Q&A: General Movie Discussion

Feel free to drop any general movie questions here, and if anyone knows the answer, they'll jump in.
I've got one specific question on my mind. Basically, looking for your take.
Do you guys consider movies remakes if they're both based on the same novel, book, or whatever? Like, for example, The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946) versus The Postman Always Rings Twice (1981)? Both are based on the same novella. Is that second one really a remake? Same goes for Scarface, directed by Brian De Palma (1983) after the earlier version by Howard Hughes (1932)... and it’ll be the same deal with Virgin Territory, which is in production and based on Giovanni Boccaccio's Decameron...

Curious what you think, because honestly, I usually hate remakes, but I don't really count these types of films in that category.🙂

Scarface was actually directed by Howard Hawks (just making a quick correction here).

I don't usually get hung up on the whole remake debate. Whether a movie is revisiting an older film or adapting a book, every project should be judged on its own merits. You can certainly measure how faithful it stays to the source material—be it the original flick or the novel it's based on—but ultimately, what matters is how the film actually performs as a standalone piece of work.

In my experience, the films and directors who truly succeed are the ones who avoid the trap of just mindlessly copying scenes from the predecessor. Taking an auteur's approach feels much closer to actual artistic expression, though, logically speaking, that's often a double-edged sword.

Take Gus Van Sant’s "reimagining" of Hitchcock’s Psycho, for instance. Van Sant tweaked the plot, shifted the setting to the 1990s, opted for color, and gave the actors a bit more room to breathe and develop their characters... yet, about 95% of the shots in Van Sant's version are essentially identical to those in the Hitchcock original. Coincidence? Not a chance. Even though Van Sant claimed he wanted to interpret Psycho his own way rather than just duplicating it, there's no point in me breaking down every single scene; I'll just lean on the general critical consensus: this new Psycho is interesting primarily because, in the shots where Van Sant tries to replicate the originals, he inadvertently proves just how technically superior Hitchcock was. Essentially, it's a lesson in how less is more.

That doesn't change the fact that you can still watch Van Sant's film as its own entity. What might bother some viewers, however, is that nagging sense of a slightly inferior déjà vu.

Pacificist said:First off, I didn't quite catch you—are you asking if the movie is a remake of the book, or a remake of a previous film?
From what you wrote, it sounds like you're asking, "Do you consider films remakes if they're based on a novella, a book, or whatever, just like their predecessor was?"
The whole "predecessor" thing is what trips me up, so I can't tell if you're talking about two movies or a book and a movie...

Anyway, a movie based on a book isn't a "remake"—it's an adaptation. By definition, even an original screenplay is just something waiting to be adapted
As far as I know, the term "remake" specifically refers to a movie made based on another movie
I mean, just like how Rafaelson filmed based on James M. Cain's book, the other one you mentioned did the same, and even Luchino Visconti did (as far as I know)... but those aren't remakes. None of them were based on a prior film; they were just based on the book (which, coincidentally, had another movie made from it)
For example, as far as my shaky knowledge goes—and strictly factually since I haven't seen all of these and don't feel like fact-checking right now—there's a version of "The Glass Key" based on the Dashiell Hammett novel, and that's an adaptation... based on the main themes of "The Glass Key," Akira Kurosawa filmed "High and Low," and a straight remake of that would be Sergio Leone's "A Fistful of Dollars"
So, a remake is a reimagining of an existing film. Making a movie from a book can never be a remake

p.s. Just realized that now, I was looking at it from a different angle...

You caught my drift 👍 and gave me the answer I expected 🙂

steelstag4 said:Scarface was actually directed by Howard Hawks (just making a quick correction here).

thanks 🙂

Joseph Lee3 said:I don't usually get hung up on the whole remake debate. Whether a movie is revisiting an older film or adapting a book, every project should be judged on its own merits. You can certainly measure how faithful it stays to the source material—be it the original flick or the novel it's based on—but ultimately, what matters is how the film actually performs as a standalone piece of work.

In my experience, the films and directors who truly succeed are the ones who avoid the trap of just mindlessly copying scenes from the predecessor. Taking an auteur's approach feels much closer to actual artistic expression, though, logically speaking, that's often a double-edged sword.

Take Gus Van Sant’s "reimagining" of Hitchcock’s Psycho, for instance. Van Sant tweaked the plot, shifted the setting to the 1990s, opted for color, and gave the actors a bit more room to breathe and develop their characters... yet, about 95% of the shots in Van Sant's version are essentially identical to those in the Hitchcock original. Coincidence? Not a chance. Even though Van Sant claimed he wanted to interpret Psycho his own way rather than just duplicating it, there's no point in me breaking down every single scene; I'll just lean on the general critical consensus: this new Psycho is interesting primarily because, in the shots where Van Sant tries to replicate the originals, he inadvertently proves just how technically superior Hitchcock was. Essentially, it's a lesson in how less is more.

That doesn't change the fact that you can still watch Van Sant's film as its own entity. What might bother some viewers, however, is that nagging sense of a slightly inferior déjà vu.

Well, I definitely sweat it. Most remakes are just corporate cash grabs by industry types (mostly Americans) who run out of ideas and need to churn out a specific quota of films just to hit their profit margins. It's pretty gross...🤮

Jerry Martin19 said:Well, I definitely sweat it. Most remakes are just corporate cash grabs by industry types (mostly Americans) who run out of ideas and need to churn out a specific quota of films just to hit their profit margins. It's pretty gross...🤮

Yeah, I'm with you on that one, and honestly, here's exactly why they're doing it: 👎 !

Joseph Lee3 said:Yeah, I'm with you on that one, and honestly, here's exactly why they're doing it: 👎 !

yeah👎 👎 👎

Just posting this now before the thread dies on me...
What’s the deal with the Razzie Awards? Honestly, if you ask me, it's just another American joke...👎

Back in '91, Sofia Coppola grabs Razzie awards for worst new star because of The Godfather Part III?!😕
Sofia Coppola also picked up worst supporting actress that same year for the same flick...

Betsy's Wedding (1990) - Ally Sheedy
Bonfire of the Vanities (1990) - Cattrall
Who's Talking Too? (1990) - Julie Newmar
Look Who's Talking Too? (1990) - Roseanne (voice)

Simply gross...🤮

Then in 2000, Sofia Coppola is nominated for worst new star again?! It's like she's the "new star" every other year...🙄

That same year, Natalie Portman and Jake Lloyd were nominated for worst onscreen duo, even though they aren't even a couple in Star Wars: Episode I...👎

Fast forward to 1998, when Kevin Costner swept three Razzie awards for worst film, worst director, and worst actor against:

Anaconda (1997) - Verna Harrah; Leonard Rabinowitz; Carole Little
Batman & Robin (1997) - Peter Macgregor-Scott
Fire Down Below (1997) - Steven Seagal; Julius R. Nasso
Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997) - Jan de Bont

For worst film...

Anaconda (1997) - Jon Voight
Fire Down Below (1997) - Steven Seagal
The Saint (1997) - Val Kilmer
Steel (1997) - Shaquille O'Neal

For worst actor and...

Anaconda (1997) - Luis Llosa
Batman & Robin (1997) - Joel Schumacher
Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997) - Jan de Bont
Speed (1997) - Oliver Stone

...for worst director.😕

Marlon Brando ended up the "winner" of this "award" in '97 for worst supporting actor, beating out:

Executive Decision (1996) - Steven Seagal
Dusk Till Dawn (1996) - Quentin Tarantino
The Ghost and the Darkness (1996) - Val Kilmer
- Also for The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996).
Striptease (1996) - Burt Reynolds

😕

Burt Reynolds, Steven Seagal, and Quentin Tarantino are better than Marlon Brando?!👎

In 2006, Hayden Christensen gets called worst supporting actor, even though he's practically the lead in Star Wars...😕

It's nothing more than a massive American cinematic farce...

Honestly, the only ceremony worth a damn is the Golden Globe...👍

I don't really lose sleep over remakes—if they decide to redo one of my all-time favorites and it looks bad, I’ll just skip it, simple as that! I honestly don't get people who start getting worked up about this kind of thing—it's a big fat nothing burger. There will always be good movies out there, regardless of what's currently coming out of Hollywood.

Regarding those awards—it seems like there’s always some kind of shady business going on during that period, I guess.

wearygardener13 said:Regarding those awards—it seems like there’s always some kind of shady business going on during that period, I guess.

Rigged?! 😕 They've been missing the mark for ten years straight... right?

I am speaking generally—regarding all the awards

wearygardener13 said:I am speaking generally—regarding all the awards

I agree, but the Golden Raspberry is an absolute joke🤮 maybe the Oscar isn't big enough to carry them through the whole year and they need the cash👎they should just scrap the Golden Raspberry entirely...

Are those really just such total lies?

wearygardener13 said:Are those really just such total lies?

Wait, so Marlon Brando is better than Steven Seagal?!😕

Roberto Benigni was easily the worst actor of 2002.😠

I suppose I agree regarding Roberto Benigni—I can't quite bring myself to watch him 🙂

but I was actually referring to what you mentioned about abolishing them. It’s a massive point—someone actually suggested that Marlon Brando is a worse actor than Steven Seagal. Phew, even I'm getting worked up over this one 🙄

wearygardener13 said:I suppose I agree regarding Roberto Benigni—I can't quite bring myself to watch him 🙂

but I was actually referring to what you mentioned about abolishing them. It’s a massive point—someone actually suggested that Marlon Brando is a worse actor than Steven Seagal. Phew, even I'm getting worked up over this one 🙄

Look, I'm not trying to get worked up here, but that was just... I don't even have the words for it...🤮 It's not just Steven Seagal, but Burt Reynolds too...👎
Look, you might not be a fan of Roberto Benigni, but man, the guy is a great actor. He’s absolutely fantastic in... Life is beautiful... Life is good...🙏

Look, I guess he’s just a terrible actor—honestly, nobody could ever convince me otherwise. It’s just... 😉

wearygardener13 said:Look, I guess he’s just a terrible actor—honestly, nobody could ever convince me otherwise. It’s just... 😉

and honestly 🤣 and I'm not trying to convince you. But just because you don't like him doesn't mean he isn't actually good... 🙂