The Philosophy Discussion Forum

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 1:30 pm

Are these remakes any good? They redid The Browning Version (not Kurosawa but a favorite of mine) and (I thought) it sucked …

I prefer the Japanese versions. But Kurosawa was so great, it's hard to equal or outdo him.

'Magnificent Seven' 1960 was a really good movie.

We've gotten a bit off topic but not completely irrelevant.

I would say rarely is a remake even comparable, let alone superior. Hard to think of more than very few examples of the latter. But SOMETIMES what we are seeing is remake to stress different "message' (or same/similar message brought to modern times). That is different. An example would be Antigone (Jean Anouilh's 1942-43 version is messaging resistance to the Nazi occupation).

A "modern" example might be My Own Private Idaho. Do not be deceived by a wikipedia description "loosely based on Henry IV". That's just considering plot. Penny and were fortunate/unfortunate enough to be watching at home on DVD. So when about halfway through we simultaneously recognized a plot element*, we could go WHOA. Stop the DVD, move it back some, grab Shakespeare off the shelf, restart, and marvel at how Van Sant has worked entire paragraphs/speeches into the dialog << it helped that "stoned" characters might talk a little funny >>. A spectacular accomplishment.

On the other hand I would consider Brazil a failure in that regard. I know supposed to be a lot of VISUAL "borrowing". Now as you can tell, I'm reasonably "up"on world cinema. But the only one I recognized was when security guards gunned down the maintenance man and his cleaning machine went bouncing down the steps (from Battleship Potemkin, the Odessa steps scene)


* It was the robbers set to rob the robbers scene where we caught on "hey, this is Shakespeare". But that's just plot. We had not yet spotted the dialog also lifted directly from Henry IV (I and II) until we had the book open to follow along. Of course this changed our viewing experience to wonder, amazement, and anticipation of "now how is Van Sant going to work THAT scene/speech into his modern story"

A few days ago in Ha’Aretz the headline read:

“We took LSD in Sinai and Followed in the Steps of Moses”

And this leads me to wonder: Why (WHY!?) will no one resort to my PROVEN Matzo Ball Soup spiritual cure designed to take you through the craggy cliffs of cultural confusion right up to the border of a Promised Land of Understanding. I may not get there with you (having arrived so long ago) but WE AS A FORUM will get to that Promised Land! Fluffy, non-sinker Matzo Balls are an important part. Think about it!

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 3:07 pm My Own Private Idaho…

All I could see in it was fuckin’ FAGGOTS! I’ll have to try to watch it again and curb my prejudices.

I’m trying to grow and change people. I’m really trying …

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 3:16 pm

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 3:07 pm My Own Private Idaho…

All I could see in it was fuckin’ FAGGOTS! I’ll have to try to watch it again and curb my prejudices.

I’m trying to grow and change people. I’m really trying …

I know the feeling. I saw the movie back in college. I don't remember a whole lot from it other than the occasional Shakespearean moments and River Phoenix's narcolepsy. It was highly regarded in the literary department at the time. Can't say some of the scenes didn't make me cringe. I didn't get much out of it at the time because the shock scenes were more memorable than anything else that was going on and I wasn't very familiar with Shakespeare so I didn't get that out of the movie either. Haven't seen it since. So if the meaning of life and all that is important was in it, I missed it.

I think the issues around remakes are:

When is it appropriate to do a remake to refresh it for a new audience?

When is a remake exploiting a group?

When is a remake spreading propaganda or an ideology?

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 1:27 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 1:06 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 12:58 pm There is a pressing need to remake the Kurosawa catalog with non-Japanese actors.

Well, in a way this has been done with quite a few of his films.
Seven Samurai – The Magnificent Seven (1960 & 2016)
Yojimbo – A Fistful of Dollars (1964)
Yojimbo – Last Man Standing (1996)
Rashomon – The Outrage (1964)
Ikiru – Living (2022)
High and Low – High and Low (2025)

Yes.

But they changed the time and place so that non-Japanese characters are appropriate. They don't just plop white actors down into medieval Japan.

I'm not quite sure what your message is. You wanted them to plop the actors down in medieval Japan, so those don't count? Or those count?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 6:14 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 1:27 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 1:06 pm Well, in a way this has been done with quite a few of his films.
Seven Samurai – The Magnificent Seven (1960 & 2016)
Yojimbo – A Fistful of Dollars (1964)
Yojimbo – Last Man Standing (1996)
Rashomon – The Outrage (1964)
Ikiru – Living (2022)
High and Low – High and Low (2025)

Yes.

But they changed the time and place so that non-Japanese characters are appropriate. They don't just plop white actors down into medieval Japan.

I'm not quite sure what your message is. You wanted them to plop the actors down in medieval Japan, so those don't count? Or those count?

Maybe he's thinking of the show "Hamilton"?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 1:09 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 1:06 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 12:58 pm There is a pressing need to remake the Kurosawa catalog with non-Japanese actors.

Well, in a way this has been done with quite a few of his films.
Seven Samurai – The Magnificent Seven (1960 & 2016)
Yojimbo – A Fistful of Dollars (1964)
Yojimbo – Last Man Standing (1996)
Rashomon – The Outrage (1964)
Ikiru – Living (2022)
High and Low – High and Low (2025)

Are these remakes any good? They redid The Browning Version (not Kurosawa but a favorite of mine) and (I thought) it sucked …

A Fistful of Dollars was very good. I liked the Magnificent 7, the older one, when I was young, decent director. The Outrage is liked by critics, I haven't seen it, nor the other two.

Yojimbo and Sanjuro were so amazing.

We might want to consider whether a film made as propaganda might nevertheless be a good film (as film) or surprising accomplishment. Thus In Which We Serve is British WWII war propaganda but an amazing "one man show" for Noel Coward (wrote, directed, starred in, and composed the music).

But also, how about "message" films where NOT actually taking sides. More "here is the evidence, decide for yourself". Say something like In Dubious Battle (book or movie). The title a giveaway that going to be ambiguous. But I still consider a "message" because more or less demanding that you do judge for or against the Communists (they are clearly CP, not generic labor activists).

Or a more recent example, the animated Pom Poko. Children watching might see this as just about tanukis (and Kitsunes) but an adult viewer should see "these are the various ways we humans act/fail to act when faced with an existential crisis". I think there is an implied message "we somehow have to come up with something better" (because WE are in an existential environmental crisis)

And even then, I've questioned this skywalker claim and how they "destroyed" him or whatever, and you provide nothing on even that matter.

You didn't ask me. You told told me that it didn't happen, that I was oversensitive and emotional, that I was advertising male privilege and that my concerns were trivial.

None of that shit really deserves time or effort ...

So don't respond to me and you won't expend any time or effort.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 12:36 pm

I still don't care about Luke Skywalker. He's a shit character. The movies were fun because of Han Solo, Chewwie, that Golden pimp robot, and the little wheelie bin that whistled at the princess. Not the charisma free ham sandwich with a light saber.

I seriously cannot believe that we are stuck on a piece of dryer lint like Luke Skywalker. When I said that can't be the real problem, I meant it. That is the dullest character in the series, and one of the dullest in movie history. He's so boring that even his incest was just bleh.

So your argument is "I don't like the character, so they can do whatever they want to him/her".

Brilliant.

I don't think there's a real colour of skin at all for a mermaid, I suspect them of being fictional creatures.

Why remake any movie at all? If the original is being remade, the purpose is to make money, and the decision to not use new IP has been made already. So in that context, why does it matter if a remake that is going to be made anyway because Hollywood cannibalises its back catalogue as a business practice, should include a superficial change to the skin colour of an imaginary creature that doesn't exist?

Show White is a fictional character. Is it okay to remake her as black?

Shaft is fictional character. Is it okay to remake him as white or chinese?

Does 'equality' of representation require remakes with different races, genders, skin colour? To be fair.

Are they going to make a movie about Henry VIII and make him black? What does that achieve?

They probably aren't. Rumour has it thatHenry VIII was a real dude though, so I am rejecting the analogy. Not that I would really care if they did do it.

So you wouldn't care if Nelson Mandela was played by a white actor.

Wokies don't genuinely 'care' about anything. It's all performative virtue-signalling. They are the most racist people around. What could be more racist than telling particular groups of people that they are inherently inferior by birth and need special help in order to achieve anything? It certainly doesn't do those 'groups' any favours. Quite the reverse. Now everyone just assumes that these people are what Americans (who else?) call 'DEI hires', even if it's not the case. No one ever accused Morgan Freeman, Denzel Washington, Idris Elba, Neil Degrasse Tyson etc. of being 'DEI inserts'. This is recent American identity politics bullshit on steroids and it has tainted everything.
It's also not just about the pretence of 'helping' certain groups into jobs-- it's more sinister and deep than that. Ever noticed how you can't watch ANYTHING these days without there being identity politics shoved in there with a sledge hammer? The 'Malcolm in the middle' reboot has self-consciously inserted a 'non binary' character-- because we all know that 'non-binarys' have been horribly persecuted and excluded from humankind for hundreds, possibly thousands, of years True in a way. No one likes attention-desperate narcissists with no discernable personality or talent apart from a trendy but completely meaningless label that comes with great rewards and plaudits. I suppose we should be thankful they haven't included 'trans' grandchildren (it's only a matter of time).

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 3:16 pm

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 3:07 pm My Own Private Idaho…

All I could see in it was fuckin’ FAGGOTS! I’ll have to try to watch it again and curb my prejudices.

I’m trying to grow and change people. I’m really trying …

THIS is a case where perhaps necessary to curb prejudice.

Once you realize that Van Sant is doing Henry IV set in the late 20th Century, the why becomes clear. Mind, being pretty tolerant, not personally bothered by the f......s. But Van Sant needs a story with 20th Century equivalents for the disreputable/unsuitable companions of Prince Hal (in spite of the titles of these two plays, not about King Henry IV but about the crown prince who will become Henry V). OK, who could he use who by their shared characteristic would be unsuitable/disreputable in the late 20th Century.

In other words, to object to this being a story involving f....s you more or less need to be able to suggest "why not instead a story about a bunch of X's" (equally disreputable/unsuitable by their shared characteristic). Sorry but I can't immediately think of an alternative.

On remakes, we have no equivalent in our culture. But in Japan the true story (the Ako Vendetta 1703) of the loyal 47 ronin has so captured the Japanese imagination that starting with the 1748 puppet theater play countless version in Kabuki and in the 20th Century film have been made. If you've seen none of these, I recommend the 1958 version Chûshingura Yes these are all "message" going back to the first puppet play, but a message intended for samurai culture (what is TRUE loyalty)

OK, who could he use who by their shared characteristic would be unsuitable/disreputable in the late 20th Century.

In other words, to object to this being a story involving f....s you more or less need to be able to suggest "why not instead a story about a bunch of X's" (equally disreputable/unsuitable by their shared characteristic). Sorry but I can't immediately think of an alternative.

Hard to think of anyone really disreputable in the late 20th century ... that's an indictment of the values of the late 20th century.

It's not even 'covert' brainwashing. It's deafeningly 'overt' brainwashing

Apparently 'others' are perfectly happy with being told what and how to think by megarich Hollywood perverts. I am not.