When is something not a remake, but a different adaptation?

[agent817]

It seems that every time a remake or reboot is announced, the internet gets in an uproar about it, despite being far from a novel concept. Remakes had existed even in the 1960s and stuff. "A Star is Born" had been remade a couple of times. That's a good example. Then you have other films that were remakes themselves, like 1983's "Scarface."

However, when talking about different adaptations, it seems that people still throw "remake" around like it's a taboo topic. Case in point, the new "Crow" film. I don't think a lot of people are aware that it was a comic book first. I do see how said people believe it will "ruin the 1994 film."

Another example is the "Firestarter" film from two years ago. It could be argued either way, but it was a book first and then the 1984 film came out after. Okay, I have seen that the poster artwork was a nod to the old poster for the 1984 film, but even then, there were differences in how both films played out. Neither were really that good, by the way.

I also say that Rob Zombie's "Halloween II" isn't a remake of Rick Rosenthal's "Halloween II." I would think the hospital scene was a nod to the 1981 film, but the plot for the 2009 film has very little, if anything in common with the 1981 film.

What are your thoughts? Also, what are some examples you could give?

[A Platypus Rave]

I think it depends on where it pulls from.

If it is pulling more from the movie version it'd be a remake.

If it is pulling most of the stuff from the original source it'd be a different adaptation.

It's a little shakier when the original movie becomes a classic.

[DiBiase is Good]

Haven’t seen Wonka yet but the Tim Burton version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is absolutely an adaptation of the book and not in any way a remake of the 1971 film. It’s a lot more like the book and Depp’s version of Wonka is very different to Wilder’s. There are still some people who say the 2005 film harms the legacy of the first film. I don’t agree with that and whilst the 1971 film will always be my favourite of the (then) two adaptations, I think there is room for both and the latter doesn’t piss on my childhood like some claimed it did.

[bibboid]

Seven Samurai was a great movie that gets adapted every few years. The Magnificent Seven was the same story but in Mexico. Battle Beyond the Stars was the same story but in space. You could even say The Three Amigos was a comedy version of the same story.

Then again, the 2016 version of The Magnificent Seven was a flat out remake of the 1960 movie.

[A Platypus Rave]

Mar 17, 2024 23:53:04 GMT -5 bibboid said:

Seven Samurai was a great movie that gets adapted every few years. The Magnificent Seven was the same story but in Mexico. Battle Beyond the Stars was the same story but in space. You could even say The Three Amigos was a comedy version of the same story.

Then again, the 2016 version of The Magnificent Seven was a flat out remake of the 1960 movie.

and Rebel Moon was a a new adaptation of Seven Samurai while also being heavily inspired by star wars and like every other sci-fi movie ever >_>

(it might be inspired by Samurai too... but it follows it pretty closely.)

[MolotovMocktail]

It gets done a lot with Shakespeare. West Side Story (Romeo and Juliet), 10 Things I Hate About You (The Taming of the Shrew) and O (Othello) are three of the most obvious examples.

[El Cokehead del Knife Fight]

It's basically to the extent of how much something is using elements from a prior adaption.

* Using movie original elements, basing the look on the old adaption or hitting the same plot points in the exact same way is a remake.

* Basing it on the same source material but going in a completely different direction is an adaption.

[Scoops]

Silent Hill: Shattered Memories

It follows the basic premise of the original. Guy crashes his car and needs to find his daughter in a town full of monsters. But it's a completely different game and story.

[Mighty Attack Tribble]

The new Crow movie is being sold as a new adaptation of the original comic book and not a remake of the '94 movie, but just about the only thing it appears to use from either is character names created for the '94 movie.

[agent817]

Mar 18, 2024 1:35:19 GMT -5 Scoops said:

Silent Hill: Shattered Memories

It follows the basic premise of the original. Guy crashes his car and needs to find his daughter in a town full of monsters. But it's a completely different game and story.

Since you're bringing video games into the topic, the "Resident Evil 2" remake may have some of the same plot elements of the original game, but there were some changes made, too.

Also, wasn't "Hitman: Contracts" a remake of the original game?

[tirtefaa]

The Fly (1958,1986)
The Thing (1951,1982)
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956,1978)
Bad Lieutenant (1992, 2009)

All examples of having a plot involving the same core elements but take different directions as far as how to tell the story and explore the characters. All of these also in my opinion actually improve upon their predecessors in one or more ways.

[Cyno]

There were two sets of Lord of the Rings games that came out at the same timeframe, but based off different sources. Sierra's LOTR games were more directly based on the original books while EA's were based on the movies.

[karl100589]

Outside of being heist movies featuring Minis, the two versions of The Italian Job are substantially different films.

[yokohamacpfc]

Mar 18, 2024 0:08:29 GMT -5 MolotovMocktail said:

It gets done a lot with Shakespeare. West Side Story (Romeo and Juliet), 10 Things I Hate About You (The Taming of the Shrew) and O (Othello) are three of the most obvious examples.

Throne of Blood is regarded as the best adaption of Macbeth despite not having a line of Shakespeare (or English) in it. 

[Urethra Franklin]

The Lion King is Hamlet.

[El Pollo Guerrera]

Mar 18, 2024 12:35:15 GMT -5 tirtefaa said:

The Fly (1958,1986)
The Thing (1951,1982)
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956,1978)
Bad Lieutenant (1992, 2009)

All examples of having a plot involving the same core elements but take different directions as far as how to tell the story and explore the characters. All of these also in my opinion actually improve upon their predecessors in one or more ways.

The "Suspiria" remake as well.

[Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-]]

DuckTales

Was not a remake of the original cartoon (Though it did retain the song), it pulled from a completely different canon akin more to the Comics.

[agent817]

Mar 17, 2024 23:53:04 GMT -5 bibboid said:

Seven Samurai was a great movie that gets adapted every few years. The Magnificent Seven was the same story but in Mexico. Battle Beyond the Stars was the same story but in space. You could even say The Three Amigos was a comedy version of the same story.

Then again, the 2016 version of The Magnificent Seven was a flat out remake of the 1960 movie.

Since you mentioned that, there are plenty of different takes on "Yojimbo." There was "A Fistful of Dollars," "Last Man Standing," "Desert Heat" (that mean with Jean-Claude Van Damme; It's also called "Coyote Moon" and "Inferno" in some areas) and others.

It's funny how we both mentioned films by Akira Kurosawa and the various films that used similar plot structures.

[LiamMcDuggle]

Such an interesting post. With many Disney property's becoming public domains in the next 20 years, this is going to become somewhat commonplace

In movie terms, I think when a studio uses the same logo, music score, it's a remake (2016 Ghostbusters). If they took the concept of ghost hunting and did not use any of the Ghostbusters tropes, I would consider it an adaptation. 



To be my own devil's advocate, the Into the Spiderverse uses all the Spider-Man tropes and is completely different than any other of the Spider-Man movies. Being a cartoon helps.

[Savage Gambino]

Hellraiser 2022, not a reboot of the 1987 Hellraiser but a new adaptation of the original Hellbound Heart novella, received backlash for, of all things, casting a trans woman as the Lead Cenobite popularly known as Pinhead. Setting aside the fact that the Lead Cenobite was female in the original novella, the book and the movie are about heavily mutilated sadomasochists from a hell dimension, and it's inspired by Clive Barker's experiences with addiction and going to gay BDSM clubs. Of all the "culture war" BS, anything Hellraiser is just the weirdest hill to die on.

As for my personal opinion, try as you might, no matter how loud you say "this is a NEW adaptation of the ORIGINAL source material", you're always gonna be judged by the adaptations that came before. This is why Warner Bros has had so much trouble adapting Superman; you're not just adapting events from a comic book. Your Clark is gonna be judged against Reeves and Routh (and now Cavill), your Lois is gonna be judged against Kidder and Bosworth (and now Adams), your score is gonna be judged against Williams, and your action scenes have to be more exciting than the Donner films, while also showing more care for civilians than the Snyder films, and that's just the surface stuff.