In the past few weeks there have been many remakes of classic shows and productions, such as The Sound of Music and The Nutcracker. They have been met with different views and critique. For “The Nutcracker”, the producers and directors decided to remake it completely. As Neil Genzlinger said, “The eye-popping production is “The Nutcracker” as it might exist in another, decadent dimension. There’s candy, but not the kind you buy at a sweets shop. No gingerbread here either; pasties, not pastries. Although the familiar “Nutcracker” music turns up, so does “Material Girl,” the Madonna song. Madonna, Christmas — in the skewed world of “Nutcracker Rouge,” it makes a certain amount of sense.” I thought this quote was an amazing summary of the entire article because of the many changes the producers brought to the production.
On the other hand, NBC aired a live version of “The Sound of Music,” on the channel last night. I was actually quite impressed with the cast and their innovative production. It is a live production, but the only audience watching is at home. No one will be clapping because the only people on set are going to be the crew. This can be hard for theatre actors, but much of the cast, specifically Carrie Underwood, who will try to outshine Julie Andrews in the role of Maria, has no theatre background whatsoever. Although it will only air live once, and then continue to be shown as though it was a
regular TV broadcast, it is still a remake of the old classic.
Now to the argument: should classics be redone and how much can you change without affecting the movie. Everyone has either seen or heard about The Nutcracker, The Sound of Music, and many other stunning productions and movies. And then a remake comes along and provokes the extreme in people – either they really loved it and forget about the classic or they really hated it and continue to criticize any new productions of it. Anytime I go to the movies, I hear people saying, the sequel is never as good as the original. The internet is full of sites such as “12 Proposed Movie Sequels That Thankfully Never Happened” and some of the movies on the list are: E.T. II: Nocturnal Fears, Forrest Gump 2: Gump & Co., Ferris Bueller 2: Another Day Off, The Matrix 4. Can you imagine another movie about Forrest Gump? What would Jenny yell this time? “Run 2, Forrest, Run 2!” In my opinion, some classics should not be changed. If a movie/musical/art piece is a classic, it means that the people involved in it did a fantastic job the first time and you should try your hand elsewhere. Yes, my opinion of this may be bias because of certain sequels that I have seen, but I honestly think that true art shouldn’t be messed with. You don’t see people going around re-painting the Mona Lisa!
Works Cited:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/06/arts/dance/nutcracker-rouge-at-the-minetta-lane-theater.html?ref=arts&_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/01/arts/television/nbc-will-air-the-sound-of-music-live-on-dec-5.html?pagewanted=2&ref=television&_r=0
http://mentalfloss.com/article/53805/12-proposed-movie-sequels-thankfully-never-happened
I think sequels are a hit-or-miss production. Fans of the original story want more of said story, and that’s how they produce the reception for a sequel. Production companies base their decision for a sequel off of how much money they can make with the sequel. Sometimes a sequel is not necessary for the progression of a story because the original ended perfectly fine, but if fans want more of the story, then production companies are going to produce something for the money that fans are willing to spend.
I think a good example of this would be the Harry Potter story. Even though the story ended satisfactorily, there are fans who want more. And these fans, who don’t want the story to end, might demand for a sequel of the Harry Potter timeline in the form of based off of Harry Potter’s children’s timeline. And answering this reception, J.K Rowling produced spin-off stories of the Wizarding World.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/jk-rowling-to-write-new-harry-potterinspired-film-series-based-on-fantastic-beasts-and-where-to-find-them-8812270.html
I believe that the reception of an audience to a sequel or remake is entirely subjective. Everyone has their own reasons for liking or not liking a film that was based off an original. A majority of the masses don’t appreciate sequels or remakes though. Why this is may be attributed to the nostalgia of childhood; the memory of seeing a film for the first time and falling in love with it.
However, I have seen remakes that I am unashamed to say have become a part of my list of favorite films; The Departed, 3:10 to Yuma, and the entire Die Hard franchise. I think the ability of the producer and the cast has much to do with how a remake or sequel is constructed and received. This being said I think many people should just keep in mind that just because an original film or storyline has been redone or continued it doesn’t automatically mean that the old one is dead; don’t be so hard on the new entry and just give it a chance.
This article talks about the source of the problem concerning film remakes; http://articles.glendalenewspress.com/2013-11-29/entertainment/tn-gnp-film-review-spike-lee-misses-the-mark-on-oldboy-remake-20131129_1_oldboy-spike-lee-park-chan-wook.
Khrystyna, it seems to be you are asking 2 questions: Should classics be remade and should sequels be made. Any classic that is entirely remade with the same exact plot and scenery is probably going to be a flop. I say this because there is a certain mood and connection established from the original, a copy will always be seen as that. However, the modern interpretations seem to be equally as bad. Check out Elle, a modern remake of Cinderella: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/elle-a-modern-cinderella-tale/
Lame movie with horrible reviews. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any good remakes. I agree with you, classic remakes usually stink.
Sequels, however don’t always. The Avengers 2 was amazing. Absolutely stunning cinematography, with crisp and witty acting. Sequels generally have less luck but I would be cautious to always label them as bad.
I think this is interesting to bring up. I think classics can be redone because everyone loves to see their own version of certain productions or shows. For instance, sometimes I like an original classic or other times a remake. If I enjoy watching a classical movie, then I can watch it every year, and still find it interesting. For instance, every holiday season, I love to watch A Christmas Story and can’t imagine a remake taking it’s place. Meanwhile, there are other movies that I like watching remakes of. It really depends on personal taste, and I don’t think there is any one answer. Everyone likes different types of art, and movies, shows and theater productions, like all other art, come in many different styles and varieties.
I agree with you that remakes of art can be disrespectful and unsettling to originals in a way. But, making reinterpretations of classics is inevitable. Many of them are always set in a more modern setting and involve issues that modern people are concerned with the most. I think that remakes have some cultural value in this way because it copies famous art and pastes it into a more contemporary context so that everyone understands the art. In fact, remakes drive people to see the originals again, so their influence is not entirely bad.
I feel that making remakes of classic pieces is a fine idea. Making a remake with current actors gives the classic piece a fresh look. As long as the remake has a the same mood and the same idea is presented it is perfectly acceptable. If the new ramies was to change the context to change completely that would be acceptable as well. This allows for a totally new movie and message. It is all up to the actors and the director and what direction they plan to take with the remake. The limit the determines whether a movie is a remake or a new movie is if the lesson the story teaches its viewers is relatable and understood in the same way. Some information about a new remake can be found here. http://www.film.com/movies/10-good-movie-remakes-oldboy
I personally don’t like remakes just because the original piece is known as a classic for a reason and whenever someone messes with that it’s just not going to come to par with what we know the classic to be. I just read an article about a remake they just announced for “Murder on the Orient Express”, which will be based on a novel originally written by Agatha Christie that’s very famous. I think this topic also considers whether or not it’s a good idea to make make movies based off of books and that’s also subject to opinion, especially because a lot of movies don’t live up to the expectations of the books. The article can be found here: http://www.firstshowing.net/2013/fox-ridley-scott-developing-murder-on-the-orient-express-remake/
I think it really depends on the movie. Some movies nowadays need a sequel because they would just be too long to cover everything in one movie. I think the same thing applies to classical movies because some remakes are great and some aren’t. For example, the movie, The Great Gatsby, was first made in 1974 and then again in 2013. To be honest, I liked both versions. I enjoyed the one made in 1974 because it was exactly the same as the book; the characters even said lines straight from the novel. The newer version of the movie added a twist by changing a few aspects, but I liked that too because it spiced up the movie. I think the main difference between the 1974 film and the 2013 movie was the special effects.
However, some people didn’t like the 2013 remake of “The Great Gatsby” at all. They believed it was too modern, such as the music not following the Jazz Age that the novel meant to portray. http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2013/05/13/130513crci_cinema_denby