The book was rather short - the original movie covered absolutely everything in the book - almost verbatim. I wonder how they are going to spread this tight, well-paced book over 4 hours. Sounds like there will be a lot of filler. If the original book hadn't been covered in the movie, I could see it. I just think this re-make is completely unnecessary.
"Well, make something up!"/RG
I also wonder how they're going to stretch it. But I see all remakes, like a person covering a song. Perhaps the original version of the song was good, but it can be fun to hear your favorite rehashed.
shareThe book was rather short - the original movie covered absolutely everything in the book - almost verbatim. I wonder how they are going to spread this tight, well-paced book over 4 hours. Sounds like there will be a lot of filler. If the original book hadn't been covered in the movie, I could see it. I just think this re-make is completely unnecessary.
Here in NYC, when a new version of an old play comes to the stage we call it a revival. Of course audiences will have their favorite casts etc. but the idea that because a story was already told before and told well it should never be told again is unheard of in theatre. Would that it were the same way in film.
I've seen too many adaptations of Wuthering Heights to count. Why? Because I love the story and I enjoy seeing how different directors, screenwriters, and casts interpret it anew in their own fashion. I already have a favorite version, but I don't consider that particular interpretation to somehow be "the final word" on Wuthering Heights. Actually I'd be very disappointed if the novel were never again adapted and I were denied the opportunity of seeing more men and women interpret the material in their own way; sometimes different, sometimes the same, but never "unnecessary."
I like that! I actually liked what you said. I'm not always a fan of remakes of films that I love but what you said has really made me stop and think!
I also have my favorite versions of stories that have been told and re-told in film but it has never stopped me from checking out a new version. Oh, I may hate it but I never look at it as a waste of my time....
Who knows? I may like it!
"Fasten your seat belts!
It's going to be a bumpy night!"
I like that! I actually liked what you said. I'm not always a fan of remakes of films that I love but what you said has really made me stop and think!
My sentiments exactly. I've now seen 3 different stage versions of Macbeth and will be seeing my 4th variation next month in NY. Of course I have my favourite version but when the material is just too good and pertinent, it would be a complete shame NOT to be told over again with a new spin.
Rosemary's Baby, the Polanski film, completely changed my life. It is the reason I am in film and why I'm a writer. However, I look forward to this re-telling to see how Agnieszka & co have used the material to create their own version. Will it be Mia Farrow and Ruth Gordon? Absolutely not. But that doesn't mean it won't have great qualities, either.
Surprise, Sidney
I've now seen 3 different stage versions of Macbeth and will be seeing my 4th variation next month in NY.
Here in NYC, when a new version of an old play comes to the stage we call it a revival. Of course audiences will have their favorite casts etc. but the idea that because a story was already told before and told well it should never be told again is unheard of in theatre. Would that it were the same way in film.
Theater is not the same as film. Changing casts of plays comes as a necessity for certain plays to continue.
That's not the case with movies. You don't need to remake a movie to view it today. You can just watch the original. Once in every blue moon there's a strong remake. Most often, that's not the case. and unless someone is well and truly trying to do a fresh take on a story that still does it justice, why bother? Why not just take the best/favorite elements of the story and focus it into a new story all together, in a brand new vision instead of leeching off someone else's?
The answer is usually that the new story doesn't have the marquee value of the old one. In other words, money and attention.
"However cleverly you sneak up on a mirror, it's reflection always looks you straight in the eye"
No one "needs" to revive an old play either. Movies are the same as plays in that regard. If you hear of a new production of Macbeth, but the people participating don't appeal to you, nobody makes you go see it anyway. Nobody makes you go see a new movie of a book that's already been filmed either. If you're happy with the old one, just ignore the new one. Of course, you're taking the chance it will be great and you'll miss it. Bottom line, there's nothing wrong with remaking a book into a movie; a bad remake doesn't spoil an earlier great original, any more than a great remake can redeem a bad original, and you just MIGHT end up with two really good but different versions of a book you like.
"The value of an idea has nothing whatsoever to do with the sincerity of the man who expresses it."
Theater is not the same as film. Changing casts of plays comes as a necessity for certain plays to continue. That's not the case with movies. You don't need to remake a movie to view it today.
Once in every blue moon there's a strong remake. Most often, that's not the case.
Why not just take the best/favorite elements of the story and focus it into a new story all together, in a brand new vision instead of leeching off someone else's?
The answer is usually that the new story doesn't have the marquee value of the old one. In other words, money and attention.
There's a profound difference between film and theater. The movie exists for all time. I can't go back to see the original version of 42nd Street, or Chicago, or Streetcar - too many to mention; they don't exist anymore. A revival is done so people can see the play originally performed 10, 20 or 30 years ago. There is no good reason (except lack or original thought) to remake an already good/excellent/great film.
Would you really feel the same about a remake of Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane, or Vertigo (actually pretty much anything by Alfred Hitchcock)?
Revivals often reinterpret the play for a new audience. It's not only a question of people not being able to see the original production.
Gone with the Wind is one of my favorites films of all time and I love The Wizard of Oz, but IMO neither - and this is especially true of the latter - are the best possible adaptations of the novels on which they are based.
I doubt I'd see an English language remake of Citizen Kane simply because so many of that film's achievements are technical rather than story based and that level of innovation probably wouldn't be matched by a new production. However, I'd be willing to see a foreign film adaptation because I'd be interested in seeing the story reinterpreted in another cultural setting. What would a Japanese Citizen Kane be like? Get a good director and I'd love to see that.
I'd see a remake of Vertigo, foreign or domestic, if the studio in charge got the right person to direct it. If Kubrick were still alive and wanted to remake Vertigo, I'd be there on opening night.
As for Hitchcock's other films, I don't see why I would be prejudiced against a remake of Notorious, for example, if it had a cast and director that I was interested in. I doubt I'll see the remake of The Birds since I have zero faith in Platinum Dunes (though, unlike most, I liked Bayer's Nightmare on Elm Street). There's also the fact that I wasn't impressed by Dennis Iliadis's remake of The Last House on the Left, but in all fairness to the man I haven't seen Hardcore or +1 so I can't make a serious evaluation of his skills as a director.
Great point, JFM. For me it was "Les Miserables". I also love different interpretations of the same story.
Some turn out great, some not so much. But, I have to say, this new RB is poorly done.
The difference is that a stage production is not film. Why not revive the Polanski film in theaters?
shareI'm more open to play revivals because because once a show is over, you can never see it again (unless someone bootlegged it, and even then the quality is awful and it's illegal, and there are rare, rare cases of pro-shot shows, but most of the time when a show is over, that's it). A revival of a show introduces that show to an audience who has never seen it, and never would be able to if it wasn't revived. Movies are accessible to everyone, even more so with home video and the Internet. So unless a remake of a movie does something new with the material (and very few modern-day remakes do, they're normally just cash-grabs), it is unnecessary, because the original is still accessible at any moment.
shareMost remakes, both the good and bad ones IMO, do something new with the material. Even a remake like Let Me In, which recreated many scenes from the original film, is substantially, though subtly, different from Let the Right One In in many important ways, as even John Lindqvist has observed.
Another example of a seemingly similar remake that is actually very different from the original would be Adrian Lyne's Lolita. While Lyne's film is superficially the same as the Kubrick original (same setting and characters, covers the same events), tonally it is nothing like it at all.
I'd argue that even Fincher's The Girl with Dragon Tattoo, despite being heavily similar to the original, is differentiated from that film in at least one very significant respect: the depiction of Lisbeth. There's an almost child like emotional vulnerability to Rooney Mara's Lisbeth that was nowhere to be seen in Noomi Rapace's version. Robin Wright admitted to wanting to hug this version of Lisbeth and I felt the same way. That's an important difference in the title character that changes the dynamics of the film in interesting ways from the original.
Portraits of the same woman by different artists will have similarities, yes, but they won't all be the same. They'll emphasize and downplay different aspects of her appearance and personality. As I said I've seen a lot of different versions of Wuthering Heights and I don't think that any of them, including the ones I don't like very much, are so similar as to be unwarranted. While in many ways the interpretations of the many different directors and screenwriters overlap, there are also plenty of subtle differences - in characterization for instance - that cause me to reexamine different aspects of the story in a new light. I really look forward to that opportunity whenever I get my hands on a remake of Heights that I haven't previously seen. I'd be disappointed if the story was left to remain static, as if there was nothing more to be said on the subject.
For what it's worth, this miniseries (Rosemary's Baby) did indeed do something new with the material, though I thought that it was awful on every level.
Well, I'll watch. I wasn't expecting much from HBO's "Mildred Pierce", but was pleasantly surprised. This one has a mountain to cross between Polanskis paranoia and the NYC 'old timers culture' of the late 60's. I'll give it a shot.
shareThere's a lot they could do. Get more detail about the inner workings of the cult and their plans. More backstory on Rosemary and her husband.
shareI'd actually like to see that but mainly because it's supposed to be extremely faithful to the novel (which I haven't read). It seems to me that there's also a Masterpiece Theatre production of How Green Was My Valley in several parts that I'd like to see. But there's a difference between remakes such as these and this Rosemary because the former endeavor to be faithful literary adaptations for a discriminating audience whereas the latter is due to the efforts of a bunch of desperate network people who can't think up anything original on their own.
shareRemakes simply don't work, especially made-for-TV remakes. Name one made-for-TV remake that has contributed anything of value.
shareFargo. One of the best new shows on TV right now. Inspired and based on the original film. Again, if the material is good, it warrants to be revisited.
Surprise, Sidney
Good example. And some people like Bates Motel and the Flowers in the Attic TV movie. I haven't seen either.
shareThere's a lot they could do. Get more detail about the inner workings of the cult and their plans. More backstory on Rosemary and her husband.
Rosemary's Baby, the Polanski film, completely changed my life. It is the reason I am in film and why I'm a writer. However, I look forward to this re-telling to see how Agnieszka & co have used the material to create their own version. Will it be Mia Farrow and Ruth Gordon? Absolutely not. But that doesn't mean it won't have great qualities, either.
TrueDesperate - I totally agree that Fargo is the best new show on TV, and has already become my new favorite. However, I don't see it as a remake of the original movie. They took the same concept and geographical location and added all new characters and story lines.
shareDid see the Fargo film and didn't really care for it. Wonder if the tv show is better.
shareHannibal the TV series.
shareRemakes simply don't work, especially made-for-TV remakes. Name one made-for-TV remake that has contributed anything of value.
The film is over 45 years old. Good luck for anyone under 25 trying to find it, much less see it. I think it'll be great if it actually draws newer or casual fans back to the original film, making them go out of their way to find it.
share[deleted]
Just watched it streaming last week on Netflix
shareThe trailer already annoys me. The original was very elegant and mature. Already we have the naked pregnant belly trend happening. Is that what brings us to present day? Is it necessary? I don't mind nakedness but some things are best private.
CiCi: Oh, my bad. I thought you were someone else.
GHostface: That's OK, I am
[deleted]
Perhaps unnecessary for a re-make, but not a bad idea either.
I've noticed that older ideas in entertainment can be revived or re-popularized through re-makes for younger audiences. This is one movie/story I've been wanting to watch for sometime. But often time it's difficult for me to sit down and watch movies labeled "B/W", "Panoramic", "In Colorvision" or old technologies referenced as "New".
I am looking forward to this, but do fear that the original literary ideas will have deviated. Perhaps a good thing for those whose ethnicity, special interests or politics were not represented as they should have been all that time ago.
Just saying. Just saying.
J.