The Departed will win Best Picture
Author |
Message |
MikeQ.
The French Dutch Boy
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:28 pm Posts: 10266 Location: Mordor, Middle Earth
|
Dr. Lecter wrote: Maverikk wrote: Mood-Swing Jon wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: If The Departed gets 90% ot above at RT, it will win. If The Departed gets 90% ot above at RT, it will have a 50/50 shot at getting nommed, depending on whether or not the B.O. is great. King Kong people. King Kong. . . The King Kong comparison isn't even close. You're talking about a film about a giant monkey that was based on a classic and beloved film vrs. a crime drama (and I have no idea where the notion came from that such films aren't academy films...) that really isn't a remake at all, despite being adapted from Infernal Affairs. Hm, you can argue a lot of things in The Departed's support that I will agree with (like the fact that almost none has seen Infernal Affairs in the US anyway), but don't say it is not a remake at all until you at least see the original. I saw tons of TV spots, read the reviews (indlucing the ones with spoilers) and it IS a remake, there is no other way of calling it (I did see Infernal Affairs). Not that it is hurting the movie, but I just don't like seeing that someone thinks it is not one. Not only are several crucial scenes taken out of the original 1:1, it also partially uses the same kind of an ending.
I think the main emphasis is the fact that reviewers have been calling it a much different film from Infernal Affairs, not only style-wise, but thematically as well. Therefore, while it may technically be a remake in a few ways, it won't really be regarded as one (it can stand as it's own film, due to Scorcese's direction).
That's the way I see it.
PEACE, Mike.
|
Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:16 am |
|
 |
Maverikk
Award Winning Bastard
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:03 am Posts: 15310 Location: Slumming at KJ
|
Dr. Lecter wrote: Hm, you can argue a lot of things in The Departed's support that I will agree with (like the fact that almost none has seen Infernal Affairs in the US anyway), but don't say it is not a remake at all until you at least see the original. I saw tons of TV spots, read the reviews (indlucing the ones with spoilers) and it IS a remake, there is no other way of calling it (I did see Infernal Affairs). Not that it is hurting the movie, but I just don't like seeing that someone thinks it is not one. Not only are several crucial scenes taken out of the original 1:1, it also partially uses the same kind of an ending.
It's about as much of a remake as every James Bond film is to the last one in the series. It's even got a different name. I stand by saying that's it's not a remake like King Kong was.
|
Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:18 am |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Obviously it can stand on its own. So can King Kong. Yet it is a remake. I don't want to spil the film to you, but there are just certain exact scenes taken out f the original, the whole main plot aside. Maybe you should watch the original first and then the remake and tell me whether it is one or not. I am not saying it is Gus Van Sant's Psycho, but it IS a remake. At least I am not arguing that without having seen the original. I know what part of the ending has been changed (and thus changed the whole film thematically), but it IS a remake.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:22 am |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Maverikk wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Hm, you can argue a lot of things in The Departed's support that I will agree with (like the fact that almost none has seen Infernal Affairs in the US anyway), but don't say it is not a remake at all until you at least see the original. I saw tons of TV spots, read the reviews (indlucing the ones with spoilers) and it IS a remake, there is no other way of calling it (I did see Infernal Affairs). Not that it is hurting the movie, but I just don't like seeing that someone thinks it is not one. Not only are several crucial scenes taken out of the original 1:1, it also partially uses the same kind of an ending. It's about as much of a remake as every James Bond film is to the last one in the series. It's even got a different name. I stand by saying that's it's not a remake like King Kong was.
Each James Bond film has its own characters, its own storyline, its own ending, its own violent scenes.
This one has taken most of those above from the original. I am very tempted to mention which exactly, but I don't want to spoil the film for you.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:23 am |
|
 |
Lucky
The Incredible Hulk
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 6:50 am Posts: 514
|
Mav mentioned in another forum that Brad Pitt is one of the producers of The Departed. So if The Departed wins BP, Brad Pitt would win an Oscar. What an Oscar night that would be.
|
Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:24 am |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Lucky wrote: Mav mentioned in another forum that Brad Pitt is one of the producers of The Departed. So if The Departed wins BP, Brad Pitt would win an Oscar. What an Oscar night that would be.
Haha, Jennifer Aniston is a producer as well  Now THAT wuld be a night.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:27 am |
|
 |
Maverikk
Award Winning Bastard
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:03 am Posts: 15310 Location: Slumming at KJ
|
Dr. Lecter wrote: Obviously it can stand on its own. So can King Kong. Yet it is a remake. I don't want to spil the film to you, but there are just certain exact scenes taken out f the original, the whole main plot aside. Maybe you should watch the original first and then the remake and tell me whether it is one or not. I am not saying it is Gus Van Sant's Psycho, but it IS a remake. At least I am not arguing that without having seen the original. I know what part of the ending has been changed (and thus changed the whole film thematically), but it IS a remake.
I don't have to watch it to know it's not even close to being a remake like Kong was. That's just common sense. It's NOT a remake. It's loosely based off a foreign film. It won't be judged as a remake. You can count it as one if you want.
|
Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:28 am |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Maverikk wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Obviously it can stand on its own. So can King Kong. Yet it is a remake. I don't want to spil the film to you, but there are just certain exact scenes taken out f the original, the whole main plot aside. Maybe you should watch the original first and then the remake and tell me whether it is one or not. I am not saying it is Gus Van Sant's Psycho, but it IS a remake. At least I am not arguing that without having seen the original. I know what part of the ending has been changed (and thus changed the whole film thematically), but it IS a remake. I don't have to watch it to know it's not even close to being a remake like Kong was. That's just common sense. It's NOT a remake. It's loosely based off a foreign film. It won't be judged as a remake. You can count it as one if you want.
Shall I spoil it then to prove the point? Is it as much of a remake as King Kong? Maybe not. Is it definitely a remake? Yes.
I think I need xiayun's opinion here or of someone else who has seen the original.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
Last edited by Dr. Lecter on Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:29 am |
|
 |
Lucky
The Incredible Hulk
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 6:50 am Posts: 514
|
Dr. Lecter wrote: Lucky wrote: Mav mentioned in another forum that Brad Pitt is one of the producers of The Departed. So if The Departed wins BP, Brad Pitt would win an Oscar. What an Oscar night that would be. Haha, Jennifer Aniston is a producer as well  Now THAT wuld be a night.
She's not one of the three credited producers. Those are Brad Pitt, Brad Grey and Graham King.
|
Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:29 am |
|
 |
Maverikk
Award Winning Bastard
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:03 am Posts: 15310 Location: Slumming at KJ
|
Dr. Lecter wrote: Shall I spoil it then to prove the point?
There is no point you could make. Do you know how many films have similar plots and scenes? Are they ALL remakes?
|
Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:30 am |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Maverikk wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Shall I spoil it then to prove the point? There is no point you could make. Do you know how many films have similar plots and scenes? Are they ALL remakes?
Uhh, I am not talking similar. I am talking the same. Scenes that would not be in the film if they had not been in the original.
Why are you actually arguing this? I don't think this is a King Kong situation and I do think it has a nom almost locked up. I just think that not calling this a remake is an insult to the creativity of the original film's writers because I don't think without them this film would exist.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:33 am |
|
 |
Maverikk
Award Winning Bastard
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:03 am Posts: 15310 Location: Slumming at KJ
|
Dr. Lecter wrote: Maverikk wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Shall I spoil it then to prove the point? There is no point you could make. Do you know how many films have similar plots and scenes? Are they ALL remakes? Uhh, I am not talking similar. I am talking the same. Scenes that would not be in the film if they had not been in the original. Why are you actually arguing this? I don't think this is a King Kong situation and I do think it has a nom almost locked up. I just think that not calling this a remake is an insult to the creativity of the original film's writers because I don't think without them this film would exist.
Oh, you've seen the Departed?
If not, and since you're trying to discredit anybody who hasn't seen Infernal Affairs, I'll discredit you for not seeing The Departed.
|
Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:35 am |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Maverikk wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Maverikk wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Shall I spoil it then to prove the point? There is no point you could make. Do you know how many films have similar plots and scenes? Are they ALL remakes? Uhh, I am not talking similar. I am talking the same. Scenes that would not be in the film if they had not been in the original. Why are you actually arguing this? I don't think this is a King Kong situation and I do think it has a nom almost locked up. I just think that not calling this a remake is an insult to the creativity of the original film's writers because I don't think without them this film would exist. Oh, you've seen the Departed? If not, and since you're trying to discredit anybody who hasn't seen Infernal Affairs, I'll discredit you for not seeing The Departed.
At least I have seen at least one and have spoiler reviews, TV spots and script reviews to base it on. To me, as long as a movie lifts a theme from another completely, takes idential scenes from the original and is influenced by its ending, that is a remake.
Let's see...
In both films, DiCaprio's character is "presumably" kicked out of police school, put in prison, so that he can infiltrate the gang later on.
In both films his character has had ties to the mafia himself in the past.
In both films he is in conflict over his job and can't wait to finally get ut of his undercover job.
In both films he goes to a psychologist and falls for her.
In both films there is the scene of DiCaprio's (in the original Tony Leung) hand being in cast which is broken when he is being searched.
In both films there is a poignant scene towards the very end of the film on a roof (more or less the same scene, by the way)
In both films only two people know of the guy working undercover (Mark Wahlberg and Martin Sheen in the remake, Anthony Wong in the original and as pointed out in Infernal Affairs II his partner as well)
In hoth films the police chief and the gang boss serve as father figures to the main character.
And there is a big major scene shown in the trailer briefly that is exactly the same as in the original. SPOILER AT YOUR OWN RISK
[spoil]A death scene of a certain character[/spoil]
There is one specific and important aspect of the ending that was changed crucially, giving the film a somewhat different theme and a different resolution. But considering the points I mentioned above and others I didn't want to mention for the spoilers' sake, I can't help, but consider it what it is. A remake.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:49 am |
|
 |
MikeQ.
The French Dutch Boy
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:28 pm Posts: 10266 Location: Mordor, Middle Earth
|
To move onto other things that have been mentioned in this thread: I think the skepticalness from some key posters in regards to Dreamgirls Oscars chances may be in the fact that musicals have died out lately, and ever since Chicago, musicals every year have been touted as big Oscar possibilites only to crash and burn. Dreamgirls could look to break against this, but I think that is why some people are hesitant (a good way to put it I think). There is also the unusual cast that doesn't usually scream "Oscar", and other things.
As for myself, I want to wait until we get any real word on the finished film before I comment.
PEACE, Mike.
|
Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:31 am |
|
 |
A. G.
Draughty
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:23 am Posts: 13347
|
Is it a remake? Yes
Is it a fairly faithful remake? It seems so, like Lecter I recognize a few key scenes.
Is it another King Kong? No. King Kong wasn't just a remake it was a remake of a classic, why remake a film when it already made a big impact in the culture, it was like remaking gone with the wind or ben hur. I think The Departed won't suffer much from being a remake.
|
Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:37 am |
|
 |
xiayun
Extraordinary
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:41 pm Posts: 25109 Location: San Mateo, CA
|
Of course it's a remake. They acquired the English translation of Infernal Affairs' original script first and worked from there. They have no problem giving credit to the original source, so shouldn't we. It just doesn't hinder its chance the same way.
_________________Recent watched movies: American Hustle - B+ Inside Llewyn Davis - B Before Midnight - A 12 Years a Slave - A- The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - A- My thoughts on box office
Last edited by xiayun on Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:00 am |
|
 |
MikeQ.
The French Dutch Boy
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:28 pm Posts: 10266 Location: Mordor, Middle Earth
|
The comparison between The Departed and King Kong (or any typical "the remake" case) makes little sense to me, since King Kong and The Departed have very little in common in terms of story, director, actors, originals, adaptation, etc.
The classic King Kong is just that: an unchangeable classic. I would argue that the newest King Kong is so easily compared and tied to the original, whilst it is not done so in the same way with The Departed. They just don't feel like the same situations. A remake of King Kong is different than a remake of a Hong Kong thriller. They are both remakes, but these are very different situations.
One of the only comparison's I've seen between Infernal Affairs and The Departed in a review had the reviewer talking about how he felt Infernal Affairs lacked clarity which Scorcese has instilled into his film. Other little things, like the title change to the film, and reviewers rarely, if ever, speaking to Infernal Affairs as "the original" or to The Departed as "the remake", show that this isn't like your usual cut and dry remake, and has been treated differently.
For example, Todd McCarthy of Variety chooses to use the word "reworking" as opposed to "remake" when describing The Departed in his introduction, and Honeycutt of The Hollywood Reporter says this film "derives from Infernal Affairs", and Levy called it "vaguely based" on it, and so on. It's just not the same situation as King Kong, where in nearly every review you would have some sort of 'verdict' on which King Kong was best, or whatnot.
Essentially, this is being seen as "Scorcese's big return"; his return to his roots which involves his own creativity and direction in the film, as opposed to "a film remake by Scorcese".
And if The Departed's reviews keep up it will not be comparable to King Kong review wise either, since it will be well above it in terms of raves. It's not really about whether it is technically a remake just like the 2006 King Kong is technically a remake, but rather how it is perceived. When a director like Scorcese comes along (partnered with a great writer and editor), a remake can look and feel a lot like it's own new story or film.
And this is all I will devote to this topic, because it is moreso a trivial concern compared to the grand scheme of things, I think.
PEACE, Mike.
|
Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:03 am |
|
 |
Anonymous
|
MikeQ. wrote: To move onto other things that have been mentioned in this thread: I think the skepticalness from some key posters in regards to Dreamgirls Oscars chances may be in the fact that musicals have died out lately, and ever since Chicago, musicals every year have been touted as big Oscar possibilites only to crash and burn. Dreamgirls could look to break against this, but I think that is why some people are hesitant (a good way to put it I think). There is also the unusual cast that doesn't usually scream "Oscar", and other things.
As for myself, I want to wait until we get any real word on the finished film before I comment.
PEACE, Mike.
Someone pointed out (I'm surprised it wasn't me) that Dreamgirls shouldn't really be compared to the likes of Phantom of the Opera, Rent, or The Producers. They're all the genre but the quality of the filmmakers involved isn't comparable. It would be like discounting The Departed based on recent shitty crime films.
The only reason the cast doesn't scream Oscar is because black people hardly win or are even nominated.
|
Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:54 am |
|
 |
Maverikk
Award Winning Bastard
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:03 am Posts: 15310 Location: Slumming at KJ
|
Sounds more like an adaption than a remake. Maybe even a reimagining.
A remake? No.
|
Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:23 am |
|
 |
Jonathan
Begging Naked
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:07 pm Posts: 14737 Location: The Present (Duh)
|
Okay, first off, the King Kong comparision comes from the fact that both films that are very mainstream-looking films that people have been trying to say they AREN'T as to convince to predict them. With Kong, people said it WASN'T a big-budget blockbuster about a giant monkey, but an old-Hollywood, EPIC love story unlike anything seen before. With The Departed, which to the normal eye looks like another hyper action flick in October with an above-average pedigree, people are saying it's another moody, Martin Scorsese crime drama ala Goodfellas.
People pushed both movies with STELLAR reviews (Including a crazy-rave by Sasha Stone who says the movie WON'T be overlooked because it's so bloody brilliant), probably inflated by who's behind them. With both films, they need a desired amount of money to get nominated (Kong: $300M; The Departed: $100M).Most people thought they were reachable. I say NOT.
The fact that they're both remakes was merely an afterthought. Speaking of which. . .
A REMAKE IS ALREADY A FRICKIN' ADAPTATION, MAVERIKK. Pretty much EVERY remake has the screenwriter use the original screenplay as the source, they just don't go watching the movie while going "Oh, I should include that scene!" And of COURSE there's going to be a difference between Internal Affiars and The Departed. One takes place in HONG KONG, the other in AMERICA. There are CULTERAL DIFFERENCES that wouldn't translate realistically to America, so they need to modify it so it rings true. I have seen Internal Affairs, but I don't think Lecter would disagree with that.
|
Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:53 am |
|
 |
Maverikk
Award Winning Bastard
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:03 am Posts: 15310 Location: Slumming at KJ
|
First off, Jon, lose the attitude.  An adaption and a remake aren't the same thing. Please stop looking for things to argue about with ME. I'm not going to say it nicely the next time. If you want to debate something, don't be a dick about it.
As far as King Kong goes, don't try educating me on it. I'll show you one post after another where I tried to convince people all the reasons that Kong wasn't anything to be taken serious as an Oscar film, so save your hindsight insights.
The Departed is a completely different beast. It's not a fantasy film about a giant ape that has blue screen effects and is a remake of a beloved classic. It's a gritty and realistic crime drama, closer to The Godfather, which won Best Picture. It's a loose adaption, much like A Fistful of Dollars was a loose adaption of Kurosawa's Yojimbo, yet it's not really considered a remake. Same thing with Eastwood's Pale Rider not really a remake of Shane. This is the territory The Departed is in, not a remake like King Kong was.
Unlike the Kong remake, which I repeatedly gave reasons for why it wouldn't even be a consideration, The Departed is a film that has people working on it that are OWED. Quite a difference from Peter Jackson just getting a love orge and Marty consistantly getting a cock tease.
Then you have the acting. It's a showcase. Who was in Infernal Affairs? Huh? Who? That's what I thought. The only acting in KK that stood out was Watts, and she was never going to get a nomination for something that Faye Wray immortalized. It wasn't even a consideration, and that's what I said long before reality crashed down last season. For the Departed, you have Jack, Leo, Matt Damon, Martin Sheen, etc... It's an actor's realm, not a realm of spectacle like KK was.
1260 actors make up AMPAS. Do you seriously believe that's NOT going to make a big difference? Tack on the apparent quality of the acting and the (adapted) screenplay, the fact that Marty is owed more than anybody in the history of being owed that wasn't named Susan Lucci, and the fact that it IS a film genre that the academy has embraced in the past, and it all adds up to awards nominations across the board.
|
Sun Oct 01, 2006 11:39 am |
|
 |
MikeQ.
The French Dutch Boy
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:28 pm Posts: 10266 Location: Mordor, Middle Earth
|
loyalfromlondon wrote: Someone pointed out (I'm surprised it wasn't me) that Dreamgirls shouldn't really be compared to the likes of Phantom of the Opera, Rent, or The Producers. They're all the genre but the quality of the filmmakers involved isn't comparable. It would be like discounting The Departed based on recent shitty crime films.
The only reason the cast doesn't scream Oscar is because black people hardly win or are even nominated.
No, the reason why the cast doesn't scream Oscar is because it includes a washed up Eddie Murphy who still hasn't broken his chain of crappy roles and film choices, a singer who has not proven herself as an actress, and a 7th place finalist from American Idol who has done no previous professional acting whatsoever.
That's not to say that they won't all surprise and end up creating a wonderful cast (maybe they will, maybe they won't), but the scepticalness regarding the cast is clear.
PEACE, Mike.
|
Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:01 pm |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Maverikk wrote: Sounds more like an adaption than a remake. Maybe even a reimagining.
A remake? No.
Stupid.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:44 pm |
|
 |
Snrub
Vagina Qwertyuiop
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:14 pm Posts: 8767 Location: Great Living Standards
|
Remake verb - to make something again or in a new way. noun - 1. a) something that is made again; b) especially a new version of an old film. 2) the act of making something again or in a new way.
The Departed is every bit as much of a remake as King Kong was.
However, in the Oscar race, it benefits from the fact that a lot of people aren't necessarily as familiar of the source material as they were with Kong. So, in that respect, they are indeed two entirely different beasts.
Last edited by Snrub on Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:50 pm |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Snrub wrote: Remake verb - to make something again or in a new way. noun - 1. a) something that is made again; b) especially a new version of an old film. 2) the act of making something again or in a new way.
The Departed is every bit as much of a remake as King Kong was last year.
However, in the Oscar race, it benefits from the fact that a lot of people aren't necessarily as familiar of the source material as they were with Kong. So, in that respect, they are indeed two entirely different beasts.
Right on!
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:54 pm |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|