Ummmm... Rebuttle Mav???????????

Titanic isn't a remake. It is not a remake of A Night to Remember and although it shares a title and theme with a few other films, the screenplay is considered original (Writers Guild of America).

Mav shouldn't have to rebutt that because it should be obvious.

Example: There are two films called Million Dollar Baby.

King Kong is barely a remake. Its not like some genius wrote a beautiful long-lasting script that people still watch nowadays, its no Casablanca. It was a dumb 1933 silent movie. This is more of a better adaptation in my mind.

*Barely* a remake? What a silly thing to say. It's a love-letter to the 1933 version, Peter Jackson's favorite movie. Follows the characters, plot, events, etc. exactly from the original (or so it seems). It's 900% remake. Jesus, what WOULD you classify as a remake?

And the original is neither dumb nor silent (why does everyone around here seem to think that? Talkies had completely taken over by '33). And plenty of people still watch it today, myself included. It's a fucking American classic.

I don't know ANYBODY whos actually seen the original King Kong. And it was long enough that people know what King Kong is, but don't care for the movie. This is like an adaptation of a famous novel or literature piece, people aren't going to be comparing it to King Kong 1. My mistake on thinking it was silent, it doesn't change the facts too much though. Its as much of a remake as Titanic.

yoshue, you'll find out that Shack states these kinds of "facts" all the time. Doesn't make them true by any stretch, so just do what more and more of us have been doing, and don't bother wasting your time responding to any such nonsense that he tries to pass off as truth when you know better.

And I know a lot, so...it all means nothing. Also, find some friends who have seen the movie. They'll be better friends, I promise. Maybe a lot of teenagers haven't seen the movie (with too many things like Saw and Family Guy to distract them) but people have seen King Kong. If not the original, then maybe the awful Jessica Tandy version.



People who have seen King Kong will compare it to the first, as would happen with any remake/adaptation. Those who haven't won't....yeah, obviously. I don't quite understand the point here. Even in the unfortunate event that few have seen King Kong, how does that lessen its status as a remake?

And dude, Titanic is not a remake. For the love of Xenu. Original characters, essentially original story (well, as original as a tale of beautiful star-crossed lovers can be), except it happened to take place during the same historical event as Night To Remember. Is Pearl Harbor a remake of Tora, Tora, Tora? Is Full Metal Jacket a remake of Platoon?

This is kinda insane.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046435/

I'm sure thats enough of a remake status for most.

So TITLES are the test for any remake?!?!?!

Have you ever noticed, when you type in a title at imdb, how you get MANY results? With the SAME title? I guess they're all remakes, then....

Also, I've seen the 1953 movie, Shack. Which makes this funnier. Let's take a look at the plot of the "original" version of James Cameron's Titanic:
Unhappily married and uncomfortable with life among the British upper crust, Julia Sturges takes her two children and boards the Titanic for America. Her husband Richard also arranges passage on the doomed luxury liner in order to let him have custody of their two children. Their problems soon seem minor when the ship hits an iceberg.

Yes, the custody battle was my favorite part of Cameron's as well.

An Alfred Hitchcock example:

Gus Van Sant's PSYCHO- Remake. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0155975/
Doug Liman's MR. AND MRS. SMITH- Not a remake. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033922/

Theres a difference.

Both Titanics are roughly the same idea. The characters get on the boat, the boat travels along and so do their storylines, oh no the boat hits an iceberg, it sinks while our characters muster to escape. They're set around the same subject. Basicly half the movie is the same, its a half-remake if you will.

The two Mr and Mrs Smiths have NOTHING to do with each other. There was simply the title there. One is a family-relationship comedy, the other is an action-spy movie. There is absolutely nothing else discounting the title.

For the record, I didn't just type in Titanic on imdb and saw what came up. I've seen this movie at my video store, and I've heard of it quite a bit. I think I saw snippets of it on TV once too.

Shack, you aren't gonna win this one.

Titanic was NOT a remake. And even if it WAS, no one knew of the first in 97. It just was not a factor back then.

There should be NO arguing that King Kong (05) is a remake of the 33. Not necessarily because everyone's seen the latter, but because it's just obvious, and King Kong is a part of like...US/World history. It's a cultural phenomenon. Even if people havent seen the 33, they defintiely know it exists, theyve seen certain scenes, they will know the 05 was a remake of it. There's just no denying that,


that said, as was my point earlier, I dont think that the remake factor alone is enough to hurt this film in anyway...if it isnt nominated remake will not be it's major fault.

What a vague description.....

So when Hollywood churns out cliched romantic comedies as it loves to do, are they remakes? Same basic idea: The characters meet, their lives travel along and so do their storylines (she's dating a jerk, so he can't tell her how he really feels), oh no she found out he was lying about something, the movie sinks as our characters get together. Same subject (let's say....love in New York!).

Or a war movie...many follow the same structure. Some even in the same war! Remakes, all? Of course not.

Movies following similar structures are commonplace. Someone could probably a make a decent argument that 95% of movies share the same structure.

The many Titanic versions are different takes on a historical event. I think my Pearl Harbor/Tora, Tora, Tora comparison is apt. It's entirely possible that James Cameron has never even seen the '53 movie. The ONLY thing they have in common is that they take place on the Titanic.

Kong is a remake.

And that is a part of it's Oscar scorecard, and it's not necessarily a positive. It is one of the two glaring things (the other being the genre) that will haunt its chances. But (in my view) it's the same thing that will plauge All the King's Men and The Producers (even though that film has more of a musical slant.)

Kong is a remake, but its not nearly glaring enough to make much difference. Not many people are going to be saying 'Well the first was better, I didn't like this one nearly as much. Unneeded!' 1933 was a long enough time ago.

Statistically speaking, when was the last time a remake was nominated for Best Picture.

Shakespeare adaptations and The Lord of the Rings don't count. The driving goal behind those is to adapt a novel not to re-adapt a screen idea... just as Narnia isn't a remake.

Anybody that doesn't know it's a remake is a fucking idiot, and statistically speaking, nobody with any sense counts those types of people, and I'm sure everybody here would be in total agreement with that.

Well, quality can't really be commented on right yet, but when was the last time a remake has been such a high profile, and generally really good film? Like I said, we can't really say it's amazing, but all things considered, I think most can agree it looks good and pretty much everything points to a sold film. What I mean, is, has there BEEN any other remakes even deserving of best picture? I probably am missing some big exception, but it doesnt seem to me like there are many remakes that should even count in this argument. Does that make sense?

Yes it makes sense to me. Like I have said, I play both sides of this issue. Jackson seems to create film anomalies, but at the same time (and I think you would agree) it's one thing to say, "hmmm King Kong sure has some interesting Oscar issues" and another thing to say that it has "great chances" or come up with silly arguments about Titanic.

You can't really bank on The Academy doing crazy things. King Kong would definately be a surprise for most people.

Cape Fear?

Even The Magnificent Seven was only given one nomination (music).

The Ten Commandments (yes, it is a remake) was nominated... in 1956

By the way, my Cape Fear comment was my attemtp to answer when the last time a high profile remake of quality was made.

Yeah, I do agree. It would be a surprise, and I don't know that it has 'great chances.' But I just think everything about it (besides the remake factor (which as I've said, alone won't be a huge deal) and the fantasy/action/adventure genre) points towards Oscar. If reviews end up mixed, sure - count it out. If it bombs at the box office, ok, it's done. But as of now, just with the trailers and the director and what it's up against, I do think it is certainly in the race. Too early, but I just think it's not too far of a stretch.

Is one film really proof enough for anything, though? I mean, cmon. Is that ALL there is that fits the description of high scale, high quality, Oscar hopeful, obvious remake? This is serious questions, btw...I honestly can't think of any films throughout the years which the remake was as big a deal as the original (that alos were feasible oscar films)

Oh,I know... i'm just trying to remember the literally 1000s of films nominated for Best Picture that were also remakes

Traffic comes close but it's adapted from a TV series from a foreign land! To me that's like a Lord of the Rings type scenario, where the source material has kind of jumped mediums in a way and it becomes something *else*. I would almost fit The Producers into this category of non-remakes, but having seen the trailer, they copy a LOT of the visual look of the film, enough so that the original film is definately a factor in its production.

But there is no mistaking that King Kong is a pure remake. According to the King Kong (1933) DVD producer (article on thedigitalbits.com) Jackson is one of the foremost experts on Kong at the moment and was a big factor in helping restore the 1933 to as good condition possible for the DVD release. That's absolutely fantastic, I wish all directors who made remakes were as keen as protecting the legacy of the original film as Jackson has been, and give BACK to the original film.

I too am trying to think of films that were fantastic that I thought were decent... I thought The Manchurian Candidate and Solaris did no damage to the originals (the original Solaris being one of my very favorite films) and were pretty good if not great (and respectful) attempts.

Well, I'm not sure of the technicalities, but imdb also has The Maltese Falcon, Ben-hur, and Butch Cassidy etc, all as remakes. But I think you know what I mean. I just think this situation is largely unprecedented. But..