Talk:Remake

message: First, why do we need a list of reimaginings if we don't need a list of prominent remakes?
Second, most of the films on this list don't really fit. While Rob Zombie's Halloween may be the archetypal reimagining (his intent was to "reinvent Michael Myers for a new century"), that's hardly true of many of the other examples.
Most notably, Psycho is, to quote this very article, "... almost a shot-for-shot color recreation of the 1960 film...." Unless you believe that black-and-whiteness or the 1960 value of the dollar were the central features of the original, van Sant didn't reimagine anything at all. The movie wasn't marketed as a reimagining, revision, reboot, but as a straightforward "recreation of the nightmare," and van Sant described it as an experimental attempt to exactly copy the original.
On a different note, while Hairspray is significantly different from the original, that's because it's a musical--in fact, an adaptation of the stage musical adaptation of the original movie. I'm not aware of anyone ever calling it a reimagining of the original, and none of the essential themes, characters, or plot points were changed in any significant way.
Similarly, Red Dragon was an adaptation of the same book as Manhunter, but was neither intended nor advertised as a remake of any kind of the earlier movie--and it certainly wasn't a reimagining, given that it was explicitly intended to be a faithful adaptation of its source.
At any rate, I'm not going to try to fix this list, because I believe it should be completely removed from the article. But I'll wait to see if anyone else agrees before doing so. --75.36.139.20 (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, the explanation for why Batman Begins or the various Alice movies are not remakes of earlier movies fits Red Dragon to a T. While, Planet of the Apes was adapted from both the book and the earlier movie, Red Dragon was only adapted from the same book as Manhunter. --75.36.139.20 (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reimaginings 

message: The article says the following (which I'm going to remove):
:Some remakes don't credit the first version at all and masquerade as original films; 2000's Oscar-winning Gladiator was actually a remake of 1964's The Fall of the Roman Empire, but was understandably never acknowledged as such, especially since the earlier version was relatively unsuccessful.
While Fall may have been an influence on Gladiator, the movie is in no way a remake. The story owes as much to Spartacus and Ben Hur as to Fall, and it shares very little plot except for the ending and matters of historical fact that would be hard to ignore (although Fall did a pretty good job of trying).
All three authors and the director have acknowledged their influences--predominantly the Augustan History, Gibbons, and the novel Those About to Die, but also the three above-mentioned movies, other 60s Roman-era movies, Zulu, Triumph of the Will, and Eagle in the Snow. 
As for Russell Crowe, who rewrote many of the lines on the spot, I'd be willing to bet that he'd never even seen Fall; he claimed that he never made it all the way through Spartacus....
But forget the intentions: does the movie, as it stands, play as a remake of Fall? Not at all. In Fall, Commodus was a weak and insecure man driven to corruption upon discovering that he was a bastard and his father was killed by a secret conspiracy; Livius was a childhood friend of, and loyal general for, Commodus until a civil war (an ahistorical one involving empires that didn't even exist yet) forced him to choose sides. In Gladiator, Commodus was essentially the bloodthirsty tyrant described in the histories (but toned down to be not quite as... Russell Crowesque?), and Maximus was a life-long enemy of his, whose family had been killed and who Commodus had attempted to murder, clearly based on the historical Narcissus (the name is even used in the original draft).
If you're aware of any critics or film historians actually claiming that Gladiator was a remake, cite them and add this back, but I'm striking it. --75.36.139.20 (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gladiator 

message: This article states that two films based on the same source material are not remakes, which seems accurate.  However, someone keeps adding in something about Shakespeare plays being remakes, which they're not and contradicts what the article says in the previous paragraph.  I've added a note to say this. Liquidcow (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Shakespeare

message: With regards to "in other contexts", the case of an artist wishing to release an improved version (such as to take advantage of newer, higher-def formats) of preexisting material is generally known as remastering, not as a "remake". As well, when an actual remake is made in the context of music, it's most often referred to as a cover. I think whoever added this section is simply confusing the terminology at several levels. I'm removing it. Ham Pastrami (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remastering is not a remake 

message: ===Highlander/Highlander: The Series.===
* Spin-off/Continuation not REMAKE (And even if it is new continuity, that isn't a remake.  The main character was Connor's cousin Duncan, not Connor, how can it be a remake?  Also Christopher Lambert appears *as* Connor in the pilot and the film Endgame. Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example patrol. 

message: * Spin-off/Continuation not REMAKE (And even if it is new continuity, that isn't a remake.  The main character was Connor's cousin Duncan, not Connor, how can it be a remake?  Also Christopher Lambert appears *as* Connor in the pilot and the film Endgame. Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Highlander/Highlander: The Series.

message: * Same Source both are based on the book, unless a source can be found citing it being a remake. Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: MASH/M*A*S*H

message: Wow, this is one of the worst articles I've ever run across.  Mind you, this article needs to exist; it's an important topic.  But this whole thing is OR.  I know that I don't agree with half of it, and if I wrote it like this, someone would probably feel the same way as I do.  I don't see myself taking the time to fix it now, but if anybody else feels like I do, this is one editor inviting someone to get out the machete. Unschool (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - the definition of what is a re-make is almost immediately contradicted by what follows, confusing the situation immensely. The term is informal and inconsequential, and really requires a dictionary, not an encyclopædic, entry, as there are no firm and fast criteria for something being a remake. To me Ocean’s 11(2001) and Pacino’s Scarface have as much to do with their “originals” as the two Batman examples given (they retain the title, and deal with “baddies”, and that’s it, really. I think that this article is on a hiding to nothing and serves no real purpose in its present state… Jock123 (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is pretty much all [[WP:OR|original research]] 

message: cranky bugs us
daisy us  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.122.53 (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  remake 

message: I deleted the whole section. It was vague, unclear, uncited, seemingly arbitrary, and generally bad. BoosterBronze (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a remake 

message: It just occurred to me that the edits on Wikipedia are their own forms of remaking. I mention this as I have encountered numerous deletions from an administrator. I have reviewed conflict of interest policies and disagree with this administrator's conclusions. In terms of this page, I attempted to add a reference to an edited, peer-reviewed collection (which I will not name here) on the subject of the filmic remakes of horror, sci-fi and fantasy films. In reading over the section on film remakes, there was a statement made (subjective in nature) that suggested that film remakes are a negative phenomenon. In the research collected in the volume I mentioned, there is social-scientific and philosophical evidence that counters this argument. Alas, this cannot be included in the content of this page. The administrator has decided that this is a conflict of interest, which under my review has a subjective application as a policy. Thus, I am unable to advance a point that suggests that film remakes serve some positive functions in society. Here is a second issue. The administrator removed reference to a peer-reviewed publication but allowed a personal blog page to remain. I mean no offense to the blog artist. I find many blogs to be worthy as sources of reference (and the one linked to this page is good). My point here is to suggest that an administrator's politics (their ability to determine content in a non-dialogic and essentially hegemonic manner) seems to have more to do with certain Wikipedia entry edits than the actual content (which may include peer-reviewed and notable work). Unfortunate, because I think that an administrator ough to be focused on the advancement of public knowledge and not other, more political areas. Xrhetor (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Xrhetor, this is not about "censorship", "tolerance", "politics" or any of the other false claims you're making about my actions. Simply put, a substantial percentage of your edits have involved anonymously posting links, text and other references to your own published work. You may well disagree with the decision to remove your self-references per the conflict of interest and other guidelines, as is your right. You're also certainly entitled to seek other opinions. However, I must object to your chosen methodology, which to date has involved the misrepresentation of both my actions and your own edits. If you want to have a fair, balanced discussion about this, by all means do so in a centralized location rather than on a series of unconnected talk pages, and be clear about what has really occurred. Making false claims, and spreading those claims to multiple pages, does not strike me as "fair" under any definition of the term. --Ckatzchatspy 23:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Politics of Remaking 

message: Page 346 [356]
A star is reborn.
Allusion to A Star Is Born, a classic 1937 film about a self destructive movie star, TWICE remade in 1954 and 1976.
Not without irony...don't you think?--189.136.146.8 (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A pun by Salman Rushdie TSV 

message: It is actually a sequel to the original Alice in Wonderland. So, don't call it a remake or re imagining! 174.16.80.109 (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alice in Wonderland 

message: I think  re-versioning should be merged into this article. The two concepts are very similar, and Re-versioned has long redirected to Remake. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't dispute the fact that remakes and "re-versions" have their differences. My point is that the article on re-versioning is short and not linked to many other articles, so it should be merged into its own section here. The two needn't be the same for them to share the same article. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  AArrgghh. Ok I agree that re-versioning should in no way be merged with remakes. But you demonstrate what is wrong with the remake article. It is full of misconcedption. TRUE GRIT IS NOT A REMAKE! Apart from the FACT that THE WRITERS AND DIRECTORS AND PRODUCERS are pretty clear on the matter; IT HAS NOT BEEN FILMED USING THE FRST MOVIES'S SHOOTING SCRIPT, NOR WAS ITS SCREENPLAY ADAPTED FROM THE FIRST MOVIE'S SCRIPT. It was adapted from THE BOOK TRUE GRIT and if you read that book you can see how the film follows that story and it's focus on Miss Ross, NOT the earlier film's focus on Rooster Cogburn. Maybe you could put a sub section under here but they are fundamentaly different. Even with a shot for shot remake you've only got the framing, lighting etc copied from the original; the actual performances, effects etc are entirely new.TheRealEverton (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Re-versioning]] 

message: From section Film: "[...] remakes make significant character, plot, and theme changes."
From section Reimagine or renovate (my emphasis): In the 2000s reimagine (or re-imagine) and, to a lesser extent, renovate became popular in reference to remakes which do not closely follow the original. The terms are used by creators in the marketing of films and television shows to inform audiences that the new product is not the same as the old one.
So in what way exactly is this something other than a cool new name?  --91.10.40.75 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reimagine or renovate