That's because you have too much trouble thinking to know what you are.

Show me something from the studio billing this as a remake. Don't try to spin it, that's a sign that you're reaching because you know you can't produce what I ask for. If it's out there, you can find it. You want me to say I'm wrong? You're opinion on what a phrase means does NOT mean the other person is wrong. If you can't find where the studio is billing The DeParted as a remake of Infernal Affairs, however, the logical reason is because they are treating it as an individual film that's loosely adapted from something else. Pale Ride is not a remake of Shane, either.

Why can't you remake an adaptation? An adpatation is just one interpreation of the source matreial, if the rmeak eresembles the adapatation closely, I'd say it qualifies as a remake. The new a Pride and Prejudice was an adapation not a remake of the Colin Firth version, because it was in fact very different. Whereas the new All the King's Men, also based on a book could probably be called a remake just as much as it as an adaptation.

I actually completley agree with you, I think the term "reimaging" is just another way of saying remake, however when critics use it, I've found what it really means is well have a well done remake, one were the critic who has usually seen the original actually found this remake had something to offer. Unlike Gus Van Sant's Psycho, which no one needs ot boher with ever, its like watching someone reenact the orginal, what the hell was the point? Whereas I can enjoy both versions of Scarface, because De Palma vresion while being very similar in structure to Hawkes' version, still introduces changes due to the differnt time period, location, and background of the characters.

When directors use it like Burton so far its just meant their film sucked, because Burton's PotA was crap no matter what you called.

I choose Clueless, because at the end of the day, its still Emma, however Clueless also has something to say About American culture, teenaer culture, and California culture that's not in Emma. Are some of the themes in emma universal enough to apply to today, yes, but that's mean that particular adaption didn't add new things. My Scarface example above is a better one, but I didn't think of it till now, I am watching American football, so cut me some slack.

I have yet to see The Departed, it could add nothing new to Infernal Affairs, but I would hope that a change in setting would reflect some changes, even subtle ones, as the change in location should bring out some cultural differences.

In the end I AGREE with you, I really do, I just think we need realize that anytime we apply a term, like say remake, there are vraying degrees to it. If you buy the rights to a movie and use that as your source mateiral its a remake, but remakes run the gambit from shot by shot to extremely loosely based that you have no idea they even come form the source material orginally.

What I am really saying is there is this argument over the term remake and whether it applies, when really remake is such a general term that the fact that it applies doesn't really tell us anything about how dependent Scorses was on the source material for this film.

Mine you I've purposely read jack shit on this, so I juat have o trust what others n the therad say, but I am commenting without regard to that. I'm commentating more on this concept of reimaging vs remake, in that I don't think they are two separate things, rather the former is a word that critics use in one way and directors use in anotehr way to describe the former.

This is not my weekend, people kepe thinking I disagree with them, when really I don't.

Not only is this discussion completely pointless, but Maverikk, you've completely lost sight of your own point.

We have critics, journalists, the director, and studio rights claiming this is a remake.

When it comes down to the Academy, I don't think all the members are going to demand a written statement from the studio to determine whether or not it is a remake.

I really don't think they care and I really don't think being a remake is going to affect its chances anywhere AT ALL! It's not going to lose because it's a remake and it's not going to help it win either.

I'm glad to see that Cynthia agrees with me.

Find me something worthwhile to debate then!

And you know it is kind of condescending to tell people their discussion is not worthwhile.

Considering she said she's agreeing with me that's interesting, heh.

OK I apologize if I sounded obnoxious here, but...this just felt like a really unneeded debate to me.

I would advise everyone to stop bickering so we could maybe be productive without calling each other ridiculous, maybe?

I don't strive to call anyone ridiculous. I just think that seeing this film as a remake is the most logical thing on earth given that pretty much everything supports it.

I suppose The Hills Have Eyes, The Ring and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre are not remakes either.

Let's all agree we have our opinion, and just agree on this one thing, we all really want to see this movie

Opinion is one thing.

Saying that two pounds is heavier than ten pounds is another.

This debate is more of the latter kind of an "opinion".

Apology accepted, Libs. My problem wasn't so much your stance, it was that you glossed over the insults. Maybe everybody can all chip in and chart everything for people here, and then they'll appreciate the time and effort that I was putting into that. I somehow doubt it'll be appreciated then, either.

You know what? You are right. That did come out as condescending. And for that, I'm sorry.

More than a quarter of this thread has been a back and forth argument between people saying this a remake and Maverikk saying that it is not. Both parties should just drop it. We have overexhausted the debate. Don't you people know that Maverikk is not going to give in.

So I'm just gonna forget it because it might as well all be my fault for even attempting to get involved. I'll just let it be and ignore it myself.

Exactly.

I give up on this argument not because I'm wrong, but because Maverikk has pride issues that make it impossible for him to back down no matter how much of a stubborn prick he comes off of. I don't even know WHY I try arguing with him. Maybe because his egotistical pride pisses me off so much I feel the need to tell him. I'll say right now the only problem I have with this section is him and his domineering attitude.

yeah, it's not a matter of what new this brings to Infernal Affairs, or even how close it is to the original. No one is debating any of that. it's a pretty simple debate of whether you call The Departed a "remake" or not...and the FACT is, Martin Scorcese and crew took a film and REMADE it in their own style, their own setting, maybe even with a different thematic emphasis. They still took an original film and remade it. It's a remake. That's really the bottomest line. Is it a completely insane and inane argument? Sure, only because of it's obviousness...but the fact that there IS some debate is gonna keep the thread going forever, unfortunately.

yeah, it's not a matter of what new this brings to Infernal Affairs, or even how close it is to the original. No one is debating any of that. it's a pretty simple debate of whether you call The Departed a "remake" or not...and the FACT is, Martin Scorcese and crew took a film and REMADE it in their own style, their own setting, maybe even with a different thematic emphasis. They still took an original film and remade it. It's a remake. That's really the bottomest line. Is it a completely insane and inane argument? Sure, only because of it's obviousness...but the fact that there IS some debate is gonna keep the thread going forever, unfortunately.

Isn't that the same stance you took here?

It's easy to act like one won't admit when he's wrong, but why don't we stack up the times you guys were all hardheaded, telling me how wrong I was, and then reality arrived?

Predictions are one thing.

Facts are another.

We have backed up The Departed as a remake so much in this thread that any levelheaded person would get it through their head that it's a remake. But you refuse to change your opinion, it's almost like trying to convince a Christian that Evolution is a fact.

As for Jarhead, good for fucking you.

How have you backed anything up, peewee? Jesus, why don't your parents ground you from the computer for a week or something...

Where is your "proof"? Show me what I asked for. You haven't done it, because you CAN'T.

Did you miss this link Dr. Lecter posted earlier?

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=16695



Scorsese, the man who directed it, the man who helped look over it, implied it as a remake. If that is not enough for you, right here and right now I give up on arguing with your sorry ass.

Yeah, give me something from somebody who isn't a member of this forum and who I haven't seen my own comments copy and pasted by.

By the way, you don't add anything here, so you don't have to stay. I'd prefer that you go. You're wasting space.

Martin Scorsese is a member of this forum? Cool!

I learned a long time ago that Mav will never, EVER admit he is wrong or change his stance in an argument. Even if 10,000 stacks are against him like in this thread, he will keep going and going, like a brick wall.

So far we've shown Martin Scorsese himself concede that this is a remake, that Media Asia Films are credited as co-producers because they made the original, that Warner Bros. commissioned William Monahan to write the adaptation of the movie Infernal Affairs... I'm truly at a loss for words.

Mav, we all appreciate the work you do for the forum. I'm sure you work very hard on the lists and threads, and they're a great asset to the site.

However, this is a forum. Jon has every right to be here, and, contrary to your assertions, he adds to many discussions. You are not the god of this section, nor are you always right on issues pertaining to the Oscars. Why not let it go?