MovieChat Forums > Poseidon (2006) Discussion > I don't think this is what Wolfgang Pete...

I don't think this is what Wolfgang Petersen Had in Mind


Petersen is such a great director that I have to believe that the version that was released to theaters was NOT the version he created.

I know there were several scenes pre-disaster cut from the film. These scenes would've set the scene and make us care about the characters. Unfortunately as it is now, it's just a roller coaster ride with people in their evening finery escaping from fire, water, and Richard Dreyfus!

I have to hope that one day we'll get to see the director's cut of Poseidon. Until that day i will settle for this version like the sad little biotch I am!

"You know me Marge, I like my beer cold, my TV loud, and my homosexuals fa-LAM-ing!"

reply

I used to love the original movie - watched the remake for the second time last night and possibly agree with you. The disaster hits 15 minutes into the film, which is really quick. Why were any of the characters on board (e.g. Christian)? What was their backstory?

Watched the documentary on the extras and Peterson says this is NOT a remake of the original. Huh? It's about an ocean liner which capsizes and a small group of survivors have to make their way upwards to reach the hull. How is that not a remake?

reply

Watched the documentary on the extras and Peterson says this is NOT a remake of the original. Huh? It's about an ocean liner which capsizes and a small group of survivors have to make their way upwards to reach the hull. How is that not a remake?



It is not a remake, Petersen is right. No offence, but if we follow your logic then every action movie in which a character goes after the bad guys when they kill his family is a remake of the first movie that used that story. Just because in this case there's a ship, water and people trying to survive doesn't mean we're talking about a remake.

The Petersen-directed Poseidon is a simply a new film adaptation of the Paul Gallico's novel. Like the Spider Man movies. No one talks about the last few movies as remakes of the Sam Raimi versions.

Just new interpretations. Poseidon is the same.



===========================
"You don't watch Michael Bay films. They happen to you."

reply

Okay, please explain to me what a remake is then?

Poseidon is about an ocean liner called Poseidon which capsizes due to a freak wave. The ship turns upside down and a small group of survivors have to make their way through a series of treacherous obstacles to reach the hull. In what possible way is this NOT a remake of the Poseidon Adventure? How is it significantly different to the first film to not be classed as a remake?

It's not like Howard Hawks's and John Carpenter's versions of the The Thing. These are two markedly different adaptations of John W Campbell's source novel. Carpenter's version is more faithful to the novel, which is about a shape-shifting alien.

Your point about films where the hero goes after the people who killed his family is non-analogous, though undoubtedly some films with that plot would be classed as remakes of the original.

reply

In what possible way is this NOT a remake of the Poseidon Adventure? How is it significantly different to the first film to not be classed as a remake?


Well, for one they have different characters, different twists and turns. These things matter here, not the one-two-sentence plot description. If we focus only on the quick plot description then we will discover that every movie from the last 20 years is some sort of remake. If Poseidon was really a straight-up remake it would've been something like Gus Van Sant's Psycho or A Nightmare on Elm Street from 2010. Psycho from '98 is clearly a remake of the Hitchcock movie - same character names, same twists and turns. Classic case of a remake.

Poseidon is not that.

Besides, there is a novel called The Poseidon Adventure, which means that no matter how many movies they make out of it, they should all be considered 'film adaptations' of the book that started it all. Not remakes, because the first movie is not an original material. It is based on a book.

Think about it, no one calls the recent Batman movies, or Superman movies, remakes of the Keaton and Reeve movies. They're all different film adaptations/updated versions of the comic books, simple as that.


Now, I understand your position, I see your point, and we probably agree on many other film-related things. But I just don't see Poseidon as a classic case of a remake. I mean, there is a reason why Petersen himself stated that the movie is not a remake. And he should know, after all he's the director and the producer of the movie.



===========================
"You don't watch Michael Bay films. They happen to you."

reply

I hear what you're saying, but since it doesn't depart in any significant way from the original film it's a remake in every sense of the word. Even IMDb considers it a remake!

Tim Burton's Batman was a re-imagining, since "The Dark Knight" concept hadn't been seen on the screen before. The TV series and film were very camp; Burton's version was significantly different (borderline noir in places). Likewise, Christopher Nolan's trilogy could also be seen as another reimagining. Though they both feature the Joker, Batman (1989) and The Dark Knight (2008) are poles apart in terms of plot, theme, characterisation, etc.

Since Poseidon features the simplest of plots, there's not enough here to even class it as a reimagining. Wikipedia (not the font of all knowledge, I know!) says "most remakes make significant character, plot, genre and theme changes." I'd argue that Poseidon doesn't even do that. True, it's not a shot-for-shot remake like Psycho or Funny Games, but the same story and plot remain.

I guess the sticking point here is that you see Peterson's version as going back to the source material. For me, that's less important. The important thing is the extent to which the newer version differentiates significantly from a version that came before. Scarface (1982) is significantly different to Scarface (1932), though it could easily be argued that de Palma's version was still a remake. John Carpenter could absolutely argue that The Thing (1982) was not a remake of The Thing From Another World (1958) - his approach to the source material was significantly different to Howard Hawks.

In any event, I think it's a real stretch to say Peterson's Poseidon is not a remake. By the way, which do you consider to be the superior film? While I enjoyed Peterson's a lot, Ronald Neame's original had a much more compelling character angle. Gene Hackman's struggling priest made for a brilliant conflicted protagonist.

reply

Even IMDb considers it a remake!




Well, in this case it's IMDb's word against Petersen's . Me personally, I'd rather trust the actual person behind the movie.




I guess the sticking point here is that you see Peterson's version as going back to the source material. For me, that's less important.



Indeed, this where we disagree. I do consider the source material. I always do it when there's a book and a film adaptation involved. I mean, it's not exactly the same when you're remaking an original movie (not based on any pre-existing property) and a movie that's an adaptation of a comicbook or a novel. I would like to think that it's easier for filmmakers when there's a book involved. That way they can escape the dreaded "remake" label by simply focusing on the book that started it all. And then say that their new movie is not a remake, but a reimagining of the book, or an updated version of the book. Whatever floats their boat.


The important thing is the extent to which the newer version differentiates significantly from a version that came before.



Since I consider all changes, small and big, I would argue that the new Poseidon is quite differend - you can watch it and then watch the older version, and I bet you most people would feel that they've watched two very different movies. Sure, the core of it all is the same - ship tragedy, people trying to escape. But they're still differnet movies with different agendas - the original is more, for lack of a better word, "calm" while the Petersen version is a fast and furious action movie that relies mainly on tension and visual spectacle. Plus, if they were really trying to make a remake they would've at least used the original title as well - The Poseidon Adventure. Like they did with the remakes of Point Break, A Nightmare on Elm Street and Total Recall.

Again, I see your point, and I'm not saying you're wrong. But then again, why would Petersen even bother saying that his Poseidon is not a remake. There must be a reason for him to say that, right?



By the way, which do you consider to be the superior film? While I enjoyed Peterson's a lot, Ronald Neame's original had a much more compelling character angle.



Honestly, I like both movies equally. Though if someone puts a gun to my head and asks me to choose only one, I would probably go with the Petersen version. It's just my kind of movie. Ever since the early 90's I've been a huge action fan and I'm a sucker for intense movies like Poseidon. The underwater scenes, the score by Klaus Badelt, the CGI and the realistic sense of urgency...I really like all of that.

Yes, it would've been better if it was little bit longer (more time to set things up, get to know the characters, etc...) but even at 90 minutes the movie is still effective to me.

I mean, let's be honest, no one really goes to a movie like this one for the character development and the great script. People expect spectacle and that's exactly what the movie delivers.





============================
"You don't watch Michael Bay films. They happen to you."

reply

Petersen is such a great director that I have to believe that the version that was released to theaters was NOT the version he created.



Well, when Petersen made Poseidon he was not only the director, but a producer of the movie as well. Which usually means that the filmmaker is established enough and has much more control over the project. So I don't think the studio took the movie from him and cut it down. I think the decision to make it shorter and faster was his.

I agree with you though, it would've been great to see an extended version of Poseidon, but for whatever reason that didn't happen. Too bad, because I'm sure there were a lot of scenes that were cut.

Still, I don't mind the version we have now. I mean, I prefer longer movies, but for some reason the short Poseidon still works for me.



===========================
"You don't watch Michael Bay films. They happen to you."

reply