Remake, Remake, please!
and, casting Pam Grier in the Agnes Moorehead part would be a nice touch.
shareIt would be pure camp and would not pack the punch of the 1950 version.
share
MovieChat Forums > Caged (1950) Discussion > Remake, Remake, please!
IMDb lists House of Women (1962) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056082/ as a remake, I however disagree.
Firstly, because the films had a different set of writers.
Secondly, the stories are different. While they have the same premise and genre: a naive young pregnant woman caught unknowing as an accessory to a crime set in a women's-prison. Without giving away any details that is where the similarity ends.
Firstly, because the films had a different set of writers.
Since when was it that original writers were required on remakes, lol?
Original writers are not required on remakes but in my opinion, a REMAKE would (or at least should) acknowledge the source material by listing the writer(s) as such. If the "secondary" piece is generally unique with a few similarities then it might possibly be a labeled a revision if there is any connection at all.
Since IMDb removed the REMAKE connection between Caged (1950) and House of Women (1962) then they must agree it is not a remake. That leaves the original poster to this thread's quest for a remake realistic.
The concept of remakes in general is very personal. There are many different reasons to revisit good work. While remakes are often not as good critically as the original they stand as updates to loved material in addition to creating opportunities to reach new audiences.
Remakes of fine films never live up to the originals; they are totally unnecessary, when you can simply revisit the original. Why not utilize time, energy, and money to create something original? No one "remakes" paintings or sculptures, nor do they rewrite great novels. Since film is an art form, probably the most important and universal for over a hundred years, the same policy should apply.
shareFirst, let me say you are entitled to your opinion however I would not be so absolute and say
Remakes of fine films never live up to the originals.Instead, I think the statement with the word rarely is more realistic.
I do not agree with your comment
they are totally unnecessary.You can never tell what interesting casting choices might be made or what unique perceptions might be conceived. Just because most remakes are not as good as the original doesn't mean it can never be achievable. I often watch works together in various versions just to see what possible improvements are made even if it is only due to improved technology. It is true that my favorites are usually the "originals" however I will try to make a note if any follow ups I find in the future are better than the originals.
I know for a fact that the technique of COPYING the classic paintings of those by Renoir or Rembrandt is a very common teaching practice. More than used as a learning tool there are many people who regularly revisit famous paintings. Sometimes the revisions are meant to provoke controversy or illicit a humorous reaction. If you follow this link you will see dozens of interpretations of the most famous painting in the world, The Mona Lisa: https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&rlz=1C1CHWA_enUS607US607 &espv=2&biw=1366&bih=653&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=intre pretations+of+The+Mona+Lisa&oq=intrepretations+of+The+Mona+Lisa&am p;gs_l=img.12...23515.31298.0.34627.21.20.1.0.0.0.182.2007.11j9.20.0.e hm_lang...0...1.1.62.img..21.0.0.R0cuYGTPAiI
There is another medium that you didn't mention that gets revisited ALL THE TIME and besides getting permission of the original artist no one has a problem with it. Music!!!
Lastly, regarding your comment on "policy" I almost don't know what to say. This is a free country and there isn't nor should there ever be policy dictating what works of art should or should not be created or recreated. If someone has the feeling to rework, remake or revise from existing work that is their prerogative. You don't have to go see it; that's your prerogative.
Please know the reason for my original comment was to bring to light my disagreeing with the then listed House of Women (1962) as a remake. Like I wrote in a previous reply it has since removed from the Connections List. share
There's lots of movies from the '40s, '50s, and '60s with good writing but bad acting; it would be cool to remake those.
But the suggestion of remaking Caged is kind of bizarre, because the acting is so strong and the movie does not feel stale at all. But more than that, the whole point of Caged was to show audiences what women's prisons were really like. To do the same thing in 2015 (or should I say 2016), you wouldn't want to re-use a 70-year-old story, but do current research like Virginia Kellogg did, and base a script on that.
If you search the web you can find some listicles of remakes better than the original movie. Of course some people will disagree with specific instances. I liked the original Cape Fear but I think Scorsese's remake is much better because it is more complex. Others might disagree. You'd be hard-pressed though to find anyone who believes the original True Grit is better than the Coen Brothers' remake. (You might argue that it's not technically a remake, though, but rather another version from the same source novel.)
Why would anyone want a perfectly performed movie to be remade?
shareNo, No, No! The original is perfect. Instead the writer's in Hollywood or Bollywood should write! There are no decent storylines, they just make one Cleopatra after another disaster.
"When the legend becomes fact - print the legend "
Why remake something that can't be improved upon, dimwit? Hollywood is littered with remakes that aren't a shadow of the originals. What's the obsession that some people have about remaking great movies?
shareare you kidding?? you must be one of the people that hollywood keeps making HORRIFIC remakes for! why would yu want to see a great and perfect movie, remade?? what's the purpose? what coud you possibly enjoy about that? they almost always do the movie a huge disservice, and often just totally ruin it. there are thousands of stories that haven't been told yet, why don't they make those into movies, instead of totally copying and ruining someone else's work?
sharedon't want a remake, but if it were to be made i'd want Jessica Chastain to do it
share