hammerofglass wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 10:48 pm
I actually don't know if a TPB remake even makes sense from a business perspective. A lot of it's humor is based on parodying fairy tale conventions while playing them up in a way that shows a deep love for the genre, but 35 years on it's so much the touchstone that others imitate and playing those cliches straight is so dead that I doubt kids today that would be the target audience, kids who grew up with Frozen and Moana and Star vs. The Forces of Evil, would see it as anything special.
Plus it just... never made much money. Not in theaters. It's very much a cult movie by Hollywood standards.
Fair enough but by the same token, what business sense did remaking She-Ra make. Sure, the original has a following but nowhere near as big as He-Man and there was never really a demand for more She-Ra. And yet, the remake is well loved by many and is likely the reason why we're getting so much He-Man right now along with an upcoming She-Ra live-action adaptation.
Frustration wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:07 pm
There is a difference between making an Oz movie and remaking "The Wizard of Oz".
What is the difference between a movie and a TV show, a novel and a game, or a comic and anime? What defines a remake? More then half the stories I pointed to were retelling of The Wizard of Oz with fewer being sequel of the film and the rest where attempts at adaptation of other Oz stories.
Thus, my point still stands, every decade has a Wizard of Oz story that is based more on the 39 movie and ALL of the stories clearly take more influence from that film then the book it's based on.
There is still a critical, crucial difference between making a movie as a response to the 1939 "The Wizard of Oz", and remaking that movie.
"The Wiz" is clearly a remake with a major thematic shift. Others are sequels, some of which do indeed draw heavily on the Oz books. Actual remakes are quite uncommon.
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two equals four. If that is granted, all else follows." -- George Orwell, 1984
Complete reimaginings like She-ra aren't what I was thinking of. You can potentially make anything fresh and modern if you dump everything but the character names and basic concept and start over like they did, and even then it's the best example I can think of. I thought we were talking in terms of stuff like the recent Disney "we did the exact same movie again but in CGI instead of hand animation" movies or that Power Rangers movie everyone already forgot.
Hey now, I liked the recent Power Rangers movie. The kids didn't start as hyper competent, they had to train first. It was pretty good.
As for remakes. How many King Kong remakes? Frankenstein?
Remakes happen. Some do well some don't. Some seem a bit too soon but that might be me getting old.
Pardon the aside, but the line in Civil War when Spiderman mentions 'that old movie'. He is referencing Empire Strikes Back. To me it isn't old. But it actually was before the actor was born. Let alone his character.
So maybe it is not too soon for a Princess Bride remake? They could have better swords, and effects. And potentially a great story. The question is will they get actors as enthusiastic about sword fighting as Elwes and Patinkin?
"The Princess Bride" is like the old-school "Doctor Who": the relatively limited quality of the effects is part of the charm, because the stories and acting are often good enough that we're willing to look past the effects as a storytelling convention. Like ignoring the black-clad puppeteers in Noh theater, or ignoring the reality of the screen and walls while watching any movie.
The original had very little expected of it, but it turned out so well that Patinkin was reduced to tears of joy in the first screening, telling his wife that he never dreamed of being in such a film. You don't remake a film like that - would you remake Casablanca, or Psycho? Or The Seventh Seal? Or Raiders of the Lost Ark?
NO!
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two equals four. If that is granted, all else follows." -- George Orwell, 1984
Frustration wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 4:11 pm
would you remake ... Psycho?
They did, it just wasn't very good. No, not Bates Motel, the forgettable '98 remake.
"I know what you’re thinking now. You’re thinking 'Oh my god, that’s treating other people with respect gone mad!'" When I am writing in this font, I am writing in my moderator voice.
Spam-desu
Frustration wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:34 pm
There is still a critical, crucial difference between making a movie as a response to the 1939 "The Wizard of Oz", and remaking that movie.
"The Wiz" is clearly a remake with a major thematic shift. Others are sequels, some of which do indeed draw heavily on the Oz books. Actual remakes are quite uncommon.
Once again, what makes a remake is open for debate. Case in point, in Wicked, (the play not the book as I've never read it) the first act is an origin story of the Wicked Witch of the West while Act 2 is basically a retelling of The Wizard of Oz but from Elphaba and Glinda's POV. Tin Man, despite being presented as something of a Sequel to Oz is also clearly a retelling of the first story but with a steampunk/noir setting instead of a fantasy one.
