|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 13, 2020 1:43:52 GMT
Debatable. Do you consider the Psycho (1998) to be a remake of the original Hitchcock film? The original was also based on a book, but the remake was clearly a shot for shot remake of the Hitchcock film, more inspired by that than the novel. Just because a remake is based on a movie based on a book doesn't necessarily mean the book is the source material. The basis for the Psycho remake is the original film, so yes. John Carpenter's The Thing isn't based on the older Christian Nyby film The Thing from Another World, but on the story 'Who Goes There?'. Hence no remake. I think an argument could be made for both depending on the circumstances. Cape Fear is based on a novel and the Scorsese movie is noticeably different than the original movie, but uses the same score and has both original actors in small supporting parts. I think in cases where there is only one previous adaptation it is splitting hairs to argue about the definition of remake. Calling every version of Hamlet or Jane Eyre a remake is where I draw the line.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 13, 2020 1:50:26 GMT
The basis for the Psycho remake is the original film, so yes. John Carpenter's The Thing isn't based on the older Christian Nyby film The Thing from Another World, but on the story 'Who Goes There?'. Hence no remake. I honestly don’t believe the directors of the remake go and read the original novel or source material. I think they go by the original movie. I own The Thing on dvd along with the original. John explicitly said he wanted to remake the original Thing from another world. Really??? None of them? That is a ridiculous assumption. The screenwriter of Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes must have read the novel, because the novel doesn't take place on Earth and it is so different than the movie that it can't be called a direct remake of the movie. Though it does give a shout out to the movie here and there. Same with Spielberg's War of the Worlds. In the novel they are tripods, not flying saucers. I don't even know what the 2019 version of Pet Sematary is, because it is vastly different than both the novel and the 1989 movie. I'd have to call it a re-adaptation, because it has nothing in common with the movie besides the basics that are already in the novel.
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Jan 13, 2020 8:51:36 GMT
I Spit on Your Grave
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Jan 13, 2020 13:46:05 GMT
I honestly don’t believe the directors of the remake go and read the original novel or source material. I think they go by the original movie. I own The Thing on dvd along with the original. John explicitly said he wanted to remake the original Thing from another world. Really??? None of them? That is a ridiculous assumption. The screenwriter of Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes must have read the novel, because the novel doesn't take place on Earth and it is so different than the movie that it can't be called a direct remake of the movie. Though it does give a shout out to the movie here and there. Same with Spielberg's War of the Worlds. In the novel they are tripods, not flying saucers. I don't even know what the 2019 version of Pet Sematary is, because it is vastly different than both the novel and the 1989 movie. I'd have to call it a re-adaptation, because it has nothing in common with the movie besides the basics that are already in the novel. I didn’t mean none of them. Honestly the 2 movies you just mentioned I had no idea the original movies were so vastly different from the original novel, but then again I didn’t care for those remakes. I read Pet Sematary and I wasn’t impressed with the novel or the original movie. You’re right though what I saw in the remake had very little to do with the original novel or movie even though it seems to take more cues from the original movie. I guess the one in particular I was going by was the Death Wish remake. Death Wish was originally a novel and I thought the remake was closer to the novel, but actually it was farther from the novel. Some directors don’t go back and read the original material.
|
|