The Criterion Collection

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Snicket

I don't get this term with Fincher's version. He didn't remake the Swedish film. He made his own adaptation.

And it was miles ahead of the Swesidh one, getting much close to the tone of the books. And that's an un-objective fact.

That's semantics. I would also strongly disagree that it captured the tone of the books better.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Actually, I think it's better than the original. While Fincher's film deviated in some ways from the novel, it was truer to the novel's nature as a murder mystery. Oplev's film turned the story into a psycho-thriller. Whether it's "unnecessary" as a remake is debatable. But I for one am glad that it got made.

But then, I'm also of the minority opinion that The Girl Who Played with Fire was the best film in the original trilogy, so...

That's a fair point!

[Polaroid]

Yay! I go my job I wanted and its night shifts so I won't miss the post!!!

I can now afford to buy more Criterions haha!

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

Actually, the definition of "Remake" (according to dictionary.com) when the subject is movies -

"a more recent version of an older film".

Otherwise all films derived from books would be considered remakes. To attach the older meaning to films ("anything that has been remade, renovated, or rebuilt") is nothing more than purposefully obtuse!

Regardless, the term "remake" does apply even when you're talking about adaptations from another medium. The only time when I wouldn't apply it is if the differences are significant enough that, despite similarities, it's a different story. So, for example, I wouldn't call The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) a remake of Spider-Man (2002), even though both are retelling the character's origin story from the comics.

[Polaroid]

I see Finchers films as an adaptation as he used the book as a source for the script/filming.

In my opinion if he remade the film he would sue the original film and use hat as inspiration for his version ^^

I think its down to personal opinion if you think its a remake or adaptation lol

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

I see Finchers films as an adaptation as he used the book as a source for the script/filming.

In my opinion if he remade the film he would sue the original film and use hat as inspiration for his version ^^

I think its down to personal opinion if you think its a remake or adaptation lol

The point is that it's not necessarily an either/or situation. It's both.

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Regardless, the term "remake" does apply even when you're talking about adaptations from another medium. The only time when I wouldn't apply it is if the differences are significant enough that, despite similarities, it's a different story. So, for example, I wouldn't call The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) a remake of Spider-Man (2002), even though both are retelling the character's origin story from the comics.

"Regardless of the facts, my opinion still stands".

With all due respect, you're talking yourself in circles. We don't use the term remake to describe films that are derived from books (or video games, or any other source for that matter). We use the term "adaptation" to describe films that are derived from an existing source.

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

I see Finchers films as an adaptation as he used the book as a source for the script/filming.

In my opinion if he remade the film he would sue the original film and use hat as inspiration for his version ^^

I think its down to personal opinion if you think its a remake or adaptation lol

Thanks to the nature of Hollywood politics and law we do actually have a definitive way of knowing if Fincher's film is an adaptation: the film's writing credits.

A remake of an existing movie must credit the original writers in it's own credits, thanks to the Writers Guild Of America. So, for example, the recent Robocop remake credits not only that film's three writers, but also Michael Miner and Edward Neumeier, who wrote the original film. Finches' Dragon Tattoo credits Steve Zaillian, who wrote the Fincher script, and Stiegg Larsson, who wrote the source novel. The writers of the first adaptation of the film are nowhere to be seen.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

Actually, the definition of "Remake" (according to dictionary.com) when the subject is movies -

"a more recent version of an older film".

Otherwise all films derived from books would be considered remakes. To attach the older meaning to films ("anything that has been remade, renovated, or rebuilt") is nothing more than purposefully obtuse!

Originally Posted by jayembee

Regardless, the term "remake" does apply even when you're talking about adaptations from another medium. The only time when I wouldn't apply it is if the differences are significant enough that, despite similarities, it's a different story. So, for example, I wouldn't call The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) a remake of Spider-Man (2002), even though both are retelling the character's origin story from the comics.

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

"Regardless of the facts, my opinion still stands".

It's not my opinion. The definition you gave -- "a more recent version of an older film" -- applies. That definition doesn't exempt adaptations from other media.

With all due respect, you're talking yourself in circles. We don't use the term remake to describe films that are derived from books (or video games, or any other source for that matter). We use the term "adaptation" to describe films that are derived from an existing source.

"We don't"? Who's "we"? Everyone? Obviously not, as there are any number of people who do refer to Fincher's TGwtDT as a remake. Or Soderbergh's Solaris. Or Mangold's 3:10 to Yuma. Or McTiernan's Rollerball. Or Spielberg's The War of the Worlds.

It's not a question of "we don't need to use the term 'remake' because we already have the term 'adaptation'". There's value in differentiating an adaptation that's being done for the first time with one that's being done for the second (or more) time(s). Simply calling Fincher's TGwtDT an adaptation doesn't inherently bring with it the understanding that there was a previous version.

Look at John Huston's The Maltese Falcon. I would venture to say that most people probably don't know that it was the third time that Hammett's book was adapted into a film. Calling it an "adaptation" doesn't tell you that there were previous film versions. Calling it a "remake" does.

[Polaroid]

ENOUGH OF THIS ADAPTATION/REMAKE DRAMA!

LOOK a digipak!



Not seen one in so long I forgot they existed :')!

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

Thanks to the nature of Hollywood politics and law we do actually have a definitive way of knowing if Fincher's film is an adaptation: the film's writing credits.

A remake of an existing movie must credit the original writers in it's own credits, thanks to the Writers Guild Of America. So, for example, the recent Robocop remake credits not only that film's three writers, but also Michael Miner and Edward Neumeier, who wrote the original film. Finches' Dragon Tattoo credits Steve Zaillian, who wrote the Fincher script, and Stiegg Larsson, who wrote the source novel. The writers of the first adaptation of the film are nowhere to be seen.

Interesting to know but makes complete sense. Thanks!

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by jayembee

It's not my opinion. The definition you gave -- "a more recent version of an older film" -- applies. That definition doesn't exempt adaptations from other media.

Of course it does, otherwise the definition would read "a more recent version of an older media" instead of "a more recent adaptation of an older film".

That's lifted straight from the dictionary, word for word. For further clarification the Oxford dictionary has it defined as

"A film or piece of music that has been filmed or recorded again". The key word being again. A book being adapted for the first time is not a remake.

Originally Posted by jayembee

"We don't"? Who's "we"? Everyone? Obviously not, as there are any number of people who do refer to Fincher's TGwtDT as a remake. Or Soderbergh's Solaris. Or Mangold's 3:10 to Yuma. Or McTiernan's Rollerball. Or Spielberg's The War of the Worlds.

It's not a question of "we don't need to use the term 'remake' because we already have the term 'adaptation'". There's value in differentiating an adaptation that's being done for the first time with one that's being done for the second (or more) time(s). Simply calling Fincher's TGwtDT an adaptation doesn't inherently bring with it the understanding that there was a previous version.

Look at John Huston's The Maltese Falcon. I would venture to say that most people probably don't know that it was the third time that Hammett's book was adapted into a film. Calling it an "adaptation" doesn't tell you that there were previous film versions. Calling it a "remake" does.

Let's not distract ourselves here - my objection is not to anything you've just expanded on, but to the use of the term REMAKE when describing a book to film adaptation, as per your initial suggestion. Re - "We" - I've never heard anyone ever use the term "remake" to describe a film that is an adaptation of anything that isn't a movie (or TV show).

Nor am I objecting to the idea that a film can be both a remake AND an adaptation. Of course one can be both. My issue lies solely with this abstract use of the term "Remake".

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

ENOUGH OF THIS ADAPTATION/REMAKE DRAMA!

LOOK a digipak!

Not seen one in so long I forgot they existed :')!

Have you seen the artwork for Tati? It's probably the nicest of the year (tho I do love the Scanners digipak too).

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

Have you seen the artwork for Tati? It's probably the nicest of the year (tho I do love the Scanners digipak too).

Not had proper look yet tbh! gotten lazy haha! I do love those big boxsets though

Need to buy a few but cost so much, can soon though eyeing up John Cassavetes: Five Films

[blu-bry]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

Yay! I go my job I wanted and its night shifts so I won't miss the post!!!

I can now afford to buy more Criterions haha!

Congratulations!! I hope it works out to be a good fit for you.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by blu-bry

Congratulations!! I hope it works out to be a good fit for you.

Thanks I am more happy I won't miss postman and can afford my C fix lol

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

My apologies, by the way, if my participation in this thread (and this forum, for that matter) has slipped lately. I started a new job on Monday and I have been learning the ropes. It's actually a lateral transfer to a new office with my same employer, but my duties will be considerably different than what I've been doing for the past 15 years at my old office. Anyway, I figured that it might be a good idea if I actually focus on work instead of posting extensively about movies. That has always seemed like an advisable thing to do for a new job, I guess. It's probably not necessary to apologize, though, because my lack of participation might be a good thing in the eyes of some folks, but I'll still do so.
.

You suffer from “thread participation guilt,” too? I’m not alone! I did notice though, Owl, that you have been MIA. I was performing some mundane task at home and thought, “you know… I’m losing the pulse on some of the (non-Criterion) older films being released on blu-ray because Owl hasn’t been around in the CC thread.” True story. So I, for one (ready for my big finish?)….. “crazy as it sounds… I need you around.”

[blu-bry]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

Thanks I am more happy I won't miss postman and can afford my C fix lol

Now I can stop worrying about you watching Criterion movies as you starve to death over there. Whew!

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by jw007

Want to trade spreadsheets? I'd like to see yours and if you're interested in seeing mine, I can send it.

Sure, send me a PM. I will “show you mine if you show me yours.” Ha ha!!

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

Sure, send me a PM. I will “show you mine if you show me yours.” Ha ha!!

So kinky! lol