I dunno, I was a little disappointed with the Swedish version, I felt they whittled the story down to the most bare bones possible, leaving out a lot of key story components. Hearing that the American version is going to stray even further from the book isn't good news IMO...

I have yet to see how this is bad? The original can still be seen, and people can skip the remake. Capitalism at work. As far as I can tell you want to force movie studios to strap american audiences into a seat and go "WATCH THIS" because "I STICKBEAST FIND IT WORTHY."

stickbeast posted:

Talking specifically about the American Film industry taking foreign films that JUST came out, and re-making them to make an even bigger profit.

It helps incredibly, as it accurately categorizes you and your position. You have couched everything inside of an absolute. A bizarre one at that.

stickbeast posted:

Calling me names isn't going to help you either. I haven't spoken in absolutes: I have said things like "I could be wrong" and "not all American remakes are bad" followed by a detailed example of The Departed, and why I think that's a great remake.

Hey here's an absolute. Shit, it's even qualified as a moral imperative. Every argument descended from this is an extension on your original statement.

stickbeast posted:

I'm morally against American remakes of foreign films that are less than 5 years old

The vast majority of your argument is and has been predicated on distribution and marketing. It has had little to do with quality of films. So this thrust of your argument is silly. A wildly successful movie that has banked 100 million dollars off of a 13 million dollar production budget is somehow going to be wronged by a remake making twice that amount?

stickbeast posted:

A successful American remake of Dragon Tattoo won't only do well in America, but internationally as well. The Swedish one did very well, but of its 105 million USD gross, only 10 was made in the states. [...] The ten-fold thing wasn't really meant to be literal, but whatever, I can see you're picking at straws here so I will admit I used a bit of hyperbole. I'm pretty sure it will get at least twice as much.

Again not an artistic threshold argument, a fiscal one.

stickbeast posted:

As for the American remakes of The Ring, The Grudge, The Eye and The Uninvited, they all made about 10 times as much as their respective foreign originals. The Ring did better than Ringu in Japan. Let Me In did twice as much as Let the Right One In, and Quarantine made almost twice as much as [REC.]

Here, after proclaiming your innocence of absolutes, you go on to make more. Your opinions are entirely subjective and magnificently aloof, but you state them as fact. The fundamental, glaring flaw here is that you deem fit to judge FOR movie goers what is good cinema and what is bad. You feel that your opinion of such weight you feel corporations should be bound to your morality. This of course why I dub thee a hipster douchebag.

stickbeast posted:

I explained what makes a remake tasteful and what makes it not tasteful, but I see you couln't be bothered to read it all. Making a shot for shot remake is pointless and stupid. Making it so similar you can hardly tell the difference between the two is dumb. And taking ingenious symbolism for granted in order to make cheap scares that contribute nothing to the plot is especially unsophisticated. But maybe I'm being an @#$%& hipster, and being shallow is tasteful in Jarret's world.

When I look at something and think it's terrible, I go "wow that is going to be awful". I do not go "wow this is going to be awful, it shouldn't be made and anyone who makes it is morally bankrupt." Key distinction between you and I.

P.S. Nobody is going to rip off what doesn't exist. So again I exhort you, stop whining and get off your ass, and make whatever it is you want to make.

jarrettwold posted:

I have yet to see how this is bad? The original can still be seen, and people can skip the remake. Capitalism at work. As far as I can tell you want to force movie studios to strap american audiences into a seat and go "WATCH THIS" because "I STICKBEAST FIND IT WORTHY."

The problem with remaking movies compared to other products are that remakes aren't bound to provide much warning to the audience outside of film ratings. Like if a medicine tells you it has something you're allergic to, you won't take it. They'll tell you because they don't want a lawsuit. The lawsuit holds a certain ethical standard to the business, in some cases. Some cases it's the person suing overreacting, that's what the whole case between defense and prosecution is usually over. As far as products go, the more reasonable problems run into lawsuit issues first because they stick out more to more people, usually ending up in a class action lawsuit, and usually you get a revised and better product in the end unless it's someone bitching an impossible point to see, and the lawyers take their case for money. It's the intent of class action lawsuits to help people though and it does work sometimes so that businesses are fair to the consumer.

A movie's gross at a theater is just about initial interest, it comes up as a misleading comparison later on though, usually a misleading promotion trying to get people on the bandwagon (like everyone at your school is watching this, you better watch this too or you'll get your ass kicked). Anyway at a theater you show up and don't know what to expect, but usually they're allowed to be as misleading as they want about the content of the film outside of what the film is rated and you don't get a refund at a theater unless you just want to raise Hell and go through more hassle than the ticket was worth. If that's anyone's goal in film making then just make a film trailer of something exploding, promise stuff whether it's there or not, then sell it somewhere. It doesn't mean you made a great movie or that it will withstand time.

I think it's stupid when a film destroys an original story's plot and then they act like because it grossed so much money at the box office the first day it signals to them that they did everything better than it was done before. New doesn't mean better.

jarrettwold posted:

Except it's not medicine. It's a $10 movie ticket. It's also a creative endeavor, so if it's terrible you don't get to sue because you don't like it creatively. You have the option to not go.

My point isn't about excuses to sue them over disappointment with a film, but there's a certain amount of false advertisement they can get away with remaking a film because art is interpretive where other products (capitalism examples) aren't and those products are sold with a clear design to do something, so films aren't held to the same standard when producing a product people expect.

This is why you can't praise a film for it's quality judging by initial movie sales. You actually have to buy and watch the movie to decide if you like it. By that time, they got they're 10 dollars and there's no refund. Sometimes they spend more time getting you into the theater than being critical of the film. If I said I were remaking a movie about Nosferatu, stuck a picture of him on every candy bar and cup at a restaurant. Then you got to the movie and all you got was Nosferatu sitting on a toilet taking a shit for an hour and thirty minutes, that's false advertisement, but again art is interpretive, that's the excuse (I liked Shadow of the Vampire though). The good news is that the reputation of someone doing that would go downhill as long as people are critical of gimmicks that destroy the plot, but whoever made the film would still likely cash in a few million they didn't deserve off the reputation of the former film. There's just not really a way of preventing it unless there were strict rules on film remakes and that could also hurt movies that actually do add something to the film.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/2011 04:20PM by spiritofhypocrisy.

jarrettwold posted:

Sorry, not happening. You've never been able to get a refund because you feel a; book, album, painting or sculpture sucks. You can get a refund if the product you purchased is defective in some manner; scratched, content missing, and so forth.

You can return a book, album, painting, or sculpture, either the entire thing, still working with a receipt of the purchase or if something's wrong with it, depends on the warranty. Contracts are easier to deal with on the customer service level. Theater is a service, usually it's more hassle than the ticket is worth to explain distaste to some 16 year old that can't find their manager and chances are you're pissed off at that exact moment anyway and not being logical. Then if the manager doesn't want to help you, you'll have to request to speak to someone on the corporate level of the theater. Over the phone they'll usually put you on hold for a long time or never answer, or hand you over to someone that doesn't speak your language, but that might also be enough to get to a solution. If that doesn't work, you'll have to fill out a written refund request form or another formal complaint to the person overseeing the theater manager. Some kind of essay on why you didn't like the movie, then you're on some waiting period to see the money or replacement ticket, that probably varies between the two. Ultimately the hassle can end up being next to nothing or you could be spending several hours jumping around all of this shit. You might end up working several hours at least just to get your 10 dollars back or a free ticket, but even written complaints also usually relate directly to the theater facility. Explaining why you want a refund because the film itself sucked doesn't bare on the theater, so it might be even more hassle.

posted:

Further, international trade agreements and intellectual property laws provide the necessary legal restraints to prevent unauthorized remakes from being made. If they are made, there are legal remedies available and they have been used.

Yeah but in that example of Nosferatu, I could slightly change his name, like Nosforadu, change the context of the story so that it doesn't run into fair use problems, like some kind of film re-imagining, change little things to give the impression it is technically a different character and story in a legal situation, but to the audience it can be confusing. It's a like a few years ago there were several generic movies following other films. What they were doing was riding off the promotion of the big film and deliberately misleading people toward their version. It's like there was Exorcist: The Beginning... then there was Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist.... the later was a generic version that got put out the exact same time. There was also a generic version of the War of the Worlds remake about the same time and I do think those films ran into legal issues later on. At least some of them, but some of them didn't because of slight changes that kept them under the copyright infringement technicality. It wasn't that they had their own versions that bothered me as much as they deliberately put the DVD's out at the same time to confuse which film was which.

posted:

Additional legal requirements on creative remakes smacks of censorship. It would also add complexity to the mind numbing cluster fuck of our legal system.

I agree for the most part, but like free speech or freedom of religion, if someone uses their "freedom of religion" to oppress someone else's freedom of religion then whatever censorship or enforcement comes up has to neutralize the problem, otherwise it's doing too much or not enough.

posted:

Finally, by putting that in place you're telling the holder of rights to the work to go fuck themselves. Which I will never stand by. You aren't entitled to someones work and you're not entitled to dictating to someone else what their creative work should be.

It's not my suggestion to put some form of overkill into place. I agree, except when rights conflict other rights.

the difference is that independent film makers don't have any money to work with and pretend they're purposely boycotting the money making studios but they're just a product of their broke environment at the moment.

RhettButler posted:

I can't read through all this shit, but just to comment on "capitalism" and how "corporate" this remake is...

You do know that all movies, even independent ones shown in art houses, are designed to make money, right? Yes, some are bold artistic statements, but the goal is still to make some cash.

It's misleading to tell someone that if you make a great work of art that you will get money based solely on the merit or preference of the art. Is merit based comparison a problem, no, but merit is turned into some kind of bullshit that it isn't usually. False comparisons like quality websites equal hits to the site, or the best movies out here are viewed the most.

It's like this I'm selling a red ball, you're selling a yellow ball... my red ball has been advertised more and more people are aware of it.... which ball will sell the most? My red ball has more merit and quality because it sales more... See that's very fucking aggravating.

RhettButler posted:

huh?

You're talking about making cash with artwork. If you think that artwork is sold only on it's own merit and always in a level playing field then you're wrong. Usually it's the marketing selling the artwork or some technology advantage in the production. It all comes back to an old saying, takes money to make money. Then there's this wacko bandwagon after the fact that projects that so many people showing up to see a movie makes it a better movie in comparison to anything else, that's extra bullshit being commercialized and indoctrinated into people. Someone on a dollar budget isn't going to make a more sensationalized movie than a guy with a $3,000,000.00 $500,000,000.00 budget. That's reality. I don't know if it bothers me more that when something is sensationalized that it becomes more formulaic and that it's designed to provoke psychological reactions in some predictable method, or if it's the fact civilizations usually end as sensate cultures. I don't even mean this movie specifically, I haven't seen it, I just know my preferences are motives toward idealistic ends, not this pseudo intellectualism that comes with the immediate gratification, demographic provoking (sensate) culture



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/2011 04:44PM by spiritofhypocrisy.

RhettButler posted:

huh?

"Before I knew it every charlatan and shit heel was imitating me. You know what they got now, Devil's Night greeting cards. Isn't that precious. The idea has become the institution, boys. Time to move along."

The proof you need: [youtu.be]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2011 09:05AM by spiritofhypocrisy.

There is a trend in every culture from beginning to end. In sociology, it's the trend of ideation, idealistic, and sensate culture. The last, sensate means a sense oriented culture... the original idea is usually neglected where it worked as a foundation to the culture. Sensate cultures collapse because they're like the high rise of a building, the idea is the foundation and the idea either collapses because of the crap stacked on top of it, or it rots away from neglect. So it can't sustain. It isn't structurally made to last long.

As a metaphor for art, art serves no long term purpose when it's only riding off marketing, technology, how much attention it got and so on, it's all irrelevant to how it survives over time. Sensational art usually revolves around creating something topical, in the now, etc...

Thanks for the link. Looking forward to this one.

As far as all the fuckery above, ART is subjective...if you don't like it then it means you don't like it. That's it!

The trailer has gotten me totally excited...made my day!

Damn!!! I know it's Zeppelin, but has Trent's NIN finger prints all over it. Sounds awesome...

rob_sheridan
Bootleg quality, but if you can't wait for the rad NSFW Dragon Tattoo trailer w/@trent_reznor music: [bit.ly] - via @ninhotline 28 minutes ago via TweetDeck Retweeted by trent_reznor and 100+ others

[www.youtube.com]

LobotomyBaby posted:

Holy Fuck.


Was that HTDA remaking Led Zeppelin?

i read here that it's Kareno O singing, so it's not HTDA. but it still sounds amazing!

i wonder if the song will be included on the original score, or if it will be part of a separate soundtrack with other songs.

the trailer definitely got me excited for the movie, and for the soundtrack/score as well

Krazy95 posted:

Damn!!! I know it's Zeppelin, but has Trent's NIN finger prints all over it. Sounds awesome...

rob_sheridan
Bootleg quality, but if you can't wait for the rad NSFW Dragon Tattoo trailer w/@trent_reznor music: [bit.ly] - via @ninhotline 28 minutes ago via TweetDeck Retweeted by trent_reznor and 100+ others

[www.youtube.com]

That's the same link I posted.

And it sounds awesome, Mariqueen will have to deliver an amazing performance in HTDA's LP, because otherwise everybody is going to compare her with Karen O's performance for this song. Or maybe it will be so different that it won't happen, idk, if that's the case Trent could form another parallel band with Karen, one more electronic/ambient based with Q and a more rockish one with O, or just have the 2 of them for HTDA. XD

But I hope Q will deliver a rawer and louder performance for some songs in HTDA and not everything will sound as (vocally) whispery, mellow and quiet as in the EP, which I liked but I guess was one of the reasons why some people said Q's voice wasn't too impressive. She needs to use the stronger side of her voice to show everybody she is a singer with many musical faces and can perform/sing as well as Karen or, idk... Shirley Manson? Because I know if HTDA's full album has 15 songs with Q singing too low and slowly a lot of people is going to criticize it and will say TR should collaborate with other famous female singers like the 2 I've mentioned or Bjork or Amos or a lot of others, and I'm quite sure TR and Q are well aware of this, or at least I guess so (and I repeat I liked HTDA's EP, I just think the new LP will need to be more vocally diverse because TR and AR have nothing to prove and Q is the one who has to impress everybody so people won't question her anymore just because she is TR's wife).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2011 06:48PM by LEONCIORULES.