|
|
Orangutan (orangutan) wrote in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} fandom_wank,@ 2005-07-17 22:59:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
A brief interlude from the Harry Potter wankageddon, because Charlie and the Chocolate Factory wank is sweet, sticky, and will turn you into a giant blueberry.
Many fans of the 1971 Willy Wonka movie have been throwing around that dreaded 'r' word – remake – about the new film. Lilenne feels this is unfair, and makes a post pointing out that new interpretations of classic stories happen all the time, and nobody raises a fuss when someone comes out with a new take on Hamlet.
The first few responses are sane enough . . . and then the sighing starts.
Doelcm disagrees with the idea that CatCF isn't a remake, making the following argument:
Are all "Chocolate Factory" movies remakes? No, because "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" (the first film) is not a remake.
Is "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" a remake OF "WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY"? No.
Is "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" a remake? Yes. It's a remake of the book.
Apparently, Dawsonscrk disagrees. And feels the need to express a non-verbal sound of frustration across the internet, too.
*sigh* A remake entails a recreation in the same medium. A film version of a novel or play is NOT a remake of the source material but an adaptation. Just like multiple adaptations of a novel does not make the adaptations remakes of one another but multiple interpretations of the same source. Would you consider The Passion Of The Christ a remake of Jesus Christ Superstar? Even though one is based on a musical the actual source material goes back to the gospels.
Because god knows the interwebnets are exactly like arguments at high school cafeteria tables, this quickly escalates in heavy sighing, then really heavy sighing, and then a third party (Bentsa) jumping in and arguing that YOUR DEFINITION OF "REMAKE" IS WRONG, LOSER. As happens in all good internet arguments, ever, someone inevitably pulls out a dictionary and invokes the name of St. Webster.
Things get even awesomer in a different segment of the discussion, with this delicious gem:
So.....we're comparing Willy Wonka to.....Hamlet? Why don't you get back in your SUV, hop on your cell-phone, plug-in your I-Pod, drive to StarBucks and order your Lactose-Free Grande Caramel Machiatta. I bet your movie collection far-surpasses any on these boards. You'll probably be first in line for THE DUKES OF HAZZARD. I like Burton and Depp, but this "movie" is clealy a waste of time and film. Audiences today are frankly...stupid. They've been dumbed-down by the media and government. And will feed on whatever they are given. Hell, if there were a re-make of BACK TO THE FUTURE, a flawless film, people would go and see it. Americans are like cattle. They follow to where the feeding is good, and then they move on. Boy, I just can't wait for HELLBOY 6!
Do yourselves a big favor and watch the orginal again. Back when filmmakers gave a S***.
Yes, my friends, THE MAN'S nefarious schemes are revealed: all remakes, all the time!
Oh, IMDB. You're like the bidet of the internet.
Many fans of the 1971 Willy Wonka movie have been throwing around that dreaded 'r' word – remake – about the new film. Lilenne feels this is unfair, and makes a post pointing out that new interpretations of classic stories happen all the time, and nobody raises a fuss when someone comes out with a new take on Hamlet.
The first few responses are sane enough . . . and then the sighing starts.
Doelcm disagrees with the idea that CatCF isn't a remake, making the following argument:
Are all "Chocolate Factory" movies remakes? No, because "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" (the first film) is not a remake.
Is "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" a remake OF "WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY"? No.
Is "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" a remake? Yes. It's a remake of the book.
Apparently, Dawsonscrk disagrees. And feels the need to express a non-verbal sound of frustration across the internet, too.
*sigh* A remake entails a recreation in the same medium. A film version of a novel or play is NOT a remake of the source material but an adaptation. Just like multiple adaptations of a novel does not make the adaptations remakes of one another but multiple interpretations of the same source. Would you consider The Passion Of The Christ a remake of Jesus Christ Superstar? Even though one is based on a musical the actual source material goes back to the gospels.
Because god knows the interwebnets are exactly like arguments at high school cafeteria tables, this quickly escalates in heavy sighing, then really heavy sighing, and then a third party (Bentsa) jumping in and arguing that YOUR DEFINITION OF "REMAKE" IS WRONG, LOSER. As happens in all good internet arguments, ever, someone inevitably pulls out a dictionary and invokes the name of St. Webster.
Things get even awesomer in a different segment of the discussion, with this delicious gem:
So.....we're comparing Willy Wonka to.....Hamlet? Why don't you get back in your SUV, hop on your cell-phone, plug-in your I-Pod, drive to StarBucks and order your Lactose-Free Grande Caramel Machiatta. I bet your movie collection far-surpasses any on these boards. You'll probably be first in line for THE DUKES OF HAZZARD. I like Burton and Depp, but this "movie" is clealy a waste of time and film. Audiences today are frankly...stupid. They've been dumbed-down by the media and government. And will feed on whatever they are given. Hell, if there were a re-make of BACK TO THE FUTURE, a flawless film, people would go and see it. Americans are like cattle. They follow to where the feeding is good, and then they move on. Boy, I just can't wait for HELLBOY 6!
Do yourselves a big favor and watch the orginal again. Back when filmmakers gave a S***.
Yes, my friends, THE MAN'S nefarious schemes are revealed: all remakes, all the time!
Oh, IMDB. You're like the bidet of the internet.
