Metropolis remake?

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

No amount of CGI or tens of million of dollars can recreate this majesty because part of its strength is that it was made at the peak of German Expressionism - a time long gone and that will never return.

It is interesting you say this - I was certain at times during the first few Batman films that some sort of homage was being paid to the expressionist movement.

Having said that, I am not sure how Metropolis can work - the themes and ideas were all social experiements of the future. Today they are experiments of our past. Some worked, many failed. The point is we know the result, so that whole process of speculation that made Metropolis, is closed to us.

[Nikitta]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

As for all stories being "remakes", "retellings", etc.... this is theoretically true, but only on an extremely basic level. One could as easily say that every story that tells of overweening ambition (as opposed to pride) is a retelling of Aesop's story of the dog with the bone seeing his reflection. A remake, on the other hand, is just that: an attempt to redo an older film with changes while still capitalizing on the popularity and status of the original. By its very essence, it is prone to short-circuit creativity; and where it does attempt to differentiate itself from the original, it usually (not always, but usually) does so just to be different, without regard to the internal logic of the storytelling, the cinematographic effect, or any other aspect of what might be called "quality".

That is what I have against remakes....

I remember watching 1984, made in 1984, and thinking that it could've been done so much better and I've since wanted to see it made that much better so that it will also make sense to those who have not read the book and I won't need to explain the scenes to anyone.

A movie should be able to explain itself alone; if it doesn't, it's a failure. When I tell people that I'd like to see it made better, they will tell me that there are so many other stories with the same theme and they're right, but it's this particular story I'd like to see, only made better.

Does that mean that I'm wanting a remake?

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Nikitta

I remember watching 1984, made in 1984, and thinking that it could've been done so much better and I've since wanted to see it made that much better so that it will also make sense to those who have not read the book and I won't need to explain the scenes to anyone.

A movie should be able to explain itself alone; if it doesn't, it's a failure. When I tell people that I'd like to see it made better, they will tell me that there are so many other stories with the same theme and they're right, but it's this particular story I'd like to see, only made better.

Does that mean that I'm wanting a remake?

Yes... and no. With something like 1984 (or the numerous adaptations of Austen, Dickens, etc.), what you're dealing with is primarily a literary text that's being adapted to the screen. Some of the adaptations will be very similar (especially if they are attempting to be fairly true to the original material), while others will take their own route (while still attempting to capture at least the feel and spirit of the original material -- if they have any respect for it, that is). So what you're asking for is another adaptation of a literary work, one that meets those requirements.

A remake (as commonly meant) is the redoing of what is primarily known as a film, and the only reason it is considered for remaking is because of the reputation of that original film. Without the reputation and fame of that original piece in the same medium, the remake would not even be considered; they'd look to something else (whether an adaptation of a literary work or an original screenplay) instead of redoing what has been done before. (This is true even with bad films that are remade; as they've got some sort of cachet to begin with, else filmmakers -- especially producers -- are simply not going to touch it with a barge pole. This is an entertainment industry first; any art that comes out of it is through the particularly strong personality of a guiding hand or incidental. The first point is to make money on what is, after all, a very expensive thing to produce in the first place.)

Which brings us to Shakespeare (or, for that matter, any other playwright) and the numerous filmic takes on his work. While Shakespeare was written to be read (in various senses of the term), his plays were also written to be performed, by various actors at different times and in different places. A film of such is simply another staging of material intended for numerous dramatic presentations to begin with; there was no intent to have a "definitive" take on any such plays, nor can there ever really be such. A film that is not an adaptation of a literary classic, on the other hand, is initially made with intent to succeed itself, as something that already is the definitive handling of this particular piece. Often this would seem to be the case even when it is an adaptation of a preexisting but lesser-known literary work -- though there the claim is more than slightly doubtful. Remakes are done with full knowledge that they are competing with the original film, and (as said above) intent to capitalize on said film. Otherwise it's extremely unlikely that the original film would ever even be noted (by the filmmakers, at least) at all.

[kaelcarp]

From a financial standpoint, it makes a lot of sense to remake a classic film or TV show. You have a much better chance of making a profit because there is a built in audience who will be at least curious. Films not based on anything pre-existing need to be marketed from scratch. It costs more and is less reliable.

From an artistic standpoint, it's stagnant. It's uninteresting. It's disappointing to those of use who want something new.

Unfortunately, as film costs go up, the need weight of importance moves to the finances over the art. One of the things that will be good about the democratization of technology in the coming years is that it will soon be possible to make a pretty high quality movie with home equipment for comparatively little money. Actually, it already is possible, but you still have to be really technically skilled. In time, it will get easier.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by kaelcarp

From a financial standpoint, it makes a lot of sense to remake a classic film or TV show. You have a much better chance of making a profit because there is a built in audience who will be at least curious. Films not based on anything pre-existing need to be marketed from scratch. It costs more and is less reliable.

From an artistic standpoint, it's stagnant. It's uninteresting. It's disappointing to those of use who want something new.

Unfortunately, as film costs go up, the need weight of importance moves to the finances over the art. One of the things that will be good about the democratization of technology in the coming years is that it will soon be possible to make a pretty high quality movie with home equipment for comparatively little money. Actually, it already is possible, but you still have to be really technically skilled. In time, it will get easier.

On the expense of making films... that has skyrocketed due to overinflated salaries for various actors coupled with the "goshwow!" special effects extravaganzas (especially in the sff fields, but also in much general filmmaking)... something that really isn't necessary to make either a quality or popular film... or even a "classic" film which remains popular (though Hollywood never can seem to quite get that distinction -- the shadows of such as D. W. Griffith and Cecil B. DeMille remain long) as the history of cinema can demonstrate quite well.

As for the other point... yes, I agree. The fact that we are seeing a lot of amateur adaptations of literary works which, however crude, nonetheless manage to be more faithful and capture more of the feel of the original material than anything the big boys have turned out for a couple of decades (at least), strongly indicates this may be a very beneficial trend in the future....

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by MG1962

It is interesting you say this - I was certain at times during the first few Batman films that some sort of homage was being paid to the expressionist movement.

You may be right about Batman but I think it important to keep homage seperate from actuality. The German Expressionist movement was a creation of its time - influenced heavily by both the defeat of Germany in WW1 and the post war confusion that followed. Homage (as respectful as it may be intended by the creator) is not subject to the same circumstances and is, for want of a better phrase, merely a copy of an actuality.

[kaelcarp]

A pretty good amount of what Tim Burton has done is either an homage to or is very strongly influenced by German Expressionism, as far as I can tell.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

You may be right about Batman but I think it important to keep homage seperate from actuality. The German Expressionist movement was a creation of its time - influenced heavily by both the defeat of Germany in WW1 and the post war confusion that followed. Homage (as respectful as it may be intended by the creator) is not subject to the same circumstances and is, for want of a better phrase, merely a copy of an actuality.

Oh I dont disagree in the slightest - There will never be another true Expressionist film made, for the exact reason you suggested. But it is still nice to see a modern film maker respect the influence the movement has on their work.

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Oh I dont disagree in the slightest - There will never be another true Expressionist film made, for the exact reason you suggested. But it is still nice to see a modern film maker respect the influence the movement has on their work.

I agree with you 100%. and I think the most important word for me is 'influence'