Live Poll: Another "Another Round" With Leo?

The picture is perfect, Skul!

@Peter_pbn 

I fixed it and rephrased the options.

Thanks

Done:)

@ElMaruecan82 

I would have changed the first option. Imho 80% of the foreign originals are way better than the remakes. So in 80% the remake can't steal the crown of the original. It's just awkward. The other countries charme is lost, something that often can't be reproduced in Hollywood. Like in "Dark  Water" and the American remake. Especially Asian movies are often not the same. Best example: "Seven Samurai", "The Magnificent Seven" (1970) & The Magnificent Seven (2016). Each time copied, it loses a bit. It's seldom that a remake is better. Same for remakes of American movies in other countries. Some of them are awkward, too. Like students try to act like experienced method actors.

I see your point, but I disagree with the examples. I like the idea of remaking a story in a whole different genre, "Seven Samurai" had set a template for all the action-team movies to come, its concept was bound to be exploited sooner or later. It took 6 years but when it was released, "The Magnificent Seven" was a Western-hit, with a glorious cast, and one of the most iconic scores of all-time, it was clearly a homage to "Seven Samurai" but it had that identity of its own.

Both became classics and while their stories share frontiers, their legacies are different. And you know what, maybe John Sturges' film contributed to consolidate  "Seven Samurai" status as a cinematic milestone. But I saw and didn't care much for the 2016 remake.

Here we have a movie from Denmark, set in the modern world, so anyone from any country can relate to it, it's about alcoholism, once again, we can relate to it, it's about average men with average jobs, still relatable, so Americanizing it won't necessarily reinvent the wheel and transcend the material, pretending an American version will make something 'better' is like saying there was something broken needing to be fixed, or something not working very well and needing to be improved.

That's the arrogance between move: considering that the film is good but with Leo, it'll be even better. But I don't know how many fans of "The Departed" have actually watched the original.

I see your point, maybe 'Dark Water' was the better example. Or 'Rec', or 'Intouchables', or ...

"Upside Down" is an interesting example, I totally agree that the film, while good in its own merit, brings nothing new whatsoever.

But the film revealed how times have changed in the span of 5 years, many people criticized the fact that they didn't hire a really disabled actor for the role (there are many good actors who have physical handicap after all), it's a valid point but then... how come the original film didn't get that criticism in the first place? Because it's a French film?

It's not like a giant chronological leap from 2012 to 2017...

Maybe I could answere that if I saw both movies.

@ElMaruecan82 

I agree with your point. A remake should have an identity of its own. But, don't you think the director has an important part to do in that identity? 

Student X can't become Marcel Proust. This time, I'm not talking about the talent of the director, I'm trying to say that sometimes when they remake films, directors themselves are struggling to detach from the original work and find their own identity.

Example: George Lucas mimicking Kurosawa's directing style for Star Wars.

I see your point and I agree that once you handle a concept, an idea or something that wasn't yours to begin with, it's difficult to dissociate the original maker from it... but I guess the talent is to make something fresh out of old material. 

Many movie fans will praise Martin Scorsese for his originality but Scorsese might say that he's always been inspired by the work of his peers, he was a movie fan before making films and many stylistic choices he made were inspired by Hitchcock, Kurosawa or Michael Powell.

It's hard to make something truly original when you think about it.

That said, if "Drunk" is an original idea, maybe the director used tricks from Scorsese's movies like the camera latched on to an actor's body... that's something Marty invented and it was used later by many directors...

Original is only that what people think without influence in their mind. The mind is father of the word. The word is father of the deed. The deed is father of the habit. The habit is father of the character. If the character is made of copying ideas, it can't be really original - except the character always was a copycat. Aren't most of us copycats?