38 replies to this topic

[marktmurphy]

I post some of these things just because I know it will cause some of you to react in exactly the opposite way my point of view is.

So in essence you're saying: you're just here to try and cause arguments. Well done.

I meant I think some people just like to argue, doesn't matter what the post is.

Such as yourself?

[K1Bond007]

yes I do have a degree in film, didn't claim I was the best typist. So you really should keep your personal attacks to yourself. It just shows what a small spiteful jerk you are.

Yes you could say the 1967 version is a remake of the Barry Nelson version, But that isn't technically a feature motion picture.

Sorry Not an expert on the Limey as you seem to be an expert in all things. It must be so nice to know everyting about everything.

It doesn't matter how much you personally attack me or my spelling or typos ( thank god movie magic 2000 has spell check), My point is still valid and correct.

I can't really see why you are being so hateful and snotty, just because I point out a fact you don't agree with and are wrong on. It's just a movie.

It cracks me up not that I don't want others to reply, it's the way some of you reply. I post some of these things just because I know it will cause some of you to react in exactly the opposite way my point of view is. It's very funny. I meant I think some people just like to argue, doesn't matter what the post is. I always welcome replys , though the ones attacking me or my family (other thread) seem out of line to me

But life is too short to worry about what someone else may think about me. Don't hate me because I'm beautiful, Hate me because I'm right.

You're right that there are is no reason for personal attacks here.

At the same time, speaking on the subject of this thread, you're wrong - degree or not. I don't know why you decided to start this thread in the first place if you didn't want discussion or someone to possibly disagree with you. That's what you got and most people (seems like all) don't agree with you. Just because you think it and tell us, doesn't make it right. I don't believe you that you truly are "open to discussion" as you claim. In your first response here you blasted everyone for not having a degree in film, but ... oh you do.. so that makes you right.

[marktmurphy]

Of course its a remake...they are remaking the same book.

Yes, I think you could say that. It's a remake (in that it's already been made) of the book. But it's in no way a remake of the '67 film. But the word 'remake' invites confusion (as we see here), so 'adaptation' makes sense. Or simply use more than one word to prevent any confusion at all: 'another adaptation of the novel Casino Royale'. Anyone confused?

[Agent 76]

'another adaptation of the novel Casino Royale'. Anyone confused?

that makes sense to me.

[Mister Asterix]

Of course its a remake...they are remaking the same book.

Yes, I think you could say that. It's a remake (in that it's already been made) of the book. But it's in no way a remake of the '67 film. But the word 'remake' invites confusion (as we see here), so 'adaptation' makes sense. Or simply use more than one word to prevent any confusion at all: 'another adaptation of the novel Casino Royale'. Anyone confused?

While I 100% agree, getting the news media to say it that way would be quite difficult.

[Judo chop]

I googled for "definition of film remake" and pulled this up:

"In cinema, a remake is a work that has the same story, and often the same title, as a work that was made earlier. The term is generally used in reference to a movie which uses an earlier one as the main source material, rather than in reference to a second, later movie based on the same source. For example, 2001's Ocean's Eleven is a remake of the 1960 film, while 1989's Batman is a re-interpretation of the comic book source material which also inspired the 1966 movie."

Seems to me that our beloved Casino Royale fits right in with the Batman example. CR 2006 is a re-interpretation of the Fleming source material which also inspired the 1967 movie.

We have our answer:
A re-interpretation of the Fleming source material.

Google don't lie.

[WC]

I googled for "definition of film remake" and pulled this up:

"In cinema, a remake is a work that has the same story, and often the same title, as a work that was made earlier. The term is generally used in reference to a movie which uses an earlier one as the main source material, rather than in reference to a second, later movie based on the same source. For example, 2001's Ocean's Eleven is a remake of the 1960 film, while 1989's Batman is a re-interpretation of the comic book source material which also inspired the 1966 movie."

Seems to me that our beloved Casino Royale fits right in with the Batman example.  CR 2006 is a re-interpretation of the Fleming source material which also inspired the 1967 movie.

We have our answer:
A re-interpretation of the Fleming source material.

Google don't lie.

Well I don't know about Google, but I would agree with that quote above completely. That's precisely what I thought of the Batman movie, both 1989 and 1966. They were both very different, but could arguably be said to be similar enough by those in favour of calling it a remake. Both had the Joker as a villain and both involved some nefarious plot which Batman had to foil.

Of course, the word "re-interpretation" gives the connotation that this version is putting their own spin on the source material, different to the way it was interpreted in the 1967 movie. However, while that may be technically correct, I would say that the 1967 movie more qualifies as a re-interpretation (in that it re-interpreted the source material instead of following it straight), and this 2006 movie as a "proper or faithful interpretation".

But that's all just semantics. I think the Google quote above nicely summarises the gist of the idea.

[marktmurphy]

While I 100% agree, getting the news media to say it that way would be quite difficult.

How about 'the new James Bond movie Casino Royale'? It doesn't really matter what the media call it as long it's not a four letter word- just being talked about!

[Simon]

I can't really see why you are being so hateful and snotty, just because I point out a fact you don't agree with and are wrong on.

What chapter of 'How to win friends and influence people' did you say you were on?

Back to college my boy and gain a deeper understanding of your fellow man. By that, I mean to suggest that it is possible it is not the world that is out of step with you, but perhaps that you are out of step with the rest of the world.