Don’t try remaking classic films, what made them great in the first place was the fact that nobody tried that style before remaking that energy an magic is pointless and cant be done plus the directors an producers usually get some cheese ball actors to play the characters for these hack remakes ruining the original films reputation among movie goers
Gosh, have you never heard of punctuation?
http://www.thedougjonesexperience.com
Just because someone needs an editor doesn't make their points worthless:
"Don't try remaking classic films. What made them great in the first place was the fact that nobody had tried that style before. Remaking that energy and magic is pointless and can't be done. Plus, the directors and producers usually get some cheeseball actors to play the characters for these hack remakes, ruining the original film's reputation among moviegoers."
No, but it makes their points very difficult to read, and quite frankly I get tired of trying to decipher posts on the IMDb that are almost unintelligible due to a lack of punctuation or contain little or no decent grammar. I also find this disgraceful tendency towards 'text-speak' absolute anathema. So if the OP wishes to have those points read and taken seriously, perhaps taking time to use punctuation would support those very comments?
Anyway, back to the OP's points, which you so considerately punctuated for us all.
The points in question are a blanket dismissal about a film that the OP probably hasn't seen and is dismissing out of hand. I hope not, because then his/her comments at least have some validity behind them. On the assumption that the OP HAS seen the film, then I would contest the statement "What made them great in the first place was the fact that nobody had tried that style before."
Tosh.
Many great films, classics or otherwise, have a tried and tested formula or have a place in a genre that has seen the like before. For example, Anthony Mann's great westerns starring James Stewart, films such as 'The Naked Spur' and 'The Man from Laramie.' Both films have the same basic idea ... a man scarred by life, cynical and uncaring, who is turned from that path by circumstances that push him into making a stance against evil. Brilliant films, but done many times before and since. 'Unforgiven' comes to mind, a film that has a story not unlike many other westerns including those of Anthony Mann, yet regarded as one of the greatest westerns ever made.
I have no problem with remakes if they are done well - and this one is, in my opinion, done exceptionally well. It has taken Wiene's classic film and 'picked up the ball and run with it,' so to speak. It is respectful, original in its own right, beautifully acted by a top-class cast, and I loved it - and I'm a HUGE fan of the original 1919 film.
http://www.thedougjonesexperience.com
True. I wish people on IMDb would take the time to read over what they've written, if only just ONCE.
But to the point of, "What made them great in the first place...[etc.]" comment, I think that's actually a valid point in this case. Whether you think Fisher's remake is good or bad, the original Caligari was a HUGELY groundbreaking film in terms of its style and art direction. And since Fisher hewed so closely to the original (even going so far as to digitally recreate the original sets), many who see this remake are bound to question why it was made in the first place. Those who like it are going to see it as a loving tribute, but those who dislike it are going to see it as necrophilia.
I agree with you that there are tried and true formulas in many genres that are going to be used over and over, and that they will stand or fall based on how well they are executed. For instance, the basic story of Shane--a reluctant hero with a dark past who is forced to "go back to war" to protect innocent people whom he's grown to care about--has been used a least a hundred times, maybe even a thousand. But, as I said, I don't think that the original Cabinet of Dr Caligari falls into this category ... it's anything but formulaic.
The more stylistically and visually groundbreaking a film, the more difficult it is to remake. For instance, in the '80s, most people probably didn't even realize that No Way Out, Narrow Margin, Against All Odds, and D.O.A. were remakes, but if someone had tried to remake Citizen Kane ... well, you get the idea. How do you improve upon perfection?
Anyway, off-topic, since you brought up the Anthony Mann/Jimmy Stewart westerns, which do you think is the best? I love a number of Mann's noirs (esp. T-Men, He Walked by Night, and Raw Deal), but I wasn't crazy about the one western of his that I saw, Winchester 73. It wasn't bad, just not as good as I was expecting...
LOL.
What's the spanish for drunken bum?
Anyway, off-topic, since you brought up the Anthony Mann/Jimmy Stewart westerns, which do you think is the best? I love a number of Mann's noirs (esp. T-Men, He Walked by Night, and Raw Deal), but I wasn't crazy about the one western of his that I saw, Winchester 73. It wasn't bad, just not as good as I was expecting...
No, it doesn't make the point worthless but it makes for poor readability which obscures the point. Nobody's comments are so important that they can't be edited briefly before posting.
shareYeah, I'm getting pretty sick of remakes. There always have been remakes, but it has become an epidemic in the last decade. Why remake? I've seen "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari", why would I want to see it done again? I've seen "Halloween", why would I want to see it done again? Why not leave well enough alone. Furthermore, it's lazy. It's like, "I don't feel like writing a new script (that or, "I'm not talented enough to write a new script") so why not take this script that has already been written, tweak it and just use that. Why bother writing one of my own." It's just plain lazy.
shareOnly one thing bugs me... it says it was filmed in 35mm but it manages to look like overly fluid video... that's my beef, it distracts me.
I don't care for anything else, it's as simple as channel surfing, you only need a fraction of a second to determine if it's a movie, television commercial, tv movie, live show, videotaped show, filmed show, or even low budget video.
The amateur fluid videoy look bugged me a lot. That's all, the rest is fine.
[deleted]
It's easy people, one film is going to be remembered, the other one isn't.
Just guess.
"Why remake? I've seen "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari", why would I want to see it done again? I've seen "Halloween", why would I want to see it done again?"
It amazes me how many people just disregard the point to remaking a movie in the first place.
Yeah, I'm getting pretty sick of remakes. There always have been remakes, but it has become an epidemic in the last decade. Why remake? I've seen "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari", why would I want to see it done again?
If it is done well, sound, and even colour could improve on the original.
"No man is just a number"
i used to agree with you. but to be honest, there is no reason why films shouldnt be re-made. as the times pass, the old films become forgotten more and more. so a re-make can help to re-light the fire. however, your point is sadly true that poor actors are used. i think the best solution is to bring a old classic and turn it into a new, modern version, and even change genre. and with this film, i would think a different take on it would be valid, as doing actual re-makes of the entire story can only lead to comparisons from the original.
shareLook at how many times King Kong has been remade. At least one of those remakes is good.
Has anyone seen the Metropolis anime' from 2001?
It CAN be done, and it HAS. Or are you really that stupid?
shareI think that, in the hands of the right director, crew, and actors, a remake can be very well-done and enjoyable, but, unless all the elements are completely mind-blowing, I don't think it will ever live up to the original. I'm 23 years old and I've seen the original The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (which is on YouTube). I think it's brilliant. The sets are eerie and one-of-a-kind, the actors are fantastic (no one--I don't care who they are--will ever replace the great Conrad Veidt, the original Cesare). As for this remake, while I'll admit I've only seen the trailer and a few behind-the-scenes clips, I don't think this was very original. Normally, especially in money-hungry Hollywood, I would say bravo to them for wanting to stay true to the original source, but when they're so true that they're just making a shot-by-shot remake, I don't see the point of that (aside from the amazing technological ability to green-screen the original sets). They should have just re-released the original in theaters.
Nevermore!
I love movies. I respect art. And originality. And being a fellow writer, I respect the written word. That being said, I don't think there's anything wrong with remakes. There can be such thing as an unnecessary or unwanted remake or an excess. For instance, I heard talks of remaking The Crow. 1. That movie is perfect. 2. It's only 20 years old. To me, it seems too early to make a remake. Anyway, a remake is good because it modernizes it. It puts it into a different time period, and in subsequently, a different world. Look at the Bates Motel. I think it's a great show. It's a modernized episodic version of Psycho. I approve of this. I do not approve of the shot-by-shot remake by Gus Van Sant in '98. The movie sucked. You need to bring something to the table.
I haven't seen this remake. I've seen the original and loved it. The whole time, all I could think of was: Tim Burton. I would love to see Tim Burton do a modernized, expanded remake of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. And this is the type of movie that can be remade. The original was made almost a hundred years ago. It was in black and white and a silent film. A lot has changed since it was made. It's a relevant remake.
Okay I'm done ranting. In conclusion, remakes have a purpose, they just need to be handled carefully.
"Hate is baggage. Life's too short to be pissed off all the time."