remix culture

[Ne1co]

please add interesting replies

http://vimeo.com/14912890

[skulpture]

Interesting. I knew I had heard the beat from Enigma somewhere.... :)

[vjair]

i enjoyed it.

surprised the mighty amen break didnt get a mention ( isnt it one of , if not the most re-used sample in history?), although i havnt watched the other parts yet ( i shall do though! )

[Ne1co]

here you go
http://vimeo.com/19447662

[werlin]

http://vimeo.com/19469447

exactly why im not particulary keen on old movies :D u get pretty much the same in hi-def

[evomedia]

Part 02 is ok.... entertaining viewing...

Personally, for me it's a bit oversimplified, full of too much about fuzzy logic.

Comparing 2 movies simply because they share a simular camera angle or a simular set of scenes, may hold some insights but also may be nothing more than coincidence. I personally think the curator has spend too much time looking for clips to support his view, some points are valid, but some I think are a little grasping.

Books also have simular genres, but thats not down to copying one another, its about how we reflect society, we have genres like crime, romance, thriller, horror etc not because they are copying other books, but they are about different aspects of human experience. Its a mistake to view that all crime novels or films are somehow the same or just copies, its just they are about crime and criminals.

The story can be different, in fact alot of that is down to how we both understand and tell stories, how we naturally understand pace, what makes a striking composition, how to portray a situation, and whats good practice like a start, middle, and end.

Its often that process itself that introduces similarities, types of rigs dictate how a shot is set up, how a shots need to be lit can dictate camera positions, how lenses are used and the idea of wide shots, close ups, cutaways. Its far too easy to mistake a production solution as being copied from another movie, the movie may have nothing to do with it, it may just be the established way to achieve a type of shot. Basically a film crew have restrictions, alot of scenes will have similar scene simply because that's the only place to house a camera.

Its the type of comments like the one about a object falling into the atmosphere being taken from 2001, are the ones I take issue with... it completely fails to factor in that the shot is a copy of NASA footage, of course you could rightfully state that 2001 was inspired by the work of NASA anyway. But that then isn't about remixing, but recreating how an object reacts in the real world.

If as a director if you need an object falling towards a planet, you would look at nasa footage. Thats what I mean about oversimplified, the argument itself is leading the clip selection.

In many cases yes the film makers take their experiences to shape their movies, they take inspiration even subconsciously from movies they have seen before, and I completely agree that many directors do use favourite films as insipration, many even have said so, tarrantino for one is first to admit he uses his favorite films and even favorite genre, same for Martin Scorsese using the Red Shoes to dictate how he stages shots.

Same for avatar... watch aliens, you'll see a million similarities, but did James Cameron copy his first film? I'd argue that its deeper than copying, its about how he translates his inspiration and personality.

I simply felt that many of the clips make a leap of faith to support the argument more than anything else, and many are just because the storyline is similar, and thats down to scripts as much as anything.

For me the piece too often slips into thinking its the genres leading the films... yes a director can decide 'hey I want to make a crime pic or a heist movie', but if could also think I'd love to tell the story of say the great train robbery, also it would be a heist movie, but its nothing about remixing old ideas, its just about telling a true story.

I simply don't see the link to remixing, maybe he should ask himself why so many directors use similar iconography or stereotypes, rather than make leading assumptions about the source of an idea.

I'm not saying that most ideas are not recycled, but a piece with absolutely zero repetition we would have no point of reference for us to understand, and therefore would make no sense to anyone.

[werlin]

still, he's not that wrong... if it was that much of a stretch he would've said Inception is a The Cell meets Hustle

[PCProject]

I simply felt that many of the clips make a leap of faith to support the argument more than anything else, and many are just because the storyline is similar, and thats down to scripts as much as anything.

*Cough*forbidden planet*Cough*

or put another way Shakespeare in space.
I didnt watch past part one so if the film got a mention which i would be surprised if it didnt then I can only apologise

[evomedia]

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying the piece is all flawed, or it holds no truth, I just question some of comparisons and the clips used to make the points,

It's not that insinuation that some films or scene are directly taken from somewhere else, its that the comparison itself is the wrong one, like the 2001 comparison, it's clearly NASA footage that influences both shots, not one or the other directly,

I know alot of hollywood is about repetition, but I just question if it is particular inciteful to use films like Kill Bill when Tarrantino himself said it was about recreating some of his favorite films and scene from old kung fu movies, or he has said on many occasions he likes making homages, he even says himself he makes no bones about his reuse of favorite scenes from past movies. Simon Pegg and Nick frost are also making homages to old genre movies, Paul is a sci-fi film, Shaun of the Dead is a horror, thats my problem, you'll bound to see simular scenes or iconic moments if the director is by his own admission copying the old films from that genre.

A homage itself is a nod of respect to a veteran filmmaker, so you can't make an homage without similarity, so I fail to buy an argues that all hollywood is about copying, when it tries to prove the points by only using movies that set out to copy elements other movies or genres from their inception, the directors already stated they are homages.

[PCProject]

But don't get me wrong I know alot of hollywood is about reptition

I saw a report that this year that 1 in 5 releases are going to be sequels. Hollywood being described as repetitive is letting them off lightly I feel. Now where is that flogging a dead horse smiley?
Now I am going to have to watch them all to see what you are referencing 2001 on because I may take issue with that also.
I am with you on the homage thing. If that dude is using them for reference then he deserves to be called out on it.

[evomedia]

Hollywood being described as repetitive is letting them off lightly I feel. Now where is that flogging a dead horse smiley?

I don't see the problem with a sequel, Take James Bond, the guy says they are sequals, but actually they are a series of books, each one a crafted piece on its own, then you have films like the lord of the Rings, 3 books, 3 movies...

SO what if it takes 3 films to complete the story, the books were massive, and I;d prefer to have the film feel paced correctly rather than rush a story or ending simply to avoid having to make a sequel. Its hardly telling the story if you tried to only film the first book of LOTR, or indeed tried to fit the complete storyline into a single film.

Same goes for Harry Potter, they are not just sequals for sequals sake, each is its own story and together they make a bigger tale. To only make one if more of an issue as you miss the complexity of the storyline, the progression of the characters, and the build up to the climax...

In books people don't take issue with following the same characters across different novels, or breaking a massive journey into digestible chunks.

The problem only comes from sequels for sequels sake, those purely for money without a decent storyline. I know I'd far rather have had the first 3 starwars movies than just the new hope, but would have happily done without the newer additions.

Thats the thing people like or are fascinated by the characters or storylines and want more. The issue is when they don't deliver, leave people disappointed or it damages the rest of that series.

As VJ's we shouldn't be too hung up on repetition or reuse of culture, but I do struggle accepting poorly constructed arguments

[PCProject]

I have linked you to a list of 50 very bad sequels. Want any more?
Are you aware of the difference between series and sequels?
Bond movies are a series none of them are suffixed with the numeric '2' or '3' or '4' and so on!
Same applies to Harry Potter. I know I am being pedantic about the use of words here but in this instance they make an important distinction

http://www.listal.com/list/very-bad-sequels

[evomedia]

A sequel is a narrative, documental, or other work of literature, film, theatre, or music that continues the story of or expands upon issues presented in some previous work. In the common context of a narrative work of fiction, a sequel portrays events set in the same fictional universe as a previous work, usually chronologically following the events of that work.[1]

In many cases, the sequel continues elements of the original story, often with the same characters and settings. A sequel can lead to a series, in which key elements appear in a number of stories. Although the difference between more than one sequel and a series is somewhat arbitrary, it is clear that some media franchises have enough sequels to become a series, whether originally planned as such or not.

From wiki above,

A sequel or a series, is getting a little pedantic, films that share characters, settings or plot elements.... trying to separate out decent movies by saying they aren't sequels just to prove how bad sequals are ain't fooling me :)

[PCProject]

Thats not what I am saying.
The examples you used ergo Bond and Potter and LOTR were a series of books and by default they are a series of films and not sequels which are more easily identified by the numeric that has been neatly tucked behind the title or in most cases before you pick me up on Pirates of the Carribean:Worlds End for example!

[fatbutcher]

I do think Kirby's thesis is a little flawed, and fuzzy, in that he conflates remixing and influence, and he doesn't seem to have a conclusion.

I think that a sequel is not a remix, necessarily. Arguably a sequel is the next part of a story too long to fit into a single discreet text. James Cameron's 'Aliens' is not a remix, nor a cover version or Ridley Scott's 'Alien'. Ridley Scott's 'Hannibal' is not a remix of Jonathan Demme's 'Silence of the Lambs'. From what hear, 'The Hangover 2' is a do-over using the first film as a template, where each plot point in the original has an equivalent in the second. So is it a remix, or just a lazy cash-in? Well, evidently both. But maybe we can call it an example of the sequel as remix.

But what's Kirby's point? Does he have an argument? Is this a campaign to have Led Zep publically granted an official pardon? It just seems like a nerdy countdown of popular shot-for-shot homages. Which is fine. Perhaps he should have just... y'know, made his point by... y'know... Taking all the visual echoes and... making a remix? :nod: