All Seasons had started on TV, even though I was vaguely alert during the show's Broadway run.

Certainly no one's saying the Academy has insisted on original material. But most of those films in question were remade in truly significant ways -- done for the first time with sound, on a movie screen, or with songs. I'm not sure that's a great analogy to "done again with different actors".

Is it maybe different for those of us who actually were around when True Grit was first released, and remember it as a major movie? (Largely because of Wayne and the Oscar, but it was a truly substantial, mainstream hit) It's hard for me to imagine voters being ready to go down that road again with the material for a best picture win.

Of course, it's over 40 years ago -- which shockingly, is about the gap between the silent and Heston Ben-Hur.
rain Bard
Associate
Posts: 1611
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 6:55 pm
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Post by rain Bard »

Silence of the Lambs was an oversight/memory slip on my part (I knew that- just forgot). Serves me right for never having seen Manhunter. Oops.

Titanic is admittedly a huge stretch, though the fact that it shares its title and a great deal else with a 1953 film, even if plot and characters are differently constructed, made me feel it merited inclusion.

Return of the King, Man For All Seasons and Marty are all remakes of television versions, which might count or might not, depending on your perspective.

Chicago, the Sound of Music and My Fair Lady are indeed Broadway adaptations, but those Broadway shows were all based on material that had been previously made into (non-musical) feature films. In two of the three cases, it's pretty inarguable that the films inspired the shows, at least to a certain degree.

Like Ben-Hur, which was mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Tom Jones, Gigi, Around the World in 80 Days, Hamlet and Mutiny on the Bounty were all based on well-known works of literature that had previously been made into silent films.

The Departed, as we all know, was based on a Hong Kong film with an original screenplay. it may be the only one of these that qualifies under Greg's stringent definition of a 'remake'.

Other, non-Oscar-winning films that wouldn't count under his rules are Cronenberg's the Fly (the 1958 version was based on a short story), Carpenter's the Thing (the 1951 version, likewise), Scent of a Woman (the 1974 Italian version was based on a novel), the Ring (the 1998 Japanese version, likewise), George Sluizer's American version of the Vanishing (his Dutch version had been a novel), Spielberg's War of the Worlds, I Am Legend, Let Me In, the Stepford Wives, Herzog's Nosferatu the Vampyre, DeMille's second version of the Ten Commandments, Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Planet of the Apes, Soderbergh's Solaris, Gus Van Sant's Psycho, etc. etc.

the point is that remakes of various kinds have proliferated throughout Hollywood for a long time, and Oscar hasn't pooh-poohed them all. Perception of a film as a remake probably plays a role, but I don't think a cut-and-dried calculus can be made.
User avatar
MovieWes
Professor
Posts: 2019
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:33 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Contact:

Post by MovieWes »

rain Bard wrote:More Best Picture-winning remakes, using admittedly rather generous definitions of the term in some cases: Return of the King, Chicago, Titanic, the Silence of the Lambs, A Man For All Seasons, The Sound of Music, My Fair Lady, Tom Jones, Gigi, Around the World in 80 Days, Marty, Hamlet, Mutiny on the Bounty

The Return of the King was a remake only if you count the Rankin/Bass TV cartoon as the original, which I'm sure most, if not all, people don't.

Chicago, The Sound of Music, and My Fair Lady were all adaptations of Broadway musicals.

The Silence of the Lambs is the only adaptation of Thomas Harris' novel as far as I know. Manhunter was an adaptation of Red Dragon. Maybe it could be counted as a sequel, but it is most definitely not a remake.

Titanic was a completely original screenplay, not a remake in anyway. Yes, there have been other films made about the famous sinking, but to call Titanic a remake is like calling Cold Mountain a remake of Gone with the Wind just because they're both set during the Civil War.




Edited By MovieWes on 1286486653
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
rain Bard
Associate
Posts: 1611
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 6:55 pm
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Post by rain Bard »

More Best Picture-winning remakes, using admittedly rather generous definitions of the term in some cases: Return of the King, Chicago, Titanic, the Silence of the Lambs, A Man For All Seasons, The Sound of Music, My Fair Lady, Tom Jones, Gigi, Around the World in 80 Days, Marty, Hamlet, Mutiny on the Bounty
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Post by The Original BJ »

Mister Tee wrote:All that said, I'm sure someone will be able to dig up something I've praised that fits this category I'm slamming.
Far From Heaven doesn't slavishly borrow a plot structure, but there sure is a lot of All That Heaven Allows there (though what makes the later film so interesting to me is the way it not only borrows from but specifically comments on the earlier film.)

This is actually a fairly interesting discussion, and I agree that there's no reason to dismiss True Grit for being a remake until we've seen it. (I don't much care for the earlier film myself, so I am actually looking forward to seeing what the Coens make out of this material.)

I had merely argued that True Grit's status as a remake makes the film less likely, in my eyes, to be a genuine threat to win Best Picture. (And along similar lines, I laughed when I read in that article Damien posted about how Toy Story 3 -- not only a cartoon, but a second sequel -- could be a contender to win.)

Yeah, yeah, The Departed was a remake...but of a contemporary Hong Kong film...not a "classic" American film. I think there's a big difference between those two classifications. (I recall a lot of debate about whether or not The Departed fit the bill of a Best Picture winner, but the fact that it was a remake didn't seem to register at all in that discussion.)
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

flipp525 wrote:
Mister Tee wrote:For the record, I have a fairly extreme intolerance for reworked plots -- lost my taste for White Teeth when I realized she was borrowing Forster
I wouldn't say that Zadie Smith "borrowed" from Forster in writing On Beauty. Her second novel is an unequivocable homage to Howard's End which the author herself very clearly states. Everyone I know was well aware of this before the book even came out.
For me, "homage", like "sampling", is a euphemism for "I stole it, but by admitting it upfront I'll get people to ignore that".

I wasn't following Smith's career that closely to know ahead of time what she'd done. (I read On Beauty simply because I'd liked White Teeth) When I got to the scene of the family agreeing to negate the late mother's instructions, my antennae went up, and gradually I recognized the whole structural similarity, which took me out of the story I'd herefotore been compelled by.

An even worse case would be The Story of Edgar Sawtelle, which slavishly adheres to the plot structure of Hamlet, negating any interest I had in how things would turn out. Maybe it's because I write (or try to) myself...but I think the basic structural universe of a book/play/script is one of the writer's primary contributions. Just taking what someone else has already done and changing the details is, by me, a cheat -- doing half the job.

All that said, I'm sure someone will be able to dig up something I've praised that fits this category I'm slamming.

I do agree that the analogy to Mildred Pierce works pretty well. But, honestly, if that were intended as a movie rather than a TV project, despite the talent attached, I'd have the same "why a remake?" attitude. I just prefer seeing something new.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

So, Greg, what about those situations (like Psycho and Let Me In) where the director makes a conscious effort to do a shot-by-shot remake (except Let Me In dropped a number of subplots from the film) of the prior film even if based on an adapted material?
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Post by flipp525 »

Mister Tee wrote:For the record, I have a fairly extreme intolerance for reworked plots -- lost my taste for White Teeth when I realized she was borrowing Forster

I wouldn't say that Zadie Smith "borrowed" from Forster in writing On Beauty. Her second novel is an unequivocable homage to Howard's End which the author herself very clearly states. Everyone I know was well aware of this before the book even came out.

This whole True Grit scenario seems to be analogous to the upcoming HBO Mildred Pierce adaptation which also claims to be more faithful to the original text.

For the record, I think the film looks pretty fantastic. I would definitely pencil in nominations for Bridges and Hailee Steinfeld.




Edited By flipp525 on 1286472465
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

Greg wrote:For what it's worth, I only consider a film a remake if the first version had an original screenply. Otherwise, I consider it to be another adaptation.
So, if someone did another version of Gone with the Wind, you wouldn't view it it as a remake?

I think we've ventured into semantic hell, here.
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Post by Greg »

For what it's worth, I only consider a film a remake if the first version had an original screenplay. Otherwise, I consider it to be another adaptation.



Edited By Greg on 1286469595
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

As a book, "True Grit" was a major best seller in 1968 and also received much critical acclaim. In fact, it was considered a major coup for John Wayne when he was cast in what was seen as an important production.

But this new version will most certainly be seen as a remake of the film rather than as a new adaptation of the novel, if only because John Wayne is a more enduring icon than Charles Portis. By the way, in his review of the film (which ended up on his 1969 10 Best List), Vincent Canby of the NY Times wrote, "Marguerite Roberts wrote the screenplay, which differs from the original in several important ways, all to the good."




Edited By Damien on 1286417207
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

Okri wrote:Mister Tee, do you consider the Disney films of Beauty and the Beast, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, and Tarzan to be remakes?

To answer your question, I wouldn't view Sometimes a Great Notion as a remake at all. Maybe Garp. Definitely From Here to Eternity. Less confident about LA Confidential. The Heller adaptation is the one I haven't seen.

Of course, there's the added point that I think "considered as" and "dismissed as" are slightly different questions.

And did Smith borrow White Teeth from Forester? She did with On Beauty. Which Forester for the first novel?
My brain cramp. Of course I meant to reference On Beauty, not White Teeth.

The Disney movies have the advantage of being based on "classic" material, and also of being given fresh spin by not only animation but also musicalization. (I'd also throw in Aladdin as a virtually uncredited remake of The Thief of Baghdad -- which really annoyed me while I was watching the movie)

I threw in Sometimes a Great Notion as my personal "god did they butcher that adaptation" project. Parts of it (like the famous Jaeckyl under the log scene) are almost verbatim, but then -- for reasons I'd love to hear someone explain -- they deleted the story's extraordinary climactic section. It's one of my favorite novels, so I'd love to see it tried again.

In fact, that's the sort of remake I could endorse: where the filmmakers blew it first time around. But generally it's the opposite: a stab at recreating an earlier success. (As a Lanford Wilson character says, Movies aren't supposed to be any good, and if they accidentally turn out well, they're remade poorly like they were supposed to have been in the first place) It may be that the Coens view this as their mission with True Grit, but they're at odds with the memories of alot of filmgoers who think of the original as, if not a classic, at least memorable.

And I agree with you, there's a difference between "considered" and "dismissed as" -- I'd put myself in the first camp, with the second to be determined when I see what's on the screen. I've just been a bit surprised by the level of sight-unseen enthusiasm for the project, when it's one I'd only place middle of the expectation pack.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Post by Okri »

Mister Tee, do you consider the Disney films of Beauty and the Beast, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, and Tarzan to be remakes?

To answer your question, I wouldn't view Sometimes a Great Notion as a remake at all. Maybe Garp. Definitely From Here to Eternity. Less confident about LA Confidential. The Heller adaptation is the one I haven't seen.

Of course, there's the added point that I think "considered as" and "dismissed as" are slightly different questions.

And did Smith borrow White Teeth from Forester? She did with On Beauty. Which Forester for the first novel?




Edited By Okri on 1286409516
kaytodd
Assistant
Posts: 847
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 10:16 pm
Location: New Orleans

Post by kaytodd »

According to imdb, a forty year old actress named Elizabeth Marvel (beautiful woman) has been cast as "Adult Mattie Ross." The 1969 film did not have anyone playing Kim Darby's role as an adult. I know nothing about the novel or if it has an epilogue involving Mattie as an adult. And, of course, I have no idea how big Marvel's role is. But if the Coens continue Mattie's story into her adulthood, even briefly, that is a major change from the 1969 film. It may still be thought of as a remake but this indicates the Coens are making a very different film.
The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving. It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something that makes a life worth living. Oliver Wendell Holmes
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Regarding what makes something a remake, I admit it is a very confusing subject.

For example:

The movie PRIVATE BENJAMIN (1980) is basically a remake of the film NEVER WAVE AT A WAC (1953).

Here is the IMDB plot summary for the 1953 film:
"A divorced socialite decides to join the Army because she hopes it will enable her to see more of her boyfriend."

Here is the IMDB plot summary for the 1980 film:
"A sheltered young high society woman joins the army on a whim and finds herself in a more difficult situation than she ever expected."

The plot points and story arc are very similar. At first both women realize they made a mistake and want to leave, but are unable to. They are unable to fit in and follow orders. Eventually they both prove themselves to be great as a soldier and leader.

I bring this up because PRIVATE BENJAMIN was nominated for an original screenplay Oscar. I guess remaking a movie not even 30 years old was not considered adapting.

As for TRUE GRIT, there are countless other "remade" films nominated for Best Picture (HEAVEN CAN WAIT, MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY, CLEOPATRA, APOCALYPSE NOW, ROMEO AND JULIET, SCENT OF A WOMAN, THE FUGITIVE, TRAFFIC, and others), and some which even won (BEN HUR and THE DEPARTED).

If the Coens make the film their own and make it well (which I have little doubt they will do), then it should not matter if the Academy considers the film a remake, an adaptation, or whatever.




Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1286395631
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
Post Reply

Return to “2010”