MEDIA
REINCARNATED MOVIES AND MUSIC Why do we still love seeing the same things?
WORDS KATRINA TRISH C. ISIDERIO PHOTO FROM DISNEY.GO.COM
Was it for the sake of reminiscing a beautiful story, or because remaking a famous movie is a fast and easy way to earn big bucks?
Y
our comically sarcastic friend, after looking at a poster announcing the upcoming 3D re-release of Finding Nemo, turns to you and asks, “Is Nemo lost again?” And you, being a patient person, would reply, “They’re showing it again in 3D, which would be very nice.” What would keep you wondering though, is the reason why showing it again in 3D would be nice. The story’s still the same, and you have already seen it before; the only difference is that it will be released with a threedimensional twist and you will get to wear cool-looking shades while watching it. After thinking it through, you realize that it would be nice, great even, to watch this movie again mainly because you want to see Nemo again. And not only Nemo, but Marlin, Dory, Bruce the Shark and all the other sea critters that Pixar had creatively simulated. But despite the way they react to its re-release, there remains the other side of the story: why was this movie revived? Was it for the sake of reminiscing a beautiful story or because remaking a famous movie is a fast and easy way to earn big bucks? Music and movies are designed to solicit a certain response from their audience. According to Jon Reiss, a filmmaker and strategist, to “engage the audience and cause them to remember you” is one of the most important goals one can achieve in the media industry. Price Jaccobi, a producer of indie films,
53
THESPECTRUM January 2013
says, “By patronizing these movie remakes, audiences are telling us that they want things to be familiar and at the same time, new. They know that the story will be similar, but different in a way that should be entertaining.” People are beguiled by these revived movies and covered songs because it is in the nature of human beings to remember. People give attention to these Lazarus-like media because they want to know if what they have seen in the original film or song is still seen in the remakes. Yes, there are changes but something still stays the same and they tune in to know if it is still there. This is a point which filmmakers and recording artists put to mind because not only does it affect their theatrical impact, it also affects their industry’s business portion. According to the Copyright Act of 1909, a recording artist has the right
to record a version of someone else’s tune, whether of music alone or of music and lyrics. In cases like this, negotiations are held between the interpreting artist and the copyright holder and eventually, under a mechanical license, the interpreting artist will have to pay standard royalties to the copyright holder. It is because of this that most are led to think that songs are revived for profit. Lawyers for cover artists would usually encourage their clients to cover songs because people tend to be strongly drawn to a song when it is presented in a new yet familiar way. The more people are drawn, the more albums are sold. Thus, bands like New Found Glory and Boyce Avenue have released numerous song covers and singers like Michael Buble, Avril Lavigne, and many others dabble on the art of remaking songs. The beloved Muppets have also adapted this when they released their ambiguously named album, The Green Album, featuring their famous songs covered by various artists such as Amy Lee of Evanescence and Hayley Williams of Paramore. This art was taken a step higher when the phenomenal television series Glee graced televisions and featured covered songs throughout their seasons. Original songs were revived, remade and some were even mashed up, and all of them performed in a way that kept the audience listening. With all these things in mind, one must again go back to the question that burns through the film and music remaking franchise: to reminisce or for money? The Dark Knight Rises has just recently dominated cinemas worldwide and its controversial release became even more controversial when Marvel and DC fans clashed to see whether Gotham’s caped crusader could thwart The Avengers’ box office
earnings of $207 million (sadly no, it didn’t). After so many Batman movies, one would most likely assume that these film studios have probably ran out of creative juices and stuck to remaking The Dark Knight franchise to earn money. The same judgment can be assumed with the release of The Amazing Spider-Man; Spidey’s franchise has already popularized itself to the audience, why the need for the retroactive continuity? Producer Gavin Polone explains that remaking a movie implicitly boosts its value, which then in turn helps boost the studio’s total worth. But those involved with these movies’ cinematography say otherwise. Jeff Alexander, author of A TV Guide to Life, says, “It’s easy to complain about studios continually trying to bring in more money from stories that have already been told... It’s sometimes worth coming back to a story and telling it in a way that it couldn’t have or wouldn’t have been told in the time of the original.” It was to indulge the people to enjoy themselves with a character they loved and to thrill them again with the things that he did. In addition to that, Price Jaccobi also explains that, “People flock to see the remakes because they enjoy being with the characters and in the world. Remakes are not just indications that Hollywood is greedy, it tells you something about the audience.” Every movie that was produced and every song that was recorded must have meant something more to its audience. Being two of the most influential mass mediums, movies and music may have affected people more than common words and actions could. What is better than experiencing something once? Experiencing it again. That is what covered songs and remade movies are designed for: to make people remember. Money just comes.