Thread: Remakes and re-adaptations are two different things

  • avatar
    • 8 years 7 months ago
    • Posts: 1525
    Quote by Dyzfunk7ional
    ^ Whats the litle thingy doing...?


    Farting, then laughing at you?
    "Did I ever tell you how much I like ants huh? Especially fried in a subtle blend of mech fluid and grated gears?"
    -Rampage, Beast Wars

    [IMG]http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/Commodore_Axilon/Forum%20Shit/kirk-cock.gif[/IMG]
  • avatar
    • 8 years 7 months ago
    • Posts: 4137
    ^ Whats the litle thingy doing...?
  • avatar
    • 8 years 7 months ago
    • Posts: 2014
    Quote by stake_n_sheak
    Quote by Echidna64
    Those are original adaptations
    How can a adaptation be original? That's ridiculous!


  • avatar
    • 8 years 7 months ago
    • Posts: 2437
    Unless the original was a remake, of course.
    My Last Article For RetroJunk

    [url=http://www.retro-daze.org/site/article/id/395]Remembering RetroJunk[/url]
  • avatar
    • 8 years 7 months ago
    • Posts: 1982
    Quote by Echidna64
    Those are original adaptations
    How can a adaptation be original? That's ridiculous!
    Quote by tangspot2
    Mrs. stake you say some nasty on my threads. Dirty bitch
  • avatar
    • 8 years 7 months ago
    • Posts: 2437
    Either way, I'll be looking forward to the new Spiderman remake.
    My Last Article For RetroJunk

    [url=http://www.retro-daze.org/site/article/id/395]Remembering RetroJunk[/url]
  • avatar
    • 8 years 7 months ago
    • Posts: 2878
    Quote by vkimo
    Quote by Shazbot
    Quote by Pinface
    NO, BB is NOT A REMAKE of the 1989 Batman film nor does it have anything to do with the old series, it's another adaptation of the comics but this time with the full origin story which was never told before on film.

    Just like how John Carpenter's The Thing was another adaptation of the John W. Campbell story "Who Goes There", if you enjoyed that movie i urge you to read the story which inspired the 1951 and 1982 versions. And you'll realize how much of a poor adaptation the 1951 adaptation was and how the 1982 adaptation is the definitive more faithful adaptation of the story.


    As far as remakes go, it was good though.


    Yeah, you're totally right. It was a quality remake.


    Definitely better than the Batman remakes from the 1990's. Another quality remake is the newest iteration of The Thing.
  • avatar
    • 8 years 7 months ago
    • Posts: 1368
    Quote by stake_n_sheak

    #2: I guess I'm a little confused about other types and sub-types. Tales from the Cryot? This is a remake of the comic book, not a readaptation right?
    #3: What about Novelizations of movies? For instance Blade Runner: The Movie: The Book. Is this: a readaptation of The Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? a remake of the movie? a remake remake of The Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Since it is a book like the original. Or is it a readaptation of the Andorids book. #4: Following from the previous question. Is it like, every time the medium changes, it becomes a readaptation, and every time the medium does not change its a remake?
    #5: What about sequels?


    Those are original adaptations
    [img]http://archive.kontek.net/saturn.classicgaming.gamespy.com/content/md/reviews/c/contra_hard_corps/2.jpg[/img]
  • avatar
    • 8 years 7 months ago
    • Posts: 1525
    Simply put, this is how I'd classify Remake vs. Re-adaptation.

    Remake: Where you take an older movie/book/what have you and replicate it as close to the source material as you can, or make a modern version of it. It's exactly the same, except condensed into a two hour long film, or modernized.

    Re-Adaptation: Where someone takes an old movie/book/what have you and reimagines it. Like they go, "This is how I think things should've happened" Like elaborating on things they felt the original source should've done, adding/subtracting certain things, yet keeping the basic story recognizable.

    I'm not saying you're completly wrong though, just giving my opinion.
    "Did I ever tell you how much I like ants huh? Especially fried in a subtle blend of mech fluid and grated gears?"
    -Rampage, Beast Wars

    [IMG]http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/Commodore_Axilon/Forum%20Shit/kirk-cock.gif[/IMG]
  • avatar
    • 8 years 7 months ago
    • Posts: 2437
    Quote by Shazbot
    Quote by Pinface
    NO, BB is NOT A REMAKE of the 1989 Batman film nor does it have anything to do with the old series, it's another adaptation of the comics but this time with the full origin story which was never told before on film.

    Just like how John Carpenter's The Thing was another adaptation of the John W. Campbell story "Who Goes There", if you enjoyed that movie i urge you to read the story which inspired the 1951 and 1982 versions. And you'll realize how much of a poor adaptation the 1951 adaptation was and how the 1982 adaptation is the definitive more faithful adaptation of the story.


    As far as remakes go, it was good though.


    Yeah, you're totally right. It was a quality remake.
    My Last Article For RetroJunk

    [url=http://www.retro-daze.org/site/article/id/395]Remembering RetroJunk[/url]
  • avatar
    • 8 years 7 months ago
    • Posts: 2878
    Quote by Pinface
    NO, BB is NOT A REMAKE of the 1989 Batman film nor does it have anything to do with the old series, it's another adaptation of the comics but this time with the full origin story which was never told before on film.

    Just like how John Carpenter's The Thing was another adaptation of the John W. Campbell story "Who Goes There", if you enjoyed that movie i urge you to read the story which inspired the 1951 and 1982 versions. And you'll realize how much of a poor adaptation the 1951 adaptation was and how the 1982 adaptation is the definitive more faithful adaptation of the story.


    As far as remakes go, it was good though.
  • avatar
    • 8 years 7 months ago
    • Posts: 10350
    Quote by Guild_Navigator


    Quote by thecrow174
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAA1xgTTw9w


    THIS.

    He left me no choice. I had to post it.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpmILPAcRQo

    Come have the time of YOUR life with me and the gang at Retro-daze.org.
  • avatar
    • 8 years 7 months ago
    • Posts: 1982
    OK OK I have some questions here. It seems like this is a pretty complicatied subject and I just want to be sure I understand everything if we are going to apply some rules across conversation. #1: How come the Thing can be a remake and Batman can't. Isn't Batman better than Thing?
    #2: I guess I'm a little confused about other types and sub-types. Tales from the Cryot? This is a remake of the comic book, not a readaptation right?
    #3: What about Novelizations of movies? For instance Blade Runner: The Movie: The Book. Is this: a readaptation of The Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? a remake of the movie? a remake remake of The Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Since it is a book like the original. Or is it a readaptation of the Andorids book. #4: Following from the previous question. Is it like, every time the medium changes, it becomes a readaptation, and every time the medium does not change its a remake?
    #5: What about sequels?
    Quote by tangspot2
    Mrs. stake you say some nasty on my threads. Dirty bitch
  • avatar
    • 8 years 7 months ago
    • Posts: 2014
    Humans have been doing re-adaptations, reboots and remakes since the first stories were told around campfires. But just to clarify,a REMAKE is a loving adaptation that takes in consideration the original and its legacy. A REBOOT is basically telling the audience "this how things are,please excuse the previous blunder".

    Quote by thecrow174
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAA1xgTTw9w


    THIS.
  • avatar
    • 8 years 7 months ago
    • Posts: 942
    NO, BB is NOT A REMAKE of the 1989 Batman film nor does it have anything to do with the old series, it's another adaptation of the comics but this time with the full origin story which was never told before on film.

    Just like how John Carpenter's The Thing was another adaptation of the John W. Campbell story "Who Goes There", if you enjoyed that movie i urge you to read the story which inspired the 1951 and 1982 versions. And you'll realize how much of a poor adaptation the 1951 adaptation was and how the 1982 adaptation is the definitive more faithful adaptation of the story.
    "Nobody wants to see vampire killers or vampires either! apparently all they want are demented madmen running around in ski-masks hacking up young virgins"-Peter Vincent from Fright Night.
  • avatar
    • 8 years 8 months ago
    • Posts: 2878
    Batman Begins is a great remake too.
  • avatar
    • 8 years 8 months ago
    • Posts: 1982
    Pinface I still don't understand why you sent me a PM about this. Frankenweenie 2012 is a remake, which is what I called it, and not a readaptation according to your own terms. And I never called any Batman movie a remake.
    Quote by tangspot2
    Mrs. stake you say some nasty on my threads. Dirty bitch
  • avatar
    • 8 years 8 months ago
    • Posts: 10350
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAA1xgTTw9w
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpmILPAcRQo

    Come have the time of YOUR life with me and the gang at Retro-daze.org.
  • avatar
    • 8 years 8 months ago
    • Posts: 2878
    It's my favorite remake of the bunch.
  • avatar
    • 8 years 8 months ago
    • Posts: 256
    Quote by Shazbot
    I like the new remake of the thing better than the old one.

    The new Thing movie isn't a remake. It's a prequel. The ending leads directly into the original.
Forum Staff
Super Admin: Vertex
Super Mods
Search