Double standards toward remakes.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Even Se7en? One of the best horror/thrillers of the past 15 years, imho.

[Dark Sky]

I'm not that keen on Fincher, I think because he usually makes very boy-ish films which are all mostly based on creating a mood and lack human warmth or character.  Bit like Chris Nolan's humourless soulless dirges. 

But you know, Fight Club's alright...Se7en's alright...  And I adore The Social Network far more than it deserves.  When I got it on Blu-Ray I watched it about four times in three days.  I think I just like seeing clever, precocious, young, rich, successful people looking deeply, deeply unhappy.

[jutl]

Even Se7en? One of the best horror/thrillers of the past 15 years, imho.

I couldn't stand that film: annoying stylistics and tedious guessable plot.

[Noodle Lizard]

I wouldn't say I have a double standard towards remakes because I don't disagree with the concept of remaking something.  It's just like music, I'm not opposed to covers, but when an iconic and genuinely heartfelt song which was important to its writer is covered by Miley Cyrus or something, then it's a problem.

So yes, it's got everything to do with the talent behind it.  If Martin Scorsese is going to remake a film, of course I'm more optimistic than if McG announces his plans to remake Citizen Kane.  The problem is that currently there's a trend to just remake everything (or adapt from books, games, TV shows etc.), which is indicative of a concerning lack of creativity in Hollywood at the moment.  It's as if they're terrified of trying anything new and risking a disappointing box office return, so they decide to basically copy things which have already been tried and tested and proven to be successful, or (in the case of franchises like Twilight) that already have a millions-strong fanbase.

Blah, blah, I'm sure you understand.  And yes, The Dragon With The Girl Tattoo remake does look shite.  I only realised recently that I somewhat blindly accepted that David Fincher was a good director, but when thinking about it I've only really enjoyed Fight Club and Se7en.  The Social Network was the most overrated film of last year, next to Inception.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Well, Fincher and Nolan both have styles which they carry through most of their work, if you don't like one film of theirs there's a good chance you won't like another. Personally I like both, can't really find any fault with them aside from possibly lack of emotional connection with the characters, but then Kubrick had that "problem" a lot more and I still love his films.

[Famous Mortimer]

The more I read about TGWTDT, the less pleased I am about seeing the new version - they've apparently changed Lisbeth quite a lot. Although, for people who've not read the books, I suppose it might not be that bad.

[astrozombie]

I love how in the trailer for the remake by David "The First Year Film Student Favourite" Fincher they HAD to show a snippet of a lesbian scene with the female lead. Something that doesn't crop up until the second or third film. Loved how they had to push that element forward.

And the lead actress. Get this. When I read this I actually punched myself for scorning the film. She actually went out and got her NIPPLE PIERCED FOR REAL! BEFORE FILMING!

Get that CaB FOR REAL! SHE GOT HER NIPPLE PIERCED. I mean if that isn't the sign of a true method actress I don't know what is.

Here make sure your sat down when you read this. It WILL rattle your cage.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204791104577108773588354312.html

[CaledonianGonzo]

Though in the case of the Millennium Trilogy the original books/films are woefully adolescent wank fantasies, so you could perhaps say that Fincher has managed to capture the vibe of sweaty-palmed wish fulfilment perfectly.

[Famous Mortimer]

I love how in the trailer for the remake by David "The First Year Film Student Favourite" Fincher they HAD to show a snippet of a lesbian scene with the female lead. Something that doesn't crop up until the second or third film. Loved how they had to push that element forward.

She cops to sleeping with women in the first book, by the way (I read it fairly recently). As a Criminal Justice graduate, am I allowed to like Fincher?

[Serge]

As someone who was never a student at all, am I?

[El Unicornio, mang]

Though in the case of the Millennium Trilogy the original books/films are woefully adolescent wank fantasies, so you could perhaps say that Fincher has managed to capture the vibe of sweaty-palmed wish fulfilment perfectly.

I've heard the books are a bit shit, so unless his film just copies the original film, kudos to him for making something good out of the source material.

[danyulx]

The most positive few words I could muster up about David Fincher: If I were rate all the films I've seen of his (five or six) out of ten, I'd give his best work 6.5/10, at best: both 'Seven' and 'Zodiac'. Though both had absolutely nothing worthwhile to say about the serial killing phenomenon, not that that they had to or anything.

The most negative: he's the most overrated director on this earth, and 'The Fight Club' and 'The Social Network' are the two most stupidly-overrated films ever made - which will both have dated about thirty years in ten years' time -  overrated either by people who need to watch more films who haven't got a clue about films or have been bribed. The latter in particular - an aright "TV Movie of the Week", at best. It's the only film I've ever watched twice just to make sure the critical consensus was/wasn't completely wrong, and I wasn't just in a lousy mood on first viewing.

In terms of mainstream Hollywood directors, yeah he's probably as good as it gets, the cream of the crop.. but bollocks to them all.  They're all useless.

[El Unicornio, mang]

overrated either by people who need to watch more films who haven't got a clue about films or have been bribed.

I'm none of those. Also, of course things will usually seem better if you haven't experienced things which are of a higher quality, it's kind of an irrelevant argument. There could be films that you've never seen which make your favourites look mediocre in comparison.

[astrozombie]

I'm none of those. Also, of course things will usually seem better if you haven't experienced things which are of a higher quality, it's kind of an irrelevant argument. There could be films that you've never seen which make your favourites look mediocre in comparison.

Are you David Fincher?

[Zetetic]

As a Criminal Justice graduate

I can't work out if this is code for having done time.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Are you David Fincher?

Yes, what other reason could I possibly have for liking things that you hate?

[SavageHedgehog]

Actually I am David Fincher, and I don't really care for my work.

[danyulx]

There could be films that you've never seen which make your favourites look mediocre in comparison.

I hope so. That's pretty much the only reason I still bother obsessively watching films.. They never do though. My favourites are still pretty much the same they were about three or four years ago. I'd love to find a new batch that would render the lot as mediocre shit.

[danyulx]

Anyway, back to remakes...

The only good one ever made that springs to mind - that had a rhyme or reason -  is Werner Herzog's 1979 crack at 'Nosferatu'. Better than the original, I reckon, and I love the original. And of course John Carpenter's 'The Thing' too.. though I haven't seen the original so I could be talking out of my arse.

Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake of 'Psycho' was a very interesting idea too, that or a practical joke. I read a great review of it once, which went exactly like this (written years before the remake craze really took off):

Released in 1998 to almost unanimous pans, Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake of Psycho is a film much smarter and subversive than it is given credit for.  It is only today, after years of pointless remakes from everything to The Honeymooners to The Shaggy Dog, that Van Sant's satire of the Hollywood system is evident.  In his earlier years, Van Sant's quirky, unique indie films like Drugstore Cowboy and My Own Private Idaho had a freedom of style.  He could do whatever he wanted with them, and what he did was quite experiemental and impressive.  Then, with the cash cow success of Good Will Hunting, Van Sant found himself in the position of being offered a seat in Hollywood's A-list.  What kind of options do they give him?  They throw out the possibility of a Psycho remake to mine an old well for new audiences.  This proposition echoes Universal's similar treatment of indie success Kevin Smith when he was first commissioned to make a big studio picture.  Smith's film was Mallrats, and Universal executives were constantly harping that he make a "Porky's for the 90s!"  It is clear that the creative pool of thought at Universal is unquestionably profit-driven, moreso even than most of the other big studios.  So Van Sant bit at the  offer, and made what is essentially one huge joke on the audience and more importantly the studio.

In reproducing shot-for-shot the exact same compositions, performances, music and feel of Hitchcock's film, Van Sant outs Hollywood's lack of new ideas and their need to recycle any concept in order to turn a quick dollar.  By making essentially the exact same film in color, Van Sant shows just how artistically bankrupt the process of remaking canonized classics like Psycho really is.  Watching Van Sant's Psycho today, it makes it much tougher to appropriate any of the recent remakes as anything other than contemptable pieces of consumer trash.  Van Sant, always the trendsetter, knew how shallow the big studios were in their need to remake a full five years before the remake cycle really took off.  In the most subversive of ways, in giving the studio exactly the remake they wanted, Gus Van Sant made one of the most scathing cases against Hollywood and its incessant need to stifle the creative process.

The movie is pointless, and with every laboured attempt to redo the film with millions of Hollywood dollars, Van Sant makes the point of how wasteful and empty Hollywood can be.  For anyone who takes the film seriously, Gus Van Sant laughs at you and the big fat check he cashed from essentially doing nothing.  Without a doubt, one of the most important films of the 90s.

[Famous Mortimer]

That's a really interesting review, danyulx, ta for that. I'd love it if that's what he did (although it can't have done his career any favours).

[Dark Sky]

The most negative: he's the most overrated director on this earth, and 'The Fight Club' and 'The Social Network' are the two most stupidly-overrated films ever made - which will both have dated about thirty years in ten years' time -  overrated either by people who need to watch more films who haven't got a clue about films or have been bribed. The latter in particular - an aright "TV Movie of the Week", at best. It's the only film I've ever watched twice just to make sure the critical consensus was/wasn't completely wrong, and I wasn't just in a lousy mood on first viewing.

Hmm...a deliberately provocative opinion going slightly overboard, perhaps?  I used to get like that sometimes until I mellowed and realised that there is no universal truth to the quality of art, and personal taste is a major factor.  Which doesn't stop me from sighing when I see someone say that their favourite films are "Pirates of the Carribean, The Matrix, and Lord of the Rings", though.  But if people enjoy them, so what?  It doesn't matter, does it.

I'm not a big fan of Fincher but I adore The Social Network.  Certainly I think it's brilliantly written, and I just love the story and the characters a lot.  Rich, young, successful people being depicted as being incredibly unhappy turns me on.  Now, I definitely haven't been bribed to like it, and I have watched a hell of a lot of films, but maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.  I dunno.

Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake of 'Psycho' was a very interesting idea too, that or a practical joke. I read a great review of it once, which went exactly like this (written years before the remake craze really took off):

I'm obsessed with Gus Van Sant's Psycho and have defended it time and time and time again over the past ten years or so.  In fact I relatively recently posted a very long thing about it on this forum, which - very sensibly - absolutely nobody responded to.  Here it is.  I really want to copy and paste it below but I won't because it's stupidly long and will make me look like (more of) an idiot.

[Blumf]

I really want to copy and paste it below but I won't because it's stupidly long and will make me look like (more of) an idiot.

Somebody else could retype it word-for-word...

[Dark Sky]

...but in colour

[gigolo aunts aren't gentlemen]

Nolan has yet to make a film with dialogue that isn't terrible, which may be because he keeps using scriptwriters who have worked on Blade films. Or because he writes some himself.

Fincher is competent but rarely surprising, and Scorsese needs to go easy on the cheese. I think The Departed seems a bit ridiculous if you've watched The Wire or something like that - shooting chiefs of police with impunity rings so untrue it brings you right out of the story. He gets good performances out of people, but like Nolan he needs someone to trim his triteness and limit the lines where someone just reads out the ideas of the film.

All three directors are generally admired by people who don't watch a great range of films. I'm sure this isn't true for most supporters in this thread, but they are very much the cleverer edge of the extreme mainstream. And they aren't very clever.

[confettiinmyhair]

I think Nolan is guilty of making massive clangers, such as killing off Two Face in TDK, or the character of Mal in Inception, who is so poorly written it is unbelievable.

Fincher in comparison is actually quite a steady director, solid but unspectacular. I like his films precisely because they are consistently good, rather than mindblowingly excellent, or genre defining.

[Dark Sky]

Nolan should be more interesting because he writes his own films, and whilst the plot mechanics of his films are never anything short of interesting, they tend to have really badly written characters, and a bizarre attitude towards women where they're always these impenetrable cardboard cutouts lurking just out of reach, unknowable, uncommunicative mysteries, just there to look sexy and miserable and be something for the men to coldly and unemotionally aim for.  I think he has some kind of fetish for dead wives or something.

Also all his films are incredibly po-faced and devoid of humour.  I wish he'd crack a smile occasionally.  Plus Batman Begins was the epitome of Hollywood cliché...it's like he watched Team America: World Police and deliberately tried to include as many of the things ridiculed in that as possible, from training montages to "emotional" maxims.

I'll stop ranting about Nolan now.  Sorry.  Following and Memento are still pretty damn good, mind.  It's just Inception which really annoys me...similar concepts were done so much better and with warmth and humour by Charlie Kaufman in both Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and Synecdoche, New York.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Nolan has yet to make a film with dialogue that isn't terrible, which may be because he keeps using scriptwriters who have worked on Blade films. Or because he writes some himself.

Fincher is competent but rarely surprising, and Scorsese needs to go easy on the cheese. I think The Departed seems a bit ridiculous if you've watched The Wire or something like that - shooting chiefs of police with impunity rings so untrue it brings you right out of the story. He gets good performances out of people, but like Nolan he needs someone to trim his triteness and limit the lines where someone just reads out the ideas of the film.

All three directors are generally admired by people who don't watch a great range of films. I'm sure this isn't true for most supporters in this thread, but they are very much the cleverer edge of the extreme mainstream. And they aren't very clever.

Again, making incorrect assumptions about people who like these particular directors. All three have made films which are critically acclaimed by people who watch a "wide range of films" for a living, not just the likes of us who watch films on a recreational basis. I've seen a wide range of films. Taxi Driver and Goodfellas are still masterpieces. Nolan's dialogue is fine for the types of films he makes, high quality popcorn entertainment.

[Mister Six]

I wouldn't really say Fincher is a great director. "Shite Club" is by far the worst film I've ever seen.

You can't have seen many films at all, then. On technical merit alone it's better than, say, Santa Claus Conquers The Martians.

[Famous Mortimer]

All three directors are generally admired by people who don't watch a great range of films. I'm sure this isn't true for most supporters in this thread....

But you still felt the need to mention it?

I wonder with some of the criticism these films have got, which films you all watched. "Inception" had moments of humour in it, but if it had had levity to the extent you (Dark Sky) apparently want, then ten other people would go "Nolan's funny sections jar with the rest of the tone of the film".

Mister Six, perhaps astrozombie is talking about a film actually called "Shite Club". I don't know. It seems the main films in this thread that people have reacted badly to are visually and story-wise ambitious - whether they succeed or not seems to be the thing which inspires strong feeling on both sides. I think a new thread is in order.

[SavageHedgehog]

I do find Nolan's style of humour quite irksom actually. It's all so... polite. I can imagine him writing the jokes and thinking "OK, we'll include a little gag here...but we don't want anyone to laugh too much!" I realise out and out levity wouldn't go with the tone of his films, which is why I wonder why he bothers with them at all. I actually have an easier time connecting emotionally to Michael Mann's films, for example, whose general approach is quite similar to Nolan's, but whose films genuinely have little to nothing in the way of humour. It's not exclusive to Nolan by any means; it's something I've noticed across the spectrum of "gritty reboot" films. Granted, it is still greatly preferable to the Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman style of humour.

I do think Nolan is a level or two above Fincher, or at the very least more distinctive. A few years ago I remember someone saying that Fincher's filmography was an example of the way directors often get too much credit for good films at the exclusion of the writers and everyone else, and that comment chimed with my experience with his films. Not that he doesn't have a generally solid filmography, and I do like The Game rather a lot. I'm surprised people are so forgiving of Benjamin Button though, which was a saccharin and really quite desperate bit of Oscar-bait that spent God knows how long providing nothing that couldn't be gleemed from a Hallmark card.