Remaking A Mess Of It

[samkydd]

Back in the 1980s and 90s sequels became very popular, and some of the more recent ones were clinically and cynically made at the same time as the original, and released in line with merchandising production hitting the stores. Accountancy overcomes art every time it seems!



Nostalgia is very big business as well these days. Historically at the end of one century and the first few years of a new one, people psychologically feel more secure in looking backwards rather than forwards, hence the late Victorian/early Edwardian habit of copying styles that had gone before in furniture, architecture and even literature, music and fashions at the turn of the 20th century.



The problem with this in films is that rather than use real nostalgia, ie. the original film, everyone is churning out remakes and completely ruining what was once a marvellous film! Remakes have been around for many years as we all know, The Thirty Nine Steps springs to mind, and the last one in the late 1970s was probably the worst, but they were a rarity compared to today’s industry. Variations on a theme for Dracula and Frankenstein etc will always be made, but in many examples at least the screenplays are original and the characters varied.



The majority of remakes have been poor in recent years, in my opinion, especially those based on original British films, clumsily rejigged on the wrong side of the Atlantic by people who don’t even understand why it was such a good film in the first place, and in the case of comedy, can’t understand the humour at all!



I can’t watch Friends, it’s just not funny to me, it’s awful puerile crap and I have to switch off or leave the room when I'm confronted by it! In the same way I’m sure that some Americans struggle with Little Britain, Early Doors or The Office! I think Lethal Weapon and the Police Academy rubbish were a waste of film, electricity and people's lives, and they'd probably walk out during Restless Natives or Withnail and I!



So with this huge gulf in our respective comedy and film cultures, why on earth do the American film makers think that they can recreate new versions of our fantastic films! If they can’t do a decent job then it’s a bit pointless! It’s a bit of a silly thing to do anyway because like with original artists on classic pop records, the original is almost always the best version! So the accountants are just cashing in on the nostalgia bug, and the film makers don't give a monkeys if their version of the film is good or bad!



I for one am going to boycott every remake, and if more and more people did the same then the message will get home to them in poor box office receipts and DVD sales at Christmas “Stop messin’ with our films!�

[Marky B]

It works both ways. ITV's attempt on Married....With Children failed miserably because it was trying Anglicise a US sitcom - ie using British cast etc,but keeping the tone of original. Likewise the UK version of The Golden Girls - Brighton Belles - and that woeful Barbara starring Gwen Taylor must be one of the worst sitcoms ever. To be perfectly honest,I am perhaps the only person in this country who does not find The Office or Little Britain funny. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbdown.gif[/img]

Ta Ta

Marky B [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[samkydd]

Originally posted by Marky B@May 5 2005, 02:09 PM

It works both ways. ITV's attempt on Married....With Children failed miserably because it was trying Anglicise a US sitcom - ie using British cast etc,but keeping the tone of original. Likewise the UK version of The Golden Girls - Brighton Belles - and that woeful Barbara starring Gwen Taylor must be one of the worst sitcoms ever. To be perfectly honest,I am perhaps the only person in this country who does not find The Office or Little Britain funny. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbdown.gif[/img]

Ta Ta

Marky B [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbsup.gif[/img]

<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Marky B



That's perfectly true, cross polonation rarely works. I remember the US version of Man About the House, and of course Til Death Us Do Part and they were not the best! I heard they were going to do Absolutely Fabulous too at one time (perhaps renamed as Absolutely Atrocious) and they also attempted a pilot of Dad's Army which was embarassing to say the least! But what I can't understand is why can't they write something original? In the UK a sitcom is written by one or two writers, in the US they employ dozens of writers and still can't produce the goods!



I'm not surprised ITV have done remakes of US sitcoms, their track record on original comedy has been pretty dire over the years! The only one I can think of that was any good was Rising Damp, and that was 30 years ago!



I like Little Britain because it's enjoyable traditional character comedy, which goes all the way back to Shakespeare! I was brought up watching Stanley Baxter, Dick Emery, Marty Feldman then later Python, Harry Enfield and The Fast Show. Matt Lucas and David Walliams are very good character performers, even though some of the content may not be to everyone's taste.



I enjoyed The Office, it was different and original, but the creators wisely killed it off after two series and moved on to something new. If it was in the US they'd have employed a team of 76 writers and kept it going for many years until we were all sick to the back teeth of it!



Ta Ta [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/clapping.gif[/img]

[penfold]

Originally posted by samkydd@May 5 2005, 02:25 PM

Marky B



That's perfectly true, cross polonation rarely works. I remember the US version of Man About the House, and of course Til Death Us Do Part and they were not the best!

<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Perhaps not, but they were both very long running, and popular in the States. Three's Company ran for seven years. All in the Family, and its spinoff, Archie Bunker's Place, ran for 12 years.......ok, they were consigned to late-night ITV screenings here, but then many US comedies were...and their longevity indicates their popularity, the way US TV works.

I've seen the Dad's Army remake though....and that was TRULY awful.... [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbdown.gif[/img]

[Freddy]

I agree with some of the comments here, Friends and Little Britain being for me unfunny though I have liked all of the versions of 39 Steps, and having just read the book noticed that there was no female in the Buchan novel.



Although remade films esp. American versions from British don't appeal at all perhaps an important point is that they could to a younger audience and if that's the case then all well and good. Nothing can beat originality but if it leads to them wanting to see the original then that could have the domino effect at them finding all the other gems that we know about.



regards



Freddy



"It's hard work leading an easy life"

[Wetherby Pond]

Originally posted by samkydd@May 5 2005, 01:30 PM

Remakes have been around for many years as we all know, The Thirty Nine Steps springs to mind, and the last one in the late 1970s was probably the worst, but they were a rarity compared to today’s industry. <div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Actually, I thought the 1978 version was a very pleasant surprise, largely because the filmmakers had the wit to go back to John Buchan's original novel and devise a wholly original climax that was arguably the most memorable of all three versions. In the final analysis, it's not up to the 1935 version, but it's by no means a disreputable effort - and a distinct cut above the Kenneth More version.



On the other hand, the 1979 The Lady Vanishes really was truly dire.

[samkydd]

Originally posted by Wetherby Pond@May 5 2005, 10:54 PM

Actually, I thought the 1978 version was a very pleasant surprise, largely because the filmmakers had the wit to go back to John Buchan's original novel and devise a wholly original climax that was arguably the most memorable of all three versions.Â* In the final analysis, it's not up to the 1935 version, but it's by no means a disreputable effort - and a distinct cut above the Kenneth More version.



On the other hand, the 1979 The Lady Vanishes really was truly dire.

<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

If an original film was based on a book, but for whatever reason they veered away from the original story considerably, I suppose a remake would be valid. One in particular which I would dearly love someone to remake into a good film is James Herbert's The Fog. The book is excellent but the film was American, and completely different, which left many Herbert fans and film goers very disappointed.



If made in England with wonderful location shots in Wiltshire, Dorset, Hampshire and Central London it has all the potential of being a latter day Quatermass type film, and with the underhand conspiratorial government and MOD involvement in the creation of the deadly fog, it would have had that Britishness about it that we all love; one man standing up against a wall of red tape and secrecy, doing the right thing for his fellow countrymen! Sounds like it could be an Ealing!

[Wetherby Pond]

Originally posted by samkydd@May 6 2005, 12:02 PM

If an original film was based on a book, but for whatever reason they veered away from the original story considerably, I suppose a remake would be valid. One in particular which I would dearly love someone to remake into a good film is James Herbert's The Fog. The book is excellent but the film was American, and completely different, which left many Herbert fans and film goers very disappointed.

It was "completely different" because it had nothing whatever to do with Herbert's ~ovel and the filmmakers never pretended that it did. John Carpenter and Debra Hill's screenplay was entirely original, and I suspect they were blithely unaware of the book's existence when they wrote it. Had it even been published in the US before they wrote their screenplay?



Since titles can't be copyrighted (unless they contain trademarks themselves), it's just an unfortunate coincidence, in much the same way that two very different films called Black Rain were released in 1989 - a glossy thriller by Ridley Scott and a searching exploration of the after-effects of the Hiroshima bomb by Shohei Imamura.



I don't believe anyone has tried to film the Herbert novel - though the Carpenter film is currently being remade by Rupert Wainwright (who showed at least a modicum of talent with Stigmata, so I'm quite happy to give him the benefit of the doubt).

[samkydd]

Originally posted by Wetherby Pond@May 6 2005, 11:32 AM

It was "completely different" because it had nothing whatever to do with Herbert's novel and the filmmakers never pretended that it did.Â* John Carpenter and Debra Hill's screenplay was entirely original, and I suspect they were blithely unaware of the book's existence when they wrote it.Â* Had it even been published in the US before they wrote their screenplay?Â*



Since titles can't be copyrighted (unless they contain trademarks themselves), it's just an unfortunate coincidence, in much the same way that two very different films called Black Rain were released in 1989 - a glossy thriller by Ridley Scott and a searching exploration of the after-effects of the Hiroshima bomb by Shohei Imamura.



I don't believe anyone has tried to film the Herbert novel - though the Carpenter film is currently being remade by Rupert Wainwright (who showed at least a modicum of talent with Stigmata, so I'm quite happy to give him the benefit of the doubt).

<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

I think the book came out around 1975 and was a bestseller. So it proves my point, the Americans can't even come up with an original title! Why couldn't they call their's The Mist, or The Peasouper, or I Can't Believe It's Not the Fog or something? Probably because they knew that idiots like me and others would assume that it was really The Fog and flock to see it in our droves, which we did!



I can't believe the screenplay writers were unaware of the Herbert novel, it was so famous when it came out you just couldn't avoid not seeing it!

[Wetherby Pond]

Originally posted by samkydd@May 6 2005, 12:51 PM

I think the book came out around 1975 and was a bestseller. So it proves my point, the Americans can't even come up with an original title!

James Herbert isn't exactly the best example to pick if you're looking for blindingly original titles - 'The Rats', 'The Fog', 'The Survivor', 'The Dark'!



In any case, your point would only be proved if you could demonstrate that no-one had ever used that title before Herbert came up with it. And since this demonstrably isn't the case...

</div><div class='quotemain'>Why couldn't they call their's The Mist, or The Peasouper, or I Can't Believe It's Not the Fog or something? Probably because they knew that idiots like me and others would assume that it was really The Fog and flock to see it in our droves, which we did![/b]

Despite the absence of the normally contractually-required credit "Based on the novel by James Herbert" on the poster? And didn't the AA certificate (precursor of 15, and relatively unusual for a late 1970s horror film) suggest it might be a somewhat different type of story from Herbert's lurid cocktail of lesbian sex, masturbating schoolkids and urinating vicars?



To be fair, you can probably blame the film's British distributors for not changing the title to avoid confusion - at around the same time, a film called Only When I Laugh was changed to the clumsy It Hurts Only When I Laugh to avoid confusion with the James Bolam/Peter Bowles ITV sitcom - but I doubt very much that John Carpenter had any say whatsoever in the film's British marketing: at this stage in his career he wouldn't have had that kind of clout.

</div><div class='quotemain'>I can't believe the screenplay writers were unaware of the Herbert novel, it was so famous when it came out you just couldn't avoid not seeing it!

<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

[/b]

This may well be true as far as British bookshop browsers were concerned, but had it even been published in the US? You're welcome to prove me wrong, but I can't find any reference to a US edition prior to the NAL Signet one from 1989, a full ten years after the film came out.

[samkydd]

Originally posted by Wetherby Pond@May 6 2005, 12:29 PM

James Herbert isn't exactly the best example to pick if you're looking for blindingly original titles - 'The Rats', 'The Fog', 'The Survivor', 'The Dark'!Â*



In any case, your point would only be proved if you could demonstrate that no-one had ever used that title before Herbert came up with it.Â* And since this demonstrably isn't the case...

Despite the absence of the normally contractually-required credit "Based on the novel by James Herbert" on the poster?Â* And didn't the AA certificate (precursor of 15, and relatively unusual for a late 1970s horror film) suggest it might be a somewhat different type of story from Herbert's lurid cocktail of lesbian sex, masturbating schoolkids and urinating vicars?



To be fair, you can probably blame the film's British distributors for not changing the title to avoid confusion - at around the same time, a film called Only When I Laugh was changed to the clumsy It Hurts Only When I Laugh to avoid confusion with the James Bolam/Peter Bowles ITV sitcom - but I doubt very much that John Carpenter had any say whatsoever in the film's British marketing: at this stage in his career he wouldn't have had that kind of clout.

This may well be true as far as British bookshop browsers were concerned, but had it even been published in the US?Â* You're welcome to prove me wrong, but I can't find any reference to a US edition prior to the NAL Signet one from 1989, a full ten years after the film came out.

<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Yes, everything you've said is quite possible and probably true.



So I'll amend my original request to; why doesn't someone make a film based on The Fog by James Herbert? I thought it was a pretty good story, masturbating schoolboys and teachers getting immasculated aside (but you can leave the lesbians in if you like)! The story has a British look and feel to it that I like, and I think it would make a good X rated thriller/horror/sci-fi film, and would probably do quite well in The States too! And the best thing of all would be that, ..................it wouldn't be a remake!