Unnecessary American versions of hit films...

[wolfie]

Last man standing is a terrible remake of Yojimbo

Where as Fistful of Dollars was a great remake of Yojimbo. I even liked Last Man Standing.

[jessica]

I love watching movies with subtitles...I LOVE to hear different languages!!

The Bird Cage comes to mind as something that was not necessary.

[samurainoir]

Where as Fistful of Dollars was a great remake of Yojimbo. I even liked Last Man Standing.

Agreed! I obviously loves me my samurai films, but there have been some terrific Cowboy remakes, particularly of the Kurosawa stuff. Takashi Miike's recent Sukiyaki Western Dejango was pretty painful attempt by the Japanese at reclamation of Yojimbo/Fistful of Dollars/Last Man Standing. I know Kevin Eastman has been trying to get his film version of Fistful of Blood off the ground for ages.


Kurosawa himself has stated that he was in turn was influenced by North America Noir stuff. The Glass Key was an inspiration of sorts for Yojimbo.

Battle Beyond the Stars was definitely not a good idea to put the Seven Samurai/Cowboys into space. Although it does amuse me.

We all know Star Wars takes it's cue from Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress.

We should probably differentiate "Heavily Influenced By" with "Remake", but sometimes it's a fine line.

[huedell]

True. However, what that does, is enable anybody who can go buy a camera and editing software for their computer, to make an independent film... I have a basketball hoop in my driveway and go out and shoot around every now and then, but that doesn't make me Michael Jordan. Nor does it mean I'm playing at an NBA level. Just because someone has the means to do something, doesn't necessarily mean they'll be any good at it, or that they should be doing it at all. This recent deluge of super low budget films from these so called "filmmakers" has caused a huge problem in the industry because now, distributors and people who buy movies, think everything now from a certain budget range is crap. Granted, most of it is, but it just makes what I'm trying to do, much harder.

That being said, every now and then, something like "Paranormal Activity" or "The Blair Witch Project" comes along and fuels these inexperienced "filmmaker's" fire, but again; Personally, I don't think either one of those films were any good, but they did present a unique opportunity for a studio or distributor from a MARKETING perspective. Both those films were marketed brilliantly and made lots of money. But look at the quality of the filmmaking itself, and it's **** poor.

I'm in a very unique and very difficult position. With a 20+ year career in special FX and design on major, blockbuster films, I can achieve a lot for very little in my own directorial efforts. I strive to be a real filmmaker and not rely on shaky cam, flash editing, skip frame, desaturated nonsense to make my own low budget films. These types of "Paranormal Activity", ect, films are called "hook films". They rely on a hook to bring the audience in, instead of quality filmmaking. Not my bag.

It isn't your bag... but it IS millions of others "bags".

When you write^^^, you sound like Phil Collins speaking on the inadequacies
of Johnny Rotten, and even tho' I prefer GENESIS to the SEX PISTOLS overall,
I still think this stance is "not seeing the full picture" at best... and
"not CONSIDERING the full picture" at worst.

An artist shouldn't have to point fingers at all else's material's genres
and say how it doesn't measure to theirs... they should merely continue to
create what they have the passion to create without fear of losing ground
to another artist or genre.

I don't understand this. "Avatar" was an original movie. Its content may not have been the most original thematic material, but it's not a remake, sequel, reboot, or whatever. It IS an original film.

You only have to watch AVATAR in the context of what came before it to see that it's not all that original.... good as the film may or may not be.

Just because you change the characters and the locations in a film like
AVATAR doesn't particularly automatically make it more original
or less original than Burton's WILLY WONKA... and it CERTAINLY doesn't
make it more important or more enjoyable....and THAT'S really the main point
in that art reflects the world and vice versa... you don't like what you're seeing...
the response has resonance in "action" and not "words".

An audience can pick what they want... and an artist can create something
that can make change...IF it's executed solidly...and YES that includes the
MARKETING process... get YOUR product to YOUR audience.

[ctc]

>Just because someone has the means to do something, doesn't necessarily mean they'll be any good at it

....but the more people making films increases the odds of something different happening. (Note I didn't say *good*)

>"Avatar" was an original movie.

It was, but it draws VERY heavily from established concepts and stories. New AND old at the same time.

Don C.

[Werewolf]

You only have to watch AVATAR in the context of what came before it to see that it's not all that original.... good as the film may or may not be.

Just because you change the characters and the locations in a film like
AVATAR doesn't particularly automatically make it more original
or less original than Burton's WILLY WONKA...

Well said.

You could certainly argue Avatar is very derivative Disney's Pocahontas with the Native Americans replaced with digital blue furries. Many people seem think that Avatar is a life changing work of art and more power to them. I have no interest in Avatar but thought the movie Amelie was beautiful and moving. To each their own.

[The Bat]

I'm a big Fan of British Movies...I rent most ALL of them.

I really didn't like when they made an American version of "Get Carter"...and replace Michael Caine...with Sylvester Stallone.