Original films

[David Sweetman]

But the viewer of Van Sant's Psycho engaged in a decidedly different experience than the viewer of Hitchcock's Psycho. A person can like the one and dislike the other; the two are not the same, as you have stated. Thus, the remake falls well within the boundaries of the theory.

 

The main flaw with my theory is that it kind of streches the definition of "original," which means a different thing in its common colloquial state than how I use it.

 

For example, if someone like Tarantino rips off Sergio Leone stylistically, you and I would say it is unoriginal. But my theory would call it original, because we have not seen that exact mix of time and matter before.

[maxmcadams94]

Best Original Films:

 

Blue Velvet and Muholland Drive

American Psycho

Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind

The Nightmare Before Christmas

Man Bites Dog.

 

The list could go on and on. Why do these films hold any sort of greatness. They were made 1 to 2 years, the ago: the last time anything relatively compelling original and or classic was released. There are very few exceptions to this rule.

[jijhh]

Best Original Films:

 

Blue Velvet and Muholland Drive

American Psycho

Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind

The Nightmare Before Christmas

Man Bites Dog.

 

The list could go on and on. Why do these films hold any sort of greatness. They were made 1 to 2 years, the ago: the last time anything relatively compelling original and or classic was released. There are very few exceptions to this rule.

 

American Psycho was adapted from a Bret Easton Ellis novel.

[James Steven Beverly]

But the viewer of Van Sant's Psycho engaged in a decidedly different experience than the viewer of Hitchcock's Psycho. A person can like the one and dislike the other; the two are not the same, as you have stated. Thus, the remake falls well within the boundaries of the theory.

 

The main flaw with my theory is that it kind of streches the definition of "original," which means a different thing in its common colloquial state than how I use it.

 

For example, if someone like Tarantino rips off Sergio Leone stylistically, you and I would say it is unoriginal. But my theory would call it original, because we have not seen that exact mix of time and matter before.

 

You may have something here. But when does inspiration BECOME rip off. Only in the hands of a hack. In the hands of a master like Tarantino, borrowed elements from Leone when combined with other elements, some of which, also borrowed form Melvan Van Peeples, Gordon Parks, Akira Kurosawa and the films of Bruce Lee, then melded with Tarantino's own unique plotlines and forged in his vision produces an alloy. Like zinc and copper melded together produce brass, and copper and tin produce bronze, borrowed elements, when combined properly, are forged into something original, that is completely different from the parent elements. They cease to be mere reproductions of someone else's work and instead become building blocks or tools the artist uses to sculpt his work into a unique expirence for an audience. Most artist say they are inspired by some or many that came before them. After seeing Even Cowgirls get the Blues, none can accuse Van Sant of beng unoriginal, so though Van Sant's version of Psycho is nearly a shot by shot reproduction of Hitchcock's, it's unique style makes it original, which leads me back to my original (forgive the pun) hypothosys- that there are no original stories, only original visions and unique perspectives.

Edited February 15, 2006 by Capt.Video