Jump to content

Talk:The Beguiled (2017 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There seems to be a misunderstanding by some Wiki users. This is a remake

[edit]

Not only does it use the same title of the original film (which was not the original title of the novel) as well as visual concept, virtually identical storyline and character names, etc, but if we had to apply the same standard to every single remake known in cinema, most of them would not abide by the definition, from Gus Van Sant's Psycho to 2012 Total Recall. The list could go on forever.

On the other hand, example of a film that could, or could not, be considered a remake: Coppola's Dracula as opposed to Tod Browning.

And finally, an example of a film that is NOT a remake: Apocalypse Now with respect to the 1958 CBS Playhouse 90 episode with Roddy McDowall, although both are based on a Conrad novel.

Anyone with a 3-digit IQ understands the difference.

If the word "remake" is artistically less dignifying to Ms Coppola and the marketing team behind that film, that's not my fault. Not that it should: there are remakes (e.g. Cape Fear, Ben Hur) that have garnered more critical praise than the original films. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to get off your high horse. Your combative and abusive attitude is not the least bit helpful. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 22:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here, for the hard of hearing:

[edit]

[21] [22]

I'm sure you'll have very powerful arguments to debunk folks at Variety, Entertainment Weekly and Ms Coppola herself who didn't object to those headlines. See if you can do that without disrupting. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't dispute that it's a remake (I don't know anything about the argument alluded to by Walter Sobchak0 over whether it's a remake or not), but the wording in the intro should be changed regardless. It currently says "The Beguiled is...based on the novel...hence a remake of the 1971 film of the same name...". The word "hence" indicates that because both films are adaptations of the same book, the later film is a remake. That's not the reason something is considered a remake. I suggest it should read "The Beguiled is...based on the novel The Beguiled...and is a remake of the 1971 film of the same name...". Sadiemonster (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, in fact I thought about it during the above discussion. I've changed it as per your suggestion. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not a remake. We have two different films based on the same source material. Likewise, The Jackal is based on the original novel, it is not a remake of the original film. They are separate films based on the same source material.
Your choice of wording, "The Beguiled is...based on the novel...hence a remake," defies logic. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 20:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the script author of the 1971 film is not credited by the new film it is not a remake. Betty Logan (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking about older edits that have now been changed. And you're very prone to name calling (high horse, disruptive, combative) when in fact you've proven yourself unable to argue any of my points. You obviously lack the intellect and the maturity to engage in constructive discourse. Variety [23] and the above Entertainment Weekly article call this a remake, the wiki article itself says so a few paragraphs below and in the categories section (which you have somehow overlooked while hooked in your neurotic and obviously unequal little war of wits that you're trying to engage me in). People like you are to the Wikipedia what the aids virus is to the human immune system. Know your place, and leave this for the grown ups. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
says who? You? Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from WT:FILM back here):

I think some clarifications are in order

[edit]

First of all, I agree I posted a rant about the lack of imagination in Hollywood. It was a mistake and it was removed right away, and I definitely made no attempt to recover it (in fact I'm glad it was removed so fast).

That being said, TheOldJacobite's later comments (in the article talk page, and even here) made little no mention of my new arguments backing my edits of the article page (which were not, and are not, a mistake). He simply kept his focus on my alleged disruptive behavior based on a) a deleted rant that practically nobody read, and b) my insistence on the new edits.

People who are easily disrupted and offended but lose focus on what is really important, nine times out of ten, are people who are not capable of engaging in a rational debate, and are not a constructive presence in said debate. I may have been rough at the edges in some of my comments (although I stand by each one of them), and perhaps it is time to look for a less medical analogy to explain the phenomenon, but I'm certain that if an intelligent resolution comes to this conflict, it will not come from TheOldJacobite. Just check out what he wrote to me so far, in my talk page and in the article talk page. Paradoxically it was he who resorted to ad hominem from the very beginning (last time I checked, when you call someone "combative" or "disruptive" with no provocation on their behalf, just because they don't abide by some authority you feel entitled to, you're not exactly calling them handsome).

So everyone else please stop mentioning of my deleted rant yesterday afternoon, because it no longer has any argumentative value. Now for the real arguments. User Betty Logan says "The terminology is being thrown around loosely. We don't call the umpteenth Hamlet adaptation a "remake", it's an adaptation. The new Beguiled film is probably being referred to as a "remake" simply because it's more famous as a film. There is no evidence as far as I can see that it is in fact a remake—in the sense that it reuses the creative elements of 1971 film—and not in fact just another adaptation of the same novel." Precisely that's why I gave those examples in the article talk page for the film (which OldJacobite obviously glossed over, making it look like I was hurling the R word at every film out there). Tod Browning's Dracula and Coppola's Dracula are based in the same novel and owe each other practically nothing. The different literal adaptations of "Heart of Darkness" are owed nothing by "Apocalypse Now". Being based on the same novel or play doesn't make them remakes of each other. All of us (most of us anyway) can see the difference.

But answering Betty Logan's points, there IS evidence so far in favor of a remake hypothesis for this film. First of all, the title is the same even though it is not the original title of the novel. Second of all, Betty Logan must be aware of the fact that all the media sources available on the internet (and user Jayron32 has listed some of them, Rolling Stone, Variety, Slate, Indiewire, ... and a more thorough google search provides loads of them) are in direct contact with the distributing companies and the studios, who have full control of what goes out there concerning a film that hasn't been released. When the film is released some control will be lost (hence negative reviews by relatively independent media) but before that, it's the film producers and marketing team using the media as a soundboard, pure and simple. And if all those media state that Ms Coppola was intending to film a remake of the 1971 movie, or a film based on said movie, or any of the other expressions to the same effect, it means she wanted to remake the film at least as much as she wanted to "adapt" the novel.

There are newer adaptations, and there are remakes. "Reliable" (read: well-connected) media say this is a remake, which means the team behind The Beguiled (2017) are OK with this denomination. "Reliable" media never said Oculus was a partial remake of 1980's "The Boogeyman" or that it shared any plot similarities with it, which means the people behind the 2014 film did NOT want to acknowledge those similarities, and could afford not to because the 1980 film was obscure and mostly forgotten. The difference is easy to recognize.

I hope it's a bit clearer now. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr. GRAPPLE X 10:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said your attitude was combative, not you; you compared me to the AIDS virus, said repeatedly that all of this was too intelligent for me to understand, and said I should leave this to the adults. If you don't see the difference, I don't know what else to say. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't know what else to say." I can think of something for you to say, for the sake of your own credibility as an editor. Why don't you address the arguments in my preceding paragraphs, the ones not referring to you? Your hurt feelings and your very existence have now been acknowledged by a wider audience, I think you can go on and address the important issues now. This discussion is about whether or not The Beguiled is a remake, and why. It is not about you. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I think it's a little reaching to say the new outlets are always in direct contact with a studio or distribution company, and even news outlets have their own interpretation of what exactly things means. (I was just writing about how a voice actress stating she already recorded her lines for a reprisal if her role was reported as she was returning in the currently airing season, which turned out not true.) Hell, watch anything that goes on about the Star Wars films in production, and how every other reliable source called the 2020 Anthology film a Boba Fett solo for years, when that's just was never stated by Lucasfilm and now is proven untrue. I bring them up as examples of even if they are reliable sources, they do still need to be taken with discretion—if they are contradicted by other sources.
Generally, since this is a place for clarification, and I see Betty has warned you already, I suggest reading the civility policy and the guideline on personal attacks as to why your behavior is noted. And to that point, the entire front half of your third paragraph feels to me to be toeing a line, especially after prior warning.
Thirdly, to Betty's point that it appears they may be crediting the book itself, it is possible to do a version of what Millahnna suggested? Since it credits the novel, state that it is an adaptation, and then mention that the novel was previously adapted into a film with the same name as this film? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 12:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I almost forgot. FWIW, EW, Slate, ScreenRant call it an adaptation of the novel itself, referring to the 1971 version as a previous adaption. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 13:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK sounds sensible, how about this, "...based on the novel The Beguiled (originally published as A Painted Devil) by Thomas P. Cullinan, which had been previously adapted into a 1971 film of the same name directed by Don Siegel and starring Clint Eastwood. It stars Colin Farrell, Nicole Kidman and Kirsten Dunst (in roles played in the earlier film by Eastwood, Geraldine Page and Elizabeth Hartman, respectively), as well as Elle Fanning." We remove all references to the word "remake" in the first paragraph, and in the "Production" section we leave the first sentence as it is: "In March 2016, it was announced Sofia Coppola would write and direct the film, based upon the novel and 1971 film of the same name, ...". We let the intelligent reader decide whether or not this is a remake (eppur si muove...), especially after the film comes out, without pressing them too much or hurting anybody else's feelings. Does that sound reasonable?
My intuition, knowing the mechanics of Hollywood and its recent evolution, tells me that this will be a recurring discussion anyway, especially after more stills and trailers come out--and certainly after the film premieres and people get to compare it with the original. So certain editors will find themselves holding back the tide, and will need to eventually give up. In a nutshell: the word "remake" will appear in this article sooner than later anyway. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, naming the stars and director of the 1971 film is unnecessary, it's found at the linked article. And, secondly, the statement "based upon the novel and 1971 film of the same name" could imply it is based on them both at the same time, which may or may not be true. And, it also states a relationship between the 2017 film and the 1971 film, in which the latter is a source. I think that sentence is contributing to the discussion we're having. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 13:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK how about this: for the first paragraph, "...based on the novel A Painted Devil by Thomas P. Cullinan, which had been previously adapted into a 1971 film of the same name starring Clint Eastwood. It stars Colin Farrell, Nicole Kidman and Kirsten Dunst, as well as Elle Fanning."
And in the Production section, "In March 2016, it was announced Sofia Coppola would write and direct the film, based upon the novel and referred to in several media as either a "remake" [1][2][3] [4][5] or a "new take on" [6] the 1971 film of the same name, ..."
Quite honestly, I can't believe we're even discussing this... Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, everyone, including Betty, Walter, and everyone else. Wikipedia articles should NOT written by us interpreting what we think they should say. Wikipedia articles are written by following the sources. WP:V says "if reliable sources say it, we say it too". WP:NOR says "We don't provide our own analysis or interpretations." It doesn't matter how well people can argue that the movie shouldn't be considered a remake. Relying on your own rhetorical skill is NOT how things are proven at Wikipedia. WP:V and WP:NOR actually say we're not allowed to do that, and instead should rely on reliable source materials. Source material does not automatically become unreliable because you reached a different conclusion independently of the sources. Simply put, where there is a dispute, dispassionately report what the source materials report. That is all. I don't really care whether it is or it isn't. Me deciding that would be relying on my own original research. I only care "what do source materials say." --Jayron32 14:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wise words. Now how do we implement them here? If a plethora of "reliable" sources say this is a remake, is it not sound to say so, even if we don't call it a remake ourselves (which we should, but for the sake of consensus are too cautious to do)? Why do I feel I'm locked in a stalemate with people whose sole, thinly veiled aim is to have a disproportionately small reference made to the original film, not only against common sense but also against the opinion of all major mainstream media? Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I think the issue is partly there are sources reporting its a straight adaptation, and there's a floating around idea that some sources directly contradict what the film itself says, but that's a little tenuous. And I think it should be a discussion of how to handle contradicting RSes. My personal suggestion would be "In March 2016, it was announced Sofia Coppola would write and direct the film.[Sources] It has been referred to as an adaptation of the novel,[Sources] and other outlets have referred to it as a remake of the 1971 film of the same name.[Sources]" I think that would cover both? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems better. How about this: "In March 2016, it was announced Sofia Coppola would write and direct the film, which has been referred to in several media as an adaptation of the novel [7] as well as either a remake [8][9][10][11][12] or a "new take on" [13] the 1971 film of the same name, ..." Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Or rather this: "In March 2016, it was announced Sofia Coppola would write and direct the film, which has been referred to in several media as an adaptation of the novel [14] as well as a remake [15][16][17][18][19][20] of the 1971 film of the same name, ..."Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree that Wikipedia should propagate the misuse of English just because a plethora of sources do it. There are two basic facts here worth noting: i) the book is credited as the source material for the film; ii) the book has been adapted into a film once before. You can easily incorporate that into a sensible opening paragraph: "The Beguiled is an upcoming American drama film written and directed by Sofia Coppola, based on the novel The Beguiled (originally published as A Painted Devil) by Thomas P. Cullinan." ... "The novel was previously adapted into a film in 1971". That is a clear and factually accurate description of the facts as presented by those sources calling it a "remake". Calling it a "remake" doesn't actually add anything factual on top of that, but does potentially misstate a connection the new film and the earlier film. I think we all know that the reason it is being called a "remake" because it is re-telling the same basic story, but it's easy enough to present all the relevant facts without resorting to misnomers. Betty Logan (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The aforementioned plethora of sources has a tighter connection to the people behind this film than most or all of us writing here. If they say it's a remake and nobody in American Zoetrope contradicts them, a first guess is that they're at least partially OK with that nomenclature. Also you need to revise your notions of what "misuse of English" means; the film was made in 1971, became relatively famous and now it's being REMADE in 2017. The production design is virtually identical (only with better technology I guess), the role distribution and plotline are identical and the title is identical although it wasn't the title of the original novel. Downloads of the 1971 film will be at least as prolific as Amazon sales of the novel (probably 10 times more), because that's what it is, it's a REMAKE of the 1971 film as much as an adaptation of the novel.
When the original film is better-known than the novel it was based on, the newer film will never be able to avoid being dubbed a "remake" (or as much a remake as it is an adaptation of the earlier work) and none of your best efforts will do anything to stop that. Cape Fear (1962) became more famous than the novel it was based on, hence the 1991 film was called a REMAKE. Total Recall became more famous than the short story it was based on, hence the 2012 film was called a REMAKE. The Fly (1958) became more famous than the short story it was based on, so the 1986 film was called a REMAKE. John Wayne's True Grit became more famous than the Charles Portis novel, so the Jeff Bridges remake was called just that, a REMAKE. The Thing (1982), on the other hand, was not called a remake because the John W. Campbell short story was relatively famous and the Hawks/Nyby version was only loosely based on it. Capice?
There seems to be a minority of users in Wikipedia whose only aim is to downplay the role of the 1971 film as much as possible; if it were up to them,, it wouldn't be mentioned at all. When you have to argue with people about things that are obvious, it means something's wrong... Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is what Sofia Coppola had to say on the subject just last month:

Coppola said the movie was not a remake of Don Siegel’s 1971 drama of the same name with Clint Eastwood ... “There was a movie of it, but I went back to the same book and told the story from the female point of view. I just thought it was a really intriguing premise: It’s a group of women of different ages, and it really interested me doing the story of the women left behind during the Civil War, and what it was like for them at the time,” she said, adding she hopes to get the film finished in time for the Cannes Film Festival in May. “I just wanted to take a little break from my editing to get to see this.”[21]

So the director denies it is a remake and only the book is credited and not the screenplay for the 1971 film. The term "remake" is incorrectly applied to new adaptations all the time. Many of the publications that are using the term—about a film they haven't even seen—probably don't even know that the original film was based on a book. Heck, it's not even clear if Coppola has even seen the original! Betty Logan (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you cannot afford to be so naïve. For all Ms Coppola would be willing to tell us directly (not through "reliable" media), the 1971 version never even existed. A director will NEVER admit publicly, in their own words, that their film is primarily or uniquely a remake, unless there is no other choice left to them, e.g. if there was no original piece of literature behind the first film (as in 1976's King Kong versus 1933's). Also Ms Coppola's comments are off the mark here; the original film was also being told from a primarily feminine perspective.
You may lose yourself in a semantic maelstrom, you can draw the longest circumlocution around nowhere, you can place as many closed doors as you want on an open field, but at the end of the day this is a remake. You want to know what makes this a remake? Because when it comes out, every time Colin Farrell appears, people will be seeing Clint Eastwood's face (and this is definitely not coming from an Eastwood fan). Same way people also saw Arnold Schwarzenegger's face every time Farrell appeared in 2012's Total Recall, with the obvious effect this had on reviews and box office. People might not remember who Geraldine Page was, who Elizabeth Hartman was or who Jo Ann Harris was, but people do know who Clint Eastwood was and the title of the original film is the same.
The only difference, and I'm willing to concede that, is that the original film was a pre-Dogville of sorts, a misanthropic manifesto (hence an intelligent film) and Ms Coppola's film, to put it politely, won't be. The original film didn't give a rat's ass about gender politics and focused on a bleak view of mankind and specifically a study on hypocrisy, and I'm pretty sure (and you'll probably agree with me) that this level of complexity is beyond everything Ms Coppola has done thus far. But everything I said in the previous paragraph still prevails, no matter what she says in interviews. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 10:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so instead of going with what the director and formal credits of the new film say we should submit to publications that have not even seen the new film? You are basically accusing Coppola of a) lying and b) plagiarism. What prevails are the facts: i) the book is credited as the source material; ii) the book was previously adapted into a film; iii) Coppola says it is not a remake; iv) publications that have not even seen the film—because it was still being edited as of last month—call it a remake. If everything you claim still "prevails" tell me this: if Coppola insists it is not a remake and the publications that called it a remake had not seen the film, on what basis is it a remake? Betty Logan (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We're obviously going nowhere and this debate has stopped going on a straight line and is now spinning on itself. Let's find some common ground. On one hand, the fact she is quoted as saying this is not a remake makes it hard to include the R word in the article header section (or anywhere else for that matter, until it comes out on cinemas and we have something else to cling to besides Ms Coppola's promises that it is not a remake), but at the same time the 1971 film is relevant enough to be mentioned somewhere visible, if only because this isn't exactly Hamlet or Dracula or Frankenstein and there are few adaptations of it.
So this is what I suggest for the top paragraphs: "...based on the novel A Painted Devil by Thomas P. Cullinan, which had been previously adapted into a 1971 film of the same name starring Clint Eastwood. It stars Colin Farrell, Nicole Kidman and Kirsten Dunst, as well as Elle Fanning." Are you happy with that? Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That (or any variation on that) is ok with me. But you should wait a couple of days for further feedback from other editors before installing it to make sure everyone is happy with it. Betty Logan (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about instead of the paragraph, have something at the beginning of the article that says For the 1971 film article of the same name by Clint Eastwood'"? Vmars22 (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to that, but I doubt it will satisfy Walter because it fails to describe the relationship between the two films. I am happy enough with Walter's compromise version a few lines above and I get the feeling he won't be receptive to further compromises. Betty Logan (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sentence currently in the lede is sufficient. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]
  4. ^ [4]
  5. ^ [5]
  6. ^ [6]
  7. ^ [7]
  8. ^ [8]
  9. ^ [9]
  10. ^ [10]
  11. ^ [11]
  12. ^ [12]
  13. ^ [13]
  14. ^ [14]
  15. ^ [15]
  16. ^ [16]
  17. ^ [17]
  18. ^ [18]
  19. ^ [19]
  20. ^ [20]
  21. ^ http://wwd.com/fashion-news/fashion-scoops/paris-fashion-week-autumn-2017-chanel-show-vips-lily-rose-depp-sofia-coppola-10838235/

Whitewashing

[edit]

Here are a couple of sources that are not only criticism of whitewashing, though the current sources in the article can be mined for in-depth explanations. The two below tackle it differently:

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To add on, the section about this is actually underdeveloped. Reference #23 here lists multiple reliable sources (in addition to The Guardian's reporting of the criticism) that can also be used to further extrapolation of this sub-topic. The first link above is a counterpoint, and the second link is more of a different tack about the presentation of Southern white women. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section has been removed five times now, thrice by Stiff036 and twice under an IP. There has been plenty of coverage about the issue and even Coppola herself has responded to it, so I would like to know why Stiff036 thinks it does not belong in the article. I strongly urge him to discuss it here on the talk page rather than conducting a slow-burn edit war. Betty Logan (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See my talk page here for some background. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another article about it. At this point, there could be a pretty substantial section about this, though the other sections should also be expanded accordingly. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 01:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Beguiled_(2017_film)&oldid=1199766121"