英语论文网

uch productions may adopt a new title and make some changes to the narrative image (Verevis: 2006: 7), but it is basically the same film being remade, with not even the publicity campaigns hiding this fact (Druxman: 1975: 15). The main objective of these direct remakes is to draw in two types of cinema viewers. Those who have seen and enjoyed the original, and are curious about this new remake, and those who have heard good things about the original so want to view this version as the older is no longer in circulation (Druxman: 1975: 18).

His second category, the disguised remake is a film which is either updated with little change, or completely retitled and then disguised, with the help of a new setting and original characters. (Verevis: 2006: 7). In either case though, the disguised remake doesn’t wish to draw attention to the fact that it’s not an original piece, instead just promoting itself as a normal film. Finally Druxman says there are non-remakes, films retaining the title of a well known story (Druxman: 1975: 15), as well as possibly referring to the name of a well known author, strictly for commercial purposes. Basically all the remake and the original share in common is the title, but the content is extremely different in each case (Verevis: 2006: 7).

A perfect example of Druxman’s non-remake would be The Ring Two (2005) as the film shares the same name as its original (in its American release title at least), but that it pretty much where the similarities end. It is interesting to point out that the film is remade by Hideo Nakata, the director behind the original, clearly placing this remake within Robert Stams category of autocitation, in which a film maker remakes his/her own film (Verevis: 2006: 21). A further relevant example of this is Takashi Shimizu’s American film The Grudge a remake of his earlier Japanese language Ju-on: The Grudge (2003).

In Harvey Roy Greenberg’s article “Raiders of the Lost Text: Remaking as Contested Homage in Always”he expands upon Druxman’s “commercially grounded” (Verevis: 2006: 8) groups and comes up with three categories which instead focus on the directors reasons for remaking a film. His categories center around the example of the romantic war fantasy A Guy Named Joe (1943) and its Steven Spielberg remake, Always (1989). Using this as an example of what Verevis translates as a “acknowledged, transformed remake” (2006: 9), with the film having huge changes made to the characters, location and general story telling.

But still making sure to acknowledge the original, like in the case of Always a small mention is given in the credits. Much like Druxman he also names two other categories in which he feels remakes fall under. The acknowledged, close remake much like Druxman’s direct (1975:15) category, is when a remake completely replicates the original, with little to no change made to its narrative structure (Verevis: 2006: 9), and the unacknowledged, disguised remake is when both minor and major changes are made to the time, settings and characters. But the original version is not referred to and the audience are not informed of there even being one (Verevis: 2006: 9), similar to Druxman’s category of disguised remake.

Thomas M. Leitch gives a much本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。