Pretty much my thought as well. How can one not compare the two when the end credits gives this credit "Based on the Screenplay Lat Den Ratte Komma In by John Ajvide Lindqvist"...its dependent on the original film and it even says as much with this credit. So for me, the notion of separating the two is impossible. Maybe if he had gone and re adapted the book then sure I could then separate the two. But there is just too much of Alfredson's footprint in LMI to look past.CyberGhostface wrote:LMI is simply too dependent on Alfredson's film that the original will always be the elephant in the room. It's like analyzing the Psycho remake without referencing the Hitchcock film.But my dream remains unmet: intelligent people analyzing Let Me In without reference to the source material. The movie stands on its own, and can be analyzed on its own.
An Analysis of Remake Hate
Moderator: LMI Moderator
Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate
Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate
Not very long when the OP starts with it, unprovoked I might add. Nobody was ragging on LMI before this thread.Lee Kyle wrote:How long can a thread on the LMI board last without reference to LTROI?
- BurgerPrince
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 1:33 pm
- Location: Antarctica
Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate
Lee Kyle wrote:What are the origins of this remake hate?
Woah... I get what you're trying to say, but the way you word it ("Lack of formal education") goes a bit too far and comes off as kinda pretentious. Just because one doesn't study Homer or Shakespeare in depth for a year doesn't mean he or she isn't formally educated. Let's say I graduated from a prestigious university to become a highly-respected physicist like Einstein, but as I strong as I was in studying science, I was really weak in studying literature. Would that make me an "intellectual child?"Lee Kyle wrote:1) Lack of formal education. Literary scholars claim there are three kinds of stories in the world: Quest, War, Romance. If this is true, then all movies, novels, and dramas are remakes. The same story is getting told over and over again. If a book, play, or film strikes a person as new, it is not because the story is actually new, but because the hearer of the story is young and/or uneducated. He has not yet been exposed to enough stories to realize that every story is a remake.
We have all had the experience of entering into the home of an elderly person who used to read extensively. Thousands of books fill the person’s house, and upon examination it is obvious he has read them all. Yet he no longer reads much. Why not? Because he discovered that every book is a remake. Picking up a “new” book inevitably reminds him of this fact, and he can’t handle it. His solution: stop reading, stop watching movies, stop attending plays.
[I don’t think this is a healthy response to the realization that there are no new stories, but neither is hating remakes because they are remakes. Such a reactionary mentality leads to one end, of course: hating everything.]
Study Homer or Shakespeare for a year, and you will discover that all stories, regardless of their format (novel, play, movie, etc.), are remakes. Consume only modern books and films, and it will take you longer to realize this. Regardless, when a person engages in reactionary remake hate, it shows he is still an intellectual child. He has not yet imbibed the critical mass of stories that will grant him the realization all people experience if they live long enough: there is nothing new under the sun.
It's true that every story told is always inspired by another story. (This applies to all kinds of literature, games, movies, music, etc.) But I do agree with PeteMork, in that even if there are only three kinds of stories, there can be endless ways to tell each of them. I would draw a clear distinction between remaking a story and making your own story while inspired by another. Let's say JAL was inspired by Romeo and Juliet and Dracula (and he definitely was, at least regarding R&J) when writing LTROI, but that doesn't really make LTROI a remake of either of those stories. It may draw inspiration from them, but it is not just combining them and putting a twist on it, it is it's own unique story. LMI, on the other hand, is a remake of LTROI, because, although it does have creative twists of its own (and I still do prefer it over Alfredson's film, but of course not over JAL's novel), when you break it down to simplest form, it is a just a new version of the same story.
For example (and let's apply the same idea to music) - the metal band Avenged Sevenfold (A7X foREVer!) makes the song "God Hates Us," which has some clear inspiration from NYHC bands and, of course, from "Disciple" by Slayer. (\\m//) However, although it has such influences, "God Hates Us" is not a remake, it's not just a different version of someone else's song, it is it's own unique song. Their cover of Pantera's "Walk," is clearly a remake, all they're doing is playing a new version of someone else's song. (LOL obviously, as that's exactly what a cover is supposed to be.)
Lee Kyle wrote:3) Desire to appear sophisticated and erudite. In some circles you are only considered intelligent if you express a priori hatred of all remakes. “The original is better” becomes a mindless mantra granting you acceptance into some craven circle of intellectual wannabes. I think this is the primary drive behind many online posters. They feel some silly need to prove how superior they are to us lesser mortals who would dare to enjoy a remake.
As a reminder, this article is not discussing the hatred of bad remakes because they are bad, but the reactionary hatred of all remakes regardless of whether they are good, bad, or somewhere in-between. You can prove you are not a reactionary by listing a few films you love that art house critics despise. For example, I really enjoy the movies Independence Day, Hancock, and Battleship. Acknowledging my delight in such mindless fare shows that pleasing some self-appointed guild of elitist snobs does not govern my movie criticism. I like a movie because I like it, not because someone tells me I should like it. This approach is then expanded to include remakes (i.e., every movie ever made).
LOL I'm not arguing with you on that. I'm not saying that anyone on this forum is like this, but there are plenty of pretentious buttheads out there who are. (And I'm not saying that all hipsters are like this, but a lot of them are.)
I agree with you for the most part, in that stories need to be re-told and songs need to be re-played to be remembered. However, I also agree with PeteMork, in that this may not always be the primary motive for a director in remaking a film. Sometimes they might just lazily make a complete re-shot of the original, with no creative twists, all to make a quick buck. (Of course, I'm not at all saying that this applies to LMI, I loved it.)Lee Kyle wrote:4) Not understanding the process of cultural transmission. All great stories get retold. No story becomes a permanent part of a culture unless it gets retold over and over again, generation after generation. If such retellings, reimaginings. remakings do not occur, the story vanishes: in a hundred years, no one has heard of it. If people want to remake a movie, novel, or play, it is a sign they love the story so much, they want it to last. They want new generations to learn and love the story, and make it their own. They want the story to become an abiding part of their culture. The story lasting matters to them. I can’t help but wonder about remake hate. If a person really loved the original, would he not also love a remake, no matter how awful, simply because it exposes so many new people to the story? Does the remake hater really love the original at all? Or is he actually in love with being part of some elite group of cult fans who grovel before a film that almost no one has ever heard of, the discovery of which by a larger fan base would destroy that sense of elitist superiority? “The movie is only great until the masses realize it’s great: then I must move on to a new movie to nurture my sense of supremacy.” If this is so, the key to abolishing remake hate is, ironically, getting masses of people to watch and fall in love with the original. Once commoners discover the original, remake haters will move on to a new movie that no one has ever heard of. Whatever it takes to protect that snobbish air.
Again, while there are pretentious idiots who just go around hating the remake because it's a remake and the original just because it's the original all to appear elite or sophisticated, I wouldn't say that everyone who dislike the remake is like this. If someone does a remake so awful that it turns people away from the original, then people would definitely have a good reason to hate the remake. (I do agree that a good remake, such as LMI, does help bring attention to the original. If it weren't for LMI, I don't think I ever would have heard of LTROI.)
...But if you meet a friendly horse, will you communicate by Morse?
- BurgerPrince
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 1:33 pm
- Location: Antarctica
Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate
Dude, please take a chill-pill. I might not necessarily agree with everything this guy is saying, but I don't think he is at all directing this to anyone in particular on this forum, so why suddenly get really defensive?...jetboy wrote:What BS. *You're the one coming out swinging, acting like we started the fight.
...But if you meet a friendly horse, will you communicate by Morse?
Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate
Then there are those of us (or maybe just me) who will never see LMI. Yes, same great story and all. No, it isn't that it's a remake. It's that the Hollywood film industry is itself a remake--a cheap knock off of the industry that used to hire Pulitzer Prize-winning writers to create film scripts and who...Oh the comparison of then and now is very long, and you can make the list yourself. The point is that Hollywood today could not make a brilliant film like The Women (1939). It can remake the film as a silly bomb called The Women (2008). The question of remakes aside, we need the indy film industry to get intelligent scripts and brilliantly directed stories. Indy films are more likely to have integrity, that is, to represent an artistic whole.EEA wrote:There is a big difference between hating and not liking something. Me personally I don't have time to be hating movies, I just don't see then.
I still stand by what I said when I join the forum, I was angry when Let Me In was announced since I felt that it was too early for a remake of Let The Right One In. And because many of my favorite shows have had remakes that were terrible. I only saw Let Me In once since I wanted to give the movie a chance. But after watching the movie, it just had to many elements that I did not like.
There are plenty of great remakes, but they tend to have been made when studios were owned by the founders, not by corporate masters like Engulf and Devour. Remake War and Peace as often as you like, just don't let Lindsay play Natasha (assuming Linday knows how to waltz).
I call LTROI a masterpiece because TA did it with integrity--the music, the cinematography, the casting, and the sparse, focused script came together to create a film that aligns with our hearts, minds, and artistic perspicacity.
“For drama to deepen, we must see the loneliness of the monster and the cunning of the innocent.”
Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate
Nevertheless, you might want to try 'Let Me In,' unless you are afraid it might damage the original for you. It's actually not that bad, IMO -- even though it never, at least for me, had the magic of the original. From a technical standpoint it's very well made (except for some of the animated motion of vampire Abby; again, IMO). I personally think that MR remade this film with the best of intentions, in spite of the similarities.dongregg wrote:Then there are those of us (or maybe just me) who will never see LMI. Yes, same great story and all. No, it isn't that it's a remake. It's that the Hollywood film industry is itself a remake--a cheap knock off of the industry that used to hire Pulitzer Prize-winning writers to create film scripts and who...Oh the comparison of then and now is very long, and you can make the list yourself.
...
I call LTROI a masterpiece because TA did it with integrity--the music, the cinematography, the casting, and the sparse, focused script came together to create a film that aligns with our hearts, minds, and artistic perspicacity.
You will most certainly like the 'rollover' scene; definitely not in the original.
And, if you're interested in good FF, you might want to see it just so you can read Lee Kyle's great FF, "Let Me In 2" It has a very creative ending!
That thread begins here. http://www.let-the-right-one-in.com/for ... =12&t=4859
We never stop reading, although every book comes to an end, just as we never stop living, although death is certain. (Roberto Bolaño)
Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate
Viewing LMI wouldn't damage the original for me, but I'm selective about what I let into my life. "Not that bad" isn't good enough, although imagine your characterization is meant as an understatement, meaning "pretty good."PeteMork wrote:Nevertheless, you might want to try 'Let Me In,' unless you are afraid it might damage the original for you. It's actually not that bad, IMO -- even though it never, at least for me, had the magic of the original. From a technical standpoint it's very well made (except for some of the animated motion of vampire Abby; again, IMO). I personally think that MR remade this film with the best of intentions, in spite of the similarities.dongregg wrote:...I call LTROI a masterpiece because TA did it with integrity--the music, the cinematography, the casting, and the sparse, focused script came together to create a film that aligns with our hearts, minds, and artistic perspicacity.
You will most certainly like the 'rollover' scene; definitely not in the original.
And, if you're interested in good FF, you might want to see it just so you can read Lee Kyle's great FF, "Let Me In 2" It has a very creative ending!
That thread begins here. http://www.let-the-right-one-in.com/for ... =12&t=4859
My diatribe was about Hollywood, not about LMI. Upon your recommendation, I will certainly read (and no doubt appreciate) Lee Kyle's FF. Thank you for responding temperately to my designedly intemperate post.
“For drama to deepen, we must see the loneliness of the monster and the cunning of the innocent.”
- BurgerPrince
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 1:33 pm
- Location: Antarctica
Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate
LMI is actually not a Hollywood film - it was produced by Hammer, a UK-based studio. Nobody is coercing you into liking a film, but please watch it before you make any judgements.dongregg wrote: Then there are those of us (or maybe just me) who will never see LMI. Yes, same great story and all. No, it isn't that it's a remake. It's that the Hollywood film industry is itself a remake--a cheap knock off of the industry that used to hire Pulitzer Prize-winning writers to create film scripts and who...Oh the comparison of then and now is very long, and you can make the list yourself. The point is that Hollywood today could not make a brilliant film like The Women (1939). It can remake the film as a silly bomb called The Women (2008). The question of remakes aside, we need the indy film industry to get intelligent scripts and brilliantly directed stories. Indy films are more likely to have integrity, that is, to represent an artistic whole.
I call LTROI a masterpiece because TA did it with integrity--the music, the cinematography, the casting, and the sparse, focused script came together to create a film that aligns with our hearts, minds, and artistic perspicacity.
I thought it was an amazing film, even better than the original (only IMO, however). There were a few flaws, but IMO, they did not at all detract from the overall experience. It was really well-made and followed the book pretty closely. It did follow the original film pretty closely as well, but it also added quite a few creative twists to stand out in its own light. It excellently captures the coming-of-age story and also perfectly captures the feeling of the time period, which really appeals to me as a huge history nerd. All-in-all, it was a great film, go see it. After watching it, you are completely free to decide for yourself if the film was good or not.
...But if you meet a friendly horse, will you communicate by Morse?
Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate
Thanks, BurgerPrince. From what I've read, LMI is probably a pretty good movie. It isn't at the top of my list, and that's probably all I need to say about it here.
Edit: Removed more than anyone could possibly want to know about me.
Edit: Removed more than anyone could possibly want to know about me.
“For drama to deepen, we must see the loneliness of the monster and the cunning of the innocent.”
Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate
While my previous remarks were not aimed at LMI but at mainstream Hollywood filmmaking (or films made with an eye to American audiences), I want to offer a final word about LMI. I respect the product because so many of my fellow infected respect it. And I will let Mary Pols speak for many other professional reviewers, as she wrote in her October 1, 2010, Time magazine review:
"Let Me In is not as fantastic as Let the Right One In, which you should rent immediately. But it is undeniably powerful and made with obvious admiration and respect for the source material."
"Let Me In is not as fantastic as Let the Right One In, which you should rent immediately. But it is undeniably powerful and made with obvious admiration and respect for the source material."
“For drama to deepen, we must see the loneliness of the monster and the cunning of the innocent.”