Fuck Hollywood for making a remake of The Birds

Geo

Fuck Hollywood! Why would they ever touch a Hitchcock film?! Don't they have any minds at all anymore. I thought it was kind of, i don't know, against the laws of art to remake a Hitchcock film. Only those who have IMDBpro can see the info, which I cannot. Hollwood is stupid\

MrRoboto

Psycho already has a remake

Geo

Psycho already has a remake

and look what happened to that...

TheWhaleShark

Psycho already has a remake

To be fair, I don't think I'd qualify that as a "remake" per se. The director just literally copied the original. Most remakes involve some sort of directorial trademark or slight revising, to at least provide the illusion of fresh content.

Omnutia

If it's any consolation. You don't have to watch it and it will probably never superseed it's original.

Kilarney

If it's better, we win.

If it isn't, we don't go see it.

What's the big deal?

YoshoKatana

Well, the only thing that bothers me about remakes are when the "illiterate masses" are completely unaware of the original.

"Hey, did you see that movie, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?" -example

This is especially irksome when the original is a foreign film. A lot of Americans like to take credit for our filmmakers, and Hollywood in general. They really don't know that a lot of films (The Departed comes to mind) were originally foreign. People argue that remakes show Americans movies that they wouldn't normally see, but how many people went and watched Infernal Affairs after they saw The Departed?

Luke Burrage

The original of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was actually a book. The FIRST film adaptation of the book didn't even go by the same name, instead of "Charlie" it was "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory".

Being a second adaptation of a book doesn't make it any less valid, and just the fact that it came first doesn't make a previous adaptation more valid.

ladyobsolete

If the "illiterate masses" are unaware of the original, not making a remake isn't going to solve their shortcomings. In fact, making a remake is the most likely way that they are ever going to see the original since stores often start prominently shelving the original films while the remake is getting attention. Furthermore, a remake has the potential to be a subject for the "literate few" to talk on that the "illiterate masses" may actually give a damn about.

...

Being a second adaptation of a book doesn't make it any less valid, and just the fact that it came first doesn't make a previous adaptation more valid.

Well, if the author of the book wrote the screenplay for the first adaptation I'd find that to be a more valid rendition of the original work than a remake written by someone else.

Linton

Everything is borrowed. If they remake The Birds and it's good, well then there's an extra good movie in the world. If it's rubbish, well there are a lot of bad ones out there already.

We don't have a problem with people ''remaking'' Shakespeare. Oh, and The Birds isn't actually a very good film, it's all a bit silly really.

ladyobsolete

We don't have a problem with people ''remaking'' Shakespeare. Oh, and The Birds isn't actually a very good film, it's all a bit silly really.

I must agree there.

Also, lots of Hitchcock movies have glaring plot holes. I would love some remakes that would fix them.

George Patches

I think we just need to face the fact that every slightly interesting story has already been told. There are no more new ideas.

Luke Burrage

I think we just need to face the fact that every slightly interesting story has already been told. There are no more new ideas.

This is just bollocks. Every new invention opens up new ways to tell new interesting stories. There are more people creating art today than all the dead artists in the world combined. What are the chances that every slightly interesting story has been thought up and told by the minority of the total creative people in the human race?

I've heard the "It's all been done before" comment in lots of different fields, and in EVERY ONE I can come up with many new examples of new ideas that have never been done before. And the person saying "there is nothing new" just sits there dodging every one with special pleading and no-true-scotsman fallacies. Give up before you begin, and acknowledge creativity still exists. Denying it is just insulting to just about every living artist.

ladyobsolete

I suppose part of the conflict is define how large of an innovation constitutes an "original idea." Often people pick appart a work of art to pinpoint redundancies. But, jumping off what you said, Luke, I think that a lot of innovation is how artists take parts of our culture and rearrange them to share feelings, communicate messages, and inspire others.

George Patches

Sarcasm. I know, it's been done before. I'm not original.

onewild

The main problem I have with all these remakes and sequels is that leads boring unoriginal films and I would rather have more films where the creators take a chance on a new idea. I can understand why they do it though as they are money spinners (at least the sequels are).
The best thing that can come of this is that people will become more aware of the ogrinal because the remake is getting attention and that will enrich their lives as they get to see some Hitchcock, who is the greatest director of all time (In my opinion of course).
However there is no excuse for this

...

This is just bollocks. Every new invention opens up new ways to tell new interesting stories. There are more people creating art today than all the dead artists in the world combined. What are the chances that every slightly interesting story has been thought up and told by the minority of the total creative people in the human race?

I've heard the "It's all been done before" comment in lots of different fields, and in EVERY ONE I can come up with many new examples of new ideas that have never been done before. And the person saying "there is nothing new" just sits there dodging every one with special pleading and no-true-scotsman fallacies. Give up before you begin, and acknowledge creativity still exists. Denying it is just insulting to just about every living artist.

I agree with Ladyobsolete's point on this. In my opinion creativity is the ability, the art, of taking ideas, mixing them and doing something interesting with them. What else is a story but a bunch of ideas being looked into, shown and/or discussed? The more important question is then, has every basic idea been thought off? I don't know. Another point in gedavids' post that makes most of this discussion useless, to his point that is. The word 'interesting' is subjective. It is very well possible that every slightly interesting story has already been thought off in gedavids' opinion. Nothing can be discussed on that point since it's all opinion.

Kate Monster

I think shot-for-shot remakes are pointless, but taking an existing piece of are has its validity if it creates a new, fresh take on the old work. Also, getting upset because people don't know an old film and "credit" isn't going to the right people is silly. Usually remakes re-awaken interest in the older work and introduce the original to a new generation and society in general isn't going to forget the true greats any time soon.