This is a topic that has many people split down the middle. Many people will say that if the new film is a remake of a classic, watch the classic. However, for many people, they believe the remake is better than the original. Ranging from the Chocolate Factory films, the Planet of the Apes films, even superhero films such as Batman and Spider-man have people split about which version is better. Are the originals always better, are the remakes superior, or will this just be an endless debate with no real end?
This shouldn't just focus on pure American remakes but also on remakes of films from different countries. Two example that come to mind are the [REC] films (Spanish) that were remade into Quarantine and there are also The Ring films to compare to. Both of these examples are horror films and they could easily be looked at too, there are plenty there to look at.
How the format of this article would be interesting, whether it goes film by film or by genre (World cinema, horror, superheroes, fairy tales etc.). I think either way would work but I would probably edge to wards doing it by genre. – Jamie White9 years ago
With remakes, they could overdo trying to replace possible quality in the original with the quantity so often found when introducing elements like CGI. Like there's this attitude that CGI can "breathe life" into an older film that was made before CGI became abundant everywhere, as was the case with the remake of The Thing (also a horror film) in 2011. So CGI could definitely be a problem to address for the original vs. remake debate since overuse of new technology can make or break the remake especially in the name of attempting to make the original relevant again in the public eye. – dsoumilas9 years ago
Recent summer box-office results have labeled Tomorrowland as 2015's biggest box-office bomb, with an estimated loss of around $120-150 million. While Disney is notable for spawning a huge money-making franchise with Pirates of the Caribbean, the studio has also produced its share of expensive flops, including John Carter and The Lone Ranger. Despite these bombs, the studio shows no signs of learning from past mistakes and seems to be set on spending more money on big productions to re-create the success of Pirates of the Caribbean. This begs the questions of why these films continue to flop for Disney and whether spending more money on projects makes any difference with creating critical or financial success.
I think this with those examples you mentioned is more so about trying to make films that focus on trends. Most executives cannot predict how well a film would do, but if they see that it is based on something popular or believe it has potential, they'll put money towards it. The funny thing is that these are also the same executives that believed that Frozen would be a financial flop, and look at it, its the complete opposite to films like The Lone Ranger. But at the same time, its a thing that every studio is guilty of, for every good film they finance, they always finance a bad film when they think it'll bring in the crowds. Most executives only care about the profits, but too bad they always like to gamble as well with projects. – Ryan Walsh9 years ago
Many films take real-life historical characters to play major and/or important roles that add to a movie's overall message. Everyone from William Wallace to King Baldwin IV has gripped audiences with their strong characters and pivotal roles. But these depictions of people long dead are by all means not entirely accurate. Often they are made sympathetic to allow the filmmakers to showcase a message or idea and while that is fine in fiction, circumstances are different for "nonfiction" films often boasted as "true stories" (not always prefaced by "based on" or "inspired by"). Should we allow films to bastardize these real-life people and depict them falsely against the actual things they did, only focusing on limited aspects or ideas of who they were? Examine the treatment of real-life figures in film and changes made to them to suit the work's needs as opposed to the truth (such as ignoring or conveniently avoiding mentioning how they too tortured, raped, stole raped or hurt others to get their way) and if there could ever be a truly "nonfiction" film, if such liberties must always be taken. (Remember, even documentaries are written and edited to suit the goals of the makers.) Also examine if there is a differing treatment of long-dead, near-dead and still-living subjects of a film (such as Jesus, Winston Churchill and Bob Dylan, respectively).
Ever since Caityln Jenner came out the world, we have seen a rise in stories being told about transgender people. This year, we'll see two feature films that concern being transgender (The Danish Girl and About Ray). Television too has gotten in on the trend which shows like I Am Cait and I Am Jazz. And before that we had Transparent on Hulu. What have been the conditions that have led to this rise in transgender storytelling?
These conditions are still very recent and I think it would be a good idea to mention how tabloid headlines mocked Caitlyn persistently during her transitional years...she could have stayed away from the public eye but maybe the public emphasized with her struggle once she was able to look and feel true to herself. – katrinafowler9 years ago
"A person who believes himself or herself an expert or connoisseur in a given field and is condescending toward or disdainful of those who hold other opinions or have different tastes."
I have no problem with this definition but it does raise a question.
Primarily, how important is it that the person believes themselves to be an expert vs actually being an expert in film?
From the little definitions of "snob" that I looked up, a common element is the superficiality of differences that the snob sees and looks downward at the person just because of the superficial difference that isn't an indicator of any intelligence.
The term "film snob" sounds like it could fall under the same rank as "hipster." Both terms change in meaning so often with whatever material is designated as pretentious for the moment. It's more of an attempt to simply classify someone's arrogance (towards film in this case) when arrogance can happen anywhere without need for its own terminology. – dsoumilas9 years ago
If you look up "Cinema Snob" his entire show is a parody on this very subject and quite intelligent on the ridiculous notion of snobs. – smartstooge9 years ago
To add an interesting angle, I would tackle the question of whether someone can be a justified film snob. I mean, we all know That Guy who is a obnoxiously snobbish about their subject (film or otherwise), and we can all agree that these people need to get off their high horses and admit that they are not the pinnacle of good taste. But then, there's other snobs whose opinions we respect so much that we call them "critics" instead. These are the interesting snobs, because their opinions are often taken seriously and are, to some extent, justified. A film critic has seen far more movies than I'm ever likely to watch, and has watched them with a critical eye that I don't often use. Is there, then, some justification to his pretensions of good taste above that of us plebeians? To what extent can objective quality be measured anyway? – OddballGentleman9 years ago
What makes a movie so bad that it's good? Birdemic and Sharknado are just a couple of examples of movies celebrated for being so amazingly awful that they actually transcend bad movies. How does that happen? What's the difference between a plain bad movie and a movie that is so bad, it's good?
An easy way to understand whether a movie is just bad or secretly good lies in the subtleties of it. I'd categorize "Rubber" as one of these movies, where they are just so weird and boring but after close and patient examination one can find a really deep meaning only such an awful concept could bring out. That being said I don't think Birdemic or Sharknado fit into that haha. Just like how people like scary movies because they just want to feel scared, some people get a kick out of watching something so bad it makes them cringe, and they fill that niche. – Slaidey9 years ago
Another movie that be considered "so bad, its good" is the Room written, directed, and starring Tommy Wiseau. Although it was universally panned many movie fans celebrate it for all its failures. Oftentimes these films develop a cult following. Whoever takes this up should consider looking up other cult films. – Cagney9 years ago
Analyze the most important changes in vampire films from the early Dracula and Nosferatu horror movies, to the teen action vampire shows of the 90's like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, to the diverse vampire films of today like Twilight, Let the Right One In, and Underworld. Focus on the genre of each film, the character of the vampire, his/her appearance, whether or not he/she is the villain, the way the vampire is killed, and what this kind of vampire says about the generation.
Not sure if it'll help, but it might be a good idea to also analyze how vampires are depicted in animated films as well. Whether they're from North America like Hotel Transylvania or even anime films that have vampires in them. – Ryan Walsh9 years ago
This is interesting. There have been both morphological changes to the vampire body as well as moral changes (how they behave). So this article could give somebody a really good incentive to explore a lot of different vampire facets. – DClarke9 years ago
Another good movie to analyse is Interview with a Vampire as it was one of the first films to spark the modern attractive vampire. Additionally, one could look into the sexual undertones of different vampire movies and what these undertones say about society's values and ideals. – missmichelle9 years ago
Discuss Disney's decision to remake several of their classic films into live-action such as Beauty and the Beast, Mulan, Dumbo, Alice Through the Looking Glass, an Aladdin prelude, The Jungle Book, Pinocchio, and Tinker Bell. Why do audiences find live-action version of stories they've already been told so appealing? Will the live-action prequels or sequels be considered canon with the animated films? Is this a good strategy to make a lot of money? Maybe touch on the previous live-action retellings such as Maleficent, Cinderella, and Alice in Wonderland and how they led Disney to making so many more.
The only problem with Disney constantly remaking there animated films into live action is that some other films seem a tad unnecessary. On one hand, The Idea of a live action Mulan is very interesting because of how diverse the cast would be with it taking place in China. On the other hand, do we really need a Night on Bald Mountain movie, Because the original version from Fantasia is fine the way it is. Disney should feel obligated to remake there older films only if they feel it needs improvement. – Aaron Hatch9 years ago
Another unfortunate trend with Disney's live-action remakes is how they too often tend to change the story or characters from their animated films. Particularly in the case of Maleficent, the title character was rewritten to be a positive force in Princess Aurora's life even though Aurora was supposed to have been cursed by Maleficent in Sleeping Beauty. As a result, many of Sleeping Beauty's other characters no longer resembled themselves as they once were; King Stefan got made the villain to replace Maleficent, Prince Philip was relegated to a bit part, the three good fairies became incompetent twits, etc. So logically, such changes could lessen the live-action films' claim of being connected to Disney's animated films and cause fans to lose support since fans of the originals would be the most expected draw for an audience to watch any live-action remake. The fans would mistakenly be expecting a straightforward transition from animation to live-action of their favorite Disney film and end up feeling disinclined to see another which might hurt Disney's live-action films' financial success in the long run. – dsoumilas9 years ago
Also discussing the limits live-action would place on a story originally told through the more liberating medium of animation would enrich your analysis. – Luthien9 years ago
On a more positive note these live action remakes are introducing these stories to a newer generation. Younger folks might prefer to watch a newer films rather than the older 2D animated film. – Cagney9 years ago
It would be interesting to review some of these films whteher they are a Disney film or not. Take Beauty and the Beast for example, there was a live action French film La Belle et la Bete made in 1946 with some homosexual themes running through it (the director and actor who played the beast were having an affair at the time); then there was the television series which I believe George R.R. Martin worked on in the 80s before the animated version in 91 and now we have another live action film. This would suggest that these sorts of stories are popular no matter what the time period is and Disney obviously see this and use it to their advantage. – Jamie White9 years ago
Remaking 2D animations into live-action films can be positive for a couple of reasons. One reason could be, the person loves the Disney animation so much that seeing it come to life just makes the story even better. For example, the live-action film "Cinderella." I always imagined how a pumpkin carriage would look like in real life, so watching the movie and seeing the carriage in all its glory was pretty spectacular. Another reason would be feeling like a kid again when you are an adult. For example, if you have children and they want to go see the live-action Disney film; it is great for the parent because they get to re-live their childhood and can see their favourite story again in a new way. Therefore, live-action remakes can be a good idea. – alyssa7179 years ago
The problem with this idea is the answer is clearly yes. If you are asking about the studio, they only care about the money. New ideas, art, creativity, originality are not their concern. It is all about money and these films are making that money feeding on a generation's nostalgia and still being accessible to a younger audience. Then if we broaden the article on whether it is a good idea or not in general, both sides have been exhausted and I feel wouldn't be saying anything necessarily new. – Erin Derwin9 years ago
