non-remakes September 14, 2009
Posted by payjr in Uncategorized.trackback
I was caught off guard when I came across this in our reading. Is a film that is dubbed a non-remake still considered a remake? Why is it necessary to disassociate a film from its original in this way? What does a film need to do in order for it to be classified as a non-remake?
Prof. RR
jasdev00
annabethsanford
payjr
bri66
lillyrice
Zach
kellyparry111
christopherlam
Bridget
elisemccarthy
Alex
andrewmw11
Maybe the term non-remake is indeed too harsh. I wonder if “loose remake” might make more sense?
I think that this issue is becoming central to our analysis of remakes. As I was reading the Verevis for today I was continually thinking “What defines a remake?” Not in the sense of the definition of the word, but where are the lines drawn between an exact remake, a “loose remake” or even a non-remake? On page 113, Verevis describes Body Heat’s categorization as a “true remake” but just on the next page also cites Body Heat as being described as a “disgused” remake. What qualities, emotion, conceptions, film strategies, (I could go ON and ON)… what must be present to constitue a remake? If the same concepts are reproduced or if the same genre lines are followed, or if the same character names are used… is it a remake? If so, what kind? The boundaries of remakes are so fluid, how is it possible to make distinctions?