# Remakes **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 9, 2011, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remakes/574016 "2011-03-09T06:28:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remakes/574016/21 "2011-03-09T22:14:39Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I wouldn’t have a problem with something like this (and might even prefer it to the original) if it were done well— **but it wouldn’t be _Romeo & Juliet_**. Exactly, so it would have no business calling itself Romeo and Juliet. > [@Sakuma\_Drops](#): > > Anyway, I’m not all that up in arms about this stuff I guess. It’s annoying, I personally disagree that the changes were needed, but I still watch the \*Star Wars \*movies from time to time. That example was slightly tongue in cheek, I also try to ignore the changes. I wish I’d never heard the Greedo thing, as I don’t think I’d have noticed otherwise, and I can’t help seeing it now. I have to skip the awful scene with Jabba though, where Han steps on Jabba’s tail because it was shot with a fat bloke playing Jabba instead of a giant slug, and Han walks right behind him. Hardly the action of a man trying to placate a mob lord, and not something Jabba would take. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Q](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/898d66/32.png) [@Johnny\_Q](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Q)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remakes/574016/22 "2011-03-10T02:10:20Z")
Not to mention that the Jabba scene is almost word for word the same scene that Han played with Greedo just five minutes previous. At least get in some fresh dialogue, George. ---
**Author:** ![Sakuma\_Drops](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Sakuma\_Drops](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sakuma_Drops)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remakes/574016/23 "2011-03-10T02:22:08Z")
> [@Johnny\_Q](#): > > Not to mention that the Jabba scene is almost word for word the same scene that Han played with Greedo just five minutes previous. At least get in some fresh dialogue, George. Maybe that’s why they cut it the first time around? I think you’re right, though, it’s still a throwaway scene even with the new CGI-Jabba. But I guess by the mid-1990s they couldn’t entirely re-shoot it (late 1970’s Harrison Ford was unavailable, I believe he had a snake victims support group to got to that day), and dubbing new dialogue over the old would have looked silly. They could have put in a CGI-Han Solo in addition to the CGI-Jabba, that would have been interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remakes/574016/24 "2011-03-10T02:27:57Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > I don’t see people getting up in arms about cases like _The Osterman Weekend_ or _Ice Station Zebra_ or _Diamonds are Forever_ or _the Spy Who Loved Me_ not closely resembling the original – in those cases there’s hardly any resemblance beyond the title. (Why is it mostly espionage and science fiction novels that seem to elicit this treatment?) These are relatively minor works that most people don’t have a deep attachment to. Also, people who are fans of James Bond tend to be fans of the James Bond movies; not nearly as often of the books even if they’ve read them at all. Whereas there weren’t any fans of _Starship Troopers_ or _I, Robot_ except the literary ones, because that’s all there was to be a fan of in the first place. James Bond fans aren’t offended by the movie not matching the book because that wasn’t what they wanted or expected or were even familiar with in the first place; the exact opposite of Asimov and Heinlein fans. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remakes/574016/25 "2011-03-10T02:38:02Z")
This topic was handled so much better in the original threads. ---
**Author:** ![jordanr2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/838e76/32.png) [@jordanr2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jordanr2)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remakes/574016/26 "2011-03-10T03:56:59Z")
> [@Bob Ducca](#): > > Which was recorded after the movie had been kicking around awhile, right? I imagine he’d have said something different if he’d recorded it while going through pre-production. > > I personally saw a lot of great bits of satire in ST, and enjoyed it quite a lot, but I wasn’t familiar with the source material when I went into it so I had nothing to complain about except the cheesy dialogue and acting. I doubt this. The film goes so far afield from its source material in specific ways that it’s hard to believe he didn’t do it intentionally. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remakes/574016/27 "2011-03-10T05:39:44Z")
> [@jordanr2](#): > > I doubt this. The film goes so far afield from its source material in specific ways that it’s hard to believe he didn’t do it intentionally. IIRC, the _Starship Troopers_ movie originally had nothing to do with the book, nor was it named that; then a few details were changed so they could slap the name on it and claim a connection. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remakes/574016/28 "2011-03-10T05:49:42Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I think what bothers me about remakes is that they give the wrong impression to people who have seen the movie but not read the book. I weep at the thought that someone could see, for example, Tim Burton’s recent movie and come away thinking that that’s what _Alice in Wonderland_ **is**. That’s what bothers me about a bad adaptation or remake - it hurts the reputation of the original. I’ve seen people say that _Watchmen_ was a bad movie because it was based on a comic book. Which is wrong, _Watchmen_ was a bad movie because it was a bad movie - it was a great comic book. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remakes/574016/29 "2011-03-10T05:51:26Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > IIRC, the _Starship Troopers_ movie originally had nothing to do with the book, nor was it named that; then a few details were changed so they could slap the name on it and claim a connection. I’ve never heard that abut _Starship Troopers_. Are you sure you’re not mixing it up with _I, Robot_, where that was the case? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remakes/574016/30 "2011-03-10T06:02:43Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’ve never heard that abut _Starship Troopers_. Are you sure you’re not mixing it up with _I, Robot_, where that was the case? From the _Starship Troopers_ entry on Wikipedia: > [@](#): > > There are many differences between the original book and film. A report in an American Cinematographer article states that the Heinlein novel was optioned well into the pre-production period of the film, which had a working title of Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine; most of the writing team reportedly were unaware of the novel at the time. According to the DVD commentary, Paul Verhoeven never finished reading the novel, claiming he read through the first few chapters and became both “bored and depressed.”[3] ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remakes/574016/31 "2011-03-10T06:40:00Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That’s what bothers me about a bad adaptation or remake - it hurts the reputation of the original. I’ve seen people say that _Watchmen_ was a bad movie because it was based on a comic book. Which is wrong, _Watchmen_ was a bad movie because it was a bad movie - it was a great comic book. Y’know, I thought _Watchmen_ was a great movie _and_ a really good comic book, FWIW… ---
**Author:** ![panamajack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/47e85d/32.png) [@panamajack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panamajack)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remakes/574016/32 "2011-03-10T06:40:51Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That’s what bothers me about a bad adaptation or remake - it hurts the reputation of the original. I’ve seen people say that _Watchmen_ was a bad movie because it was based on a comic book. Which is wrong, _Watchmen_ was a bad movie because it was a bad movie - it was a great comic book. In a certain way, the claim is true. _Watchmen_ is a bad adaptation[sup]\*[/sup] in large part because it tries way too hard to look like the comic book. There’s no inherent reason a movie based on a comic would be bad, although it’s perhaps slightly easier to screw it up (than say, a book without pictures). Some books are probably more adaptable just based on the writing and structure, although that doesn’t mean they will make a better movie. A good example : Dan Brown is much easier to adapt than Umberto Eco, but I’d say (of the movies) that _The Name of the Rose_ is marginally better than _The DaVinci Code_. \*Changed on edit: As a movie, I think it’s fairly okay, but it is a poor adaptation for the reason claimed. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remakes/574016/33 "2011-03-10T06:42:22Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > Y’know, I thought _Watchmen_ was a great movie _and_ a really good comic book, FWIW… You’re not alone in this, brother. I love the comic and thought the movie was excellent. ---
**Author:** ![Sakuma\_Drops](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Sakuma\_Drops](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sakuma_Drops)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remakes/574016/34 "2011-03-10T13:38:22Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’ve seen people say that _Watchmen_ was a bad movie because it was based on a comic book. That’s an interesting view, considering how many comic book movies are critically acclaimed (e.g. _Dark Knight_). Do those people mean that _all_ comic books are bad? Or just _Watchmen_? Perhaps the problem with _Watchmen_ is that it didn’t have as much of a reputation among the general public that many other comic series did. _Daredevil_ was a mediocre movie but when it came out I didn’t hear anyone saying that Daredevil was a crappy superhero or that the comics sucked. ---
**Author:** ![jordanr2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/838e76/32.png) [@jordanr2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jordanr2)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remakes/574016/35 "2011-03-10T13:39:09Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > From the _Starship Troopers_ entry on Wikipedia: After reading that, I’m even more favorably disposed toward the film! ---
**Author:** ![One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/838e76/32.png) [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/One_And_Only_Wanderers)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remakes/574016/36 "2011-03-10T13:45:23Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > The victorians changed Romeo and Juliet so it had a happy ending. Hollywood would do the same if they thought there was a buck in it. > > If the OP is exclusively complaining about nitpicking movie adaptions where details or aspects have been changed, then I agree with them. However, this doesn’t seem to be the case from their second post. Many times, film-makers make changes for commercial rather than artistic reasons, and that’s what rankles with fans of the original work. > > My example is [The Dark is Rising](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Is_Rising) series of childrens fantasy books. I greatly enjoyed these growing up, and still dig them out from time to time. In the wake of Harry Potter’s success, the second book was adapted into a [film](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seeker:_The_Dark_Is_Rising). The result was not good, it has a score of 14% on Rotten Tomatoes, and 39% on Metacritic. > > It’s a complete waste of the source material. Preach it Bro’ I can still quote from memory When the Dark comes rising Six shall turn it back Three from the circle, three from the track Wood, Bronze, Iron, Water, Fire, Stone Five will return and one go alone I have spared myself the pain of attempting the movie, as I was warned aforehand. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remakes/574016/37 "2011-03-10T21:59:54Z")
> [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](#): > > I can still quote from memory I’ll be really impressed if you can quote the welsh bit from memory. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remakes/574016/38 "2011-03-10T23:28:12Z")
> [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](#): > > I have spared myself the pain of attempting the movie, as I was warned aforehand. I shall warn you a second time. Even if you ignore or are unaware of its source material, the movie is utter shite from start to finish. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2011, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remakes/574016/39 "2011-03-11T08:02:55Z")
I definitely agree that no matter how atrocious a remake or adaptation is, we’ll still have the original, so it’s stupid to say that the original is somehow ruined. It’s still there. But: 1. News of an upcoming adaptation causes _anticipation_. The original material is well loved, so there is _expectation_ that the new version will be a serious bonus. First because it’s like experiencing the original work again, but also because the new work is in a different possibly more sensory pleasing medium (i.e. text -\> audiovisual). So if it sucks, it’s like a broken promise. OTOH I don’t think there’s much justification for whining about a remake. That has built-in expectations that it will be a different take. There’s no reason to expect something better. At best you can expect something timelier with better effects. 1. There’s the issue of respect to the original material: 2a) If you badly adapt it, that implies something bad about the original. If you hire a portrait artist to paint your wife, and the portrait is ugly, that kind of implies that the artist sees your wife in a different and less positive way than you do. 2b) Different interpretation - every adaptation includes a point of view of sorts. If the consumers of the original see the original as having a certain point, and the new work makes a different point, it’s off putting. For example, my reading of the novel Sphere I interpreted as being wholly anticipatory to the passage where the point-of-view character finally enters the sphere in question and discovers what’s inside. And that passage was extremely satisfying as a denouement of the built up anticipation. But in the film, we _never see in side the sphere_! So obviously the director had a different idea about what the anticipation and denouement were about. But the viewer is left… unsatisfied in that regard. 2c) If it’s especially overdone with regards to changing things, it begs the question of “why bother”? Just fucking make your own movie that you want to make that’s vaguely similar, and don’t bother paying for the rights to my story if you are just going to change everything anyway. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2011, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remakes/574016/40 "2011-03-11T08:11:15Z")
OTOH I understand that a film can’t cover the same ground as a novel. It will have to shorthand some things. But it does kind of need to at least convey the core or spirit of the original work. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remakes/574016.md?page=1)