Why are people ignorant of the real originals?

[GamerKT]

This has come up a lot recently with the news of new Oldboy and Akira movies. People cry "It'll never surpass the original movie!"

First of all, it's not out yet. Shut up.

Secondly, both of those movies were based off of a manga, so they're not even original themselves.

The same goes for the new Scarface movie in the works. The Al Pacino one was a damn remake, too. And even the previous one was based off of a book, I believe.

Anyway, any time there's news of a remake, people are quick to champion the "original" as a masterpiece. Why don't many people know, or care, that most "classics" were based off of books to begin with?

P.S. I want to hurt people who are calling the new Spider-Man movie "a remake of the original."

 

[Marter]

Because the real original faded into obscurity for a reason. At least, that's what I'd assume. The first Scarface isn't recognized by many people as the first Scarface because the Pacino version was liked a far lot more. If the first was loved and was really good, people would probably recognize it. But since the Pacino version is considered just so much better, that's what the general populous will take note of, and those not paying much attention to film history will overlook the actual first one.

Scarface is probably a bad example, as it was critically acclaimed and whatnot, but I hope you get my point.

 

[GamerKT]

But it makes people look ignorant sometimes. I think you should at least find out if something is indeed original before you call it that.

On a related note, too many times have I looked at a movie's Wikipedia page to see "based on the novel of the same name." That kind of annoys me. Too many movies are based off of other things.

 

[GamerKT]

They were obviously good enough for someone to make a movie of.

"Butthurt" makes no sense. I'm not gay. I'm not getting fucked in the ass. I'm lying on a bed. My buttocks are fine. If you're not gonna add anything significant, use better insults, please.

 

[Swifteye]

You make it sound like ignorance in and of itself is a horrible crime to commit. The reality is that ignorance is just not knowing something. You'd be surprised just how easy it is to not know something when you were given no information from any source. before the Internet there was very few ways of clarifying information. Take the lemmings for example. People thought lemmings commuting suicide because the only information they received was wrong. I remember when I first found out that who framed roger rabbit was actually a book before it was a movie. I'm genuinely sure that most people don't know that (unless you visit cracked.com)

You're ignorant too. And so am I. We'll always be uninformed to some extent so you shouldn't get too hung up on people not knowing what you think is common knowledge.

 

[ChildofGallifrey]

Clegane]
Because people aren't old enough to remember the originals? And also probably because those originals were shit.

A lot of people today might not remember Akira, but Oldboy is barely 8 years old.

Have you ever seen Oldboy? Cos I've never heard anyone call it 'shit' before. Just to be clear, I don't mean that in an insulting, self-aware way, it's a legitimate question. Literally everybody I know that's seen it thinks it's one of the most gripping, well made movies they've ever seen (as well as having one of the most fucked up endings I can remember).

On a related note, too many times have I looked at a movie's Wikipedia page to see "based on the novel of the same name." That kind of annoys me. Too many movies are based off of other things.

"There is nothing original under the sun."

Creativity and originality don't sell as well as adaptations. Just look at the sales of things like Psychonauts or Beyond Good & Evil. People want what's safe and familiar. It's not a great state for things to be in, but it's not all bad. Many, many great products have come from adaptations.

I think most of us would agree that the recent Marvel movies have all been pretty good, right? Last years Best Picture The King's Speech (which I personally did not care for) was based on a book which, in turn, was based on real events. The Godfather and The Shawshank Redemption, widely considered two of the best movies ever made, are based on books. My favorite film of all time, Fight Club is based on a book.

Sure, there are mediocre to bad adaptations (I shouldn't have to mention the Twilight series here), but many of them are very well made works.

 

[Grabbin Keelz]

I've never heard of either of those movies.

I think that people most enjoy the thing that got them into watever interests it got them in. In a lot of the people I subscribe on Youtube, of all the movies they've made my favs are usually still the ones I watched when I first subscribed to them. It just feels better when it's fresh and exciting, that's not to say of course that it can't get better.

 

[GamerKT]

Clegane]
Because people aren't old enough to remember the originals? And also probably because those originals were shit.

A lot of people today might not remember Akira, but Oldboy is barely 8 years old.

Have you ever seen Oldboy? Cos I've never heard anyone call it 'shit' before. Just to be clear, I don't mean that in an insulting, self-aware way, it's a legitimate question. Literally everybody I know that's seen it thinks it's one of the most gripping, well made movies they've ever seen (as well as having one of the most fucked up endings I can remember).

On a related note, too many times have I looked at a movie's Wikipedia page to see "based on the novel of the same name." That kind of annoys me. Too many movies are based off of other things.

"There is nothing original under the sun."

Creativity and originality don't sell as well as adaptations. Just look at the sales of things like Psychonauts or Beyond Good & Evil. People want what's safe and familiar. It's not a great state for things to be in, but it's not all bad. Many, many great products have come from adaptations.

I think most of us would agree that the recent Marvel movies have all been pretty good, right? Last years Best Picture The King's Speech (which I personally did not care for) was based on a book which, in turn, was based on real events. The Godfather and The Shawshank Redemption, widely considered two of the best movies ever made, are based on books. My favorite film of all time, Fight Club is based on a book.

Sure, there are mediocre to bad adaptations (I shouldn't have to mention the Twilight series here), but many of them are very well made works.

I understand why adaptations can be awesome, but I'm just wondering why people speak about the first adaptation as if it were the source material. A quick online check would help. It makes them seem ignorant and usually gets an "ugh" from fans of the source material.

 

[GamerKT]

Double post.

 

[^=ash=^]

This has come up a lot recently with the news of new Oldboy and Akira movies. People cry "It'll never surpass the original movie!"

First of all, it's not out yet. Shut up.

Secondly, both of those movies were based off of a manga, so they're not even original themselves.

The same goes for the new Scarface movie in the works. The Al Pacino one was a damn remake, too. And even the previous one was based off of a book, I believe.

Anyway, any time there's news of a remake, people are quick to champion the "original" as a masterpiece. Why don't many people know, or care, that most "classics" were based off of books to begin with?

P.S. I want to hurt people who are calling the new Spider-Man movie "a remake of the original."

When people say 'the original movie' it more than likely means the 1st movie, not the original idea for a story that is this movie.

Secondly, at least the way of thinking it will suck knocks down the hype, then it may totally knock ones socks off.

 

[GamerKT]

This has come up a lot recently with the news of new Oldboy and Akira movies. People cry "It'll never surpass the original movie!"

First of all, it's not out yet. Shut up.

Secondly, both of those movies were based off of a manga, so they're not even original themselves.

The same goes for the new Scarface movie in the works. The Al Pacino one was a damn remake, too. And even the previous one was based off of a book, I believe.

Anyway, any time there's news of a remake, people are quick to champion the "original" as a masterpiece. Why don't many people know, or care, that most "classics" were based off of books to begin with?

P.S. I want to hurt people who are calling the new Spider-Man movie "a remake of the original."

When people say 'the original movie' it more than likely means the 1st movie, not the original idea for a story that is this movie.

Secondly, at least the way of thinking it will suck knocks down the hype, then it may totally knock ones socks off.

I'm totally okay if they call it that, but they usually don't. They just call it "the original."

 

[Alphonse_Lamperouge]

They were obviously good enough for someone to make a movie of.

"Butthurt" makes no sense. I'm not gay. I'm not getting fucked in the ass. I'm lying on a bed. My buttocks are fine. If you're not gonna add anything significant, use better insults, please.

sounds like someone is in butthurt denial...

OT - im one of those annoying people that always have to say ''yeah, it was good...but the book was better'' (where applicable, il concede that the LOTR movies where amazing). i don't apologize for this though. its not my fault that my mind is far superior to anything any film maker has ever or will ever create. it is also not my fault if you are stupid and cant read/lack imagination.

 

[ultrachicken]

This is an extremely petty thing to get so pissed about. If people haven't heard of the truly original movie/book/game, how would they know it existed? Should everyone look up every movie they like to make sure if it is or isn't a remake just so that you don't get pissy about their terminology?

 

[Vault101]

This has come up a lot recently with the news of new Oldboy and Akira movies. People cry "It'll never surpass the original movie!"

First of all, it's not out yet. Shut up.

Secondly, both of those movies were based off of a manga, so they're not even original themselves.

The same goes for the new Scarface movie in the works. The Al Pacino one was a damn remake, too. And even the previous one was based off of a book, I believe.

Anyway, any time there's news of a remake, people are quick to champion the "original" as a masterpiece. Why don't many people know, or care, that most "classics" were based off of books to begin with?

P.S. I want to hurt people who are calling the new Spider-Man movie "a remake of the original."

experience, this is hollywood, there is a higher probability its going to be crap, sure we can be surprised, BUT its more likey to be bad

that said I fight all the whing over things annoying, thats the internet for you

 

[ChildofGallifrey]

Clegane]
Because people aren't old enough to remember the originals? And also probably because those originals were shit.

A lot of people today might not remember Akira, but Oldboy is barely 8 years old.

Have you ever seen Oldboy? Cos I've never heard anyone call it 'shit' before. Just to be clear, I don't mean that in an insulting, self-aware way, it's a legitimate question. Literally everybody I know that's seen it thinks it's one of the most gripping, well made movies they've ever seen (as well as having one of the most fucked up endings I can remember).

On a related note, too many times have I looked at a movie's Wikipedia page to see "based on the novel of the same name." That kind of annoys me. Too many movies are based off of other things.

"There is nothing original under the sun."

Creativity and originality don't sell as well as adaptations. Just look at the sales of things like Psychonauts or Beyond Good & Evil. People want what's safe and familiar. It's not a great state for things to be in, but it's not all bad. Many, many great products have come from adaptations.

I think most of us would agree that the recent Marvel movies have all been pretty good, right? Last years Best Picture The King's Speech (which I personally did not care for) was based on a book which, in turn, was based on real events. The Godfather and The Shawshank Redemption, widely considered two of the best movies ever made, are based on books. My favorite film of all time, Fight Club is based on a book.

Sure, there are mediocre to bad adaptations (I shouldn't have to mention the Twilight series here), but many of them are very well made works.

I know that adaptations can be great. I'm just wondering why people think the first adaptation is the source material. A quick online search would confirm otherwise. It just makes them seem ignorant and elicits an "ugh" from fans of the source.

But not every person feels the need to Google every movie they watch. If it isn't advertised as "BASED OF THE BESTSELLING NOVEL!!!" most people couldn't care less, simply because it's just a timesink to them. When (if) it's pointed out to them, most people would probably just shrug and say "W'ever".

Two excellent movies I recently watched, Never Let Me Go and Atonement, are both based off of books, but I never would have known that if I didn't have IMDb on my quick access bar thingy (coupled with a compulsive need to research every movie I watch, along with the actors and crew in it).

Ignorance is not a bad thing. If someone were to make crazy claims that can be disproved by a quick Google search, however, then yes, they are worthy of your undying ire (like if someone were to claim Pacino's Scarface was original, then deny it when you tell them that a version was made 60 years before it, then they have earned a special place in Moron Hell).

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

This has come up a lot recently with the news of new Oldboy and Akira movies. People cry "It'll never surpass the original movie!"

both of those movies were based off of a manga, so they're not even original themselves.

Key phrase there is "original movie". Nowhere in that sentence is it implying that the movie was the original overall, just the original in that medium.

P.S. I want to hurt people who are calling the new Spider-Man movie "a remake of the original."

Same thing here.

 

[uchytjes]

nothing in the world is truly "original." all that matters is who did it the best.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

They were obviously good enough for someone to make a movie of.

"Butthurt" makes no sense. I'm not gay. I'm not getting fucked in the ass. I'm lying on a bed. My buttocks are fine. If you're not gonna add anything significant, use better insults, please.

You are one odd guy! Butthurt is a figure of speech... It refers to the feeling after being ass-raped, not being gay... You just take everything too literally! It wasnt even a direct insult, it was an observation that people go on the internet, such as yourself, and make big deals over the most petty things. And you can't berate him for use of insults, when you talk like a 13 year old kid using emergency banter, and just screaming 'First of all, it's not out yet. Shut up.' because you cannot think of anything more constructive to say!

So what if there was a book before a movie, if someone remakes a movie based on a book it is a remake of the original movie, not the book! And who cares if there was a shitty low-budget unheard of movie before a popular one, the popular one is going to take the credit!

And to answer your question, why do people refer to the popular remakes as originals? Probably because they didn't even know there was an original! Nobody has the time or effort to research all possible similar peices of media to the one they are refering to, just to make sure they arn't mislabling it! They just label it the way it is labeled in popular culture! If I hear 'Original Scarface' I, like nearly everyone else, will think Al Pachino, 'Say hello to my little friend...'

 

[GamerKT]

This has come up a lot recently with the news of new Oldboy and Akira movies. People cry "It'll never surpass the original movie!"

both of those movies were based off of a manga, so they're not even original themselves.

Key phrase there is "original movie". Nowhere in that sentence is it implying that the movie was the original overall, just the original in that medium.

P.S. I want to hurt people who are calling the new Spider-Man movie "a remake of the original."

Same thing here.

For the latter part, it's not the same thing. The people who think that the 2002 movie was the origin of the Spider-Man character, unaware that he's near-50 years old, are not cool, man.