io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 3:55 PM
Wed Dec 9
28 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |
Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/07/09
12/07/09
I feel the biggest problem (next to the one-dimensional characters) with the TV series is that they're trying to use so many elements of the book, after completely changing the original premise.
SPOILERS AHEAD.
In the book, the FlashForwards were not self-referential, (since the future they saw didn't have a past in which they saw the future,) whereas in the TV series, people had FlashForwards of them investigating the FlashForward event. This completely changes many questions asked (and answered) in the book, yet they're still using the same answers in the TV show.
For example: The book asks why people didn't simply leave themselves messages from the future. This was explained in the book, but in the TV show, they did leave themselves messages. Perhaps not directly, but since Agent Whatshisface saw his investigation board in the future, relevant information was passed to the present, and it also proves that the future people knew about the flashforward.
Sorry for my long rant, but I rather enjoyed the book, and the TV show is simply annoyingly inconsistent.
12/07/09
Speaking as a dyed-in-the-wool X-Files fan, I don't think so.There are a few similarities. An ongoing mythos does not a copy make.
Personally, I'm strting to like "Fringe" a bit more. Towards the end of "X-Files" it got too formulized.
Popularity is defined by the times we live in.
12/07/09
With the current films in production (or ready to start in the near future). Things like Hellraiser, Robocop, Predators, Short Circuit, Flight of the Navigator and The Never Ending Story. It seems to me that we will look back again in a few years and ask the same question!
And TV's not safe either. The Prisoner, Day of the Triphids and the long awated V.
12/06/09
12/06/09
12/06/09
- Gone with the Wind: Book.
- Godfather: Book.
- Wizard of Oz: Book.
- Raging Bull: Book.
- Vertigo: Book.
- To Kill a Mocking Bird: Book.
- 2001 A Space Odyssey: Book.
There is a very simple reason why we see so many adaptations of books and other media: they actually get sold. If you write a screenplay and you can't find someone willing to spend 100 million to make it happen then nobody will ever see or hear about it. Look at how many feature films are made every year. Now look at how many novels are published every year. If you're going to pour your heart and soul into a story which is more likely to get an audience? The book! Writing an original screenplay is a harrowing and extremely gutsy thing to do since it's at best probably just going to be purchased and filed away never to be seen again.
A book or comic book or play is a low investment way to experiment and try a lot of ideas to see what turns out well and resonates with people.
Which brings me to my next point. If people have a problem with films being remade then they should see the state of live theatrical plays. All across the nation theatrical directors are rewriting and adapting and presenting their own remakes of plays.
Directors aren't necessarily writers. They're story tellers. And it's natural that they want to retell the stories that they themselves have fallen in love with. From a director's point of view there is little difference between being handed an original screenplay and a remake. They are presented a story and they create a film. From a directorial perspective all films are remakes. You're remaking the film you fell in love with when reading the screenplay.
12/06/09
12/07/09
Good point. As I was taking the subway the other day (NY), I saw a poster for "Hair" which is playing on Broadway, was first launched in 1967, now 43 years later it's making money again. Is it because aging Baby-Boomer ex-hippies are re-living their youth or a bunch of middle America tourists wanting to be titilated by a few moments of on stage nudity? Somehow I feel it's the former
12/07/09
Still, Arthur C. Clarke was a 'N'ame that had the same power as a published story.
12/07/09
12/06/09
That's really it in a nutshell. The one thing they're constantly reminding us of at school is that it's all well and good for filmmakers to think of themselves as artists, and that creates better work. But in the end, it's a business above all else, and we have to be aware of that and play to that if we expect to be successful (in this case meaning have anybody see our work) or financially stable.
It's a shame, but in the end the people who are putting their money into the projects are thinking "what is going to give me a good return on my investment?" That's what drives Hollywood.
12/06/09
12/06/09
They're certainly different but with RARE exception I would say they produced just as much drivel as is produce today.
It's unfair to take 90 years of movie making and compare it to 9. Although I would say that the last 19 years of film making have produced more great films than the previous 70.
12/06/09
12/06/09
So, people are sitting there going "Things were so much *better* when I was a kid!" and movie makers are going "let's make stuff from when we were kids, only let's make them with modern special effects."
And there you have your reboots. Some of them were pretty cool, some of them were drivel, but the reason behind them was that the decade sucked.
12/07/09
Then you have the other aspect which I think is the majority of remakes. The original actually wasn't very good. I don't care what context you put Santa Clause vs the Martians-- it's worse than just about any modern blockbuster.
12/07/09
12/06/09
It's been going on for a long time too. Just think of all the different takes on Shakespeare plays. Yes, they (usually) keep the same script... but it's old characters presented in new ways and in new environments.
As far as genre-specific remakes/roboots/reimaginings... I'm not one who says "NO MORE YARMS!" I've been really into the new takes on Batman, 007, BSG, Trek, and V... I've been pleased with all of them.
It's only a problem when it's obviously a lazy cash grab, deliberately trying to profit off of people's fond memories without showing the proper respect to those memories.
That's usually the complaint people have against "YARMS", that they weren't paying proper reverence to the past, not that they shouldn't have done them in the first place.
I think the reason it appears there are so many YARMS these days is because the formula is working... it's making money. That's all there is to it. Once people stop going to see them, then we will see "Hollywood coming up with a unique idea for once".
Also, I think another factor is that there is just WAY TOO MUCH variety these days. There are movies, tv shows, straight to DVD shows, web series, video games that make more money than blockbuster films, etc... the "means of production" have fallen into everyone's hands. An average nerd can make a Star Wars fan film with special effects that surpass the original films... just not the story or acting.
With so many entertainment choices, and all of them having that "polished" look that previously was only attainable by top talent with mega bucks behind them, you get deceived into thinking you're about to see something really entertaining and of top quality, and could be rudely awakened.
So in the face of so many options, and quality that isn't as easy to judge by the cover, people are going with what they know.
12/06/09
Personally I view a film make 40 years ago as something completely different from a modern film. Film 40-50 years ago in my mind is really just a filmed play.
I think 50 years film making will have evolved to a degree that it'll be almost a new art form once again in of itself.
12/06/09
Yeah, I know, he's got a contract and shit, but think of it:
If he's dead in the future, then where did his FF with the clues and stuff come from?
Dem doesn't get killed by him. Does Dem still die or not?
The wife and Lloyd get together, so that part's true.
Etc. etc. etc.
Splat him like Agent Jett Jackson and let's roll the dice.
12/06/09
Of course, yeah, we can also do all sorts of CGI stuff and generally depict stories that we couldn't in the past, but I think they're just might also be something enticing about the idea of reconciling a jarringly off-note vision of the future with what's come to pass as our technological reality.
But maybe that means we'll have to do it again in thirty years. Er.
12/06/09
I find that TOS holds up pretty well today, even though I saw all the episodes when they first ran in the 60s. Sure, it seems like retropunk now, but the social issues it raises are for the most part still as relevant as they were in the 1960s.
And even Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke didn't envision pocket sized phones with access to a global (interplanetary) information network. Today, they would have Floyd voice-dialing his daughter on Earth from the space station using a tiny mobile phone in his pocket and an earpiece. Or maybe just tweeting her. I suspect that will look laughable a few decades from now.
12/06/09
12/06/09
Recently, a reboot means a serious attempt to revitalize (cash in on) a tired series. Usually by hiring a "serious" director, turning the brightness down, and telling the leads to brood more.
12/06/09
12/06/09
What offends me, however, is when remakes are done but adds nothing to the canon or worse, screws it up.
12/06/09
The success of certain reboots is perhaps due to the fact that certain stories such as Star Trek, Dr. Who, Batlestar Galactica, and Batman are particularly successful at retelling those old stories in a way that fits well with contemporary culture. Who is Kirk but Odysseus of the space age? What is Battlestar Galactica but Exodus with rocket ships?
12/06/09
12/06/09
12/06/09
Need, of course, is a conditional statement. Do I need to breathe? No. Do I need to breathe in order to live? Yes. Do I need money? No. Do I need money to pay my rent? Yes. And so on...
So, in saying there is no such thing as an "original idea," you are right on one level. Every element of every story can be found in the stories that came before. Just like every art movement is built upon what came before it. One must have still lifes before one can have impressionism.
Having said that, Star Wars is not original. Hero beats bad guy. The end. Not much original about that. You can expound upon it, bring in the monomyth structure, references to Akira Kurosawa films & space serials, and it would still be considered a derivative work, from a point of view.
However, Star Wars is unique in how these ideas were brought together, how they were presented, as can easily be seen by the reaction of movie goers & the film industry in general. If Star Wars were truly unoriginal, it would have had no effect on movie making on any level.
Is it telling the same story we've seen before? From a non-conditional point of view, yes. Is it a story that the world has seen before? Honestly, from a conditional point of view, which is how we treat the world outside of art critique, no. No one had seen anything truly like Star Wars before.
12/06/09
Writing is like cooking. A different spice will change the flavor of the piece every time.
12/06/09
Then very terrified.