Film remakes and reboots and adaptations

[Jhaelen]

What do you think about remakes/reboots and adaptations in general?

Adaptations in general are something I usually enjoy a lot. I particularly like if the adaptation isn't slavishly faithful to the source material because, imho, different media have different requirements, and it simply makes sense to make the most out of what's possible using the media.

I also like to watch remakes/reboots because I am curious what they changed to 'update' the original. And again, the more the remake differs from the original, the greater the chance that I'll enjoy the remake.

'Watchmen', for example, is often praised for being very faithful to its source. However, that's part of reason it fell rather flat for me. When I'm watching the movie it's like flipping through the comics. I always end up wanting to re-read the comics.

'Starship Troopers', on the other hand doesn't have much in common with the novel. I quite enjoyed the novel, but I also like the movie. The movie stands on its own.

'Bladerunner' is my favorite movie of all times, and I'm also a fan of almost every novel and short story written by Philip K. Dick. But 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep' is a very different thing from the movie. Actually, almost all movies based on the writings of Philip K. Dick are very much their own thing.

Brian de Palma's 'Carrie' is another movie that I really like. It's thankfully told in a very different way from the method used in the original Stephen King story. The 'Carrie' remake with Cloe Grace Moretz was quite dispensable. And then there was a version created for TV which was sanctioned by Stephen King (who felt Brian de Palma's version wasn't faithful to the novel) which is best forgotten, and perfectly serves to prove my point!

 

[Ryujin]

Adaptations in general are something I usually enjoy a lot. I particularly like if the adaptation isn't slavishly faithful to the source material because, imho, different media have different requirements, and it simply makes sense to make the most out of what's possible using the media.

I also like to watch remakes/reboots because I am curious what they changed to 'update' the original. And again, the more the remake differs from the original, the greater the chance that I'll enjoy the remake.

'Watchmen', for example, is often praised for being very faithful to its source. However, that's part of reason it fell rather flat for me. When I'm watching the movie it's like flipping through the comics. I always end up wanting to re-read the comics.

'Starship Troopers', on the other hand doesn't have much in common with the novel. I quite enjoyed the novel, but I also like the movie. The movie stands on its own.

'Bladerunner' is my favorite movie of all times, and I'm also a fan of almost every novel and short story written by Philip K. Dick. But 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep' is a very different thing from the movie. Actually, almost all movies based on the writings of Philip K. Dick are very much their own thing.

Brian de Palma's 'Carrie' is another movie that I really like. It's thankfully told in a very different way from the method used in the original Stephen King story. The 'Carrie' remake with Cloe Grace Moretz was quite dispensable. And then there was a version created for TV which was sanctioned by Stephen King (who felt Brian de Palma's version wasn't faithful to the novel) which is best forgotten, and perfectly serves to prove my point!

To me, adaptations from novel, play, etc. are a very different animal from remakes and reboots. As you state, adaptations require that the source be altered, sometimes in not inconsequential ways, from the source in order to work in a different medium. When it comes to adaptations I look more for whether the result is true to the feel and goals of the source, and if it's just a plain good movie.

For example I very much liked Jackson's adaptation of "Lord of the Rings", though many Tolkien purists lambaste those films. For them it can come down to the wrong colour for a character's clothing, which I find incredibly nit-picky. On the other hand the adaptation of "The Hobbit" annoys the crap out of me, because it stays far from the voice of the source. It might as well have been directed by Michael Bay.

When it comes to reboots, the "Star Trek" movies are prime examples of why remakes and reboots annoy me. They throw out the whole feel of the universe, without trying to honour the source material in any real way, while making these wry little call-backs to stories from the original. Rather than helping tie me emotionally to the current story, they instead make me think that the writers were too dumb to create their own original story.

 

[Bullgrit]

To me, adaptations from novel, play, etc. are a very different animal from remakes and reboots. As you state, adaptations require that the source be altered, sometimes in not inconsequential ways, from the source in order to work in a different medium. When it comes to adaptations I look more for whether the result is true to the feel and goals of the source, and if it's just a plain good movie.

For example I very much liked Jackson's adaptation of "Lord of the Rings", though many Tolkien purists lambaste those films. For them it can come down to the wrong colour for a character's clothing, which I find incredibly nit-picky. On the other hand the adaptation of "The Hobbit" annoys the crap out of me, because it stays far from the voice of the source. It might as well have been directed by Michael Bay.

When it comes to reboots, the "Star Trek" movies are prime examples of why remakes and reboots annoy me. They throw out the whole feel of the universe, without trying to honour the source material in any real way, while making these wry little call-backs to stories from the original. Rather than helping tie me emotionally to the current story, they instead make me think that the writers were too dumb to create their own original story.

I completely agree with this.

Bullgrit