Is remaking a film that big of a deal?

When discussing any topic, there is eventually a cliche that will come up during the conversation. It's not necessarily the intent of the speaker to utilize a cliche, but it happens anyways. The cliche can be anything from a certain saying to a stigma that is often associated with the topic.

Cinema is no exception, to say the least. There's many cliches that are considered truisms for film buffs. Like considering Michael Bay a hack, Megan Fox is a hot piece of eye candy, and sequels and remakes are bad, always.

We'll avoid the first two, and focus on the last statement; specifically, remakes. In this current state of film, remakes are regarded as inevitable disasters. Whenever a remake is announced, it is usually hailed as a bad idea, and the filmmakers are questioned what on earth were they thinking.

When I initially became a film geek, I too joined in on the remake backlash. Over the years, however, I've resigned and became more objective about the matter. And I feel that the negativity surrounding remakes is unwarranted, for a number of reasons. Not that anyone who hates remakes is wrong, because an opinion can not be wrong. This is simply just my view on things.

First of all, I think it's weird to criticize a film when it's in the development stage. If you've seen trailers, clips, or etc, then it's understandable not to be interested, but when it's just an idea, it's hard to really judge it fairly, I feel.

You're also not inclined to see every remake that comes out of the woodwork, unless you're a film critic. You have the option of not seeing it. And clearly, if you know it's bad, you don't want to see it, so why do you want to see it anyway?

And it's not like "Hollywood", if you will, has lost its originality. Because since its beginning, "Hollywood" has been making films based on plays, books, short stories, etc. Many of the classic films, films that made a good amount of filmmakers join the business, are adaptations of other people's work. To Kill A Mockingbird, Wizard of Oz, Gone With The Wind all fall in that group. How is making a film based on a book more original than remaking a movie?

In one of the recent episodes of SModcast, the podcast hosted by filmmaker Kevin Smith and his producer, Scott Mosier, Mosier brought up a good point. I'm paraphrasing what he said, but he said something to the effect that people forget that these are movies we're talking about here. These are things that are meant to entertain us. And I feel that's an interesting point. People get so bent out of shape because they're remaking certain movies, but it's all meant to entertain us.

And just because a film is being remade, doesn't mean that the original film is automatically superseded by the new version. The original will still be there, as it was before. What's the harm in tackling the material again?

That's all I have to say for now. Again, I'm not meaning to criticize anyone's feelings on remakes. I'm just offering my views.

Later, all.

What's going on

For this blog, I'm going for less of an essay approach, although I will resume that later. I'm going to just ramble on what's been happening.

Saturday, Kelly and I chilled for the majority of the day. We went to McD's, and then went to her house to watch "I Love You, Man", and an episode of "The Mighty Boosh."

I enjoyed I Love You, Man quite a bit. I thought it was a very funny flick, with the leads, Paul Rudd and Jason Segel, stealing every scene. I felt that the director John Hamburg was trying to emulate Judd Apatow in a lot of ways; in particular, the editing of the improv jokes. It's clear that Rudd and Segel riffed a lot, and although it's funny stuff, it just went on longer than I'd like.

The Mighty Boosh is brilliant, in my opinion. It's insane, yet incredibly smart and observant. I just watched another episode today online, at adultswim.com. Check it out; I feel like an idiot that I hadn't watch it before. Thank you, Kelly, for introducing it to me.

Sunday, I went to Septemberfest in Schuamburg with my cousin and a few of our mutual friends. It was a fun trip. I went on the most rides, three, which is ironic, since I had intended to ride the least amount. I was very dizzy by the end.

I think I will write a blog relating to my feelings on the constant "re-make" backlash, and launch into a look at the films of certain directors, starting with Kevin Smith. It won't be a critical look at them, as I love all of them. Instead, it will be look at each film's themes, characters, and other things that I find interesting. I think Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan will be after that. Who else should I consider? I would appreciate some suggestions.

That's all for now. Later.

My love for "Clerks."

I first became aware of Kevin Smith during the sixth grade. His fifth film, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, came out on DVD, and I decided to rent it after hearing a friend talk about it. I would not recommend a Kevin Smith newbie J&SBSB, as it is reference-heavy. In fact, the whole story is predicated on events that happened in Chasing Amy. Regardless, I popped the movie in and began to watch. Right away, I was taken aback by the raw language. Being a pretty naive eleven-year old, I was unaware of the filthy things that came out of the characters' mouths. Once that shock value faded away, however, I was left with a belly full of laughs. After watching it, I got curious about the other films by Kevin Smith.

The first one I peeped after J&SBSB was Mallrats, Smith's sophomore film. Like J&SBSB, it mixed Smith's wonderful observational dialogue with wacky psychial gags. It quickly was endeared by me, and I even attempted to write a script that was heavily influenced by 'Rats.

The second one I saw was Clerks. Unlike 'Rats, it did not quickly endear to me. Which makes sense a little, seeing as 'Rats was a more accessible studio comedy. I wasn't sure why I didn't like as much; it certainly wasn't the jokes. I laughed at all the classic bits, like "37?!" or the "Star Wars" conversation. But something about it just didn't click for me at that point.

I would watch the rest of Smith's canon, and respond to it instantly. But Clerks was an oddball for a while. I would watch it repeatedly through junior high and then high school as well. I would understand more of the humor, but I wasn't dialed in that much.

Looking back, the thing that irked me was that I found the characters' situation implausible at the time. Dante seems aware of his lousy state of life, yet does nothing about it. Why doesn't he do something? Why can't he just go for the right girl, instead of going for the obvious wrong choice? What's wrong with him?

Then I grew up. I became closer to Dante's age. I became Dante to a certain extent. I was the guy who makes jokes about his lack of progress in life, and would do nothing about it. I would fall for the wrong women, and not learn from it.

It was then that the film endeared itself to me. Whilst very much a comedy, it's a haunting parable about the awkward stage of your life from when you have to make the best out of your situation and decide what your future'll be. It became a cautionary tale; A raw representation of a generation. Even more so after being complimented with the excellent sequel, Clerks II.

While it didn't start out as so, it became not only one of my favorite Kevin Smith films, but one of my favorite films to this day. If you haven't seen it, I would recommend doing so as soon as you can.