Archived Discussion

This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.

Working Title: The Remake: From YKTTW

Fanra: Better change the definition of "doesn't count if original work was a book, because so many films have been made from books.

Metz77: That's not a remake, that's an adaptation. I'm pretty sure we already have a page for that.

Fanra: No, I'm talking about when it was a book, then a movie, and then they make another movie as a remake of the first movie. I already put in under The Manchurian Candidate and Scarface entries that they were both books, then a movie, then another movie.

Metz77: Oh, I see. I'll clarify that, then. Wait, I see what happened. What it says is that it doesn't count if BOTH films were based on the same book, rather than the later film being based on the earlier one.

Fanra: Ok, but I see a problem as exactly what the later films are based on is anyone's guess. Often it seems that they are based on nothing but someone took a title and figured it would make money. Is the later film based on the earlier film, or the book, or both, or whatever was in the newspaper the day the scriptwriter was working? Maybe they just have a hangup over something and threw it in. In general, I guess you could say that if no one ever heard of the book, or if the later movie seems to take nothing from the book, then it is a remake of the movie, but it gets hard. If I make a remake of Gone with the Wind, is it the book or movie I'm remaking? Both were very popular, and it would probably be impossible to judge from the script which I used, or if I used both.

Metz77: As you said, a lot of the time it's fairly self-evident. When it isn't, there's usually information somewhere from the people in charge about what it was based on. The ideal solution, I think, is to give the ambiguous ones the benefit of the doubt unless evidence is produced either way. Edit: Actually, why don't we just change those parenthetical notations to sub-bullets and note that it's unclear which the later movie was based on.

Fanra: Ok, works for me. Let's see how we do.

Indigo: Does re-imagining fall under The Remake?

Cidolfas: Removed the following non-examples:
  • The Fast and the Furious has already been remade as ''Fast and Furious." Maybe viewers really are morons after all.
    • Not a remake, it's just really unimaginative sequel naming.
  • The 2003 version of The Italian Job.
    • That's not a remake, it's a different "plot" with 2 characters carried over, as a sort of sequel but the shown back story changes the original heist.
  • The upcoming 2009 version of Star Trek is a reboot of the original 1966 TV series. Not necessarily a Film Of The Series since six films of the series were already made featuring the TV cast.