oscar question

[realsandman420]

with the departed winning best picture makes me think......has a remake ever won best picture before?

[rw2516]

Ben-Hur

[The Bus]

Hamlet

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by realsandman420

has a remake ever won best picture before?

Yes:

2004 Lord of the Rings
2003 Chicago
1960 Ben-Hur
1957 Around the World in 80 Days
1949 Hamlet

edit: Fixed dates.

[RobCA]

Chicago was 2002, not 2004.

Also Titanic (1997).

Rob

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by RobCA

Chicago was 2002, not 2004.

I was going by the year the films won an Oscar, but I had flipped Chicago and LOTR. I fixed it now.

[Buttmunker]

I have an Oscar question - where's the "official thread" discussing the awards show last night????

[McHawkson]

Originally Posted by Buttmunker

I have an Oscar question - where's the "official thread" discussing the awards show last night????

I believe it's in TV section.

[matome]

Yep: http://forum.dvdtalk.com/tv-talk/493610-79th-annual-academy-awards-show-discussion.html

I always thought it should be in the Movie section here, but I guess since it's a television broadcast...

[Buttmunker]

gazooks. I think that's just wrong.

Oh well, transporting myself to TV Talk.

[resinrats]

Can you really count Titanic and Lord of the Rings a remake? LOTR was just a new adaption of the book and not trying to remake the old movie/cartoon. Titanic is a historical event. The movie was telling the story, not trying to remake some old movie.

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by resinrats

Can you really count Titanic and Lord of the Rings a remake? LOTR was just a new adaption of the book and not trying to remake the old movie/cartoon.

LOTR was first made into a film as a cartoon, and then later was remade into a live-action film. Thus it's a remake. "New adaptation" is a a phrase invented by Hollywood to try and circumvent the remake stigma.

As for Titanic, calling it a remake may be a sly jab at the way the film "borrowed" exact scenes from the previous Titanic disaster film A Night to Remember.

From IMDB

A number of scenes are arranged and in some cases scripted almost identical to similar sequences in A Night to Remember (1958). This is particularly true of these scenes:

* Thomas Andrews telling Capt. Smith the sinking is "a mathematical certainty";
* The Titanic's band preparing to depart at the end, only to turn around and regroup as Hartley begins playing 'Nearer My God to Thee' by himself (though a different version of the song is used in the 1958 film).
* A shot of Ismay in a lifeboat as the Titanic sinks behind him.
* Thomas Andrews looking at a painting as Titanic prepares to sink
* Andrews encountering a man by the Grand Staircase and telling him the ship is doomed (in Cameron's film, he tells Rose).

[eXcentris]

Originally Posted by Jay G.

LOTR was first made into a film as a cartoon, and then later was remade into a live-action film. Thus it's a remake. "New adaptation" is a a phrase invented by Hollywood to try and circumvent the remake stigma.

The Ralph Bakshi film ends way before any material covered by LOTR: The Return of the King. A second installment was planned to bring the story to and end but it was never completed. The Return of the King isn't a remake.

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by eXcentris

The Ralph Bakshi film ends way before any material covered by LOTR: The Return of the King. A second installment was planned to bring the story to and end but it was never completed. The Return of the King isn't a remake.

What do you call this then?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079802/

[eXcentris]

Originally Posted by Jay G.

What do you call this then?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079802/

I call that a horrible tv movie.

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by eXcentris

I call that a horrible tv movie.

Which was later remade into a live-action theatrical release.

[fumanstan]

Originally Posted by Jay G.

LOTR was first made into a film as a cartoon, and then later was remade into a live-action film. Thus it's a remake. "New adaptation" is a a phrase invented by Hollywood to try and circumvent the remake stigma.

As for Titanic, calling it a remake may be a sly jab at the way the film "borrowed" exact scenes from the previous Titanic disaster film A Night to Remember.

From IMDB

I agree with Hollywood then. I don't really consider films that are based off the same source material a remake just because there was a previous adaptation.

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Originally Posted by fumanstan

I agree with Hollywood then. I don't really consider films that are based off the same source material a remake just because there was a previous adaptation.

Agreed.

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by fumanstan

I agree with Hollywood then. I don't really consider films that are based off the same source material a remake just because there was a previous adaptation.

What remake isn't "based off the same source material" as the original?

[eXcentris]

Originally Posted by Jay G.

Which was later remade into a live-action theatrical release.

I disagree. To me "remake" implies (at least to some extent) "inspired by". And there's no way you can argue that LOTR:The Return of the King was even remotely "inspired by" that animated tv movie.

By your definition, two filmmakers in different countries, simultaneously shooting films based on the same source material while being totally unaware of one another's project would end up having done a "remake" of each other's film. That's just silly. Because 'B' was based on 'A', and 'C' was based on 'A', you can't automatically conclude that 'C' is a "remake" of 'B'.

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by eXcentris

I disagree. To me "remake" implies (at least to some extent) "inspired by". And there's no way you can argue that LOTR:The Return of the King was even remotely "inspired by" that animated tv movie.

It's not a remake of the animated film, but a remake of the original novel.

ROTK was made into an animated film. It was later made into a film again, this time live-action. And since remake means "to make again," a re-adaptation of a source into a film is a remake.

From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remake
"In film, a remake is a newer version of a previously released film or a newer version of the source (play, novel, story, etc.) of a previously made film." (emphasis mine)

By your definition, two filmmakers in different countries, simultaneously shooting films based on the same source material while being totally unaware of one another's project would end up having done a "remake" of each other's film.

If they were truly simultaneous, then the term remake wouldn't apply, since it means to literally "make again". Maybe "co-makes" would be a better term for that completely hypothetical situation.

If the movies' productions were separated by a period of time, then the later one may be considered a remake of the source material, but probably not of the other film.

[caligulathegod]

I pretty much agree with Jay. I have always been an advocate of the idea that if a movie has been made once then made again regardless of whether it is based upon the original's script or just the same source material as the original, it is a remake. There is no such thing as this nebulous idea that a movie has to somehow be a direct decendant of a previous movie to be considered a remake (Red Dragon is a remake, since Manhunter was made before it-I don't care that they aren't "related"). Closest I can think of a movie that fits the nebulous definition would be Psycho, Omen666 or the Exorcist Prequels.

That said, adaptation from one medium to another doesn't count as a remake. The Addams Family is not a remake of the TV series, it is an adaptation to a different medium. Return of the King was never made into a theatrical film before Peter Jackson's, therefore it is not a remake, although Fellowship and Two Towers are. If Rankin Bass's production had been intended for theatrical exhibition, it would count. It wasn't and doesn't even count as an adaptation source.

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by caligulathegod

That said, adaptation from one medium to another doesn't count as a remake. The Addams Family is not a remake of the TV series, it is an adaptation to a different medium. Return of the King was never made into a theatrical film before Peter Jackson's, therefore it is not a remake, although Fellowship and Two Towers are. If Rankin Bass's production had been intended for theatrical exhibition, it would count. It wasn't and doesn't even count as an adaptation source.

While I agree that TV show adaptations don't count as remakes, I do differ on the subject of TV movies. In terms of a movie, the media it's displayed on is much less of a factor than it's form. By your definition, anything that didn't have a theatrical release would not count as a "movie," which discounts hundreds of films that go Direct-to-Video each year. That seems wrong to me.

[caligulathegod]

I don't think I would take it to that extreme but how about something like, say, Charly, Marty, Requiem for a Heavyweight, Casino Royale and others that were previously produced as TV programs.

I admit it's almost arbitrary, but I am going to draw a line there. For something to be a remake, then that means it has to have been made before in the same medium. If you count TV adaptations, then you might as well count play adaptations. Where does one draw a line? That it be filmed? I have some filmed plays. Jury's still out on Direct to DVD (which is, let's face it, the Drive-in of today).

[J-Dubya]

I think a remake shouldn't be a Best Picture winner. But I can't come up with any rules. For instance, Titanic was a retelling of the story of the ship sinking. The Departed is a retelling of the same police story, a few years after the original. The new version doesn't offer anything in the way of special effects or technics whereas Titanic was a great vehicle for new methods.