Rejection of Regurgitation, Part 05

Awright, let's wrap this puppy up...

Just like anything else, remakes can be solid business - and solid works - if done right. Regardless of what the last four parts of this series would tell you, not every remake ever is terrible. Or a terrible idea. Hell, one remake spawned a film franchise so big it's become the cultural touchstone of our generation.

Okay, we'll get this out of the way as to avoid confusion as well as any arguments from those who have spent their lives analyzing every detail calling me out - Episode IV: A New Hope the very first Star Wars is not a proper remake. George Lucas actually borrowed from several sources - Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, "Dune", and several other classic science-fiction stories influenced Lucas's first movie. However, the plot itself owed much more to Akira Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress - so much so that Lucas considered buying the rights to that movie in order to make a more faithful version of it. In space.

We all know how that turned out.

So many other remakes - be they good, bad, or indifferent, could be discussed but it comes down to a simple point. Put in a little time, a little imagination, and give the public either another angle to the story or a different version of it altogether, and a remake can be very viable. It doesn't always take as radical of a departure as a Star Wars; merely something new brought to the table and maybe a little actual work in making sure the project is worth the ticket-buying public's time and effort.

What's not working anymore is a misleading sense of thinking people will buy a carbon copy just because it looks newer. People fell for that trick at first, but they're starting to see through the facades. The hardest facts of all - the numbers - are starting to prove that you can repackage an polish a can of Spam all you want to, but it's still a disgusting by-product that the public no longer sees as fit for consumption.

And that goes double for The Crow (you know, what started all this in the first place?) and The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Rejection of Regurgitation, Part 03

When the mass-remake craze started, the money came rolling in. How, however, not so much. Remakes have become old hat at best, and an obvious show of studio/producer laziness at worst. Why bother coming up with an original idea when there's some obscure (cult) classic out there waiting to be raped, pillaged, and run through the CGI grinder? A simple formula for success, in the eyes of the film industry, has become one that's run its course and possibly even doomed to failure because of a glaring oversight.

In many instances, filmmakers and executives pass off their dreaminess for cash as intention to re-tell "a classic story". Being real careful with that definition would serve some of these self-serving executives well lest they look like fools (or are we a little late?). A "classic story" is one so ingrained in to the public consciousness because it retains universal elements that allow people of all races, creeds, and ages to identify with it, allowing numerous versions and re-tellings without the story losing its luster. There are really only a relative handful of stories that fit this criteria - A Christmas Carol, Grimm's Fairy Tales, most of Shakespeare's output...things like that could fit.

Neither The Crow or Nightmare on Elm Street are "classic stories". Nor is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory or so many other examples that have been mined. That doesn't mean they can't be retold, sure, but it takes more than a slick face lift to give it any life or a valid reason that people will want to go see it. Of course, that brings out another excuse for updating movies - the desire to use new technology on them, thereby dragging them in to the new millennium by the hair like a caveman scoring a mate. The added bonus in doing so is the tired adage of "introducing a classic to a new generation." By lumping all these excuses together, movie studios give themselves a built-in justification for remaking virtually anything they want.

Wrong.

And we'll get in to why next time.

Rejection of Regurgitation, Part 02

Last time we got on this, it was brought up how the re-makers of The Crow were using the excuse of bringing about a "more faithful adaptation" of the original work to reboot a movie that doesn't have to be remade.

Of course, there are plenty of excuses. Most of them have to do with new technology and filling out a story (that, oftentimes, doesn't have to be) and other flimsy, transparent see-thru justifications. Bigger budget! Bigger stars! If Hollywood makes EVERYTHING BIGGER, then people will pay to go see it, right?

Not so fast. There are quite a few prime examples of this reasoning going south - a handful of them happening very recently. Nightmare on Elm Street was recently regurgitated re-envisioned, only to fall flat on its face. The budget was there, the CGI was definitely there, a star name was in place (Jack Earle Haley, coming off a dominant turn as Watchmen's "Rorschach")...and it died a second-week death that Freddie Kruger himself would have been proud of. And had a cooler one-liner for than I could even dream of.

I haven't seen it myself (I have no reason to, as you can tell by having written something like this series in the first place), but I heard all about it. Some pf what I read and heard pointed out how confusing or over-stylized it was. The one common thread I saw/heard was how soulless the new Nightmare turned out to be. If box-office numbers are any indication, audiences certainly felt the same way...

...and that's a subject we'll get to next time...

Rejection of Regurgitation, Part 01

Word out of Hollywood recently is Edward R Pressman is producing, Nick Cave is writing, and Mark Wahlberg could very well be starring in a remake of The Crow.

While we could discuss the individual merits of those contributions, the idea of “rebooting” The Crow should probably be discussed first.

The answer is, “No.”

There is absolutely no reason or excuse for this film to be remade. The excuse that’s been given is that they want to make a movie that’s more faithful to James O’Barr’s original graphic novel - or is it? Director Stephen Norrington has already been kicked off the project because someone didn’t like the “more faithful” screenplay he and Cave drafted. Be that as it may, let’s take them at their word just for a second. For the sake of argument, shall we?

The problem with that argument is that, save the exclusion of the Skull Cowboy and other factors (due to budgetary constraints), the original was already as faithful to the original as it could get. A bigger budget and improved technology, theoretically, would allow for a faithful adaptation--

--and no soul whatsoever. And therein lies one of - if not THE - main reason that remaking The Crow would be a worse idea than having Mel Gibson narrate a documentary about the Holocaust. The original work of The Crow was a man unleashing his anguish over the loss of his true. It wasn’t meant to be a cool series, or even the start of a franchise. The first film - and the tragedy that surrounded it - captured that emotion in a way that can not be duplicated. The Crow wasn’t a cinematic masterpiece or a technical marvel by any means, but every aspect of it came together to create a mood that certainly won’t be replicated by a bigger budget, more CGI, or any other excuse that Relativity Media can conjure up to justify this.

You know, there are 5 1/2 handwritten pages that this was culled from. Rather than let all that work go to waste, I’ve decided to break that down in to a series in and of itself. You just read Part 01. Feel free to keep coming back the next few days while we deconstruct the idea of “remakes” and “reboots” from stem to stern.