You're saying Walt Whitman was a pot-head?

That'd make Whitman's samplers a lot more popular.

That'd make Whitman's samplers a lot more popular.

"The Candy Man makes / everything he bakes / satisfying and hempalicious / you can even eat the roach clippies..."

OMG! Is "Splendor in the Grass" about pot?

OMG! Is "Splendor in the Grass" about pot?

It is. And those shoes you call Mary Janes? Marijuana!

On other boards I see people railing about movie remakes on principle, as if by definition every remake has to be a bad thing. I suspect it has to do with the current cultural equation of creativity with originality, which seems to be applied to films more than to any other art form, especially if they're based on other films rather than books or plays. (I thought it was hilarious recently how it was emphasized that the Coen's "True Grit" wasn't a remake of the Wayne film, but a new adaptation of the book, in order to give it more credibility).

But filmmaking has always been hugely derivative. Right from the very beginning, people were copying ideas, concepts, even entire movies, especially if they were successful. The first US remake of a French movie was in the 1890s, and vice versa. It's not good or bad, it's just the way the business has always operated.

Nowadays familiarity makes it easier to sell movies, or "franchises", as we must now call them. It's why the studios love sequels and remakes and reboots and why films are pitched as hybrids of other films.

So at the moment you have strong commercial predelictions for remakes versus strong cultural inclinations against them. There's bound to be some conflict.

The idea of a Star Trek reboot made my skin crawl but that turned out OK. The idea of a Time Bandits remake is equally horrible, especially for the reasons DJ mentioned, but I'm going to try and keep an open mind. (Gritting teeth....).

And remember, Shakespeare's plays were largely "remakes" of existing stories...

But filmmaking has always been hugely derivative. Right from the very beginning, people were copying ideas, concepts, even entire movies, especially if they were successful. The first US remake of a French movie was in the 1890s, and vice versa. It's not good or bad, it's just the way the business has always operated.

THIS! It makes me crazy when people talk about remakes as if it were a new, bad thing that's happening and is sign of film making in decline!

I think it's kind of getting insane lately, though. And, what Frank said.

Film adaptation of board games, on the other hand, is an obvious sign of the apocalypse.

I think it's kind of getting insane lately, though.

I really don't think it is. Or at least, it's no more insane than it's been in the past. Part of the problem is that our view of the past is skewed. A lot of the films which have sunk without trace were probably remakes but we have no cultural memory of then.

And then on the other hand, a lot of the films which we think of as classics are remakes, but we have conveniently forgotten the fact, or we sort of know it, but don't think about it. The Wizard of Oz, Ben-Hur (the 1959 film was the second remake), The Thief of Bagdad, Robin Hood, A Star is Born, and The Front Page are only a few examples.

OK, board games and themepark attractions as sources are pushing it, but earlier you would have had songs, advertising, vaudeville acts, you name it.

Edit: by the way, as of today I am officially a freelance lecturer in film history! (And this being Germany it's all very official, I had to register with the tax office and everything).