Shinier is not neccessarily better
Rants and Ramblings July 10th, 2008Now a lot of my stuff also goes up at The Rusty Lime. I got my start there and get a lot of support and help from the man that runs the site. Michael Ott is a class act and knows his business. He has created a great CMS software package that he is selling for others to use on their own blog sites. He is a friend I will keep that connection from now til the end of time.
Anyway one of the comments I received on the my latest remakes rant was from another friend who said he does not want to go back and watch the old classics because he prefers something shinier.
This comment echoes the sound of a generation that has lost touch with what has made film great. We have lost site of things like story telling in favor of CGI, effects and big explosions. Telling a story is a very intimate thing. You are trying to connect with your audience and get them to belive in the ideas that you are presenting on the screen.
It is more than just the look of a film. If films needed to look good then Kevin Smith would not have a career. The man has said himself that his flicks typically look like shit. However he tells one hell of a story and speaks to people on a personal level with some of his films. Clerks and Clerks 2 are 2 movies that when you get passed the sarcasm really do speak to me on that personal level.
I look back at some of the old classic flicks that I love and they are grainy with poor special effects by todays standard. I watch these films in context of what it would have been like when this was a new film. I find the original often out shines the remake in its ability to tell a good story.
Sit and watch the original Planet of the apes and then watch the new one. Sure it is shiny and new but did they really capture the story and the message from the original?
How about Oceans 11?
Halloween anyone?
What about The Thing?
Your thoughts on War of the Worlds. No really I want to know so leave a comment.
What about Dune?
In this short list there may be 1 or two I enjoyed as much and 1 that I see as an exception to the rule. When it comes to a choice between watching the original flick and watching a shiny new version, I will typically take the original 99% of the time. 99% of remakes lose the story because some one thinks they can make it better. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |








July 19th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
RE: War of the Worlds
I thought the special effects were great, but the story, well there wasn’t any. I felt there were a lot of questions left unanswered. But maybe thats how the book was, I don’t know. Nevertheless I did not like it.
A bad movie can have great special effects and still suck. Whereas all a good movie needs is a great story and good acting, special effects is really only a bonus. When you have all 3 of those things, you’re looking at an Oscar.
I thought Peter Jackson’s “King Kong” was a great remake of the classic.
Chopss last blog post..It Appears You Have Some Venus In Uranus…
July 19th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
I will give King Kong. Who knew Jack Black could actually act. I loved the guy. Good call.