3:10 to Yuma

Katarn07 said:
Heck, Star Wars is just a reimaginging of every Kirosawa film and Flash Gordon serial.


Yes, go back and read my posts. Search feature rocks.

There's a difference between a remake and a derivative work. All works are more or less derivative. All works ARE NOT remakes. That's just an over-zealous statement for the sake of being extreme.
 

HovitosKing

Well-known member
ResidentAlien said:
Oh smarminess! Gotta love *******s being *******s on things they don't understand.

Yes, a moral stance. The moral being that it's pure economics baby. Morally I think it's wrong to debase and distill art to it's elemental structure. Morally I have objections to destroying someone else's piece of work for your own quick profit. See, in economics... if the consumer buys it... the producer will continue to produce it...

...not a hard concept.

Quit being an ass on things you have no clue about.

Again, complete and utter irrelevance. Your opinion means nothing and has contributed nothing of value whatsoever to this thread (and I would argue to this message board as a whole)...have you any grasp on what a total waste of cyberspace your half-wit posts are? I'm guessing not, as will be evidenced soon enough I'm sure.
 
HovitosKing said:
Again, complete and utter irrelevance. Your opinion means nothing and has contributed nothing of value whatsoever to this thread (and I would argue to this message board as a whole)...have you any grasp on what a total waste of cyberspace your half-wit posts are? I'm guessing not, as will be evidenced soon enough I'm sure.

Hah! No, see I did offer something to this thread--I offered my personal reasons for not being interested in this film. You on the other hand offered merely a personal attack.

Seems you're too ****ing stupid to recognize the difference between relevance and irrelevance though--all good. We wouldn't want you exert that brain of your's trying grasp the difference.
 

Niteshade007

New member
Just because something is a remake doesn't mean that it takes away from the original film, but I can appreciate your belief that remakes will stop if people stop seeing them. However, that is impractical in the sense that you will never get enough to people to stop seeing these movies. Especially considering that some remakes are better or just as good (apparently like this one, or Ocean's 11, even Maltese Falcon had been done a couple times before they got it right). But yeah, for every good remake you can name several bad ones (Psycho...*shudders*)
 
Niteshade007 said:
Just because something is a remake doesn't mean that it takes away from the original film, but I can appreciate your belief that remakes will stop if people stop seeing them. However, that is impractical in the sense that you will never get enough to people to stop seeing these movies. Especially considering that some remakes are better or just as good (apparently like this one, or Ocean's 11, even Maltese Falcon had been done a couple times before they got it right). But yeah, for every good remake you can name several bad ones (Psycho...*shudders*)


I'm well aware of Maltese Falcon being a remake. That was one of those exceptions I referred to.

True, it may not be entirely plausible... but change starts with one dissenter. Capitalism works because we're forced to choose where to spend our money. I choose not to spend mine on remakes.

And yeah... oh god... Psycho... the very pinnacle of bad remakes. I actually have seen it... well nearly all of it. :sick:
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Psycho at least wasn't really intended as a commercial exercise. The motives behind it were wrong-headed, but it wasn't a money-making venture.
 

Katarn07

New member
So you've seen the Maltese Falcon, and I'm sure you're aware that a certain Wizard of Oz starring Ms. Garland and Ben-Hur starring Mr. Heston are remakes as well. Or do those not count because most people forgot the originals and the remakes are now considered to be classic?

Your logic's flawed in the fact you won't see remakes, but yet acknowledge there are remakes that are the definitive version of a film. You would never know what to consider the definitive version if you don't see remakes. I'm pretty sure this new 3:10 will be held in higher regard than the original, a film by the way many have not heard of to begin with.

Also, as I said earlier, because of remakes, people do often see the originals where they may originally never had any intention to do so ;) You yourself are doing it for the original 3:10. How is remaking something a disservice?
 

deckard24

New member
I can't wait to see this film, and the word of mouth has been great so far! How can you go wrong with Russell Crowe and Christian Bale going head to head?
 
Katarn07 said:
So you've seen the Maltese Falcon, and I'm sure you're aware that a certain Wizard of Oz starring Ms. Garland and Ben-Hur starring Mr. Heston are remakes as well. Or do those not count because most people forgot the originals and the remakes are now considered to be classic?

Your logic's flawed in the fact you won't see remakes, but yet acknowledge there are remakes that are the definitive version of a film. You would never know what to consider the definitive version if you don't see remakes. I'm pretty sure this new 3:10 will be held in higher regard than the original, a film by the way many have not heard of to begin with.

Also, as I said earlier, because of remakes, people do often see the originals where they may originally never had any intention to do so ;) You yourself are doing it for the original 3:10. How is remaking something a disservice?

I definitely had a qualifier in my post. "Recent crop of remakes." Mighta helped had you actually read my full post.

See, film technique had evolved greatly from silent film of the late 1890s and through til the 1920s. By the 40s and 50s film language had matured and developed massively. The original version of Alice and Wonderland for instance (as charming and enjoyable as it is) isn't particularly well-constructed. The camera remains stationary--a passive observer. The Disney version is thus a much needed improvement--however, we haven't had any truly revolutionary changes in cinema technique since the 50s. Sure, there's NLE and digital filmmaking... what's that give us aside from snappier, more precise edits? Remaking those old films from the 30s-80s (as is becoming popular) is just raping great works of art (mostly) for the sake of profit. There is no need to remake those--the films still are generally all great works even by today's standards. Now they're just being sped-up and sexed-up to draw a younger crowd. We should be educating our kids to appreciate great pre-existing works of art over the MTV sexed-up and distilled version.
 
Last edited:

Katarn07

New member
Even better than the above quote is this:

ResidentAlien said:
We should be educating our kids to appreciate great pre-existing works of art over the MTV sexed-up and distilled version.

3:10 to Yuma is an MTV sexed-up and distilled version? :confused:

I'm not trying to make you go out and see every remake on earth, because I agree some are done for the wrong reasons. But other movies that aren't remakes or sequels are done for the same reasons. It's all about money, that's the point of the industry. What's your moral stance on sequels? Same deal as remakes, dude! Especially when they're sequels done by different writers/directors/producers. They're just taking a successful property and milking it dry. You could argue they're done for the money too, but you could also say that the people had such a respect for the material they wanted to do something with it.
 
Katarn07 said:
Even better than the above quote is this:



3:10 to Yuma is an MTV sexed-up and distilled version? :confused:

I'm not trying to make you go out and see every remake on earth, because I agree some are done for the wrong reasons. But other movies that aren't remakes or sequels are done for the same reasons. It's all about money, that's the point of the industry. What's your moral stance on sequels? Same deal as remakes, dude! Especially when they're sequels done by different writers/directors/producers. They're just taking a successful property and milking it dry. You could argue they're done for the money too, but you could also say that the people had such a respect for the material they wanted to do something with it.


Trust me, all these sequels are getting tired and quaint in my view as well.

Christian Bale is sexed-up by default anyway. He draws in the younger crowd because he IS Christian Bale. Good actor? Yes, I like him--but he's just a draw. Why remake the film at all if not to grub money off the teens? They should be cultured with the classics than with some high-profile remake. That's where we're all going wrong in society these days. We're too eager to burn down our monuments. We shouldn't be destroying and erasing what came before... we should be celebrating it.
 
Come mothers and fathers throughout the land
and don't criticize what you can't understand
your sons and your daughters are beyond your command
Your old world is rapidly ageing
Please get out of the new one, if you can't lend a hand
For the times, they are a-changing
-Robert Zimmerman-
 
ClintonHammond said:
Come mothers and fathers throughout the land
and don't criticize what you can't understand
your sons and your daughters are beyond your command
Your old world is rapidly ageing
Please get out of the new one, if you can't lend a hand
For the times, they are a-changing
-Robert Zimmerman-


Oh I love the irony. Bob Dylan might write some good lyrics...

But they're entirely unwarranted save but perhaps for yourself.
 
And while I'm on the subject...

Bob Dylan and the movement he belonged to was for social change... for progress. How is progress remaking what came before? That's not progress, that's revival. I'm the one harping for progress--move forward, create something unique--stop ripping off what came before.


You know what's changed? Nothing's changed. We're stuck in a loop doing the same thing over again. Learn from the past, be original, move forward! Film technique, as I pointed out before, is still nearly entirely the same as it was 50 years ago. Film language has not really progressed anywhere. Move on, find something new to say. The only real change was Godard's jump-cuts becoming mainstream (thanks MTV....). Other than that, there has been no real changes. The avant-garde isn't mainstream. We don't see Stan Brakhage's ideas or Maya Deren's ideas flooding into cinema--there have been no radical departures or additions to film language.
 

Niteshade007

New member
ResidentAlien said:
Trust me, all these sequels are getting tired and quaint in my view as well.

Christian Bale is sexed-up by default anyway. He draws in the younger crowd because he IS Christian Bale. Good actor? Yes, I like him--but he's just a draw. Why remake the film at all if not to grub money off the teens? They should be cultured with the classics than with some high-profile remake. That's where we're all going wrong in society these days. We're too eager to burn down our monuments. We shouldn't be destroying and erasing what came before... we should be celebrating it.

I don't really think that Christian Bale is at all "sexed up." I could understand your argument if they put someone like Matthew Ma-what's his name in the role, someone who relies more on looks than talent, but you said yourself you thought Bale was a good actor.

I just don't really understand. Of course you are going to want to market to teenagers, because they are the biggest film goers. But I don't feel that this film has been dumbed down any for the sake of appealing to a modern audience. It's not as if the trailers had stupid catch phrases or farting jokes. You're right, we shouldn't be tearing down monuments, but remaking a film isn't tearing down a monument. The original is still there, in all its glory. It's not as if we have to have one or the other, you know?

When I was interested in becoming a filmmaker, I wanted to remake The Thin Man, one of my favorite movies. I wanted to bring a great film to the modern audience's attention. Not all remakes are done for this reason, but I think its obvious when it is there. King Kong, for all its flaws, was at least a project that you could tell was near and dear to Jackson's heart. He just wanted people to experience the same feelings he experienced when he first saw the original, and there's nothing wrong with refreshing an audience's memory of such films.
 

HovitosKing

Well-known member
Baron Brunwald said:
ResidentAlien posts too much.
Yet all the posts are about nothing.
:confused:


Stop bogging down my thread, let's talk about this movie.

He's a douchebag...just ignore him. This film, on the other hand, was incredible. I'm going to see it again this weekend. Imagine that-- watching a remake...twice...how sinful lol.
 

San Holo

Active member
I waited a long time to see this one, and it was well worth it. I realy dug this movie, and thought the acting and story was top notch...except for Peter Fonda(speaking of douchebags;) )
 
Top