mue 26 wrote:
Yeah, this is my viewpoint too. I never quite get it when people get all worked up about sequels or remakes of old films, and are like "don't ruin my memories!". How does making a shitty sequel or remake- no matter how shitty it is- soil the good memories of the original? I mean, yeah the remake of The Thing was a load of poo, but did it in any way affect my love of the original? No. How possibly could it? And for this reason, I really don't care either way if there's a Blade Runner sequel, or a Star wars 7, or an Akira live action movie (even if it's set in New York!) or whatever. I'll just take it on its own merits, and who knows there is a slight chance it could actually be good, or so bad it'll be funny, so why not?
Yes because it cheapens the universe of the original. Simply put.
To say more I recently went to an all-night film festival where they were showing the original Thing, It was the best film of the night... In a vacuum, the remake does not directly up-hinge my appreciation of it as a piece of media, but by adding an addendum to the created universe, specifically after the initial time of its creation and all the underpinning culture it inferred... It does very subtly dampen the overall quality of the IP.
Watching Kurt Russell et al I could now envision the Norwegian base before the incident, its cleanliness, its 2011sharpness, Mr Eco, Norwegians speaking English. It was all there in my subconscious mind impacting how I now viewed the events of the original, directly or not... The Thing had now been framed 'differently' and it is that intangible, almost unspeakable difference which I dislike.
The original film was already complete in 'my mind' and no amount of addition could improve that... all additions after the moment of 'intended completion' are moot...
of course, talking about my mind and viewpoint of a piece of media is always subjective but it is this subjectivity which propels art. There is no such thing and objective quality: When people release art or media into the public domain, it is they who then own it...
ALSO, by adding to the THING universe, it is saying that The Original Thing was incomplete or not good enough in certain respects. Maybe it wasn't, maybe new technology can improve certain things but that is beside the point... All art, all medias reflect the zeitgeist of their creation, it is what makes them what they are. And you simply cannot remake the past. All things should be left there as we move forward with originality or clever re-appropriation (adapting novels, philosophical ideas, debates etc...)
I used to be relaxed about remakes but when you really study media theory and all its subtext you begin to see how abhorrent the idea of a remake is... It is IP rape.... trading on an established name for money simply because they can't be creative enough to come up with something original...I am being purposefully harsh there because many remakes are created with the right intentions but i am more talking about the ideal of remakes....
Film Adapted from film is like eating your own tail. Thematic cannibalism is fine, make a film about cabin fever and trust but don't borrow wholesale...
[/quote]I really don't think any sequel could be as annoying as a life time wondering just what Yu had planned, but was never able to give to us. Eff all this cautious nonsense, you get nothing being cautious.
Achievements, dumbing down, short cuts, asset reuse..... Put it this way.. Shenmue III wouldn't come with material detailing every NPC's height, weight, blood type, routine etc.... It would just have random, reused NPC's spouting random one liners.
You make a valid point about Shenmue already having a designed or intended ending which has not been released. It is a genuine, soul destroying shame that it couldn’t see the light but then I think it would be more soul destroying if it was released and had barely anything in common with its ancestors. Shenmue in name and narrative only would not be Shenmue.