the Jester
Legend
What's the point in making a new Barbarella if the only thing it shares with the original is the name? That's just an exploitative money grab, IMHO.
Sydney Sweeney to be the new Barbella in upcoming Sony Remake!!!
- Thread starter Henadic Theologian
- Start date
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
Ryujin
Legend
I present to you the Star Trek Kelvin Universe...
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Even with respect to the very big changes wrought on the story lines (and the Abramsian abuses of space/time and lens flare), the Star Trek reboots made sure to incorporate many notable character elements. Karl Urban was a particular stand-out here in channeling McCoy. Those were among the most important truths they stuck to in making the adaptation.
And that's, I think, an important point. You want reinterpretation, but you also want some essential aspects to be preserved to provide that link to the source material being reinterpreted. And part of the art of reinterpretation is choosing which essential aspects to preserve so they can be seen from a new perspective.
the Jester
Legend
I reject entirely the proposition that the Kelvin Universe doesn't share anything but the name with OG Star Trek.
Ryujin
Legend
The casting in those movies was bang on, for every character. To my mind, at least, the stories weren't. I feel that they wasted a great cast.
Oh well. On to other things then.
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
My personal take on the Kelvin Universe.
Yes, the casting was amazing (RIP Anton Yelchin .... ).
But when the first Kelvin movie came out, the franchise ... Star Trek ... it was pretty moribund. The first movie is Abrams at his best. LENS FLARES. ACTION. LENS FLARES. COMEDY. LENS FLARES. FAN SERVICE. LENS FLARES.
It's like getting on a superfast roller coaster ride while eating a bunch of cotton candy and having nostalgic scenes of Star Trek shown to you (but with LENS FLARES). You have a great time, you're happy, and at the end of the ride you're glad you did it ... so long as you don't think about it too much, and ignore the terrible pain in your stomach from all those empty calories.
By the second movie (Into Darkness) those tricks- the remixed nostalgia, the LENS FLARES, and the action/comedy/sugar rush have worn off, and you realize that it's just empty.
Such is life with Abrams. He can reboot a franchise, but he can't keep it going. He understands the symbols, but not what they mean.
The third movie is the tragedy. Because while it's not a perfect movie, it was a really good Star Trek movie. It's a shame we didn't get to see that crew again.
payn
He'll flip ya...Flip ya for real...
My tag line for Abrams was always; "love it when the credits roll; hate it by the time the car ride home is over"
Fifth Element
Legend
By original, are you referring to the Fonda film? That film was an adaptation to begin with. So one reason to make a new film can be to present a different interpretation of the comic.
Also, characterizing what I wrote as "the only thng it shares with the original is the name" is incredibly uncharitable. I didn't suggest anything like that.
the Jester
Legend
I apologize if I misrepresented your position; that certainly wasn't my intention. You asked why it should be true to the original, and I interpreted that as the money grab using the name as I described. My bad, I guess?
Fifth Element
Legend
Do you consider The Wiz to be true to the original? For whatever value of "the original" you prefer?
If you do, then your definition of "true to the original" is broad enough that I have no objection, and it's an example of why you might make a new adaptation that is true to the original - that is, giving the story a new twist, telling it through a different lens.
If you do not, then it's an example of why you might make a new adaptation that is not true to the original - that is, being made for a different audience, because the original might not speak to that audience.
Enevhar Aldarion
Hero
"True to the original" is also a very slippery slope into becoming code to cover racist or sexist beliefs, so unfortunately, you have to look at the person using the phrase just as closely as what the phrase is referring to. And saying this in general and not about the person you quoted.
the Jester
Legend
I haven't seen either the original or the remake, so I can't say.
I can give you a few examples of remakes that I think are true to the original even if they weren't exactly like the original: the Kelvin timeline Star Trek, the rebooted Battlestar Galactica, the Donald Sutherland-fronted Invasion of the Body Snatchers, I Am Legend (which I can't recall the title of the earlier version, I want to say it was Marathon Man or something but am pretty sure that's not it), Superman (the 1979? version) and Man of Steel, Westworld (film) and Westworld (series, though I've only watched a couple episodes of it), Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, um, I am sure there are more.
Please note that I am not always a fan of both versions, but I see them as legitimately true enough to the original that I don't object to the remake even if I don't like it. (And also, "not true enough to the original" is not the only reason to dislike a remake- "offers nothing new" is sometimes also one, especially if the original is only a few years old.)
I'm trying to come up with an example of one where I consider it to be just a money grab, but am drawing a blank at the moment. Sorry, I'm tired and hot and just got done with a very high-intensity game. I'll try to come up with one tomorrow.
It was The Omega Man, starring Charlton Heston.
Enevhar Aldarion
Hero
That one is also a remake. Vincent Price did the original movie for that story.
I had forgotten that one! Good catch!
Yeah, but that's because Karl Urban is awesome. I've been impressed with him since Xena.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
And none of the movie versions closely resembles the novel. Which can be summarised as "in a world of vampires, the vampire hunter is the monster". Disney+ Marvel's Werewolf by Night was closer!That one is also a remake. Vincent Price did the original movie for that story.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
The trouble with Barbarella though, is that it can be summarised as "free love saves the galaxy". Take that element away, and what you have left is indistinguishable from any other science fiction fantasy franchise with a two-word title beginning with S and W.
Now, if Ed Greenwood was writing the screenplay, it might manage to capture the spirit of the original...
Now, if Ed Greenwood was writing the screenplay, it might manage to capture the spirit of the original...
Fifth Element
Legend
That's fine, the point of my post was that regardless of whether you consider it true to the original or not, there were reasons for makng it beyond "cash grab", so leaping immedatwly to cash grab is incredibly unfair to the filmmakers.
Similar Threads
