Why remake excellence? - Edge of Darkness (1986) Discussion

[–] johnmichael-2 14 years ago

Same reason they remade BBC's perfect "Pride and Prejudice"--because, as flawless as it is, it never got a chance on the big screen, and the makers feel it deserves a chance on the big screen and with a different audience (because there's a somewhat different audience of people who frequently go to the movie theaters as opposed to people who watch lots and lots of TV).

Proud member of SHREWS (Society for the Honor Required of Eyes Wide Shut)

reply

[–] ArchStanton1862 14 years ago

Just a note, Pride and Prejudice was in fact a remake of a movie that had been made dozens of times. The 1997 version was not the first time that BBC had produced a Pride and Prejudice movie. Hollywood was perfectly justified in doing a movie version of it.

FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC

reply

[–] czarner 14 years ago

Might be worth noting that it's not really accurate to describe a dramatisation of a novel as a remake of a previous dramatisation of the same novel. It is the novel that is being interpreted, not the previous dramatisation(s).

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jrsubs 14 years ago

I think you are being too generous - to Hollywood. I have never, ever seen a Hollywood remake that was as good as the original of anything. This is because Hollywood appears incapable of subtlety and rarely adds or even maintains the intelligence or humour of an existing product. True Hollywood has produced a few intelligent films but not remakes. Hollywood appears addicted to the idea and often reality of test audiences, which means, like democratically elected governments, you will always get the outcome of greatest mass appeal rather than the best.

In this case - Edge of Darkness - I cringe because the original is simply so good that there isn't a hope in hell of it being improved, least of all by Hollywood.

For Johnmichael - not sure if there really are different audiences, unless you mean a relatively sophisticated audience who watch selective TV vs the US dominated lowest-common-denominator-because-we-want-to-maximise-audiences kind of audience. If you need to remake, why not by the British? Maybe you are just saying the remake is to convert a minority-audience excellent series into a mass audience film of no interest to those who enjoyed the original.

reply

[–] spit-take 14 years ago

I have never, ever seen a Hollywood remake that was as good as the original of anything. This is because Hollywood appears incapable of subtlety and rarely adds or even maintains the intelligence or humour of an existing product.

You should see Scorcese's "The Departed", a remake of the Hong Kong film "Infernal Affairs". Its a fantastic picture, and you could argue that its better than the original. There's an example of a "Hollywood" upgrade.

I agree that most of the time, for "Hollywood", the original is almost always going to be superior to the remake, especially if the original is a classic - and it has an iconic status and aura that would be hard to reproduce. The problem is that the motivations for remakes are not often about making something more relevant to modern audiences or exploring different themes within a story, they are about recycling proven material to cash in on a new audience. Its a safe investment.

reply

[–] jrsubs 14 years ago

That's a good point, that there are two very different motivations for remakes. The main one being more or less as said before, that a filmaker sees a great film, often clever and subtle and therefore not likely to appeal to mass audiences, so they think they should remake it to sell it to that bigger audience.

The second reason, that might apply in Scorcese's case, is a filmaker who sees a flawed film and wants to remake it 'better'. Whether I/we/a particular audience likes it better will then depend on which audience the filmaker aimed it at. (and whether they were successful of course).

reply

[–] lartrak 14 years ago

"I have never, ever seen a Hollywood remake that was as good as the original of anything"

Hm, good question. I think John Carpenter's The Thing is better than the original The Thing From Another World. Another one is The Fly, which I think is vastly superior to the original 50s film. If you want to count it, I think the movie version of the Bourne Identity is better than the TV Movie. Getting back on point, not even sure if it really counts as a remake they're so different, but I think Martin Campbell's Casino Royale is waaaaay better than the original.

I do think that is worth noting - they're retaining the original director. That's a hopeful sign, and the early reviews are glowing.

reply

[–] paul-mellor 14 years ago

I for one had never heard of Edge of Reason so I guess at least the new film has made me aware of this series. Just added it to my rental queue.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fortean2 14 years ago

It's Edge of Darkness, not Edge of Reason (unless you're thinking of the Bridget Jones movie). :-)

reply

[–] boogles 14 years ago

TV mini series are an opportunity for film adaptations. Just look at Traffic(which was actually pretty good, but not quite as good as the original British TV series) and State of Play.

reply

[–] jgousie1 14 years ago

I liked Traffic the film better, and I won't even dignify the State of Play movie with a comment. I think Edge of Darkness might be one of those things that was made long ago enough that a nrw audience might appreciate a new take on it.

Inspired is when you think you can do anything, manic is when you know it

reply

[–] garfieldian 14 years ago

I thought the US version of State of Play was better that the UK version. I always thought Paul Abbott ran out of plot! Edge of Darkness however cannot be remade in 120mins. The new film will be crap!

reply

[–] doorsscorpywag 14 years ago

"I think John Carpenter's The Thing is better than the original The Thing From Another World. Another World"

Yes but that is not a remake simply making a movie of the original story which the 50s one was not.
EOD was one of the most brilliant 80s TV series ever made and was a major talking point around the time it was on as it had a resonance with its era . Mel Gibson as Craven gives me a chill and the idea that a numpty like Ray Winstone can emulate Joe Don Bakers chilling Jedburgh performance frankly laughable. I will watch it this weekend but I do not imagine it will be anything but car chaces loud bangs and Mel giving his usual hard man performance.

reply

[–] HHFan 14 years ago

Because it was perfect then - today its just mind numbingly boring and predictable.

--
Lets nuke the site from orbit - its the only way to be sure.

reply

[–] fortean2 14 years ago

Wrong.

The remake is awful - after watching it I had to go and re-watch the 1985 original just to wash the bad taste of the remake from my mouth.

The original is wonderful - it was in 1985 and still is.

reply

[–] MovieKnut (184) 2 years ago

Because it was perfect then - today its just mind numbingly boring and predictable.

Have to disagree. Have watched this several times. The most recent about a year back. Love it.

reply

[–] MrBigglesworth999 14 years ago

I haven't yet watched the BBBC "State Of Play" so can't comment but I did watch the Russell Crowe movie remake and rate it highly.

However I watched the BBC original "Edge of Darkness" and frankly Mel & Hollywood have a hard act to follow.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] m-slovak79 14 years ago

Why remake excellence?

because the 2010 film is vastly better than the 1985 TV Series at the end of the day.

i think the 2010 film remake is A LOT better than this TV Series is simply because the TV Series is kind of boring to be honest where as the 2010 remake is actually a great entertaining film.

-Edge of Darkness (2010) = 9/10
-Edge of Darkness (1985 TV Series) = ??/10. (i got about half way through the 2nd episode and i stopped watching it because it's basically not interesting and i seen enough of it to tell how the overall entertainment value of it is, which is quite low.)

p.s. in fact, Edge of Darkness (2010) is the best film i seen in 2010 so far and it beat any movie i seen in 2009 as there was not a single film i seen in 2009 that is worthy of a 9/10 or higher.

---
My Vote History ... http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=11026826
---

reply

[–] garfieldian 14 years ago

How much are the studio paying you?

reply

[–] queen_of_anarchy 13 years ago

You lasted only half-way through the 2nd episode?? Well, that sums up why they do remakes of brilliant TV shows - shows that are intense, paced and build gradually upon the plot; it's for people like you with the attention span of a goldfish. That basically sums up mainstream movies these days. As for Mel Gibson in Bob Peck's role?? What an insult. Gibson was an OK actor in the early days (Gallipoli, Mad Max) but he has turned into a caricature, playing the same character in every movie he is in. I'd rather watch wood (actually, if wood could grimace there would be little difference between them).

The original EOD series rates a 12/10, maybe even higher, as it surpasses perfection.

reply

[–] moxey (141) 6 years ago

"because the 2010 film is vastly better than the 1985 TV series"

"i got about half way through the 2nd episode and i stopped watching it"

So really you actually preferred the film to the first one and half episodes then and not the series. People like you with short attention spans are the reason why we get so much dumb entertainment now.

reply

[–] lisalady27 13 years ago

Just saw the Hollywood version. They mutilated a fantastic story and totally ruined the ending. *sigh*
You'd think the Americans didn't understand British English.
A shame because the original is brilliant and the new version is the pits.

reply

[–] rikkelk-1 13 years ago

You obviously don't understand that the movie was directed by Martin Campbell, who's previous credits include EDGE OF DARKNESS (1985)!

I enjoyed the movie more than the TV series.

reply

[–] johngalt-1 11 years ago

I have not seen the movie. I first saw the original when it was televised in the United States (with about 40 minutes cut to allow for commercials) and was completely blown away. Not long after I was able to see a VHS copy of the full-length broadcast and was amazed at what a difference those missing 40 minutes made. The entire pacing and continuity of the story is completely different! I honestly cannot imagine how anything resembling the same plot could be fit into the length of a feature film. Someday perhaps I will find out, but it's really not a priority for me.

The truly amazing thing about the original was that much, if not most of the major plot points hinged on material that seemed pretty far-fetched during the mid-80s. That is no longer true. What required much suspension of disbelief in 1986 is now yesterday's news. Perhaps to those who did not see the original in its time, the movie version is more relevant. To those of us who recall all too well the Reagan-Thatcher era....well, it was a different world.

The last resort of one who cannot think is to argue that another cannot feel.

reply