Talk:Remake

When is something a ripoff and when is something a remake? do film makers need permission from the people who own the original in order to make one? i think somebody should include this in the page. 24.166.154.108 19:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Isis, I just stumbled across your reworking of the remake entry and I'm slightly mystified. I'm by no means a fan of either Richard Burton or Sophia Loren, but why does removing their names (and leaving in the others like John Wayne or Christopher Reeve) make the "format consistent"? Also, I wonder if NPOV means that you cannot call a bad movie a bad movie (if the vast majority of film critics -- and I checked that before I started that list -- have done so as well). As there are thousands of remakes of major films out there, what's the point of picking out 13 and putting them on a list? As I see it, the information value of this page has been drastically reduced and, with every new film added, is rapidly approaching zero.

Best wishes, KF 5 Oct. 2002

You're giving me way too much credit by assuming I did what I did on purpose -- I didn't notice there were a couple of others that also had the actors' names in, or I would have taken them out, too, to make them all consistent. The entries are already pretty dense with info, and the actors' names don't add anything pertinent to the topic, and there were more without than with, so I opted for taking out a few instead of putting in many.

As to "bad" movies, it was supposed to be a list of remakes, but there were two lists: one for "disasters" and one for others. I had some movies to add to the list, and I had no way of knowing which of those two lists they belonged on or even who the authority is on what's a disaster and what isn't. So I converted it into one NPOV list. If you want to define your criteria for what's a "bad" movie and what's a "disaster" and put some ratings on them, or expand the paragraph (or create a new article) to specify which ones are "bad" remakes, that would be helpful info for some of the people who will consult this encyclopedia, especially if you discuss who thought it was bad and what they thought was bad about it, but I think that info really belongs on the page for that movie, because that's where anyone looking for info about that particular movie will look for it.

Philosophically, I'm troubled by what I take as your implication that a movie is "bad" if the critics say it is. Yes, NPOV does mean you can't call a movie "bad" just because every critic who ever lived called it bad -- NPOV means you say, "This movie was universally condemned by the critics." As for the "information value" of the page, that is in the eye of the beholder, and my view is that the information value of all Wikipedia pages is zero, because there is no fact in any of them that can be considered reliable, so it seems that your viewpoint and mine are approaching congruence on the value of this particular article, at least.

Thanks for raising these issues with me -- discussions among the contributors are the best part of Wikipedia, whether the majority of critics think so or not. ;-) -- isis 00:27 Oct 6, 2002 (UTC)

Reading your lines gives me the impression that you are convinced that yours is the final word on this subject. How come you do know what NPOV means while I am hesitant and uncertain? (I hardly ever ask rhetorical questions, so this isn't one either.) Of course an encyclopedia is supposed to provide objective information -- no, knowledge, wisdom -- , but does this imply that its users are unable to decide for themselves whether what they are reading is reliable stuff?

Let me quote from what you have written: "It was supposed to be a list of remakes." Wrong. With thousands of films having been remade over the past 100 years, what would be the point of such a list, which could never be exhaustive? Selecting a few random titles and neglecting all the others really manipulates the unsuspecting user of Wikipedia and is really not NPOV. It was supposed to be a list of bad remakes.

"I had some movies to add to this list." No, you didn't. You thought you did because you didn't consider the fact beforehand that there are two basic types of lists: complete and incomplete ones, the latter type just giving some notable examples of what it says on top of the page. Would adding "some movies" to a list that could never be exhaustive improve that list?

Finally, let me rid you of your philosophical worries by simply stating that I tried to define "a bad/disastrous movie" as "a movie considered bad/disastrous by the majority of film critics and cinemagoers". As I said, you are usually not braindead if it occurs to you to consult an encyclopedia in the first place.

And I really don't understand why you think that Wikipedia is wholly unreliable. Are there other people ( i e non-Wikipedians) who own the truth and who consequently do write reliable articles?

Have a nice weekend,

KF 6 Oct. 2002

When is a remake not a remake? IMDB shows some inconsistency with this. Judging from the limited sample I've looked at it seems that if the film is based on a play then the various film versions are listed as versions rather than remakes. However if the original was a book or a film then subsequent versions are listed as remakes. Of course IMDB is not an entirely reliable source of information, you only have to look at the movie connections page for Cyrano de Bergerac (1945) which is confusing to say the least as the 1990 film of the same name is listed as a version, a remake and as a sequel. Mintguy 14:55 Dec 8, 2002 (UTC)

Interesting theory, Mintguy. However, I think it's sloppy terminology rather than controversial schools of thought that's behind all this. To start with, Brief Encounter is based on a play, but the 70s version has been called a remake, and I believe in a case such as the above one example would suffice to falsify a theory, wouldn't it?

Basically, I think that if there are four filmed versions of the same plot (play/novel/original screenplay/whatever), these four versions are the original version plus three remakes.

But surely it has nothing to do with what you think, but what the facts are. If a film is not based on the shooting script Or the visuals of another film then it is not a remake it is a new version of the original book / play / comic. Charlie & The chocolate Factory is not in anyway based on the script for Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory; in fact it would have caused severe issues if it had been, given the Dahl festate's hatred (stemming from Roald Dahl himself) of that film. Not to mention Tim Burton's similar dislike for the Willy Wonka Film.TheRealEverton (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

However, if two films are made at more or less the same time (the BBC mini-series The Life and Loves of a She-Devil with Patricia Hodge (1990) and She-Devil starring Meryl Streep and Roseanne Barr (1989), both based on the novel by Fay Weldon, I guess no one would claim one is a remake of the other.

The BBC version of the book was aired in 1986, pre-dating the film, not post-dating it. As it happens, in this case the makers of the movie were said to to be unaware that the BBC had ever adapted it, the producers having come upon the material through the book - so no, definitely not a remake.Jock123 (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Similarly, the German Edgar Wallace movie Das indische Tuch (1963) is based on the same novel/play as The Case of the Frightened Lady (several versions), but, as it is a foreign film, would probably not be seen as a remake either.

My contention is that remakes are inherently bad (see top of this talk page), with a handful of notable exceptions.

KF 23:48 Dec 8, 2002 (UTC)

Why is your theory on this relevant to an article providing information on remakes? More to the point there is plenty of evidence against your hypothesis. Box office for one, showing that remakes fair relatively well at the box office and are actually pretty popular. You can also find pretty good reviews for many remakes.TheRealEverton (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

It just occurred to me that there may after all be some (hidden) truth in the fact that a remake is more likely to be referred to as a remake if it is not based on a stage play: Filmed versions of plays probably tend to be more similar to, and accordingly easier to compare with, each other because the literary genre of both the stage play and the screenplay is the same (drama), whereas when a novel is turned into a film it has to be dramatised first. Could this be the reason? --KF 00:30 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

Another disputed item on the article - Fistful of Dollars is probably more accurately termed a ripoff of Yojimbo as Kurosawa received no credit whatsoever from Leone. 209.149.235.241 22:56, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What I wrote above more than a year ago is still true. The problem with this page is that it has a random list of films which does not prove or illustrate anything except the bare fact that remakes exist. Obviously any subtle difference as the one mentioned above goes unnoticed. We might do two things: (a) find several categories of remakes (with the inherent danger of being POV) and (b) present the new list in the form of a table. <KF> 23:43, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Karate Kid (2010) was a very popular film at the worldwide boxofficeand has sold extremely well on DVD & Blu-Ray. It has also received a large number of very positive reviews, so there is no justification for having mentioned as an example of "bad" / "disliked" remakes. Moreover your suggestion that most remakes are either flops or critically panned is also without foundation. Many achieve box office and critical success and more achieve at least one than neither.TheRealEverton (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

---

To say that Final Fantasy VII remake, and the Resident Evil 2 and 3 are remakes is highly absurd. Just before naming them as samples it is written: " Typically, a remake of such game software shares its title, fundamental gameplay concepts, and core story elements with the original" and is in the "fundamental gameplay concepts" (it is in fact mechanics) that these games are missing. To put a sample if you convert Monopoly to a shooter, it will not be a remake of Monopoly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2E02:9692:7800:501A:6A88:B674:DFB2 (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

If peeps want to move the list of remakes back, that's a-okay with me, I just the thought it was a big enough list to deserve its own space. jengod 20:17, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

First, why do we need a list of reimaginings if we don't need a list of prominent remakes?

Second, most of the films on this list don't really fit. While Rob Zombie's Halloween may be the archetypal reimagining (his intent was to "reinvent Michael Myers for a new century"), that's hardly true of many of the other examples.

Most notably, Psycho is, to quote this very article, "... almost a shot-for-shot color recreation of the 1960 film...." Unless you believe that black-and-whiteness or the 1960 value of the dollar were the central features of the original, van Sant didn't reimagine anything at all. The movie wasn't marketed as a reimagining, revision, reboot, but as a straightforward "recreation of the nightmare," and van Sant described it as an experimental attempt to exactly copy the original.

On a different note, while Hairspray is significantly different from the original, that's because it's a musical--in fact, an adaptation of the stage musical adaptation of the original movie. I'm not aware of anyone ever calling it a reimagining of the original, and none of the essential themes, characters, or plot points were changed in any significant way.

Similarly, Red Dragon was an adaptation of the same book as Manhunter, but was neither intended nor advertised as a remake of any kind of the earlier movie--and it certainly wasn't a reimagining, given that it was explicitly intended to be a faithful adaptation of its source.

At any rate, I'm not going to try to fix this list, because I believe it should be completely removed from the article. But I'll wait to see if anyone else agrees before doing so. --75.36.139.20 (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

By the way, the explanation for why Batman Begins or the various Alice movies are not remakes of earlier movies fits Red Dragon to a T. While, Planet of the Apes was adapted from both the book and the earlier movie, Red Dragon was only adapted from the same book as Manhunter. --75.36.139.20 (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the above. REAMRED IS NOT A FUGGIN RE-IMAGINATION OR EVEN ENOUGH TO BE A SEQUEL STATUS FOR IT'S LIGHT ALTERATIONS AND ADDS!! Sorry for horrible caps, though I could go back and just...nah screw it. Why I hate the dumb word is because we know it is never picture perfect with new imagination. And now remake is to say THE SAME BY EXACT NATURE? In fact alot share the same translation as the re-imagination still has the basic plot flow and synthesis with the time-line retold. The reality is that it's been here without a name. We just say "their version" and like or hate it. However, the name is adding flames and lies to the word that is the primitive action of a redo, even making us look ignorant for even hating it. You are redoing the same story of the same timeline primarily and there is no strict nature to it as we would have barely any remakes then to think about it! It realy is a lie as I always sense that they are trying even more so to make the older more shamefull, so never think doing it lightly different, which all remakes are different, is the protection (more like for the most insane compainer). You can picture it as that to begin with as we've seen it before, where they need to alter the crap out of a classic to "make it fit the generation".

People will get snobby and upright, but it's not to do with new per say, it is that they wanted the older imagination remastered so to say, new technology or just better presentation of the same story and ideals. New will always be in there, so it ain't that. Alot of times, I never seen much of the older versions till after a remake. I compare remakes to old and like both usually, yet it's still nice to see it refilmed and "remastered" still.

This is more like "Oh, I want my own shot at beleiving I made that story or film", or "No sequels unless we redo the one that ain't one of the bad ones, even if the latest still did over it's budget". Yeah, because the entire franchise is dead due to the shottier sequels. Now is the time to make the better sequel as this immature blinding hype that push out crap is gone after this amount of time, so it isn't that franchise, but the bull. It's also the bull I hate that they can't do what they do here and input the power they put into a remake, into a sequel. Many franchises fail because they push out sequels. We are here, experiencing this with Saw now and I know it's the whole idiotic "I got a great and ecxiting idea for a sequel!" crap as it's not realy intellegence they feed to keep it alive. --BobtheVila (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article says the following (which I'm going to remove):

Some remakes don't credit the first version at all and masquerade as original films; 2000's Oscar-winning Gladiator was actually a remake of 1964's The Fall of the Roman Empire, but was understandably never acknowledged as such, especially since the earlier version was relatively unsuccessful.

While Fall may have been an influence on Gladiator, the movie is in no way a remake. The story owes as much to Spartacus and Ben Hur as to Fall, and it shares very little plot except for the ending and matters of historical fact that would be hard to ignore (although Fall did a pretty good job of trying).

All three authors and the director have acknowledged their influences--predominantly the Augustan History, Gibbons, and the novel Those About to Die, but also the three above-mentioned movies, other 60s Roman-era movies, Zulu, Triumph of the Will, and Eagle in the Snow.

As for Russell Crowe, who rewrote many of the lines on the spot, I'd be willing to bet that he'd never even seen Fall; he claimed that he never made it all the way through Spartacus....

But forget the intentions: does the movie, as it stands, play as a remake of Fall? Not at all. In Fall, Commodus was a weak and insecure man driven to corruption upon discovering that he was a bastard and his father was killed by a secret conspiracy; Livius was a childhood friend of, and loyal general for, Commodus until a civil war (an ahistorical one involving empires that didn't even exist yet) forced him to choose sides. In Gladiator, Commodus was essentially the bloodthirsty tyrant described in the histories (but toned down to be not quite as... Russell Crowesque?), and Maximus was a life-long enemy of his, whose family had been killed and who Commodus had attempted to murder, clearly based on the historical Narcissus (the name is even used in the original draft).

If you're aware of any critics or film historians actually claiming that Gladiator was a remake, cite them and add this back, but I'm striking it. --75.36.139.20 (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

This article states that two films based on the same source material are not remakes, which seems accurate. However, someone keeps adding in something about Shakespeare plays being remakes, which they're not and contradicts what the article says in the previous paragraph. I've added a note to say this. Liquidcow (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

With regards to "in other contexts", the case of an artist wishing to release an improved version (such as to take advantage of newer, higher-def formats) of preexisting material is generally known as remastering, not as a "remake". As well, when an actual remake is made in the context of music, it's most often referred to as a cover. I think whoever added this section is simply confusing the terminology at several levels. I'm removing it. Ham Pastrami (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Spin-off/Continuation not REMAKE (And even if it is new continuity, that isn't a remake. The main character was Connor's cousin Duncan, not Connor, how can it be a remake? Also Christopher Lambert appears *as* Connor in the pilot and the film Endgame. Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Same Source both are based on the book, unless a source can be found citing it being a remake. Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wow, this is one of the worst articles I've ever run across. Mind you, this article needs to exist; it's an important topic. But this whole thing is OR. I know that I don't agree with half of it, and if I wrote it like this, someone would probably feel the same way as I do. I don't see myself taking the time to fix it now, but if anybody else feels like I do, this is one editor inviting someone to get out the machete. Unschool (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Agreed - the definition of what is a re-make is almost immediately contradicted by what follows, confusing the situation immensely. The term is informal and inconsequential, and really requires a dictionary, not an encyclopædic, entry, as there are no firm and fast criteria for something being a remake. To me Ocean’s 11(2001) and Pacino’s Scarface have as much to do with their “originals” as the two Batman examples given (they retain the title, and deal with “baddies”, and that’s it, really. I think that this article is on a hiding to nothing and serves no real purpose in its present state… Jock123 (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

cranky bugs us daisy us —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.122.53 (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I deleted the whole section. It was vague, unclear, uncited, seemingly arbitrary, and generally bad. BoosterBronze (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

It just occurred to me that the edits on Wikipedia are their own forms of remaking. I mention this as I have encountered numerous deletions from an administrator. I have reviewed conflict of interest policies and disagree with this administrator's conclusions. In terms of this page, I attempted to add a reference to an edited, peer-reviewed collection (which I will not name here) on the subject of the filmic remakes of horror, sci-fi and fantasy films. In reading over the section on film remakes, there was a statement made (subjective in nature) that suggested that film remakes are a negative phenomenon. In the research collected in the volume I mentioned, there is social-scientific and philosophical evidence that counters this argument. Alas, this cannot be included in the content of this page. The administrator has decided that this is a conflict of interest, which under my review has a subjective application as a policy. Thus, I am unable to advance a point that suggests that film remakes serve some positive functions in society. Here is a second issue. The administrator removed reference to a peer-reviewed publication but allowed a personal blog page to remain. I mean no offense to the blog artist. I find many blogs to be worthy as sources of reference (and the one linked to this page is good). My point here is to suggest that an administrator's politics (their ability to determine content in a non-dialogic and essentially hegemonic manner) seems to have more to do with certain Wikipedia entry edits than the actual content (which may include peer-reviewed and notable work). Unfortunate, because I think that an administrator ough to be focused on the advancement of public knowledge and not other, more political areas. Xrhetor (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Xrhetor, this is not about "censorship", "tolerance", "politics" or any of the other false claims you're making about my actions. Simply put, a substantial percentage of your edits have involved anonymously posting links, text and other references to your own published work. You may well disagree with the decision to remove your self-references per the conflict of interest and other guidelines, as is your right. You're also certainly entitled to seek other opinions. However, I must object to your chosen methodology, which to date has involved the misrepresentation of both my actions and your own edits. If you want to have a fair, balanced discussion about this, by all means do so in a centralized location rather than on a series of unconnected talk pages, and be clear about what has really occurred. Making false claims, and spreading those claims to multiple pages, does not strike me as "fair" under any definition of the term. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ckatz, you have helped prove a point here. You are the arbiter and you are the one who gets to decide the nature of the content. This has been taken to a new level. I am not permitted to cite my own work, even though, to again quote Wikipedia's policy ("This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing reliable sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.") this can be allowed. Here is one example of how this ultimately impacts the quality of Wikipedia entries. If I wanted to discuss an ethnographic study of the theme park AstroWorld, which some might consider significant, I could not do this per your watchdogging. To do so would be to cite the only work published in this regard, which I have written. So, here you (Ckatz ) fail Wikipedia in two respects: (1) you have limited the encyclopedic content of an entry, (2) you have decided that expert knowledge on a subject is irrelevant. The new level, as you now have raised it, involves your rebuking of my contributions to a number of 'talk' pages. Talk pages are not part of the entry (directly) and now you are deeming those contributions to be illicit. But, certainly, this is not about the power of language, representation or politics...because, so it seems, you have said so. Xrhetor (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Page 346 [356]

A star is reborn. Allusion to A Star Is Born, a classic 1937 film about a self destructive movie star, TWICE remade in 1954 and 1976.

Not without irony...don't you think?--189.136.146.8 (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)--207.249.136.254 (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Hey, I'm not a prophet, astronomer or whatever but it seems there'll be a new 'Star is Born' 2012 with Tom Cruise & Beyoncé Knowles!!!--201.137.14.84 (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)--201.137.184.167 (talk) 04:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is actually a sequel to the original Alice in Wonderland. So, don't call it a remake or re imagining! 174.16.80.109 (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think re-versioning should be merged into this article. The two concepts are very similar, and Re-versioned has long redirected to Remake. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I disagree with merging the two. They may seem like they have similarities at face value, but they are not identical concepts. A Remake (as the Wiki article has been using it) is something that is a 100% brand new work, be it a TV show or movie, even though it is inspired/based upon an earlier work. An example of a remake (as the Wiki article uses it) would be Battlestar Galactica (the 2004 TV Series), Hawaii-Five-0 (the 2010 TV Series), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (the 2003 TV Series) or True Grit (the 2010 Film) when compared their earlier counterparts Battlestar Galactica (the 1978 TV Series), Hawaii-Five-O (the 1968 TV Series), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (the 1987 TV Series) or True Grit (the 1969 Film). Each new TV show/movie is based on an earlier work, but each also diverges greatly from the original work in many aspects. A Re-versioning however is when the original work itself is repackaged as if it were a "new" work (even though it really is not, at least not 100% at its core). Compare Star Trek: The Original Series (the original 1960's airings) to the Star Trek: The Original Series (the remastered 2000's airings), Daragon Ball Z to Dragon Ball Z Kai, Transformers Generation 1 Animated Series to Transformers Generation 2 Series, or the original Star Wars Trilogy in their orginal 1979-1982 theatrical released forms to the more recent 1997 Special Edition forms or even more current DVD Edition Forms. Each one of these "new" TV shows/movies also differ from the original work. However unlike the Remake (as the Wiki article defines it), the differences of a Re-versioning are only superficial at best. New stuff may have been created and added to the Re-versioning to make it different from the original work, but at the core its still the original work. Just with different packaging.172.190.205.106 (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't dispute the fact that remakes and "re-versions" have their differences. My point is that the article on re-versioning is short and not linked to many other articles, so it should be merged into its own section here. The two needn't be the same for them to share the same article. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

AArrgghh. Ok I agree that re-versioning should in no way be merged with remakes. But you demonstrate what is wrong with the remake article. It is full of misconcedption. TRUE GRIT IS NOT A REMAKE! Apart from the FACT that THE WRITERS AND DIRECTORS AND PRODUCERS are pretty clear on the matter; IT HAS NOT BEEN FILMED USING THE FRST MOVIES'S SHOOTING SCRIPT, NOR WAS ITS SCREENPLAY ADAPTED FROM THE FIRST MOVIE'S SCRIPT. It was adapted from THE BOOK TRUE GRIT and if you read that book you can see how the film follows that story and it's focus on Miss Ross, NOT the earlier film's focus on Rooster Cogburn. Maybe you could put a sub section under here but they are fundamentaly different. Even with a shot for shot remake you've only got the framing, lighting etc copied from the original; the actual performances, effects etc are entirely new.TheRealEverton (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

From section Film: "[...] remakes make significant character, plot, and theme changes."

From section Reimagine or renovate (my emphasis): In the 2000s reimagine (or re-imagine) and, to a lesser extent, renovate became popular in reference to remakes which do not closely follow the original. The terms are used by creators in the marketing of films and television shows to inform audiences that the new product is not the same as the old one.

So in what way exactly is this something other than a cool new name? --91.10.40.75 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC).Reply

@ 2409:4043:409:4434:0:0:1AC5:98A0 (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply