jump to navigation

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?

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Prof. R - September 15, 2009

Maybe the term non-remake is indeed too harsh. I wonder if “loose remake” might make more sense?

kellyparry111 - September 17, 2009

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?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: