Fierce_LiNk Posted August 22, 2006 Posted August 22, 2006 I've noticed that whenever news gets out that something is getting remade, a film for example, the fans tend to get annoyed and more or less write-off the remake before it even gets released. Now, why is that? Personally, i think it's because we love the original product so much, that we just don't want to see it tarnished. It's a bit daft when you think about it. The original will always be there, so how can it possibly be tarnished? My first example is: The Ring. I loved the original, but i thought they didn't do a great job with the remake. In a way, its kinda annoying to see that the remake missed the point of the original in certain parts. I think it pains people to see another film or song being associated with the original, and that they think people will only see or hear the recent version and possibly forget about the original? Is that the case? Hmm. Recently, there was an advert on tv about...wannadoo broadband, i think. There's a song that goes something like "space travel's in my blood, there ain't nothing i can do about it. Car journeys wear me out, etc." I googled the lyrics and found out that the song is called "Another Girl, Another Planet" and was originally by a band called the OnlyOnes, but it was covered by Blink182. After listening to both songs, i think the Blink cover is far superior. In my opinion, i think there's some damn good covers out there. As an Oasis fan, i was proud to see Ryan Adams do Wonderwall justice. So, what are your views on covers or remakes?
demonmike04 Posted August 23, 2006 Posted August 23, 2006 Mr.Flink, your the music man You've made quite a few musical threads.. A cover i've always liked is Ms Jackson by the vines, it just feels so soft and its just such a good track to listen to whenever. Best feature about it, theres none of the hiphop in this cover.
Ashley Posted August 23, 2006 Posted August 23, 2006 Could add "& Sequels" and really get the ball rolling But this is jus a quick reply before I go to bed; Gravenhurst's cover of "See My Friends" is much better than the rather bland original by The Kinks. Similarly I hear Hallelujah (which has been covered by like everyone) was rework by someone and made it much better. This may come in handy; http://www.coversproject.com/
Fierce_LiNk Posted August 23, 2006 Author Posted August 23, 2006 Mr.Flink, your the music man You've made quite a few musical threads.. A cover i've always liked is Ms Jackson by the vines, it just feels so soft and its just such a good track to listen to whenever. Best feature about it, theres none of the hiphop in this cover. Hehe, i love music. I haven't heard the vines version of it. I may have to check it out. Could add "& Sequels" and really get the ball rolling But this is jus a quick reply before I go to bed; Gravenhurst's cover of "See My Friends" is much better than the rather bland original by The Kinks. Similarly I hear Hallelujah (which has been covered by like everyone) was rework by someone and made it much better. This may come in handy; http://www.coversproject.com/ I think sequels are really an entirely different ball-game. I think that would require a thread of its own, in the future.
Shorty Posted August 23, 2006 Posted August 23, 2006 I wrote a big post defending the Only Ones and the original, legendary "another girl, another planet" and slaughtering that monstrosity of a whine-fest that calls itself music, Blink 182 -- but I thought Flinky would like me less if I submitted it. What I don't like about remakes is when they've been changed to suit an updated, wider, modern audience. Like if the live action Neon Genesis Evangelion movie made the pilots young adults and gave them American names *urge-to-kill-at-the-very-possibility-of-this rising*. Also there's that depressing moment when your secret favourite band that only you and a small clique are into suddenly makes it onto MTV with some radio friendly shite *cough*AFI*cough* and now everyone and their dog has heard of it - and you'll never have that "underground" feeling again.
Fierce_LiNk Posted August 23, 2006 Author Posted August 23, 2006 I wrote a big post defending the Only Ones and the original, legendary "another girl, another planet" and slaughtering that monstrosity of a whine-fest that calls itself music, Blink 182 -- but I thought Flinky would like me less if I submitted it. What I don't like about remakes is when they've been changed to suit an updated, wider, modern audience. Like if the live action Neon Genesis Evangelion movie made the pilots young adults and gave them American names *urge-to-kill-at-the-very-possibility-of-this rising*. Also there's that depressing moment when your secret favourite band that only you and a small clique are into suddenly makes it onto MTV with some radio friendly shite *cough*AFI*cough* and now everyone and their dog has heard of it - and you'll never have that "underground" feeling again. I wouldn't think any less of you if you prefer the original. I love the original, too, but there's just something i like more about the cover. I can't really say why i like it more, but they've both ace songs. My girlfriend kinda has that AFI thing going on, except with Feeder. She was a big fan of theirs when they were still little-known. She was telling everyone "ooo, you should give this band a listen, they're excellent!", and basically got ignored. A while later, they hit the big-time, and the same people she was telling actually said to her "you should check out this band, they're good, they're called feeder!" I think she was tearing her hair out at this point. There's some covers which just don't go down well with me. The green day version of summer of 69 is, well, disgusting. Edit: I meant green day, not blink.
Shorty Posted August 23, 2006 Posted August 23, 2006 Have you tried the Ataris one Flink? A little cheerful pop punk goes a long way at the right time
Fierce_LiNk Posted August 23, 2006 Author Posted August 23, 2006 Have you tried the Ataris one Flink? A little cheerful pop punk goes a long way at the right time I'll try and check it out. My favourite cover at the moment is the futureheads cover of the hounds of love. My girlfriend loves the kate bush original, and i do, too. But, in a different way to the way i love the cover. The original is creepy and has a totally different feeling. The cover is full of energy and so much power. They're both awesome songs.
MunKy Posted August 23, 2006 Posted August 23, 2006 Its all depends. Some covers are great (KoRn's version of Another Brick In The Wall Pts 1, 2 & 3) and some are complete shite (Aveneged Sevenfold's cover of Walk by Pantera). Films are harder to remake. There is way more crap remakes than good ones, though that could be because they try to something that cant be done.
Dan_Dare Posted August 23, 2006 Posted August 23, 2006 Jonny Cash did Hurt. I know it's a NiN original, but i'm going go pre empivly dismiss that was the inferior. see also: comfortably numb is a far better song in the hands of the sissor sisters than Pink Floyd. The Original is just...boring.
The Peeps Posted August 23, 2006 Posted August 23, 2006 The main reason I don't like things being re-made is that it's usually changed. I don't see the point in re-making something if it's going to be changed, why not just make something new? The main thing about it is that everyone who watches the new version and hates it will think it's rubbish when in actual fact the original may have been really good but they've been put off. Or if they do like it then they're liking an inferior version (in the fan's eyes) or whatever you want to call it and should watch the original instead. That's mainly for tv shows or films though... Music covers are different. I think it's just because you want the actual song to live on regardless of who's singing it - with some exceptions. The song mainly stays the same, the tune and lyrics... but some covers can be really bad.
The Bard Posted August 23, 2006 Posted August 23, 2006 I like Alien Ant Farm's cover of Smooth Criminal, but I like it in a different way to which I like the original. Covers tend to suck generally though.
Dan_Dare Posted August 23, 2006 Posted August 23, 2006 If memory serves, that cover was a slice of unadulterated hot cock.
The Bard Posted August 23, 2006 Posted August 23, 2006 If memory serves, that cover was a slice of unadulterated hot cock. I know there's a time honoured tradition of you talking bullshit that nobody even remotely understands or cares about, but you've gotta snap out of it wendy, I'm here to help. On a side note: I think I'm going to do a cover of Michael Jacksons Beat It, good song.
Dan_Dare Posted August 23, 2006 Posted August 23, 2006 that was a perfectly good sentence. true story and everything. lawl. pwned.
The3rdChildren Posted August 23, 2006 Posted August 23, 2006 I like remakes, but they aren't always quite as good as we'd like them to be. If you can improve upon something to a level that warrents going ahead with a remake, then do it. If you truly can't, stay away. Special effects are something that will most always be better in a remake, so that's a good thing. Also, if you stick to the source material you can be onto a winner, it's usually when people deviate from the original material you're remaking that problems are encountered. Deviations should only be made for reasons that improve the original, not worsen it. I'll post more later, my brain is frazzled at this late hour.
killthenet Posted August 23, 2006 Posted August 23, 2006 Seu Jorge did some brilliant covers of some David Bowie songs for Wes Andersons film "The Life Aquatic". They're in Brazillian Portugeuse and, from the mouth of Bowie himself "Had Seu Jorge not recorded my songs acoustically in Potuguese I would never heard this new level of beauty which he has imbued them with". See! They are good! On the subject of film remakes, some can be good, Peter Jacksons "King Kong" being the most recent and high profile example. David Cronenbergs version of "The Fly" and John Carpenters remake of "The Thing" were both much creepier, more intelligent and better executed than their respective originals. Of course, "Hollywood" has recently become obsessed with remaking Asian films, most of them being poor in comparison to the originals, despite reaching wider audiences. Oh, and hi. I've been reading this site and (sometimes) these forums for years, but only recently decided to join out of boredem and lonlieness.
Fierce_LiNk Posted August 23, 2006 Author Posted August 23, 2006 I like remakes, but they aren't always quite as good as we'd like them to be. If you can improve upon something to a level that warrents going ahead with a remake, then do it. If you truly can't, stay away. Special effects are something that will most always be better in a remake, so that's a good thing. Also, if you stick to the source material you can be onto a winner, it's usually when people deviate from the original material you're remaking that problems are encountered. Deviations should only be made for reasons that improve the original, not worsen it. I'll post more later, my brain is frazzled at this late hour. I agree with you there. I think sometimes films are remade just for the hell of it, and that just isn't a good enough reason to warrant a remake. One remake i'm particularly fond of is Invasion Of The Body Snatchers. The remake with Donald Sutherland and Veronica Cartwright. It's faithful to the original, but it also brings some of its own ideas, too. The ending, for example, is very bleak and perfectly suited to the film. I think that went down as one of the greatest remakes ever. Definitely worth a look! Seu Jorge did some brilliant covers of some David Bowie songs for Wes Andersons film "The Life Aquatic". They're in Brazillian Portugeuse and, from the mouth of Bowie himself "Had Seu Jorge not recorded my songs acoustically in Potuguese I would never heard this new level of beauty which he has imbued them with". See! They are good! On the subject of film remakes, some can be good, Peter Jacksons "King Kong" being the most recent and high profile example. David Cronenbergs version of "The Fly" and John Carpenters remake of "The Thing" were both much creepier, more intelligent and better executed than their respective originals. Of course, "Hollywood" has recently become obsessed with remaking Asian films, most of them being poor in comparison to the originals, despite reaching wider audiences. Oh, and hi. I've been reading this site and (sometimes) these forums for years, but only recently decided to join out of boredem and lonlieness. First off, hello and welcome to the forums! Great first post. One argument that i don't like about hollywood recreating asian films is "because the audience doesn't want to read subtitles." Ok, fair play. But, to say that a film should warrant a remake on that basis is rubbish, imo. I've personally never had a problem with subtitles. If they can make the transition from east to west, and if they can make it faithful to the original, then by all means do it. However, i think some films kinda lose that 'asian' feeling to them. Especially when things such as the character's names, the settings, the dialogue all get changed.
knightendo Posted August 23, 2006 Posted August 23, 2006 starsky & hutch mission impossible wild wild west the dukes of hazzard all big screen remakes of classic shows, that did away with a lot of what made the originals a hit and changed them to "suit" a newer audience don't they look at the fact that these shows still command good ratings today and sell well on dvd? that must mean >>shock-horror!!<< people today actually LIKE the way the originals were done! i abandoned all hope for the new knight rider movie, but i've heard glen larson, the show's original creator is on board, and unlike starsky's creator he isn't gonna sell out. he's keeping the movie the same as he envisioned the show, and making it a little grittier just like the original pilot movie. "somewhere between knight rider and sin city" he says. i have faith but then we have battlestar galactica, a massive remake, completely changing the show but making it 500% better! it's the show larson wanted to make but couldn't at the time (and i think is influencing his decision to redo kr). absolutely fantastic, cutting edge television that respects the original so much! i also much preferred the remake of the grudge, it was handled by the original's director etc etc so it didn't stray, just broadened the film's appeal. but then how about george lucas and his constant stupid milking of star wars? or universal and their pointless shot-for-shot-except-let's-put-in-some-fast-moving-clouds-during-the-shower-scene remake of psycho? my point? i'm not entirely sure, except that whether a remake is good or bad is maybe down to each individual one, and who is in command of it.
Blackfox Posted August 23, 2006 Posted August 23, 2006 Why don't i like remakes? Firstly, most often or not (and include sequels in this) the remakes are shit. 90% of the time this is true. Look at Comfortably Numb (SS should be strung up for that "attempt"). The second is a vain attempt by Hollywood to make more money by squeezing a beloved film for all they have. Due to the fact they don't have the skills to come up with anything original anymore.
Noodleman Posted August 23, 2006 Posted August 23, 2006 Jonny Cash did Hurt. I know it's a NiN original, but i'm going go pre empivly dismiss that was the inferior. see also: comfortably numb is a far better song in the hands of the sissor sisters than Pink Floyd. The Original is just...boring. See you where going well with the Johnny Cash bit, but then the 2nd half of that post contains so much wrongness it hurts. The Scissor Sister cover is absolutley dire and they should be publicaly beaten because of it. 99% of all remakes are pointless and offer no reason to be liked over the original, especialy in films. Prime offenders: The Italian Job, Taxi, The Omen, Psycho, Vanilla Sky, Alfie, etc I am however looking forward to the Internal Affairs remake by Martin Scorsese.
Owario Posted August 23, 2006 Posted August 23, 2006 see also: comfortably numb is a far better song in the hands of the sissor sisters than Pink Floyd. The Original is just...boring. Get the fuck out of my office.
EEVILMURRAY Posted August 23, 2006 Posted August 23, 2006 Wonderwall you say Flinkymon? That song sounded like the crying of a sheep who's just had just balls ripped off... but Oasis sound like that most of the time I know there's a time honoured tradition of you talking bullshit that nobody even remotely understands or cares about, but you've gotta snap out of it wendy, I'm here to help. On a side note: I think I'm going to do a cover of Michael Jacksons Beat It, good song. I have to agree, I think the Alien Ant Farm cover was better... but to be fair I'm not the biggest MJ fan. I'm down with covers/remakes. As a child I loved the films Freaky Friday and The Parent Trap, overjoyed I was when they were going to be remade... It was just a bonus that Lindsay Lohan was going to be in both of them. I liked them, and both originals were shown on ITV1 not long ago, Freaky Friday not so bad... But the part of the Parent Trap I saw put me right off the movie, I don't remember it being there.. sucked the goat cock clean off. And I know everyone will disagree with me here, but I prefer H.I.M's cover of (Don't Fear) The Reaper as opposed to Blue Oyster Cults.... there's just more happening
Recommended Posts