Sounder SIGN UP FOR FREE
Talking Images
Talking Images

Episode 42 · 8 months ago

Remakes That Are Better Than the Original

ABOUT THIS EPISODE

What is the first thing you think about when you hear the word "remake"? Is it an industry entirely out of ideas? Is it desperate or greedy execs trying to make a quick buck? Or is it perhaps just a non-verbal sigh?

In this episode, we'll try to get away from all the negativity and look at the remakes that not only delivered but ended up being even better than the original.

We may ruffle some feathers here, so do shout out if you disagree with any of our choices.

You are listening to talking images, the official podcast of ICM Forumcom. Welcome back everyone, I'm Chris, and in this episode we will be asking the time old question why, why are you doing this again? What's the purpose of all of this? Do we really need to see the same story brought to life again and again and again? See. Yeah, this episode will be a bit of a deep dive into tired complaints and anti remake rhetoric. Hell, perhaps you even add some beautiful at remake rhetoric of her own. But it won't be all doom gloom. We will look past the empty copies and laughable travesties and actually try to focus in on the remakes that managed with better than the original. Some of these choices will probably get you nodding along, while others we expect made this be a little controversial. So just prepare yourself a little. With topic like this one, it may be a bumpy ride. Well, let's just hear you too much and kick this right off with me. Today are metory, absolutely wonderful co hosts, mature, Saul and Tom. So there's the introduce itself, guys, and once you're done, I'd going to tell me a little bit of a very association game, Matthew, and if I'm at you from France, Tom. Hi, this is Tom from England. I'm excited to talk about remakes today, and so highs the soul from Australia. So, guys, let's do a little bit of Word Association game at well, what's the first word that comes to mind when you hear the word remake? I guess contexts, because that's what really makes that work. Kind of you can use for in their favor right. It's two different contexts. I guess I could also say lack of originality, but that's there's a couple of words that come to my mind. Lazy and what inspired, which I know is not the case for all remakes, but that tends to really my general feelings towards films that tread this path. The first word for me is not actually a word, or just be a side, but that's the first instant reaction after take a few minutes the process that it's really a case of whether the original was that good. If it's an all time classic, then year it does make me sigh. It it's a film which was a bit flawed and first place it actually can be interesting if it gets remade. Yeah, I think that's the spot of Sol that semi side is part of my vocabulary, if you will as well, because I think you hate the nail on the head. When they remake it's a successful film, it's usually just to try to do that film again or just it's usually just to get try to jump on the bandwagon. But if they do something slightly more obscure or something I was a bit more flawed, or you see interesting names attached to it, it may actually try to do something of its own. But let's continue this Verre Association game with one further step, because there's another thing out there called reboots, and reboots are almost extensive, extreme remakes roughout than just remaking a film. They remake the basic idea and just start off the entire story and series again. So what is the very first word or first thoughts that come to mind when you hear the word reboot? See, this is where I go to sort outs and go themsbord with like an excite, because I think we boots are generally much worse than the makes. I guess I asso Shit be boots with franchises, and so I guess I have a maybe a worse association with with boots. That's interesting, Massio, because I think I'm the opposite way around to you. I'm more open to the idea of reboot some more intrigues and interesting baton, because they usually an entirely new project, obviously based upon your original works, but they can incorporate more ideas than in a remake. So I think that peaks my curiosity a bit more than just a straightforward remake. Yeah, I have to agree with our Tom on this one. I actually the neither them really get me very excited. reboots can least sometimes be more intriguing than a remake, especially if they's taking on different direction. If we think about the recent joker film with Joking Phoenix, that was a very different direction, adding in a whole different back story that we hadn't seen before. So that can be intrigue. It do doesn't always work, but I think it has more open to...

...possibilities rather than taking the exact same story and try to do the exact same story again and maybe sometimes updated from modern times. Yeah, I'll have to join the choir there in that. reboots, yes, they are very closely type to franchise filmmaking. But these franchises have been around for such a long time and essentially, when you go about the reboot, there is always a potential for something new because you start to refit everything from new era, you find new actors. I think can carry this for such a long time and there's often a larger investment than there is do it a singular remake, which might just be to, you know, cash in on something that once was. And I think you have almost more successful reboots, especially in the franchise as Rythmer. Let's remember that the first Batman, for instance, is from the four teeth and there's been quite a few successful Batman reboots over the years, from not Tim Burton's Batman to Christopher all of Batman and even, like they said, the joker, from the same high type of general franchise. But I really think that within franchise filmmaking, reboots can be better and more interesting than your general remake. So to expand, I guess a bit. I'm thinking of a recent example rights Steven Spielberg is remaking west side story and though my reaction to that is why I guess I'm still interested. All Right, I'm still curiously, just silistic exercise that that it is, even though I'm not expecting it to be very good. I guess. I guess I'm curious when I hear or we are we launching spider man and not that curious. It could be good hight and yeah, but yeah, it just doesn't make me as curious because it's not statistic exercise. I think it's more of the naked way to just use the name often. I think joker is exactly that. Actually, I happened to not like that film, but even if I did, it's just, I think Todd Phillips said himself that's part of the reason he made the film is just because it's commercially viable to do that film. It's as opposed to making the same film with the character who doesn't have that name. And so yeah, so I think that generally we boots are more, even more nakedly commercial than remakes. That obviously it's it's not always the case. So for a final part of differ for fasting able to do it dump to something that's cool to remake and reboots but coming from a little bit of a different place. So what if the first word or taught to come to your mind when you hear that a famous novel or graphic novel, that's that it's going to get adapted ones again and it is not be something that happens even more than remakes. I guess I'd see why not. It depends also how strong the pesious adaptations were, but I'm generally more but inclined towards the meditations. Then you know you're I think a lot of it depends on the original novel that is being readapted. If it's a novel that I'm interested in, I'm obviously going to be curious to see what the readaptation of the film is like, regardless of if I love the previous adaptation of it or not. So I'm quite open to readaptations. So there really cleary adaptations should be something that's has some problem for me. I don't know if it is. I don't know if it isn't. I guess what I've found a lot of times when I've been watching films and the different versions of them. Even though it says that you know it's adapted from this novel rather than a previous screenplay, a lot of the techniques and different shots, different things the characters do are actually lifted from previous versions of the film rather than from the actual source novel. So I think it's a lot of inspiration still taking from earlier versions, which makes them hard to watch, the compare and contrasting. However, that said, you know through Reculi, should be an entity of their own if it's a new adaptation. Just like mature said, it just depends on how good the original version was and how much the new one could been bring to the table. I'm thinking of the reason I am a film with on your tailor joy and she's an amazing actress, but I don't know if that newer version actually bought anything news to the table beyond what the Gwen of cultural version did from the s well, we shull style wasn't it? But I really like the Emma. But I think I mean more or less is the same place as you and I'm trying to think of why. Why is it that readaptations feel so different? And I think it part of that is because many remakes try to just recreate the spirit of the original film. Detractors map just try to do what it did again before a new audience, or it often just feel as feel like a weak imitation but with every dation of a book or a play, for instance, there is a lot...

...more new interpretation to be brought in, and I mean we see this over and over again. I mean look how many Times Hamlet, for instance, has been brought to life on the screen, or Salome or did this. So many places, so many great, great books as well, just keep getting potentially interesting adaptation and often the films not look at each other at all. So you have completely different perspective of who these characters are, completely different perspectives of how to bring you to life, and they can be far more inspired, at least in my mind. Would you agree with that or will you completely Disabil yeah, I don't think I really agree, even though I genuinely I'm more positive towards the idea of the adaptation. I think in practice it just depends a bunch of other factors that are much more important than whether or not it to remake or we adaptation. I guess like again, if I'm thinking of the current example of sin coming up, it would be June right. The obvious example the even Ne Dune, which is a readaptation, and I am excited for that. But I'm excited for it because it's sci fi done by a director who does sisy. Well, I'm not more excited because so adaptation. I guess it. That makes sense, I think. I think it just one tiny factor. Oh Yeah, I think you're quite right, and that I think that the very few people get over the excited unless a lot of the book and just want to see it over and over again. A lot of the player want to see it over and over again in different ways. I think that just the fact is being made if that the interesting, at least to us who perhaps have a much more interest in, you know, the stylistic elements of it, what the directors and actors that that are bring to life. We might have different standards too, but I think that usually the people involved in the project is what makes it exciting rather than just being another adaptation of property we might like. I would definitely agree that's a lot of my interest in the readaptation depends on who is involved in the project. Matteo brought up tune into the conversation, which is a perfect example, because I cannot wait to see another sci fi from villaineus now. Also, there's another good example recently, which was the little women readaptation. I can't say I'm a fan of the original source novel is such, but I was excited to see another Gretagi film and it's just interesting to see a different voice in a different approach to the film from it, you know, another talented director, which is often the case when we get reaptations that do well. Little women is an industry example, because I watched and discussed it with quite a few people afterwards and it seems to be one where your experience with the film benefits from seeing other versions of the tail, because what going does with the film it just, you know, playing everything out of order and very subtle differences and characters between different time periods. It's actually bit disorientating even to come into it as somebody who's never read the novel and never see any other film versions. And the people are speaking the true really liked the film, were commenting on how it different from the source material or how it different from other film versions. So I guess that's a tribute thing with adaptations like that. The other thing to probably hive in mind with notations is a probably more the film's going to discuss today readaptations then you'd think of. First I know at least one of the two films that Tom mentioned before the podcast is actually based on a novel. So even though I've got two different versions of it, they could technically be readaptations. And I guess, Take Lee, anything that isn't based on original screenplay is a readaptation. I mean they might claim they're doing it more from the film or more from the book, but if the film is out there, you know it's really hard to say whether they're taking inspiration fraud, and not even unconsciously. So I would say that you're pretty much anything that's based on a source material, novel, play, etc. would be a readaptation rather than a remake, whereas tend to looking a remake would only be if it's an original screenplay. But I don't know if it's an opinionship by my cohosts. I think you're actually spotted on there, because some films, even if they're adapted from extremely famous source material, just becomes solid conic that is impossible not to w from it. I think one of the most obvious, I mean has to be Frankenstein from that Didn Tirty One, and obviously Franks I had been adapted before thousand, Ie hundred and thirty one as well. But like what that film added to the story is what almost every other version of Frankenstein since has done, and it has nothing to do with the book. I mean, as everyone who's read the book knows, it's essentially as teenage lash German Frankistein is not a professor, he's a s student. He assembles a highly intelligent monster who then...

...stalks him and feels his friends and it's just this extreme sociopath. And in natural one version and every since, Frankenstein is, you know, the professor is a, you know, older professor. He's doing this experiment with an assistant which by they came into the third film in the Tarties, but they merged together and he did not live in a castle or the experiments my castle in the first one. It's in the book, and all of these elements that just merged together into this kind of urban legend, especially with you not the brain of a murderer and this monster who's trying to do good. Then it's just this misunderstood creature. I mean in the book that it's a sociopathic serial killer. So very little when we talk about Frankenstein in films today has anything to do with original book, not just original film, but the original series, since they incorporate ego from the Turk moving from the thirties as well. So that's probably the most extreme example of just a film rewriting the entire story of the book and it lasting forever. Yeah, and it's interesting that sort brings up literal women, because I've had basically the opposite experience. I saw the good I girl exertion without having seen a presious one, and it's I like to to notch and it seemed to me that the people I was talking to, the people who will very familiar with the story, had expectations, especially regard into one of the charactors, that were not met by the same and they were disappointed by that. So I think it's also something that happens often rights, with books you love being adapted. I think if I hear that a book I love is being adapted, if anything, I'm less enthused because you know, that's awesome, kind of interferes with you the way you picture the Y, and that's a good point as well. It definitely can do that, though obviously, when you get to a iteration where there's ten, twenty, thirty different adaptation that issues start to disappear. Before we start talking about the remakes are actually better than the original. I just have one final question. I guess it's the existential question, and it's why? Why do they actually remake films? And I know there's a couple of different reasons for for that, some of them commercial, some of them less commercial, though usually commerciality has place. That is about partial regardless. But let's just try to answer that question before released the films that really superseded our expectations and then maybe also once we get to the section, see if the reason why these films are actually better in rituals because this somehow did not fall into the regular pitfalls of the remake. What I think? The commercial reason is obviously the first one that comes to mind and I think it's one of the primary motivators. But it's not only that. Right the recent example would be Breddley Cooper with the sizebone he makes. I think this kind of thing happens more because bred they cooper is someone who grew up with those films and enjoy them or was inspired by them then wanted to make them, and because it has that built in familiarity, it becomes easier for studios to make it not because commercially, because again there's the commercial arguments. So I think it's more that combination, right. It's people being shaped and influenced by previous works and then it just being easier because of because it's easier to send right. So so it's video commodation of both. I think it most cases it's really just one of the other. I would agree with Mattio on both points. They're think that you see a lot of remakes that are don't solely to enable and international film to reach a wider audience. So you'll have great films such as these, are horror films. Examples are cause for me so wrack and let their eye one in. They get you as remakes because they think that the fact that the films of subtitles it puts off a large proportion the audience. So a remake that is dawn in English can potentially appeal to a much wider audience and in those examples the remakes we're in actually too bad. But some of the remakes which are done it's solely to translate the film don't always come across well because they miss a lot of their cultural aspects that make the original so repeal and and the of example that matter has said is obviously films that are a bankable and because they're done by a successful person in the industry who is passionate about the original. And I think one of the great examples there will be William Freakin with his remake of Cluzou's wages of fear, which is sorcery, and that is an incredible film, one of the best remakes, although now we've had this conversation it's probably more of a readaptation. But I doubt that pre can would ever know about the source novel if it hadn't been...

...such a popular film in the in the s maybe out cluzo. So there's a lot of things to think about with that. So I agree with my cohosts that there's a lot of profitability in doing remakes and also special with international films. Doesn't have just be horror wis and they give things like the secret in their eyes. Very soon after Oscar success managed to get a remake. So a lot of it's you are bringing good stories from around the world and I guess try to make them more appealing for the English speaking demograph, because you know, I live in the real world, so you know, I know people who won't watch films with subtitles or they won't watch films that are coming out from the foreign country. So it actually, you know, helps get their bit of exposure in there and I guess as long as do a terrible job and actually butcher the remake, it could make people more interested in checking out the original. Something else that was mentioned was all was the reasons for doing and whether people like the remake or not, because apparently Guss van sense reason for doing the psycho remake was because he loved the original psycho that much that he didn't want anybody else to remake it. So then you get films like that Christmas where the original came out in seventy four and then in two hundred and six we had a remake of it and yet thirteen years later there's another remake of it, which makes the more relevant to current generations. We have, like all, teenagers, on devices and on phones. So I guess it's just about making things increasingly relevant today's audiences because, like you're not, there's a large demographic out there who won't watch older films and invert commas and who won't watch international films. So I guess and in the remakes, as long as the remakes of fairly well done, maybe it will eventually inspire those people to check out the originals. I mean that's all I can hope for. I just don't like the situation which has happened before. I talk to something that, something like the Wickam and they saying, you know, I thought Nicolas Cage was fly waterer. I'm like, Oh, the original from one thousand nine hundred and seventy three. So yeah, it's a bit of a shame when it comes like that and people don't realize as an older version. But as long as people are aware there's an older version, all there's and international version. Maybe a remake will inspire to go back and check the other versions out. Yeah, I think generally, were to describe soon is what leads to do worst he makes I think. So here he makes way. It's just Oh, people are too them or just want watch this great thing, so I'm just going to remake it in their language or in a more current era, but with no other take on it. I think generally that's that tends to be the worst. I guess I've I'm curious anyone has a counter example that? Yeah, I think that that reflex is generally pretty bad right now. I can't really think of a single time where that was declared motivator, just updating the story and it became a better success. Because often that it's does the original work, let's recreate that, but for modern audiences, and usually just try to distill it down to what elements work and then recreate them, and typically it just feels a lot shaper. Though it's also worth noting that it's usually not, you know, the biggest talents that get attached to those kinds of films. So, for instance, when you have a big hit from the S S, s fifty this whenever those were often made by, you know, great directors in their prime, and when the studios decide, Oh, let's readapt this great film, this is a strong story, and see if it's still s except it's for they usually send it down to someone it's far less talented. So even if they proved have been some potential in this, if they really want to recreate, you know, the spirit of an atmosphere, off at, etcetera, they're not really giving it to the people who would be capable of doing it. It's probably worth quint plenty out there that they're actually are some. I don't know if there's a large amount, but they're actually up. Are some American remakes of international films that I've done really well and of course, in the case of the departed, have won the Best Picture Oscar at the Academy Awards, and that obviously came from very talented directors. So probably exceptions in there. I don't know if I like them apart and more than in an in film. First they're both pretty good films. But yeah, that's it's not, you know, like a be all on the indoor, but it is quite rare that the Americanized or English language version of a foreign language film will be superior. And it's also in the very rare case that I'm more modern adaptation will be superior to an older original. But that's what, looking on this podcast, remakes it up better. So hope they'll get into those soon.

Yeah, exactly, that's coming right up. But yeah, I think you have all highlighted the most common reasons the readaptations of successful for films just because people don't like to read subtitles and the readaptations of being popular films for the path us to, you know, go on that either brand recognition or go on the story and updated from it for a new audience. Those are the main reasons why somethings made. Like I I've said, I think those tend to be a little bit more, more shallow, but at least four remakes of international films there are a couple of pretty good examples, I think, to the part that at least stands up next to infernal affairs. If not, you know, once like step above. So it does happen. There are a couple of smaller reasons why someone would remake a film, and I think these are the times when they're often better. So there have been several instances, now mention some of them in my list soon, where you have the same director coming back those. Sometimes that doesn't work out that well. I kinic, you just deciding to okay, let me just remake funny games for the US and called Funny Games us. Other Times you actually do have a director thinking I failed or I with the original film where I couldn't do what I can do now, but I will go one step further, and those are often more interesting and then you also have occasions where someone see something in a film, so a key element of a film, Eb that atmosphere, really key plot element, and they want to tell that again and it works. And I have a couple of examples of that too. So let's actually just dive straight into the remakes you gain really think are better than the original, and I guess we can do this in alphabetical order. For the first one, so mature. What if one film or what remake rather that you think if better than the original. So the first one we did that that jumped to mind for me was the Philip Kaufman invasion of the body snatches from the s to the remake of the s film and the fifty Swilm is good. I do like it. It it kind of plays on this idea of the read scare. What the idea that might be hidden communists around you and how to get you and how to uniform to uniformize the world which is of course set threatening to the American way of life, and it has some very scary scenes and but it's also kind of a be movie. It's extremely quick. It's, I think, under eight minutes and very fast paced, which can be a good thing, but it also means that you don't have that much time to set up the mood. It's just kind of going all the time and the characters don't leave that much of an impression. It also has that compromised ending because of censorship. The S one, the Sev one, is just great. It completely uses the context, as I mentioned earlier. I think that's the that's what makes re makes work generally is when they use a different context. And in the S it's whole this disillusionments right of this generation that leaves through the upheaval of the s and then in the s just had to kind of settle down and accept that life was going another way and a lot of them kind of abandoned their ideals and invasional in the s one is really about that. It's about seeing everyone around you kind of suddenly become everything they didn't want to be and you didn't want to be, and kind of the words on in crazy and very depressed. It's a very it's very dark finm. It has this very oppressive mood and again the ending is quite notable and do not cross under, do not settlement. Is Great in the main hall and yeah, I think it's a thing that really uses the basic concepts of the s fin and really expands on it thanks to a different context and thanks to also more creative liberty, because it's the S and it's this era where, you know, we tend to give, well, the studios give more leeway to finmakers in general. Yeah, I think you're quite right in pointing out why the first remake operation world nature is is better than the original. The first Ale does feel staffer, it does feel more rushed, it doesn't have that incredible final ending, it doesn't have it doesn't act, like you said, the atmosphere of the seventies, the context of the S S and, of course, the psychological elements that Kaufman had been in panting into films around the time too. That's tens of Paralelia. It all comes together in the remakes. I think that's a really clear example where three make if better at than derision o case is interesting one because Chris is...

...ass is. Just to give one out, and I've also obviously got quite a few examples. The example that I'm probably going to talk about for this one is technically a readaptation, but it does use bits and pieces of the original film, so I guess it will be a remake anyway. I'm thinking about Steven Spielberg's version of all of the world's. It's a far class of reduction and the original s film. Original or not, in s film it's all about the aliens, is actually about the human characters, whereas in the spiller version we actually get a really great human protagonist in Tom Cruise and learning to take care of with his daughter and some of them strange father and daughter connecting along the way along this journey. The special effects are also quite amazing and also get shares the very strong religious element which is a big part of the original s film. So all of the world's is just one of those no brain is for me. The remakeer is definitely superiod in my mind, but it's not the only remake by any stretch of imagination that I think is superior. It is interesting that, once again, as mature as mentioned in the a fifty, sci fi does seem to be taking a beating here. Don't know what it is. It's probably a just a lot to do with the Cold War. That says well, called war Paranoria was a fueling all of the SCI fi films they came out then and I guess with that no longer being relevant, gives more scope for filmmakers, he in the s with Philip Corpman or in the Zeros with Steven Spoolberg, to take the mature on other directions. I agree, by the way, that the nine seventy eight version of inversion of the body statures is a fantastic film, but I do like both of them. I even like the Ekally, but I do like both films quite a lot. There's some interesting discussion tear, so I'm going to have to get involved in what my CAS has said before I go into my favorite remake. Now I'm not actually a fan of the remake of war of the world's I know that the effects in the original fifty version are very dated now and it's quite a kitch production looking back at it, but I don't know if it's nostalgia or just that that was the one that experienced first, but I've got a real soft spot for the original film. I don't think that Spielberg really bought anything new to the table over then. A vertage of special effects which looks great but didn't really add to the story. Now it's interesting that we're talked about lots of fifty sci fi films being updated, and the remakes are generally great, because there's two of the examples in there were remade in the S, which was the thing and the fly, and I think a lot of the reason why these films so good remakes is because it was their heyday of practical effects. The effects would come on a long way since the S and it allowed the film directors to what disturbing visions on the screen that will lack anything that had been seen before. And obviously after the s then the effects go down the digital route, which takes away from, in my opinion, the brilliance of the practical effects they're so yeah, there is some incredible remakes of SCI FIS from the S. I'm going to go in a slightly different direction with my favorite remake, which is actually ever a slasher from their s maniac. Now. This was remade in two thousand and twelve by Frank Calforon and it's a brilliant film. It features a large wood in the lead, which is a stroke of genius seeing this Guy, who everyone knows is Prodo Baggins, be just a really disturbing serial killer and you hardly ever see him because it's shot in the perspective of the killer, so you only got the odd glance of a larger wood when you see them in the reflection of a mirror, and that kind of adds to the mystery around it. There's an incredible atronic suntrack which really brings very medicine atmosphere. It's just a very dark and disturbing ride that as a horror and it really appealed to my sensibility. It teas so that for me it's the best remake that I've ever seen. I am also quite a big fan of maniac the remake, and I agree it's fantastically shot with the whole point of view angle that it takes. I agree about Elijah Woods performance, but then I've seen a lot of good Elijah would horror films, so ones like our open windows and coodies, so he's not quite I guess that that part wasn't really big surprise for me of it, but I agree it's a very classy film. I don't agree here that that's still big. Did nothing for the story with all the world's remake and then the whole that remake is sort of filtered down, so you know it's Tom Cruise learned to reconnect with his kids. It's got a fantastic performance by the code of fanning, possibly my choice for best...

...job performance of all time, and there comes a very human tale, whereas the characters never arise above stereotyping the original, and I mean I know the original has got cheesy special effects, but that's not what I like to up still work version. What I liked about was the Spillberg touch, which can be bad and occasions, but in certain sci fi offerings like this one's world world's or like ai artificial intelligence, actually having that real strong human element there puts a completely different spin on the story. And I guess I saw the later world, the worlds, as lesser of an alien invasion film and more film about a father and daughter learning to really connect with each other along the way. I mean whenever at first heard to say were of the world's. So I was a bit shocked because this is usually this is all of the worst remakes of all time. But when I sat down I compared my ratings for Youse two films, I'm actually in the same box. I do considerable of the rules, to be quite superior to the original. I think you're completely right in its flaws. Is just she sy. It's of putting. I didn't hate the the effects, but it does doesn't really work for me at all. And I do think that the human element is Bielberg added to the film does add something. It makes it better. But the storytelling here is still, in my opinion, abyss small, and it's doubtlessly, for me, one of the worst films Steven Spielberg ever made. So I would say it's a very poor film, but it's better than the quite bad original. Same things. I actually haven't seen either. That that's just wanted to add that. Well, the words at least benefits from having again the context. That is interesting because it's the post ninety eleven us and I think again, I haven't seen it, but from what I understand it does kind of play a hole in the same morteast kind of sees like it does. So that is a reason for it to be we made beside the student steel blact. It's right. That's my very well be that's a really interesting yeah, pointment here and but not next, but that's of that nose. It's really interesting. Taken interpretation definitely before we leave these adaptations of F S SCI FI. I think it's spotted out. I think we've total mentioned for quite successful readaptations of fifty sci fi here, especially with the thing, which is generally considered one of the best films of all time and it's on so many topless but also the fly, which has just tremendous following. I like both quite a lot of the thing. It's great and I think the originals do suffer from exactly what they've been talking about, and I think a large part of that reason is because sci fi was not really taken seriously in the s. They were often more low budget and even with, you know, the thing, I think all of these are technically readaptations. I think the thing was based on a short story. I'm not sure. I think maybe the fly as well was based on a on a novel or story, but they're obviously banking on the original film to an extent as well and that familiarity. But, for instance, in the case of the thing, there's almost no connection. I mean the original thing is just mostly people sitting inside a laboratory or inside the base just talking. Is verrely loved their action or the drama or shape shift thing we see in in in the s version, which just takes all of that almost bought the horror elements in as well. I think it works incredibly well. So I thank you for shouting out these films. I think we spotted one place where we actually have readaptations or remakes of big properties from the past where they succeeded, and they succeeded in large part because they took it more seriously, there was better talented involved and they took in places the originals didn't go or couldn't go. For for my favorite remake, I was struggling a little bit with this because the remakes I would probably pinpoint us the best are not official remakes. One of them would have to be Tokyo story, which is the remake of the classic American filmmakeway for tomorrow, but it's mainly just taking the central story elements and it's never been officially confirmed. And the other one would be fair east, the sold by Fastbender, which is at least heavily heavily inspired by all that heaven allows by Douglass Sir, and I think in both of these cases you have large authors remaking American films.

In one case taking by way great, wonderful, the great maybe for a more with tear directer. It's an incredible wrong film into a Japanese context, I think, elevating it with so much added Toutlet, as you know, this family and order added this marriage couple is just taken apart from each other, living with their children, looking after this generation, both in racial gaps in racial indifference. It comes across even more strongly than the original and obviously important because also it's such a master director and in the second case, where you have fair eas to solve a fast been there. I think this is part of what he did that was so incredible to be would take these melodramatic elements and he would elevate them and I think this is a case where where he took a strong story and think that all that have analyst is one of Douglas cerus better films. But they made it even more poignant because in originally does have this older woman falling for, you know, a slightly less part younger man. In the remake it is, you know, this poor older woman, Dis cleaningly the falling for a Turkish immigrant that they playmate this racism motif and it's not just the children being suspicious of another generational gap. There's also had his heavy racist Motif and I think it goes into German society. I think it elevates a lot more strong societal teas and think the style and the performance as are much stronger. So I think those two remakes up American films from the enough would be their strongest for me, even though they're not official remakes. They're rather is taken key elements from those stories and brought them to life in them very different way. On the subject of not official remakes, I did originally. Not Originally, I did recently see the bullet train from the S, which is the Japanese film that inspired speed, the counter reefs film, and it's a bit touch and go. Is the remake is it not? I think it's not a remake. I think it's just inspiration that a lot of comments on letter box on platforms are saying, oh it's a remake of speed. If it is a remake, and then speed is a better film, it's a classy of film, it's better acted, it's as a more suspense in there. It's got a great antagonist there in Dennis Hopper. The original, though, is a really good film, though, but I don't know if it's really a case of a remake or just an inspiration. I also just wanted to clarify that the war of the world's is not my favorite remake of all time. I don't know if I got confused with the question. It's one where I think it improved significantly over the original, but my favorite remake would either be the fly or Ocean's eleven. So with oceans eleven. I did really like the original. I mean the first time around. I saw the original nine hundred sixty version with Frank Sinatra. You know, it was all right, it was interesting. It didn't really have much on the sort of bird version. But I've actually watched the thousand, nine hundred and sixteen film twice. I like him all. The second time around it takes things in a very different avenue. So the whole idea of the Soderberg film is it sort of like builds up to the high and the highest is like the whole climax of it and you only have a few minutes afterwards and all the character building, character development happens, you know, leading up to the highest and during it. Even with the one thousand nine hundred and sixty version. The highest actually occurs a very early on. It takes maybe five minutes. I don't know if that's an exaggeration. Definitely takes less than ten minutes. It's a very small part of the film, with the majority of the film set after it, and by changing the order of that and having the highest as the climax of it, I think Soderberg just did wondrous things. But beyond that, oceans of level is just an amazing film because of the way the characters interact with each other. They bond with each other, the REP party and Banter between them is so incredibly natural and the film just looks beautiful. So the use of such great supersaturated colors that most of the shops could be taken and framed on an art gallery ward and they wouldn't look out of place. It's just an amazing at very modern dimentional film. And of course it's built across a trilogy and Oceans Thirteen is like the pinnacle of all that. But yeah, it's just an absolutely amazing film. Oceans Eleven, I've seen it an lost traffics are seen anything at least ten times. It's incredibly dynamic film. The originals pretty good, but just so bogs version takes in so many different directions. I wish had seen the original. Reads should see at one point. I do like the sort of Burger oceans it even a lot. I think it's just like I think...

...that's all about side and that, but it's just so fun and the style is so good. I mean sort of big is a great stylist. So so yeah, it's a familt of I should probably work check out the original at some point, but I guess I hadn't heard so many good things about it. It's it's I think you're the first person I hear really praise it. So yeah, I should. I should definitely check it out. You should check out the original, but your going with middle expectations because a lot of the comments that I read about it afterwards with people comparing it to the sober version. So hows like comparison because try about do something different with it, but with a more of an open mind. It does sort of work, but it's not quite as good, which is sort of like the oumous on the flip side with sober again, is adaptation of Solaris. I mean it's sort of bags a last. It's nothing. I'm here to you. It's nothing appeared to the original. But it actually does a lot of really interesting things with the material and I would laugh to us a last versus last versus a Larst podcast at some point, but none of the Co host are offering yet. We had the opportunity to there for the space in relation of space, relation episodes. So lost a little bit of a lost. The betunity we can definitely read. Had that boater at some point and a just like material. Unfortunately I haven't seen the original. I have of Ocean Celeven I have no strong inkling to do so. But solibroth version is very good, too great. So it's I mean it has a great cats, great expends, great humor, lots of fun. Not One of my favorite from the list of remakes, but it's a very strong film for sure. And by the way, Christ, regarding the suspend the thing that you mentioned and Stesten's it all for id. It's interesting because I haven't seen to do the circing that when I saw the has been just in any earned that it was a remake of them. I can metal drama actually assumed that the race elements was already there. I'm very surprised to him that it isn't, because it's basically it's a huge part of the film. I'm not, as you mentioned. So it's really he really took it in a very different direction. Artist added huge elements. Oh yeah, absolutely, but this is one reason why the ritual is doesn't have any of the power because realist he's a younger man. That's it. And it's a little bit more blue color, I guess. I think is a gardener. He has his own little nursery for plants, etcetera. It's not it's not really up to that family standard. Little obviously it's not. It's that they're not remotely posh at all. The if I's better made it a lot dirtier as well. It made a lot more big down in, made the lead character a lot more even Pete de aboldy made her in a very precarious work situation as well. There's so much additional elements that he brought into that story that makes it feel as much more powerful in original. It's really does relatively wealthy woman following for a poor younger man and her children are very suspicious and her friends are very suspicious. That's it. And obviously the reallyke has tall many stronger teams. So I guess another way for we makes to really stand out and bring something new for me is to change the genre. And so by big example for this would be the stize Bob, the s one to to get back to that, because the original stars born is really a Hollywood satire and a tragedy also, but there's a lot more comedic comedic moments in it than in the day versions, I feel, and it has much more of that inside Hollywood story and it's really a relatively straightforward right, because the Fifti s version is kind of this big film. It's a musical, which is obviously the big genre change, and I think that works so much better for the story because it's a it's a huge tragedy right, its story of huge emotion, and to have that success, the success that the main character finds the visible on screen, just really changes the nature of the film from me, and it's no wonder that the next versions also stuck with musical aspect, even though they also took it in a different direction. It allows you to really see the talents of the main character much better than the original version does. The original version you see Janet Gainer kind of imitating old Hollywood stars, and so that kind of takes that place. But obviously it's nothing compared to, like to Judy garland giving a bunch of musical numbers and being amazing, right. So. So, yeah, I think a stars bone it is a great example of that and another example of changing the genre and working better. For me, is a thing we talked about recently in the Western episode, and that's in the Statili an Apiso, I mean. And that's a fistful of dollars, and for me I like a FIS full of dollars a lot more than U Jimbo, despite being a huge course our fan, and I think that's because I think a little uncomfortable with your Jimbo, because it's a very it's almost an expectation film in some ways, and it doesn't feel right for course hour. So it's maybe not so much for as donal thing as much as a directorial sensibility. And so sexually early is a director who he has fun with violence and with...

...that guy, with those kind of characters, and when course hour does it in EU Jimbo, it kind of feels wrong to me. Right, it feels like he's fighting his own humanistic side. And so you, Jimbo, with the thing that I appreciate the style of it. It's you know, there are some great shots and to show me Fune's super charismatic new problem. But yeah, I feel that the his heart is not quite in it for me and so I like the unofficial remaker lots better. But actually completely agree there as well. I really watched the bolt of this this month, actually, just a couple of of weeks ago, almost back to back, and I think both films are great, but I think that I gave of fasis olar a slight edge, in large part because of the medic on the score, but also just additional, like you said, their fit of the owner. It just amplifying the violence to humor in it. I do think that, like you say, because of it, does not quite feel in his element with this film. It feels a little bit too flat for him. I quite and I really enjoy if you then it's it's a great film and it's really enjoying the havoc that's wrecked around them, but it's so many elements of it just feels a little bit off. Like the tumor element is really hamped up and you have these weird little oneliners, you have the showdown where you're the bad guy just wants to cuddle his gun. It's it's it's not one of his best best films and I think that they kind of added Gravitas that land the manage to make it after it and that that sounds so odd that not only on that could add gravit us very curiousaber did not that. In this case, I feel it rings through that Phisbootology just has that additional sense of atmosphere in life joy that Christobut just did not feel quite uncomfortable to do. I think his scoping mechanism for, you know, taking someone show in the violence lost adding a lot of comedy relief in it. That does did not work as well. Yeah, I think course hour is just an inherently seemed serious director, and I say that with, you know, all the love in the world for course hour, but I think Leonie has that. You say it's weird the other way to say that it he had some Gravitas, but he actually does. And Yeah, because he finds out balance better with the kind of larger life and almost comedic aspect of the story and is able to move past that, which cool is how do the folcurse I was just because it's not really his his thing. I think that's quite interesting. What mature has said about change of genre, remakes with a star is born. I actually haven't seen the fifties version because it's like five hours long. OKAYS NOT, it's three hours one, but still it's the longest of all the versions. I do like all three versions that I have seen to very integras and all fairly great. I don't think anybody, for me as ever out on Frederick Marsh's performance in the lot s version. But yeah, the three versions of Quin the sad is what I'm like. The more a lot in terms of change your genre. One of the films that I am my list was little chocol horrors, and the original one thousand nine hundred and sixty film by Roger Corman isn't particularly great. I mean it's got that notable same with Jack Nicholson in the dentist office, but compared to the EIS version, which is the musical version of it, it's got absolutely nothing on the s version has got great characters, great songs, very lively, awesome effects, very funny with the Voice of the young audred two plants. So that for me it was a very successful change of draenre and probably a more controversial one. Actually quite partial to the Nicole Kidman remake of the Stepford wise it's got nothing on the original, but it doesn't try and outdo the original. Actually turns the original, which is this very serious somber horror film or horror thriller, into a comedy. The triy thing about that is it by turning into a comedy they've done it by revealing a twist much earlier on which has given the original unfortunately a bit of a negative reputation because people are going in but already knowing the big twist which is only reviewed towards the end of the S S version. So while the Nicole Kimmon version, which of all he was done by frank as by that one's got nothing in the original, Brian Forbes vers from the s which is in my top two hundred films, say the remake was pretty good because it tried to take the material in a different direction, so it wasn't competing with the original. And just say that regarding the sizeable James Mason is amazing in that horry he's like it's like the horn was made for him in the first place. So strongly and cooed you to...

...to watch it. I think for dio much. It's quite good and all as well, and when I cooku too is I think they wouldn't put work much. But I haven't seen the S one. But yeah, you should watch it at one point. Sotho, yeah, I understand it is. It is quite long. Yeah, so it's like I'm sure I get sue it eventually. I am a big fan of James Mason, who's actually in the original version of another remake which I much talk about, which is slowly so. So He's excellent and that I think he's an amazing actor overall. So I am sure you at a few of these. Well, this whenever I think sit out and watch the hundred and seventy eight minutes. Yeah, maybe, not now, im get surely eventually. The fifties version is actually the only version of a story sportime seen. It's yeah, that is ironic. But if he's one is the best known one. But yeah, I've just never go around to it yet. Oh, I did actually look it up to it. I was surprised that didn't notice but apparently the original version of a story sporn whilst some what Pipes Holy Wold F one thousand nine hundred and thirty two by George Cook, or so. There is another version in this as well. It was not a musical, so that that might be one. How I jump on because, of all reasons I haven't jumped to these films is because I'm usually not that into musicals and a lot of the bigger musicals either took me a very long time to see or I just haven't seen it well. The one with Janet Gaynor and and forty much is not a musical either. Course it's good. Okay, good's good time. I'll add both of my watch list and try to see them so and so eves and using the UNIKES. I wasn't aware. Sorry, which one, Ludita, you said this was a remake. No, I'm saying it's been remads like their adreanline version from the ninety nine with Jeremy Iron is one I think is arguably better than the Kubrick one, but it's very close. But just the way take the Adrian line takes it in different direction and really gets into the mindset of the Jeremy Irons character as the Humbo Harvard character. I think it's a really great film and maybe it's superior to this s version, but you know, it's they've opened similar level. For me, it's kind of interesting, the whole musical argument, because it's also thought about Chicago. I mean, Roxy Heart from the S isn't a particularly great film. That's one that I actually trapped down on DVD ages ago, like in two thousand, three, d thousand before, when you have to import duds from overseas because you know streaming services are what they are like today. It sells hard to track down and it wasn't worth it, whereas robbed Marshall Chicago absolutely love that film. So you haven't putting a musical twist on something, whether it be a star is born or Chicago, or even though shout of horrors can sometimes do wonders for even if it doesn't get Chris out there enthusiastic about watching a musical version. But I can really think of any more remakes that have drastically changed child runs. I see there's that. Would like to dump to one of the other small as of categories, which is when a director remakes their own film. The well remade the same film and it's a really interesting situation. Very spased on a play but he couldn't really work on that play, so we had to rename it these three and change it because the play had a strong lesbian element. That was not acceptable in nineties Hollywood. So this is one of those cases where the original source had these elements there but he had to new through it. They couldn't make the film he wanted to make and essentially, instead of being about homosexuality and how society reacts to that, he made it just about rumors of a romance with a random man. And it's still a good film. These these three, has a great cast, Mayor Pupkins, Merl Ober and Joel mccrae. It works quite well for what it is, but it doesn't have that power and I can really see why he then, about twenty five years later, remade it with the real title, with the real plot and being more than this readaptation, getting merial Hopkins back this time in the role of the unt. The way it plays out, it's, you know, it's stark, it's for more brutal. It looks into how homosexuality is viewed in s America. Guy As well. Looking at you know how people would treat someone if the found out feel as a lesbian, and it has in a heartbreaking finale. It took us so many strong teams. That's great performance, as by all have burness, earlie mcclaim. So I think that's all those cases where you see a director not being able to do the version they will do calling back years later and really delivering on it. Yeah, I absolutely love the children's hour, so I agree...

...thoroughly with you about being a superior film, especially, as you said, the performances of Sheridan mclain and Audrey Hertburn. It's got a lot of staying how that film, I really like, made me sit and, you know, think afterwards, like you said, just the way it wraps up. I did like the original thirty s version with Beni the GROUNDVILLE or port, you great gave a great performance and that. But yeah, clearly, on Saye the s version of superior. My example for a direct to remaking their own film doing a better job with that is is the probably the most famous unofficial film on I checked movies, which is the man who knew too much by Alfred hitchhock. The s version with James Stewart is a film that I only saw relatively late into my filmgoing journey. I would have seen it maybe some time in the last five years, because the original version always did so little for me that I just had no interest in seeing it readne but I eventually, for whatever reason, coach myself into it. The original version does have a really great performance by Peter Lare in it. He is awesome. The rest of the film not so much. I haven't watched the s version that recently, but look at my notes. Someone of the things that I've written is that in the best takes a minute to melodramatically faked, which might be a bit of an over exaggeration, but it gives more gives an idea of what the tone of the film is like. It's played out as a melodrama. It's not played out as a suspense piece. And we take the s version and just got these great scenes of James Stewart walking down a quiet road and hearing footsteps approaching behind him and there's just a whole lot of gradual and ease worked into there. It's just a works so amazingly. Of course it's got a burt our Herman score going to it. Also, it's just a really great as one of them hitchhots, our best films. Always had a lot of great ones. So maybe not in the top tenbers is in the top half of what he did in his career and the s version for me is just such a static and interesting film. So that's my example. It's strange that you mentioned that the thei s versions such a static and an interesting film for you, because it's actually one of my favorite hitchcock films. But conversely, I can't compare it to his remake because I haven't yet seen it. So I need to rectify that immediately so I can come back and enjoin you in in this discussion. That I actually prefer the Turki Russian, not by a lot, but I think it's such a long time with the thought either. And the main reason why I would prefer the dirty fusion is because the big the Laura so Lauri. So I think, if that's the true fragment, that Big Lord was absolutely incredible in it. One remake that we haven't mentioned that I watched very recently is Terry Gilliams twelve monkeys, which is remaking of the French film the yet I hope I pronounced that writers. That's a time for the French princes and police to come in and remind me how it's done. I guess it's Les with this is actually to continue. Thank you. That's you. But I think Terry Gillian does wonders with the the source material here, because the original is a beautiful film, very arty, and Gillian works on the narrative to build a lot more complexity into the story and plays around a lot more with the identity of the person who is sent back in time from the future to prevent this global catastrophe. And Gilliam's got a very playful style. His set designs a brilliant and the vision of the future. You know, it just takes a lot of boxes for me. So I think that's another great remake and that's the film I cant even Bet and Dougne Peer, and I mean we talk about changing genres, but this is almost, you know, change shame format. The original is a short film compiled of still in whiches and it's a very heavily petty get effort. And then the remake is a full blown fi fi film with all of the Gillion Magic and touches I can compare them, I can really believe, you know, it's the original and remake, because there doesn't so different. This does really is the core idea that stays the same thing. Both are great. That bold to succeed Avel they do, but the did those are just like back invite to me that it is complete os the songst totally agree, Chris, and I think that's what makes them such great companion pieces because they're two radically different approaches to the same storyline and it shows what film directors can do with a remake if they've got a, you know, a lot...

...of ideas behind it, if he take a radically different approach, and it wonders for Gilliam here and both the films, as you say, are remarkable on their own merit. So it's, you know, a wonderful pair of films that, yeah, you're like this, with the change of formats. There, there they are. They had to compare. If I had to, I much preferred the original. But for monkeys is a fim I like as well, I guess. I guess what I love about the original is the formats in part and what's maker does with it. So yeah, it's a monkey is is is quite good for him, though. I do enjoy it and I do think it takes the idea in an interesting direction in this feature lengths format. Yeah, I'm soolutely loved twelve monkeys. I create very hardly compare, and I mean I'll have to say, you know, that's twelve monkeys would be, you know, my preference of the two because it's again it's a top hundred film of all time for me. So you know, I'm very much on board with what Williams doing and it will all different. Crazy camera angles, the music that taunts the characters just presents just as fascinating, dynamic tons of quite a good dialog that I've quote another podcast before. So it's one of those you're all in commercing films for me, but larger. Tell you know, it's a pretty great film in itself, but it is very different than the point whereas others have said, it's almost impossible to compare them. One of the remake, which is among my favorites, I think is almost impossible to compare the original, has to be you, dex rich. Obviously the original is you have five hours serial by Louis, fully up from one thousand nine hundred and sixteen and it's very good, sereal, but serials of this type is never quite might thing. It has, you know, all of the pope in that stuff. It it has limitations of the nineteen tens. So I like it, but I never loved it. And it's all about this, you know, keeping that type of suspense. But when I don't from you, it came in in one thousand nine hundred and sixty three. He went all blown on the visual aspect. I mean this is a evasive, vague you don't look quite real, but just heavily stylized and dream like film, with stunning to the bathography and just the dark shapes moving through the night. It does have a Tony as playfulness. That's the all of this creativity. It's Allos, the lot of the great under sound works of the s s to me, and it's just, once again, it's a night and day, it's black and white. It's just too completely different reasons, and I'm not surepent of you saw you guys, but if you haven't seen I can see three Verussian police do. It's just absolutely fantastic. I suddenly haven't seen it, but it made me think of another remake of the silent, in which, I guess this is my hot take for this subject, which is the that I much, much prefer the then I head Sock, not sea, to to the and now I do. I do hesitate to say this because I think I didn't see no start in the best circumstances. I think it was a fine version. is just it's literally the first dramatic silence, as in noto comedy, ever. So, and I was trumentously bored about it. So, yeah, I don't know. I have like silence since so. So, so, I don't know, but I just did not get into the mood of it and I think the helps of Cossar to it has these two performers, is Jenny and tels Kinsky. Who are these that they always gives is the these larger than life performances, right, they are the other worldly actors and I think they work so grateful default this story, because it is a very fantastical story. And so, yeah, these performances, I think, really makes the same work. And I never could get into the mill. Now it's in. Well, now I think I really need to fall through them. Were no episode or an now episode so I can force it to re watch go it also, and I can be watching with a fresher mind as well. I did actually rewatch her stock stoes thro outo recently and it jumped massively in my estimation at the first time. Actually had a pretty knee jerk reaction against a John It. This time I really appreciated the study was going for. I think the first time I compared it too much of the original as well. I think it is definitely a case of two very different atmospheres and feelings. I mean you have to, I think, when you remake a silent film in color over fifty years later, it has to change, and has to change for the mentally and the way hers are especially played with the light this beautiful cinmatography was doing. It had a very different feeling. I think Kingski was wonderful, as those foot do. So I can see. Yeah, really, you see why we call it a great remake, but at least...

...to me at present, I can say it's better than they will number and because the visual aspect of that just to the power of that that work gets this. It is your phenomenal experience and I do still think that that original drafted performances is even stronger and even more act like it, even more nerving. I can say it's better, but I would love to see them back to back as well, because they bought are great films that I could eventually change my mind. It is quite interestingly the flesh we made about remaking solent films, because obviously when you're putting sound in there becomes a more dialog heavery approach and music, especially when you out color and you can do a whole different things. The film which has just come to mind for me is the Tin Commandments, which says the booty mill. Of course, in the twenty s was a solent film and then, ladies in the S, as a color film. Now I haven't watched them recently because I even think about until now when we're talking about science, I'm getting remade and directors who were making their own film. But the original film actually isn't is at an adaptation of the whole the Ten Commandments. It's just part of it and it's also got a thin contemporary twenty section attached to it. So if you comparing them, you know next to weeks each other. I guess you could Sayn the prifies versions better. I don't know. I mean a boys quite interesting takes. I guess the s version does more things that as a narrative, because it isn't just a strike for take on the Ten Commandments. But you get more of a characterization in the s one because the whole thing is bought up as a story. So don't have a preference for them of fan but it's just an interesting another take on a director remaking their own film and putting a silent one him to color, with music, score everything else that goes along with that. Yeah, I'm torn on that one as well. I always said don't like either version and I generally don't like the meal. I think it's one of the word log criefit is just one of the directors of the s and later that I think came across as to preciate, too over the top, and this doesn't have sensibilities that overly appeal to me. But I will say that by moving the twenties tie and from the twenties version and adding colder ladding grant your I do actually think there is case be made that the s version is slightly better at the very least, and it's worth noting that the mills big been her in the same way, which haven't seen the original version and the standout sequences in Been Huh. We feel that they would work just as well in silent in southern fin and the the big time trace, of course, those through the sequence where he's slaved and slaved in the boots. I don't know, I don't remember the world in English, but the home in books, those are here. It's often that's all about the spectacle and that's something that's silence. Did they well as well? I would be curious to seeing the original or definitely should. I honestly I prefer the twenties version. It's less and bloated. I still think that you know the standout the race scene. It's done, I'll say, at least equally well, and I think that it is a little bit more focused and you think that they are relatively close too. I think both are really strong films and this is also another case of readaptation. One other case where a readaptation which took the film in a really different direction. We all needing to even go from silent to sound. I think this may be a slightly controversial choice. Is Sofia copple as adaptation of the beguiled, which of course, was that originally by don't see kill and starring Clint Eastwood, and I think the original from seventy one is good. I think Eastwood is very strong and it I think it's very unnerving, but I think the way couple adapted, where the first all had is ratther out atmosphere, had a lot of masculinity, like is overmasculinity feeling. I think that the way couple a that it, but far more, I would say, sensuality and obviously for general style or added a lot of more almost portrait with a lot of magically made it slightly more vague, in evasive, had little bit more to think about, was little bit more contemplative and I think that it's also much better performed. I think I think you are like Clint East would quite a bit, but Colin ferrel handing a much strong performance. Them and they, donalds, have nick call Kipman, person dance style, fanning, etc. Delivering quite strong performances. I just...

...think that football off the guns much stronger experience, at least to me, than the seventy one version and they do feel like very different films. Yeah, you're probably not going to weekly friends with me without talking about the guard like that. I prefer the SEMMI's version. Actually thought you vershion, didn't do that much fulltile, because the semmige one's actually quite explicit in it. So if we've got our clean east would actually kissing and making out with the twelve year old girl, whereas all those parts of it are chimed down. I just I guess, because of society standards and sort of being toned down a Cappolla version, whereas you know, you would think, you know, a more modern version go deeper into those sorts of things and the way you might be froll exploiting the girls who are, you know, taking care of him. But anyway, that was just my personal taiker. Yeah, I think for me it's the more of the change in the style. We have a watch more talented director infusing their vision and taking it in, like elevating the kind of visceral experience off it as well. But Ye, I can see what you mean. I don't know. I don't know if what Corecapola are much more times a directed than don't see you mean he did up inditionally doing dirty hurry. Did the original variation of the boys as she's in a Holler right, you know, fifties from a whiles like o the line up. So I think he's actually quite a trying to director, whereas Polo's film as a thinking about things like the bling ring. For me she's being quite a he's a MS director. I love learning. Actually. Yeah, okay, so I think I think I guess make any friends with that. I think you're right. I think I really enjoy our start. I think at the very least I would a coupleized more of a author a while, which made mean that she's quite often thing to some and some of the others voices she made. Well, see get was more of a very efficient, really good to do the director, but I don't think like I would call proble an artist. I'm not sure if I would give the same kind of grandeur to seek it. But he's as wrong director for sure. Okay, we need to do it. Don't see. So something couple ower this. Don't take an episode. Sure I for sure we can do that. Yeah, thank you. Can Be quite workman like at times. Man, I think I've seen more than ten films. Why not all them that good? But I guess just think of Holler thing. I've seen everything said Marie Antoinette that she's done and it's been just you here. Miss for me more than seeing or Banna, not now em in my top hundred directors or anything. It's just this way. You made the statement before I was like yeah, I'm sure, if I agree enough. Friend, one interesting one which I which I want to talk about, since I obviously gave preference to fustiness version of a double sir film. I think it's interesting to say that there is one remake or realtation by Douglas Sirkaise I think is better than the original, and that is his version of imitation of life, and this is a really interesting case where he's you're making film by John I'm stall. Now stall is pretty forgotten today, but he was essentially the sort of the dirties. Stall was all the biggest melodramatic names working and they got the cloud at Colberg for the lead, and it is the original. It is a okay film, but it feels overpearing. The melodrama is toned up to the extreme and while both films touch on the strong racial element, I guess don't think the Turkish version managed to do it as well. There as the one thousand nine hundred and fifty nine version by Douglas Sir, and this is so all to those talk about don't drifting mostly think about for MELODRAMAS and it's still a melodrama, but the color he adds in there, he does make you feel a lot more like a ritual epic, and I think there is a lot there's a lot more emotional resonance and a lot wrong girl performance as that really carry if this story, and it's a really heartbreaking story of a light skinned black girl trying to pretend that she is white to be accepted and just the just all of the racial overcoles around that, and especially for s America. I think it was handled quite well. It's does a larger than life as stunning film. Okay, there's three remakes em and talked about so far that I just thought give a quick mention to. If anybody wants to jump in there, more than welcome to one of them, which I think we should mention, is true grit, the come rather's remake of the one thousand nine hundred and sixty nine western. That one John Wayne, the Academy Award. I mean both John Wayne and Jeff Bridges are both excellent as roster cogburn in both versions of it, but the more modern verse by the come brothers has a really great character by Hayley stanfield compared to Kim Darby in the original, just like screams and Chris a lot and is actually not cast as an actress her own age,...

...whereas holly stand fields and actress playing character own age and just a really great bonding with Jeff Bridges throughout it. So it's more of a sorry get father daughter tell compares the original. So that one really worked well for me. Mann scart says is Kate Theory is an amazing film. It takes the dynamics of the original sis run with Robert Mitchon and changes it so this time you've got a lawyer who actually is guild who is a little bit crooked and all the stuff that's happening to and sort of like rung upon himself like a bit of like retribution. So completely changes I dynamics in there, as opposed to the original where there's really good lawyer who started all the right things, gets harassed and store. So I think it's a good example. It's a great film. The original the remakers excellent, true grit the original is okay, the remakeer is excellent and another one which is probably a most controversial one is Halloween. The John Carpenter Film Halloween is obviously a staple horror classic. The one thousand nine hundred and seventy eight version, iconic music score, really great atmosphere and mood in there, but the story as well pretty crap. I mean, I've seen it a few times and there isn't really much going on there from a character building point of view. The Rob Zombie version. Now, Rob Zombie is not a director and big into I probably just like normous films that I've liked them, but his version of Halloween, which people on the chatow say counts as a Rebood, actually takes much, you know, on different direction of looks as Michael Myers as a character and builds on that's actually comes a bit what the character piece. We understand why these charter was a like, how he's become the horror villain that he is in the film. So it's just so much going on there. But then of course Rob Zombie also do Halloween to a couple of years later, which is absolutely terror, probably his worst film, you know, so far. So I don't know if that was really a reboon or because it's sort of killed the franchise off after two films. But his original film and Two Thousand and seven Rob Zombie Halloween. I definitely prefer to original John Harpener film, and that's something against Rong Harpen a, though sort of is. He's not a direct dramatically fond of there's a horror fan. I've talked to people tons about times about that, so it's no surprise if you know I mean. I do like the thing which you've talked about before, and in the mouth of maness is great, but I've seen all the other horror films that John Harpener done and known them realis are much for me. Well, that's very heavy word for our horror fans. Also be aware of the horror community coming for you, therefore taking back your credentials. But I can't completely agree with the Halloween, but I will say it's closer than most people give the credit for, and I will also say that the opening scene that added value. I almost of this showing Michael Myers as a child. I think that added a lot to the remake and gave it love fortunities at original didn't time, and I'm also not a massive fan of the original Halloween. I think it's one of carpenters weaker classics and I think that's some elements of that just feel a little bit too awkward, especially to set up and escape, and this the whole playing with dog pleasant. I just there's a lot of things I don't love with original Halloween. So I can see why you would choose the remake there and for crew great. I also absolutely agree. Those are both great films. They are done differently and yet are similar at the same time. It's a really interesting backtoback case where you really just have two films that are almost equally good with almost the same material, and I think it's it works really well. I might give it the slight edge to the remake. Actually feels a little bit more fluid. I think the lead is better, so I can give the the edge chair, but I haven't seen them back to back, so it's a hard choice. Not This before I close this episode, we're probably the biggest remake you haven't talked about. I'm going to give a really quick shout out to the Indian duology, and this is actually not the case where you have a silent film, or at a silent duology remade in color and sound. But what's interesting here is that the remakes are done by Freas Lane and they are the more popular film series. This is littally all those cases where twin commune that's come together and said the remakes are actually better. But fritch line and his wife did write the script for the first films. It was once again based in novels of his wife, which is very common set up for them in the twenties. A line wrote the script, but it was directed by the fairly good but not great, German sound director Joe May when no has some fans for some of the films it did. It did a good films. They're not fantastic. When he did them in the late s he didn't just read both films with so much color that they just look incredible and the filmmaking, the style just a wonderful or third rams...

...to Germany as well after all of this year's in the US. So I think I just want to give a shout out to anyone who wants to try those two films out. But obviously there's a big elephant in the room here. We have not talked about the most popular remake of all time, at least the most popular remake along with the thing, and they are both from the eighties and I think you all know which film I'm talking about. Them talking, of course, of scarface, and this is a really interesting remake economy because it takes the original thought the changes so much about it. But here you have two cases where you have one of the big deer directors of the decade with the original record is absolutely much more respecting Brandy Palmas Howard Hawks, I mean most the big student directors. He cast Paul Mooney as Bar Face and moon is probably the most respected actor off the turties. But in dags version have branded all of the biggest rector of the S, casting Al Pacino, one of the biggest actors of the eighties, and it's using it to rip the style of the s to the point that it is an icon off the eight is and icon that lives on to this day. I don't think there's any debate almost which is the more iconic, a bigger film. The AG is version has taken that crown, but both are heavily, heavily respected. So what are your pikes on scar face by Howard Hawks, and I'm thirty two, and scarface by Brandy Palmer from one thousand nine hundred and eighty three. I've seen both versions of scarface and now I've rembers an all time favorite for me. I think they're both pretty good films, but I guess if I have to choose, you know, Brian to Palmer is just an excellent director who always does amazings things with his visuals, makes this feelings very voyagerous, yuristic and they just, you know, awesome experiences. So I probably have to give a slight edge to the thousand nine hundred and eighty three version. That said, I'll be shore does really hang it up in there, and poor Muni was always such a classy act. So in terms of performances, probably isn't acting piece. Maybe I'll go for the original scar pace by in general. Yeah, the s one is iconic. You know, say hello to my little friend. You know, it's the one line that everybody who is not seeing the film knows about it. So yeah, it's hard to not fatter that into that cultural significance of the film has got so accidentally, haven't seen the original and I'm not the biggest fan of the Dipanma version. I think it's okay. It has some great scenes, but it just didn't really it's really far from my favorite department. I did feel like I have what to white heats right, which is another gangster film with with James Carney, much later than scarface, and it feeds sex. Scar face could be a remake of that too, I guess against. The films have a lot in Commons with have a work in common with each other. Right from the s to the S it was quite a well trodden genre. But he has car face. It feels like a proback. But yeah, I can trually comment on on the original interesting trash. She made mature because by both white heat and scarf, I says, versions are both who are known for a streaming line, whether it be, you know, psilo to my little friend or made a march up of the world. Yeah, by both shills and become the point where people know those lines before going in to see them. So yeah, it's seriously, I guess you. UN screaming gangsters seem to be, for whatever reason, most wellknown, almost known. Films feel like the characters have a lot to do with each other. Obviously the James Caney character and in white heats his there's the mother elements, which is quite central. But I know the scene in the scale face where he looks at the Zeppeline, I think, which has the world belongs to you, which and the needs, and I know that's something that also happens in maybe a different form in the original. That's the kind of thing that you could see happen. It's a seem that could be in white heat also. It's a seemed it could be in any gangs of him in some sense right, the world belongs to you. That ID that, you know, subcreme ambition. That's kind of what's caus this is what it's wanting the world and realizing that if you can have it, it's probing not that great and you really can't have it. Yeah, I guess I relate them just because the genres is such a strong identity. That's really interesting case and I never thought about it. Endings to go hand in hand. I think the original scarface is really good. I think it's held down by some of the almost for Baganda elements in terms of anti alcohol, for instance. It feels a bit strangled almost by I mean this is technically prequel. They still feels a bit strangled by censorship at the time, but they still have really strong, strong...

...film. I would have loved it if real love there were more big fans of scarface there. I do think scarface is a great film. It's not one of my top favors either, but I do actually think this is a great example of taking a property and this taking it in a completely different direction and fusing it, obviously with a lot of color, but also becoming are on the finding and becoming this larger the life experience, because it's so rare that the remaking really is completely over right and take over for a really popular original. I think that the palm of going all out of the way he did creating the epic that she did, and bill getting out Pacchino and that cast together and obviously the notorious final line, etceterrights. It is become one for the Agia. So I just did the finish. Finish this up then, and I'm sure after hearing all of the good things we have said about remakes, is to do xx everywhere. I probably des rubbing their hands just so happy be fully endorsed remakes and that they can just keep doing it forever because it will work. But let's just finish this episode on a very, very basic question. I mean, do think that remakes, reboots, et CETERA, get them necessarily bad rap and if so, should we try to rehabilitate them? Or do you even manage to rehabilitate the idea of remakes in this podcast, where I don't know that we did? But I do think they get a bad rap in the sense that I think originality is overweighted, but at least maybe not overrated. But I think people are quick to dismiss things at us are the original and over estimates how original other things are. I guess so. I think we may can be just as original as anything else. It's just a question of where you take it. I would schily agree with Matth here. There I think remakes to get a bad rap and there's lots of bad ones out there, but, as you've heard listening to this podcast, as lots of brilliant ones as well. So you know, maybe next time ahead the way to remake. I won't be so quick to judge, because you guys are brought up a how a lot of good films during this recording session. Yeah, nothing much more. Add to that. remakes to get a bad rap, sometimes for a good reason, especially when they seem to be quick money grab or just up Dan destroid modern times and not doing anything else more with it. But one more people, you know, Figuet is even some films we haven't mentioned, like amount his Falcon, the Humphrey Boga film was a remake or something which came up ten years earlier, the wizard of Os, the iconic night thirty film as a remake of the nine hundred and twenty five silent so remakes that existed throughout the years and has become a little bit of more outrage towards, I think, and the last you know, maybe twenty or thirty years, bit more outrage. The just so become a bit more prolfilled, or maybe the originals have become more wellknown, or maybe since the addams are home video there's been more access to the originals. But remakes of existed throughout time. They're going to continue to exist. It's been to embrace it and look for the ones that do things positive rather than well on and try and have, you know, or negative hate campaigns which actually had gone on to try and stop getting films remade or reboosion. I think that's some beautiful sentiments. Guys in the a I thought it's absolutely great. remakes everything around forever. I did. In some cases there's some really nastive films that are remakes. Don't even think about the twelve angry man is a remake of a TV fields TV episode some like it. Hot It's a remake of a seemingly lost French films on the Turkeys. Even something like the gold figures of nine hundred thirty three. It's a remake our of them called gold from one thousand nine hundred and twenty three, which is all for lost. So a lot of the early remakes people don't even remember or know that the remakes in the originals are long gone. So a remix of always been around. Too many films that are remakes are generally great, and I think what maecure said is probably the most. Greatly care that so oft the moast original films may even be remaking or thinking about films like all if air is to solve we just take it in such a completely different direction. ADDS so much more to it and he completely right. Mat Your originality is not everything. Too many films like even when you talk about my keeth, they have a relationship to each other. There's so many overlaps, so many ideas are taking along without being a direct remake, the so many tropes that this repeated and nauseum. So we shouldn't fall the film simply for being a remake, especially if it just takes core ideas and bring it to life. So yeah, I do hope that you've gotten some great recommendations for remakes from this episode. I hope if you'll seek out the balls you haven't seen.

And thank you so much for listening and join us again soon. You have been listening to talking images, official podcast of ICM for Acom.

In-Stream Audio Search

NEW

Search across all episodes within this podcast

Episodes (57)