Your thoughts on remakes, in general

[ElectricBlue]

One remake I have long adored is Martin Scorsese's version of Cape Fear. The original is good for it's era, but the remake is downright terrifying. If you haven't seen that, definitely check it out. Robert DeNiro's character is the stuff of nightmares. You won't be forgetting about it soon after watching.

This! ^^^^^^^

 

[lovecraft68]

Apparently they had to get a bunch of pads and things from the stunt coordinator for that scene. Saw something about it and the stunt guy was like, "20 years in the business, first time they called me in for help with a sex scene..."

I can see that, it was a rough scene, and hot, but really fit the tone of the movie as well. Forget the female lead's name, but she was very attractive, rocked that cheerleader outfit early on.

But the entire movie was good, I'm a fight scene snob, and they were fairly realistic. The diner scene is one of my all time favs.

 

[lovecraft68]

Remakes have existed for almost 100 years now.

The first major one I can think of is the Maltese Falcon from 1941 with Humphrey Bogart. It's a remake of a film from 10 years prior. Everyone remembers the remake now as the classic that was one of Bogart's breakout movies along with High Sierra. I've seen them both as a big Noir buff. The remake is definitely better, as it built up on the foundations laid by the original. It also helped being the movie that launched an iconic actor of that generation.

One remake I have long adored is Martin Scorsese's version of Cape Fear. The original is good for it's era, but the remake is downright terrifying. If you haven't seen that, definitely check it out. Robert DeNiro's character is the stuff of nightmares. You won't be forgetting about it soon after watching.

This conversation on too many remakes has been recurring for a long time. I first remember hearing the phrase back in the late 2000s.

How I personally feel about remakes comes down to if it's being done by a visionary director (like Scorsese) or if it's some cash-in movie approved by the IP holders. The right director can take something and make it their own, opposed to trying to "update" it to current era.

Cape Fear was good, a bit over the top, but very good. Like Se7en and Silence of the Lambs it wasn't meant to be a horror movie, but it had the feel of one.

 

[cadeauxxx]

The movie had nothing to do with the book. I've never understood why Hollywood does that. Pay for the rights to a book to totally not use it. You were making a big budget Brad Pitt movie, you didn't need the bump from a semi-famous book title.

I think the story about the making of the Godfather is one of the rare instances of this working out.

Mario Puzo wrote the book, and the publishing company decided to print what was his rough draft while he was out on vacation. He was furious over this, but the book was a major hit despite his embarrassment. When the rights were sold to do a movie, he wanted to be involved in production so he could re-write all the dialogue (He also changed some key details). This explains why the book and film's dialogue are almost entirely different. The book had more filler in it with plots involving smaller characters that are barely seen in the movie. The backstory however that was used in the sequel, was all in the book.

The Godfather is a bit of a weird case. Many people argue that the movie is better than the book. There are some things in it though that I wish had made it into the movies. Puzo worked on the 2nd film too, and had a major disagreement with Francis Ford Coppola about a certain character's ending that was extremely controversial at the time. The prequel parts of Godfather Part 2 are almost entirely faithfully lifted from the book though with not much changed.

 

[lovecraft68]

Speaking of remakes, there's yet another "Dracula" remake on the way, a remake of Nosferatu by director Robert Eggers with Bill Skarsgaard (Pennywise in "It") as Nosferatu.

This seems to me a good example of a justifiable remake, because it's a story with a timeless fascination, which can be interpreted in different ways. I liked Herzog's 1979 Nosferatu. I had mixed feelings about Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula from 1992. Despite Gary Oldman's strengths as an actor, Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder were terrible, and the whole thing seemed underdeveloped.

I'm excited for Nosferatu. Robert Eggers horror borders on art. The Witch and The Lighthouse are both a bit slow in some terms, but really deliver, but you have to do some thinking. He replaces gore and shock with atmosphere and foreboding, you're on the edge of the seat even when nothing is happening.

 

[OffNSFW]

I think the story about the making of the Godfather is one of the rare instances of this working out.

Mario Puzo wrote the book, and the publishing company decided to print what was his rough draft while he was out on vacation. He was furious over this, but the book was a major hit despite his embarrassment. When the rights were sold to do a movie, he wanted to be involved in production so he could re-write all the dialogue (He also changed some key details). This explains why the book and film's dialogue are almost entirely different. The book had more filler in it with plots involving smaller characters that are barely seen in the movie. The backstory however that was used in the sequel, was all in the book.

The Godfather is a bit of a weird case. Many people argue that the movie is better than the book. There are some things in it though that I wish had made it into the movies. Puzo worked on the 2nd film too, and had a major disagreement with Francis Ford Coppola about a certain character's ending that was extremely controversial at the time. The prequel parts of Godfather Part 2 are almost entirely faithfully lifted from the book though with not much changed.

The Godfather is also interesting in that, while there was a proper shooting script, Coppola himself worked directly from a copy of the novel that he'd gone through with a pen and marked up the pages, crossed things out, etc. to hell and back.

I don't know if it's still available, but there's been a commercial release of the novel with Coppola's handmade alterations.

 

[cadeauxxx]

I want to make one venting comment on the above mentioned Toxic shitheads all over the internet.

I see this most in the Lord of the Rings/Rings of Power crowd and anything Star Wars, but its a lot more

The "This isn't my Star Wars/My Tolkien!" it ruined the Legacy!!!!!!!!

First off....its not yours. You don't own it, you did not create it, you did not inspire it. It came out in your time, you loved it, and you think it has to be that way all the time. That is not true. People from the 40's thought 70's movies were crap, and this goes on and on, "It was the best of times! The salad years, the golden age phhhtttt" Hollywood shifts with cultural shifts and that's all it is. You are not being personally attacked because they changed something you grew up with, and you sure as hell are no victim and have no right to make endless videos(That they make money on) crying and playing victim

they also then attack the cast, especially female leads, and on a personal level. then when these people-who are working and earning their living on their craft and making more money than your sad ass ever will-get fed up with being attacked, they say something back and then its "They're attacking the fans reeeeee" when you were never a fan now you're just playing passive aggressive victim and their comment section is filled with people who admit to never watching the movie/show in question but are hating on it because their favorite hatemonger hates it

Grow the fuck up. Worth mentioning, the vast majority of these yahoos are men. What a shock. But in fairness there are a few female you tuners who do this, but even their base seems almost exclusively male. Welcome to modern times, the age of the man baby. The guys who said the Barbie movie 'emasculated' them. Newsflash, punk, if a movie based on a girl's doll upsets you, you were already emasculated.

When it comes to Star Wars, the thing that annoys me is that we already went through major disappointment with the prequel movies. I often wonder if a lot of the people screaming how "woke" it is, were even alive back in the day to experience the massive disappointment that was called The Phantom Menace. I was there and I remember it. Star Wars was literally everywhere in 1999 before that movie came out and we were so hyped for it, only to leave the theater wondering WTF did we watch.

I remember seeing all 3 in theaters when they first came out and the mockery from critics and fans. Back then, it wasn't "woke", people were just realizing that George Lucas isn't the genius writer he was thought to be from his 80s era successes. I'm of the opinion that he captured lightning in a bottle with the first movie, and was surrounded by the right people who helped bring his dream to life. He didn't have his wife or Gary Kurtz or Lawrence Kasden around to challenge him and rework things when he started making his prequel movies.

Star Wars can't be ruined for me since I already lived through the trainwreck that was The Phantom Menace.

Legacy? Maybe I'm wrong, but when something new comes out, did they take away the original? You can't watch it anymore? Its been tainted for you? Again grow up because if anything if you don't like the new stuff it makes you appreciate the original even more. After my daughter talked me into seeing that shit Exorcist reboot, I watched the original a couple days later and enjoyed it even more.

I feel the same way. Ridley Scott released a "final cut" of Blade Runner a while back. I didn't care for it much, but there's several different versions of Blade Runner (and they were all included in the DVD set for the Final Cut release) that I can always go back to.

 

[cadeauxxx]

The Godfather is also interesting in that, while there was a proper shooting script, Coppola himself worked directly from a copy of the novel that he'd gone through with a pen and marked up the pages, crossed things out, etc. to hell and back.

I don't know if it's still available, but there's been a commercial release of the novel with Coppola's handmade alterations.

That's true, I know what you're talking about. I could talk hours about those movies and the book. I was obsessed with all things related to the Godfather in college.

There's several things that were cut out from the movies. Puzo had wrote filler storylines for characters that didn't need it. The Luca Brasi character had several stories that were unneeded, since his character gets killed off quickly.

One interesting cut that I always like to bring up is the character of Al Neri. He shows up at the end of the first movie dressed as a police officer for one of the assassinations during the baptism. In the book, he was a former cop who got laid off from the department. He had a bigger role in the 2nd movie as Michael's bodyguard. Without the book's story, the scene of him dressed as a cop is a convenient disguise.

 

[lovecraft68]

When it comes to Star Wars, the thing that annoys me is that we already went through major disappointment with the prequel movies. I often wonder if a lot of the people screaming how "woke" it is, were even alive back in the day to experience the massive disappointment that was called The Phantom Menace. I was there and I remember it. Star Wars was literally everywhere in 1999 before that movie came out and we were so hyped for it, only to leave the theater wondering WTF did we watch.

I remember seeing all 3 in theaters when they first came out and the mockery from critics and fans. Back then, it wasn't "woke", people were just realizing that George Lucas isn't the genius writer he was thought to be from his 80s era successes. I'm of the opinion that he captured lightning in a bottle with the first movie, and was surrounded by the right people who helped bring his dream to life. He didn't have his wife or Gary Kurtz or Lawrence Kasden around to challenge him and rework things when he started making his prequel movies.

Star Wars can't be ruined for me since I already lived through the trainwreck that was The Phantom Menace.




I feel the same way. Ridley Scott released a "final cut" of Blade Runner a while back. I didn't care for it much, but there's several different versions of Blade Runner (and they were all included in the DVD set for the Final Cut release) that I can always go back to.

The prequel movies were cash cows. Lucas wanted to keep raking it in and you're right, it showed he wasn't as good as he thought, but it was because he was forcing a story that did not need to be told. I'm not a huge Star Wars type, loved the originals because they came out when I was young and there was a feeling of wonder to them-especially the first one in 1977(? I think) I was 9 and it was mind blowing. But maybe I'm a cynic but I never bought the "Lucas had all these movies planned and started with #4 just cause. The simplest argument for it was if that was the plan all along why was Luke kissing his sister in the original?

Phantom Menace is one of the worst movies ever, the other two had ups and downs. Rogue One was pretty good, but nothing after has been. On the "woke' topic, Rey is certainly a Mary Sue, Luke struggled in the originals, got his damn hand lopped off and his ass kicked. Rey barely got a scratch in three movies and the "big bad" was a laughing stock. I love bad ass female leads, but she wasn't one of them. Too perfect in every way.

But that's the extent of my feelings, its an opinion, not a crusade. Also, that crowd thinks Lucas was some type of God, yet he's the one that sold the rights to Disney so I don't know why they rip Kennedy left and right, but don't blame him. Oh, wait, maybe I know.

What I like to tweak the toxic men with is they love the term Mary Sue...well, want to see the biggest Mary Sue ever? Look at Legolas from LOTR, but they have nothing to say on that.

 

[jaF0]

Remakes have existed for almost 100 years now.

The first major one I can think of is the Maltese Falcon from 1941 with Humphrey Bogart. It's a remake of a film from 10 years prior. Everyone remembers the remake now as the classic that was one of Bogart's breakout movies along with High Sierra. I've seen them both as a big Noir buff. The remake is definitely better, as it built up on the foundations laid by the original. It also helped being the movie that launched an iconic actor of that generation.

The Money Pit was pretty good, but it wasn't until quite a while after I saw it that I found out it was a remake of Mr Blanding's Builds His Dream House. Once I watched that, I felt it was better than the later version.

I can't comment on the terror/scream stuff since I refuse to watch any of it, but on creepy characters, I swore I'd never watch anything with James Woods after I saw The Onion Field. And I haven't.

 

[lovecraft68]

The Money Pit was pretty good, but it wasn't until quite a while after I saw it that I found out it was a remake of Mr Blanding's Builds His Dream House. Once I watched that, I felt it was better than the later version.

I can't comment on the terror/scream stuff since I refuse to watch any of it, but on creepy characters, I swore I'd never watch anything with James Woods after I saw The Onion Field. And I haven't.

Money Pit...was that Hanks and Shelly Long?

 

[jaF0]

Yup.

Funny-ish.

 

[SimonDoom]

Cecille B. DeMille remade his own movie when he made The Ten Commandments in the 1950s. I think it was the most successful movie of the decade. It's still great entertainment, even if it's hokey and overacted.

 

[cadeauxxx]

The prequel movies were cash cows. Lucas wanted to keep raking it in and you're right, it showed he wasn't as good as he thought, but it was because he was forcing a story that did not need to be told. I'm not a huge Star Wars type, loved the originals because they came out when I was young and there was a feeling of wonder to them-especially the first one in 1977(? I think) I was 9 and it was mind blowing. But maybe I'm a cynic but I never bought the "Lucas had all these movies planned and started with #4 just cause. The simplest argument for it was if that was the plan all along why was Luke kissing his sister in the original?

Phantom Menace is one of the worst movies ever, the other two had ups and downs. Rogue One was pretty good, but nothing after has been. On the "woke' topic, Rey is certainly a Mary Sue, Luke struggled in the originals, got his damn hand lopped off and his ass kicked. Rey barely got a scratch in three movies and the "big bad" was a laughing stock. I love bad ass female leads, but she wasn't one of them. Too perfect in every way.

But that's the extent of my feelings, its an opinion, not a crusade. Also, that crowd thinks Lucas was some type of God, yet he's the one that sold the rights to Disney so I don't know why they rip Kennedy left and right, but don't blame him. Oh, wait, maybe I know.

What I like to tweak the toxic men with is they love the term Mary Sue...well, want to see the biggest Mary Sue ever? Look at Legolas from LOTR, but they have nothing to say on that.

I feel the same way entirely about Lucas and Star Wars. It's a joke, but true that the best Star Wars movie is the one he didn't direct. His original drafts to Empire Strikes back are so bad, had he been allowed to make it without Kurtz and Kasden preventing him, then Star Wars would've just been yet another movie with a lousy sequel.

I was introduced to the original movies at a young age and I loved them. I had Star Wars toys and all that, but I wasn't devoted to it. The whole fandom aspect to it (along with other things) is just bizarre to me, and I find it to be very unhealthy.

The prequels were so disappointing, I haven't paid much attention to what Disney has done. I watched The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi. Didn't really care for them, so just moved on. I liked Solo though, I thought parts of it were fun.

Also, that crowd thinks Lucas was some type of God, yet he's the one that sold the rights to Disney so I don't know why they rip Kennedy left and right, but don't blame him. Oh, wait, maybe I know.

I remember at the time when he sold the rights, people were saying he did it due to how his own fans hated the prequels LOL.

The one thing that bothers me the most about the Disney stuff, is this new revisionist history that the prequels were some masterpieces. They absolutely were not. They were mocked universally on the internet prior to 2020 or whenever it was that their hype overtook the new stuff. There is no one outside of diehard SW fans who genuinely thinks those movies are great. There might be some who ironically like them as bad movies for the unintentionally hilarious bad dialogue, but that's all I can think of.

Star Wars is really a small universe at the end of the day. That's the one thing the fans refuse to acknowledge and they get so bent out of shape and write angry retorts at you when you point this out. Lucas made it small by basing the entire reign of the Empire as a 20 year time span in the prequels and tying the Darth Vader origin story into it (that was a story that didn't need to be told IMO, knowing every little detail about Vader took away what made him scary). The Medichlorians and "chosen one" stuff are other things that made it smaller. Just cause there are video games and spin off cartoons that contextualize the prequels, don't make them better movies.

 

[OffNSFW]

When it comes to Star Wars, the thing that annoys me is that we already went through major disappointment with the prequel movies. I often wonder if a lot of the people screaming how "woke" it is, were even alive back in the day to experience the massive disappointment that was called The Phantom Menace. I was there and I remember it. Star Wars was literally everywhere in 1999 before that movie came out and we were so hyped for it, only to leave the theater wondering WTF did we watch.

I remember seeing all 3 in theaters when they first came out and the mockery from critics and fans. Back then, it wasn't "woke", people were just realizing that George Lucas isn't the genius writer he was thought to be from his 80s era successes. I'm of the opinion that he captured lightning in a bottle with the first movie, and was surrounded by the right people who helped bring his dream to life. He didn't have his wife or Gary Kurtz or Lawrence Kasden around to challenge him and rework things when he started making his prequel movies.

Star Wars can't be ruined for me since I already lived through the trainwreck that was The Phantom Menace.

I think the bigger issue with the prequels was that, by 1999, he'd spent almost two decades away from the creative side of filmmaking. (Aside from furnishing story concepts for other filmmakers, of course, which played to his strengths.) The George Lucas who made THX-1138, American Graffiti, and Star Wars was fresh out of film school and ready to raise hell. The George Lucas who made The Phantom Menace was a businessman who could still think up a damn good story, but whose creative instincts and project management skills had deteriorated like an unused muscle.

 

[cadeauxxx]

I think the bigger issue with the prequels was that, by 1999, he'd spent almost two decades away from the creative side of filmmaking. (Aside from furnishing story concepts for other filmmakers, of course, which played to his strengths.) The George Lucas who made THX-1138, American Graffiti, and Star Wars was fresh out of film school and ready to raise hell. The George Lucas who made The Phantom Menace was a businessman who could still think up a damn good story, but whose creative instincts and project management skills had deteriorated like an unused muscle.

That's one way to look at it. Success changes people. Lucas did indeed switch to being a business man, and I'll give credit where credit's due. He changed the landscape of how Hollywood views franchises. Star Wars toys were a major business and remained that for a while.

He still had a lot of help for those movies at the time in the 80s. His wife Marcia Lucas won the Oscar for editing the final act of the first movie (the death star battle). She was quoted telling George that if the audience didn't cheer when Han Solo shows up at the end, then it didn't work. Gary Kurtz and Lawrence Kasden did all the heavy lifting for Empire Strikes Back.

I love the Indiana Jones movies probably more than I do Star Wars, and Lucas spent the entire 90s fighting with Spielberg over making a 4th one. He just had to have his movie about aliens.

 

[lovecraft68]

I feel the same way entirely about Lucas and Star Wars. It's a joke, but true that the best Star Wars movie is the one he didn't direct. His original drafts to Empire Strikes back are so bad, had he been allowed to make it without Kurtz and Kasden preventing him, then Star Wars would've just been yet another movie with a lousy sequel.

I was introduced to the original movies at a young age and I loved them. I had Star Wars toys and all that, but I wasn't devoted to it. The whole fandom aspect to it (along with other things) is just bizarre to me, and I find it to be very unhealthy.

The prequels were so disappointing, I haven't paid much attention to what Disney has done. I watched The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi. Didn't really care for them, so just moved on. I liked Solo though, I thought parts of it were fun.




I remember at the time when he sold the rights, people were saying he did it due to how his own fans hated the prequels LOL.

The one thing that bothers me the most about the Disney stuff, is this new revisionist history that the prequels were some masterpieces. They absolutely were not. They were mocked universally on the internet prior to 2020 or whenever it was that their hype overtook the new stuff. There is no one outside of diehard SW fans who genuinely thinks those movies are great. There might be some who ironically like them as bad movies for the unintentionally hilarious bad dialogue, but that's all I can think of.

Star Wars is really a small universe at the end of the day. That's the one thing the fans refuse to acknowledge and they get so bent out of shape and write angry retorts at you when you point this out. Lucas made it small by basing the entire reign of the Empire as a 20 year time span in the prequels and tying the Darth Vader origin story into it (that was a story that didn't need to be told IMO, knowing every little detail about Vader took away what made him scary). The Medichlorians and "chosen one" stuff are other things that made it smaller. Just cause there are video games and spin off cartoons that contextualize the prequels, don't make them better movies.

Obviously, I'm a huge fan of HP Lovecraft. One of the things I enjoyed about him was when asked why he never tried to write the Necronimicon, he cited the first rule of magic which was -paraphrasing 'Don't call up what thou canst put down" and how he'd created a tome that just by reading it could drive someone to madness. How do you deliver that? He wanted people to use their imagination and have fun with what they thought would be in it.

But these days, nothing can be left unexplained. Whether its because current times have everything shoved in your face to the point it needs to be that way, or again, they have nothing of their own so they have to keep using other people's material by picking at things they didn't bother with.

Wolverine was an amazing character in the seventies and eighties, then they over saturated him in the nineties. In 2000 (or 2001) Marvel announced they were releasing his Origin in a mini series. Stan Lee cited it as being a huge mistake, that part of the appeal was his mysterious past that even he forgot. But they went ahead and did it. Its been altered countless times, he keeps getting stronger, older (he was an adult in WW2 and helping Captain America suddenly) and all this other crap, and it really went to shit...but what did Stan Lee know compared to the comic "creators" of the modern age. The movie Logan was amazing because they stripped him down of his powers, made him old and bitter and tired, and took away the Mary Sue aspects of him, so they managed to get him right in the end....but now he's making a fool of himself in a deadpool movie...sigh.

Same with Star wars, we didn't need Vader's origin, we were told a short version of how he came to be and it should have been enough. I admit the history of the jedis has some potential to be interesting, but they just keep botching it In the end Star wars was a space version of a fantasy story, the heroes journey. A young man who didn't know who he truly was, an evil enemy, an adventure to destroy said enemy, mission accomplished. Its all it was, it was never set up to be a full universe.

 

[lovecraft68]

That's one way to look at it. Success changes people. Lucas did indeed switch to being a business man, and I'll give credit where credit's due. He changed the landscape of how Hollywood views franchises. Star Wars toys were a major business and remained that for a while.

He still had a lot of help for those movies at the time in the 80s. His wife Marcia Lucas won the Oscar for editing the final act of the first movie (the death star battle). She was quoted telling George that if the audience didn't cheer when Han Solo shows up at the end, then it didn't work. Gary Kurtz and Lawrence Kasden did all the heavy lifting for Empire Strikes Back.

I love the Indiana Jones movies probably more than I do Star Wars, and Lucas spent the entire 90s fighting with Spielberg over making a 4th one. He just had to have his movie about aliens.

I remember buying them at Child's World (yup, dated myself) .99 each.

Being in the collectibles market for decades now, I can tell you those original figures if they're still on cards are worth some serious money. Up until then Mego had a market for Super Hero and a few TV shows (Happy Days for example) and movies (Planet of the Apes figures) but yeah, Kenner blew it up with Star Wars.

But even the new Star Wars figures sucked when they were made for the prequels.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I think the story about the making of the Godfather is one of the rare instances of this working out.

Mario Puzo wrote the book, and the publishing company decided to print what was his rough draft while he was out on vacation. He was furious over this, but the book was a major hit despite his embarrassment. When the rights were sold to do a movie, he wanted to be involved in production so he could re-write all the dialogue (He also changed some key details). This explains why the book and film's dialogue are almost entirely different. The book had more filler in it with plots involving smaller characters that are barely seen in the movie. The backstory however that was used in the sequel, was all in the book.

The Godfather is a bit of a weird case. Many people argue that the movie is better than the book. There are some things in it though that I wish had made it into the movies. Puzo worked on the 2nd film too, and had a major disagreement with Francis Ford Coppola about a certain character's ending that was extremely controversial at the time. The prequel parts of Godfather Part 2 are almost entirely faithfully lifted from the book though with not much changed.

You can't be 100% faithful to the book when you changed media. Just the nature of the beast. You mentioned the subplots, and just the nature of a movie some of that has to go for pacing reasons amongst others.
Godfather worked because the director (in addition to being supremely talented) cared about the property and made changed necessary to make it "fit" the new medium.
Another good example of that is the Neverwhere book/audio play/miniseries by Neil Gaiman. There are differences in all three, some of it was because it was fitting into a new medium, and others because Neil Gaiman wanted to changes somethings, but it stayed true to the spirit of the book throughout.

The other extreme (besides World War Z which literally only shares a title with the book) is Starship Troopers. They started with a completely different spec script that was floating around Hollywood. Got the rights to Starship Troopers, a director that freely admits that he never read it, but everyone told him it was fascist so that's what he went with, and just pasted a few elements into the existing script... and we have a movie not even remotely based on the book.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

That's one way to look at it. Success changes people. Lucas did indeed switch to being a business man, and I'll give credit where credit's due. He changed the landscape of how Hollywood views franchises. Star Wars toys were a major business and remained that for a while.

He still had a lot of help for those movies at the time in the 80s. His wife Marcia Lucas won the Oscar for editing the final act of the first movie (the death star battle). She was quoted telling George that if the audience didn't cheer when Han Solo shows up at the end, then it didn't work. Gary Kurtz and Lawrence Kasden did all the heavy lifting for Empire Strikes Back.

I love the Indiana Jones movies probably more than I do Star Wars, and Lucas spent the entire 90s fighting with Spielberg over making a 4th one. He just had to have his movie about aliens.

But everyone acknowledged that the prequels were bad. The only evidence I've seen of any revisionism regarding that is people making jokes that "I thought the prequels were terrible until I saw the Acolyte, suddenly they don't look so bad."

At some point, people are going to look back and realize that Lucas just got lucky. He was in the right place at the right time, had the right people around him and it all fell into place. He clearly wasn't some visionary filmmaker.

 

[cadeauxxx]

You can't be 100% faithful to the book when you changed media. Just the nature of the beast. You mentioned the subplots, and just the nature of a movie some of that has to go for pacing reasons amongst others.
Godfather worked because the director (in addition to being supremely talented) cared about the property and made changed necessary to make it "fit" the new medium.
Another good example of that is the Neverwhere book/audio play/miniseries by Neil Gaiman. There are differences in all three, some of it was because it was fitting into a new medium, and others because Neil Gaiman wanted to changes somethings, but it stayed true to the spirit of the book throughout.

It's a different medium. The same can be said for comic books and also video games. There have been many bad movies made out of games. With comics, there's always some fans of a superhero who are never happy with the movie version.

Most of the time I prefer the book. The Godfather is the rare case for me where I would pick the movie, but under it's circumstances; the author was able to use the movie to correct things he didn't get to since his rough draft was published. There are still some things in the book that I prefer though.

The other extreme (besides World War Z which literally only shares a title with the book) is Starship Troopers. They started with a completely different spec script that was floating around Hollywood. Got the rights to Starship Troopers, a director that freely admits that he never read it, but everyone told him it was fascist so that's what he went with, and just pasted a few elements into the existing script... and we have a movie not even remotely based on the book.

Fans of the Starship Troopers book have been disputing that for years. I don't have an opinion on it since I've never read it. Verhoeven had a distinctive style of making movies though, and parts of ST reminded me a lot of Robocop with it's goofy takes on news at the time.

You just made me think of another book-to-movie that was changed; One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. The book and movie are vastly different in it's anti-establishment messaging and the psychological torture of the patients. There was major controversy during filming with all the things that were being changed from the book. Today, I think the movie is more remembered for Jack Nicholson's performance and it also having a young Christopher Lloyd and Danny DeVito in smaller roles. It's not a bad movie, but the book is more horrifying in how detailed it is and putting the image in your head.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

It's a different medium. The same can be said for comic books and also video games. There have been many bad movies made out of games. With comics, there's always some fans of a superhero who are never happy with the movie version.

Most of the time I prefer the book. The Godfather is the rare case for me where I would pick the movie, but under it's circumstances; the author was able to use the movie to correct things he didn't get to since his rough draft was published. There are still some things in the book that I prefer though.




Fans of the Starship Troopers book have been disputing that for years. I don't have an opinion on it since I've never read it. Verhoeven had a distinctive style of making movies though, and parts of ST reminded me a lot of Robocop with it's goofy takes on news at the time.

You just made me think of another book-to-movie that was changed; One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. The book and movie are vastly different in it's anti-establishment messaging and the psychological torture of the patients. There was major controversy during filming with all the things that were being changed from the book. Today, I think the movie is more remembered for Jack Nicholson's performance and it also having a young Christopher Lloyd and Danny DeVito in smaller roles. It's not a bad movie, but the book is more horrifying in how detailed it is and putting the image in your head.

What have they been disputing for years? You've got actual fans of the book and you have people who haven't read it screaming "fascism".
Heck, what little they tell you about the government in the book is that it's a limited democracy and a strict meritocracy.

 

[lovecraft68]

Most of the time I prefer the book. The Godfather is the rare case for me where I would pick the movie, but under it's circumstances; the author was able to use the movie to correct things he didn't get to since his rough draft was published. There are still some things in the book that I prefer though.

Jaws is another example. You read the book and wonder how it became a movie. Characters were all different-Hooper was banging Brody's wife and dies at the end-and the death of the shark couldn't have been more boring.

Movie is superior in every way.

 

[cadeauxxx]

But everyone acknowledged that the prequels were bad. The only evidence I've seen of any revisionism regarding that is people making jokes that "I thought the prequels were terrible until I saw the Acolyte, suddenly they don't look so bad."

At some point, people are going to look back and realize that Lucas just got lucky. He was in the right place at the right time, had the right people around him and it all fell into place. He clearly wasn't some visionary filmmaker.

Prequel revisionism has been going on a lot longer than the recent show.

If anything, it started as soon as Disney bought the property and we started seeing tons of articles about how the prequels are "misunderstood" and then the whole "ring theory" of watching all the 2 trilogies in a specific order.

What you describe, has happened with every piece of Star Wars media that Disney releases. In the disappointment of The Last Jedi, fans were quick to say "the prequels aren't that bad now". Rinse and repeat.

 

[lovecraft68]

the Exorcist was dead on. Blatty wrote the first script, Friedkin trashed it, then they went through the book line by line together and nailed every part of it. All that's left out is details from the medical exams, and some of karras' research on wondering if she were possessed or mentally ill.

The only controversy was leaving out the priests discussing the point of possession. Blatty wanted it, Friedkin said the audience could figure it out. As a concession to Blatty they did put it in the extended version released in the late nineties. That and the spider walk scene.