Foreign films & remakes

[fotno]

...When they renamed the American version to "Let Me In" I was a bit upset. There is a lot of meaning in "Let the Right One In" I won't go into it because you, o' reader, may not have seen this film.

You are right fotno....the U.S. remake does not compete...Acting, actors, film quality, location and the way the swedish original is filmed, makes it a real treat to watch!

The renaming of the American version is what scared me away from it. That and my love of the original. There's a charm and innocence to the Swedish version that I feared would be lost if the ham-handed Hollywood types took their turn at it. I adore the original film and pride myself on screening it for visitors. Introducing people to good films is a real point of pride for me.

Off-topic/Pet Peeve time: I think there's a perception amongst many of the movers and shakers in Hollywood that American audiences are so thick that they can't read subtitles and keep track of the on-screen action at the same time. Do they honestly believe (in the same way that Ted Turner believed that colorizing B&W classics "improved" them) that an English language version is necessary to appeal to Americans? If so, I can't help but feel somewhat offended by that. I've loved foreign films since my youth, and subtitles don't bother me one whit. Especially when the dubbed or remade versions robbed the viewership of the often far superior original film.

 

[anthony28]

Off-topic/Pet Peeve time: I think there's a perception amongst many of the movers and shakers in Hollywood that American audiences are so thick that they can't read subtitles and keep track of the on-screen action at the same time. Do they honestly believe (in the same way that Ted Turner believed that colorizing B&W classics "improved" them) that an English language version is necessary to appeal to Americans? If so, I can't help but feel somewhat offended by that. I've loved foreign films since my youth, and subtitles don't bother me one whit. Especially when the dubbed or remade versions robbed the viewership of the often far superior original film.

Since I first saw "let the right one in", I have found myself watching mostly subtitled movies in this genre...Something is just different and draws me in more..... I try to tell people about these movies but as soon as I mention subtitles, well it just gets brushed under the rug.....They have no idea of what they are missing!

It's like saying you don't want to go to Europe to see some of the most breathtaking scenery because of the difference in language...:scratch2: Makes no since if you ask me..

 

[fotno]

I couldn't agree more Anthony. In recent years I have found that foreign films are far more satisfying to me for a variety of reasons:

One - I find that there's a freedom within the storytelling process of foreign films that allows the production as a whole to be more expressive and surprising. There's also a willingness amongst foreign filmmakers to take risks that Hollywood simply isn't willing to take.

Two - I'm often not as familiar with the actors in foreign films, which makes the suspension of disbelief a lot easier and more complete. It's hard to feel a real sense of concern for a Harrison Ford or Julia Roberts character because in the grand Hollywood tradition, they're almost completely protected from harm simply by being top-billed.

Three - The stories themselves are literally coming from a different place. There's a different history at play, different vistas available, and a (dare I say) foreign sensibility at work within the stories themselves. It's the film equivalent of dining at an ethnic restaurant. You are offered new and strange flavors and textures, and the experience is all the richer and more rewarding as a result.

 

[guiller]

Do they honestly believe (in the same way that Ted Turner believed that colorizing B&W classics "improved" them) that an English language version is necessary to appeal to Americans?

This is what I call "cultural populism", and it is a widespread unethical practice, IMHO.

 

[ducati_EL34]

This is what I call "cultural populism", and it is a widespread unethical practice, IMHO.

I disagree. This is not an ethical issue. No one is being defrauded of anything. No one is harmed by this practice. No animals, babies, or little old ladies are the worse for it.

Now is it stupid? Yes, sometimes it is. Stieg Larson's, first movie is a good example. Nothing can be improved upon by an English language remake.

 

[ducati_EL34]

Off-topic/Pet Peeve time: I think there's a perception amongst many of the movers and shakers in Hollywood that American audiences are so thick that they can't read subtitles and keep track of the on-screen action at the same time.

No, I think they just want to make some easy money. What better way than to do a remake???

Do they honestly believe (in the same way that Ted Turner believed that colorizing B&W classics "improved" them) that an English language version is necessary to appeal to Americans? If so, I can't help but feel somewhat offended by that. I've loved foreign films since my youth, and subtitles don't bother me one whit. Especially when the dubbed or remade versions robbed the viewership of the often far superior original film.

No one was robbed. The original is there, if they want to see it. Is the remake inferior? Maybe, but maybe the viewer still enjoyed it. Now how was that person robbed again? Remember, they are none the worse, for not having seen the original... :nono:

 

[guiller]

I disagree. This is not an ethical issue. No one is being defrauded of anything. No one is harmed by this practice. No animals, babies, or little old ladies are the worse for it.

I call in unethical because it takes down the freedom of the viewer to choose to accept the original movie, with a paternalistic behavior. It assumes that the viewer belongs to a uniform mass with no understanding of other languages, lazy with no motivation for doing an effort, and not capable of appreciating the esthetics of the real voice of the actors. Perhaps the word has not been chosen perfectly, but my feeling is that there is a condescending attitude based on a low valuation of the viewers, similar to what a populist does in politics with the individuals of a given society. That is, the reduction of people to a kind of passive object.

 

[ducati_EL34]

I call in unethical because it takes down the freedom of the viewer to choose to accept the original movie, with a paternalistic behavior.

Okay, let's check the conspiracy theories at the door. In no way is the viewer's freedom infringed upon, to watch the original movie. This is the information age. Any halfwit with an internet connection, is able to find the original.

It assumes that the viewer belongs to a uniform mass with no understanding of other languages, lazy with no motivation for doing an effort, and not capable of appreciating the esthetics of the real voice of the actors. Perhaps the word has not been chosen perfectly, but my feeling is that there is a condescending attitude based on a low valuation of the viewers,

I think you may be assuming too much here. Couldit not be Hollywood's desire to make money, that prompts them to produce remakes of foreign films. It is of no interest to Hollywood if you watch the original foreign movie. Now if you watch their remake, then that interests them very much.

Oh and there are a lot of people who are lazy, have no motivation, or interest in the real voice of the actors. These are some of the people who watch, The Biggest Loser, Survivor, et al.

 

[fotno]

Since I was the guilty party in broaching an off topic post in another Movies & Television thread, I feel it only right to separate my off topic comments and the posts of those responding to it into a thread of their own.

On a personal note, I apologize for any disruption my off topic comments have caused to the original thread and its posters.

 

[Alucard]

theres been people ripping off foreign films / and tv shows like Skins
being human
let the right one in
theres many others but i can't think of it right now
why don't they just play the orginals insted of a crappy remake with bad acting i dont know greed ?

and don't even get me started on the american version of top gear

 

[ducati_EL34]

and don't even get me started on the american version of top gear

Allow me. I don't care for either version. It takes more than a few blokes being cheeky, to make a decent show for me. Any time such a show recommends a VW purchase, is an automatic FAIL to me.

 

[fotno]

No, I think they just want to make some easy money. What better way than to do a remake???

Absolutely correct. The main motivation is of course money. The problem with regards to money as sole or primary motivation in any endeavor, is that it rarely is a good motivator for quality of final product. Especially entertainment.

No one was robbed. The original is there, if they want to see it. Is the remake inferior? Maybe, but maybe the viewer still enjoyed it. Now how was that person robbed again? Remember, they are none the worse, for not having seen the original... :nono:

Perhaps "robbed" was a poor choice of words. Given an much better financed and promoted, but often inferior option is probably closer to the mark.

I would agree that there's very little to keep an interested party from seeking out the original films that remakes are based upon. The problem is, that oftentimes the general public isn't as well informed about films (new or old) as they could be, and many simply don't have the time to devote to this research.

I am sure that many people, who having only the remake as a reference, are more than satisfied with the product they receive. Just as many people who have only eaten Kraft American Cheese, have no idea how good a Stilton or Camembert can be.

Allow me. I don't care for either version. It takes more than a few blokes being cheeky, to make a decent show for me. Any time such a show recommends a VW purchase, is an automatic FAIL to me.

Anyone who watches Top Gear for advice on what their next car should be is missing the point of the program. It's pure entertainment, and nothing else. Now whether you enjoy that form of entertainment is entirely subjective and therefore another matter entirely.

 

[fotno]

...It assumes that the viewer belongs to a uniform mass with no understanding of other languages, lazy with no motivation for doing an effort, and not capable of appreciating the esthetics of the real voice of the actors.

This is my thinking as well. I believe that Hollywood as a business, and they are by no means the only ones, often uses false assumptions about their potential audiences and/or profit margins as the primary motivating factors in their decision making processes. While this may be a fine way to sell T-Shirts, I don't believe that it's nearly as effective when marketing entertainment and the arts.

Personally, I think that motion pictures studios would be doing themselves a service by asking:

1 - If our market research is correct, and we're making the films we should be making; Why there have been so many empty seats in theaters over the last 20 years?

2 - If the answer is; our market research must be in error: Then wouldn't it the next logical step, be to explore the possibility they just aren't making films the majority of the market wants to see?

In the past 15 to 20 years, there have been numerous trade articles written about Hollywood's financial focus on the youth market, mostly to the exclusion of older individuals. The consensus of opinion in almost all of these articles is: While this business philosophy may make good short-term fiscal sense, it doesn't hold up all that well in the long term; given that people over thirty years of age in this country have both the majority of the discretionary income, and greater numbers than the ever decreasing youth market.

I maintain that all that is necessary to access the older market in this country is to discover what films they want to see, and produce them.

 

[VinylHanger]

Off-topic/Pet Peeve time: I think there's a perception amongst many of the movers and shakers in Hollywood that American audiences are so thick that they can't read subtitles and keep track of the on-screen action at the same time. Do they honestly believe (in the same way that Ted Turner believed that colorizing B&W classics "improved" them) that an English language version is necessary to appeal to Americans? If so, I can't help but feel somewhat offended by that. I've loved foreign films since my youth, and subtitles don't bother me one whit. Especially when the dubbed or remade versions robbed the viewership of the often far superior original film.

If subtitles are done correctly, you won't even realize you are reading them. I have watched movies with well done subtitles, as in color, font, and translation, that I get halfway through and realize I am watching a foreign language film.

As for Hollywood remakes. I am lucky to have a very good video store in town with most of the original foreign releases of the latest poular hollywood movies. In most cases, at least with the horror genre, the original is made from an adult and dark perspective. The Hollywood version is made from a teenaged, lets make a big splash on the screen point of view. It is nothing like the original except for the basic premise. Kind of like a comic book version of Grim's Fairy Tales.

 

[ducati_EL34]

#1) is that a good metric of what people like, or is it simply of DVD rentals, PPV, and the ubiquitous HT setup?

As for targeting a younger audience, hollywood is not alone in this. BMW is doing the same thing. Witness the hideous styling and the "1" series. Their thinking is, get them now and they will be our customer, when they are older and have more money to spend. The old folks are not going to be around for ever. That is long term thinking. Maybe Hollywood is thinking the same way.

 

[anthony28]

Check out netflix as they show films made from all over. That's where I saw "let the right one in" and "The Horde" all in there original glory!

 

[fotno]

#1) is that a good metric of what people like, or is it simply of DVD rentals, PPV, and the ubiquitous HT setup?

I can't answer that. The statistics show that theater attendance is way down, especially amongst the over thirty set. Rentals? I don't know.

As for targeting a younger audience, hollywood is not alone in this. BMW is doing the same thing. Witness the hideous styling and the "1" series. Their thinking is, get them now and they will be our customer, when they are older and have more money to spend. The old folks are not going to be around for ever. That is long term thinking. Maybe Hollywood is thinking the same way.

The only things I would disagree with in the above, is that BMW hasn't restyled all (or even most) of their cars to appeal specifically to the youth market, only some. The "get them while they're young" marketing tactic is a time honored and effective one, but in order to keep them as they age you have to have enough diversity of product to hold their attention as they age.

I think one thing that gets lost in the shuffle is the fact that youth and discretionary income only occur simultaneously for a very short while. Say from sixteen to thirty. Before the age of sixteen the cash kids spend is usually their parent's money, and after thirty, well they're not exactly kids anymore are they?

 

[ducati_EL34]

The only things I would disagree with in the above, is that BMW hasn't restyled all (or even most) of their cars to appeal specifically to the youth market, only some. The "get them while they're young" marketing tactic is a time honored and effective one, but in order to keep them as they age you have to have enough diversity of product to hold their attention as they age.

No, all models got the new "flame front" styling, some more than others. The effects range from "hideous" to "it will do".

I think one thing that gets lost in the shuffle is the fact that youth and discretionary income only occur simultaneously for a very short while. Say from sixteen to thirty. Before the age of sixteen the cash kids spend is usually their parent's money, and after thirty, well they're not exactly kids anymore are they?

Well my take on that is, when people are young and/or single, they use movie going as a social tool. After people get marrried, that tapers off. Then the babies start arriving. Then it is free time they do not have a lot of, rather than a shortage of discretionary income. Parents today tend to make the kid(s) the center of the family, rather than just a part of the family. I have friends of both persuasions, and I see the effects it has on their social lives.