I don't understand from the above why NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN is a remake of THUNDERBALL (both based on the same source material - a screenplay), but CASINO ROYALE 2006 isn't a remake of CASINO ROYALE 1967 (both based on the same source material - a novel).
I mean, if someone bought the rights to, say, HALLOWEEN, and made a version of the story set in New York City, with Michael Myers being the same character, but Dr Loomis a 30-year-old American instead of a Brit pushing 60, and two female babysitters and one male one instead of three female babysitters (with Laurie Strode turned into a Chinese American character), and basically kept the same story while adding, say, a long car chase in the middle.... well, it'd still be a remake of John Carpenter's film, wouldn't it?
In the scenario you give - yes, it would be a remake. But you're citing a different type of scenario to Casino Royale. In the Halloween example, the studio is using the original Halloween film they bought the rights to as the basis of a new film, even if they change many elements in it. However, in Casino Royale's case, as in the various Shakespeare film examples, the studio is making a new
adaptation of a work based on an original source material. Although there might be an earlier adaptation from the 1960s, the studio is ignoring that and using Fleming's work as the basis of the 2006 film, not the 1960s David Niven film.
To illustrate - you know that Dan Brown's book, the Davinci Code is being adapted for a movie, with Tom Hanks. Now, supposing another studio (we'll call Studio B ) also decides simultaneously to make a movie adaptation of that book, in complete ignorance of the Tom Hanks version that's currently in the works. Now, supposing Studio B's version somehow gets released first, and the Tom Hanks version gets released second. Do you call either of these a remake of the other, just because one came out first and the second one shares the same title and same storyline?
If you think that's an unlikely scenario - there have been other films where this has occurred. There's a recent example, of which I just can't think of the name of the film right now. But there's also that Michael Douglas film "Black Rain" made in something like 1987. Now, it was set in Japan, and was to do with nuclear waste or something like that. In the same year, there was also another film made over in Japan about the exact same subject, also called "Black Rain". Both were released within weeks of each other. Is one a remake of the other?
Or if two studios independently decide to make a film about 9/11 - both will feature the same main storyline more or less, with certain elements being different of course. Is one a remake of the other? Would you call the 1997 Titanic movie a remake of the earlier Titanic movies? Otherwise wouldn't newspapers or news teams who are reporting the same incident from different perspectives be accused of simply copying each other or "remaking" another news report?
Whether something is a remake or not is not determined by whether there are similar (or different) elements from the first film or not, or even whether they share the same name. It's whether the studio is using the first film as its inspiration to make the second film, rather than an independent original source material - which is the case in Casino Royale.
So: Studio B uses Film A to make Film B = remake
But: Studio B uses Source C and NOT Film A to make Film B = Not a remake.
Edited by Welshcat, 13 February 2005 - 06:09 PM.
