My question in the first post was "Does this count?" as in does my example count... I believe you are taking for granted this is a fairly complex thing..
YOU instead of answering the question shat all over my example in certainty that YOU have the correct definition of what Remake is, I simply asked what are YOU are using to define what a remake is to be so confident in your SHITTING on my post?
version, homage, makeover, update, reboot, remake, adaptation, pseudo-remake. You certain you know exactly what all these terms mean too?
"In the essay “Twice-Told Tales: Disavowal and the Rhetoric of the Remake,” Thomas Leitch defines movie remakes as “new versions of old movies.” This might seem incredibly obvious, but there’s an important implication here: if you are taking a story from one medium to another, it cannot rightly be called a remake. The inherent challenges of translating a story from one medium with specific advantages and disadvantages to a different medium with different specific advantages and disadvantages are also a considerable source of value (this concept is literally known as
medium specificity). [Cross-language adaptations face a similar hurdle that prevents even the most faithful of such adaptations, like
Let Me In and
Let The Right One In, from being remakes.]"
How is doing a new movie version of an old movie taking the story from one
medium to another? They're both movies so it's the same medium. To take a story from one medium to another, you'd have to do a movie version of a novel, for example, or a comic book adaptation of a movie, or a movie version of a TV series, or whatever. They're examples of taking a story from one
medium to another. But if you do a new movie version of an old movie, you're not taking the story from one medium to another. You're just doing a different version of it in the same medium.
Would you say
The Dark Knight is a remake of Tim Burton's original
Batman? They've both got Batman, and Alfred, and Commissioner Gordon, and Harvey Dent, and the Joker, and Batman's the good guy and the Joker's the bad guy, and the Joker's defeated in the end, so you'd probably say it's a remake, right? Just because the two movies share those shallow, superficial similarities. I'm guessing it doesn't matter to you that Gordon, for example, is Commissioner all the way through the original
Batman, from beginning to end, although in
The Dark Knight, he only becomes Commissioner after the last one is killed. And I'm guessing it doesn't matter that Harvey Dent stays Harvey Dent throughout the original
Batman, although in
The Dark Knight, we see him become Two-Face. And I'm guessing it doesn't matter that Vicki Vale isn't the love interest in
The Dark Knight, or that the woman who is is being fought over by Wayne and Dent, where no such love triangle appears in the original
Batman. And I'm guessing it doesn't matter that Heath Ledger's version of the Joker is an entirely different one from Jack Nicholson's. Jack Nicholson's was just a lunatic with no particular goal in mind other than to cause chaos just for the fun of it, whereas Heath Ledger's version had a very specific purpose; to teach everybody that trying to impose order on a chaotic world is foolish and self-defeating. You can't possibly think
The Dark Knight is a remake of
Batman so how could you think the 2017
Jumanji is a remake of the original when the differences between those two are even greater. At least
The Dark Knight and
Batman had a lot of the same characters. The characters in those two
Jumanji movies are totally different, aren't they? In the first movie, one child (one) gets sucked into a board game decades ago, and then comes back into the real world as an adult bringing the wild animals with him. In the second movie, a group of teenagers gets sucked into a video game and most of the rest of the movie takes place in the video game world, as opposed to the real world in the first movie, where the kids interact as their video game avatars. No such thing as avatars in the first movie.
