Good Horror Movie Remakes

Well, I thought that I’d talk about horror movie remakes today – in particular, good horror movie remakes and why some remakes can actually sometimes actually “work” well in dramatic terms. Yes, they are rarely as good as the original films, but – on their own merits – horror remakes can still sometimes be good films.

However, I should point out that this article may contain some mild-moderate SPOILERS for the 1981 and 2013 versions of “The Evil Dead”, the 1998 and 2002 versions of “Ring”/”The Ring”, the 1968 and 1990 versions of “Night Of The Living Dead”, the 1977 and 2018 versions of “Suspiria” and the 1978 and 2007 versions of “Halloween”.

One of the first things that can make a horror movie remake good is when it is made or set in the same country as the original. But there are exceptions to this. Yes, what audiences consider frightening is – to some degree – shaped by culture and this is possibly one reason why, for example, there are “US remakes” of horror films from other countries. And this can actually work under some circumstances – a good example would possibly be Gore Verbinski’s 2002 US-set remake of Hideo Nakata’s 1998 psychological horror film “Ring” (based on the 1991 novel by Koji Suzuki).

I saw the 2002 remake of “Ring” in the cinema when I was a teenager and it absolutely terrified me. Yes, in retrospect, this is because the remake actually replicated a lot of the subtle suspense, creepy atmosphere, story/character based horror and slow-burn storytelling of the original (albeit with story changes and a more western style/tradition of “gothic horror” too). But, at the time, I found it such a terrifying film to watch back in 2002 because I hadn’t seen a horror film quite like it before.

And this is why horror movie remakes set in different countries to the original can sometimes be frightening. Some people won’t have seen the original, and even an influence from another country’s traditions of horror film-making can give a horror movie a certain level of “shock value” for inexperienced audiences because it is unexpected or something they haven’t encountered before. Even so, this only really “works” for inexperienced horror fans.

Still, horror remakes are often at their very best when they are set in the same place as the original – because they can tap into a lot of the cultural context that made the original so creepy. For example, the remakes of films like “The Evil Dead” and “Night Of The Living Dead” keep the remote rural US settings of the originals, and they work surprisingly well because of this.

Another thing that can make horror remakes good is – ironically – updating and changing them. Yes, a lot of the appeal of classic horror films is their “retro” atmosphere and style, but this often creates a certain level of emotional distance that makes them a bit less scary or dramatic when seen today. Not only that, a good horror remake will often take the chance to update the quality of the writing and characters too. And, yes, although it is often more “serious” or “depressing”, modern writing is often better than older writing in the horror genre – mostly because the genre has matured a bit over the decades.

A great example of this is Fede Álvarez’s 2013 remake of Sam Raimi & Robert Tapert’s classic 1981 video nasty “The Evil Dead”. The characters in the remake are given a bit more backstory and psychological depth. Not only does this make the film feel a bit more “realistic” and “serious”, but it allows for a lot more drama, emotional stress and psychological horror than the original. More crucially, aside from a fun post-credits moment, the film doesn’t include any characters from the original film – denying the audience the comfort blanket of nostalgia, and allowing them to experience the film in the “fresh” way that audiences in 1981 probably saw the original “Evil Dead” before it gained pop culture notoriety.

Another great example of this is Rob Zombie’s 2007 remake of John Carpenter’s legendary 1978 slasher film “Halloween”. This remake is set in a much more cynical, harsh and mean version of American suburbia than Carpenter’s original film, which creates a surprisingly menacing atmosphere. Even the film’s dialogue plays a part in this, with the extremely liberal use of four-letter words adding to the unsettling atmosphere of harsh cynicism and world-weary menace throughout the film. Likewise, instead of making Michael Myers a mysterious villain, Zombie’s remake instead gives him a full backstory – which, surprisingly, actually makes him an even creepier character by not only adding a element of tragedy to him (putting the audience in the uncomfortable position of feeling sorry for a serial killer) but also by strongly hinting that he is a product of the cruel, bullying and harsh world that he grew up in.

A more complex example of this is probably Luca Guadagnino’s 2018 remake of Dario Argento’s legendary 1977 film “Suspiria“. Whilst Guadagnino’s remake swaps out the amazing visual style, intense brutal frights and brilliant creepy theme tune of the original for a more subtle, muted, and much less scary atmosphere – it does make some major improvements to the story and characters. And I mean major!

Argento’s 1977 original is an amazingly cool-looking and terrifying film, but it is filled with hilariously wooden dialogue (on par with a typical 1990s survival horror videogame), corny two-dimensional characters and a rather thin “good vs evil” plot too. On the other hand, Guadagnino’s 2018 remake adds more three-dimensional characters, a greater emotional range, well-written dialogue, a more complex plot and the kind of weirdly bittersweet ending that will really catch you by surprise. It’s a much less scary film than the original – but it is so much better on a purely dramatic level.

Even Tom Savini’s 1990 remake of George A. Romero’s genre-defining 1968 zombie movie “Night Of The Living Dead” makes some subtle updates. Yes, the remake keeps the 1950s/60s style setting of the original, but not only is it filmed in colour (rather than in greyscale) – Barbara is also a more well-written character who actually experiences some serious character development throughout the film (kind of like the difference between Sarah Connor in the first and second “Terminator” films, but compressed into one movie). Likewise, the film drops a lot of the “topical” subtext of Romero’s 1968 film and instead goes for a more timeless, but also thematically consistent with the original, theme of “people can be monsters”. Yes, this film doesn’t always get it right with the things it changes, but it is still a better remake than you might expect.

So, yes, a remake that updates the original can – ironically – actually be better a lot of the time, if only because modern horror movie writing is often better than it was in the past. But, most of all, horror remakes work well when they actually understand the core reasons why the original was so scary and either copy or improve upon this in some way. And sometimes this can be a bit more subtle than you might expect.

Going back to an earlier example – although Guadagnino’s 2018 remake of “Suspiria” is a much more well-written and substantial film than Argento’s 1977 original, it is unfortunately much less scary because it doesn’t focus on what actually made the original so terrifying. Yes, it keeps the paranormal themes of the original – but these weren’t what made the original film so frightening. The original is incredibly frightening because of Argento’s expert use of suspense, the sheer cruelty and suddenness of the film’s more brutal moments and also just the surreal “evil fairytale” atmosphere of the film too. It is a genuinely terrifying film because of cinematic techniques, atmosphere and pacing, rather than because of it’s themes.

On a more positive note, although Álvarez’s 2013 remake of “The Evil Dead” loses a lot of the dark comedy that Raimi & Tapert’s 1981 original is famous for and instead plays the horror completely seriously, it still feels a lot like a genuine “Evil Dead” film because it sticks with things like the original film’s emphasis on gory shock value (with grislier and better special effects too!), the remote nature of the setting and also how the film’s zombie-like possessed characters act too. It changes the characters and parts of the story, but it still feels like an “Evil Dead” film – a genuinely scary one too! – because it not only kept a lot of crucial elements from the original film, but also improved on them too.

So, yes, the director actually knowing exactly what made a horror film so frightening can also be a crucial factor in a good horror movie remake too. I guess that the key theme here is “respect for the original”, not in terms of meticulously re-creating it, but in finding ways to enhance it with higher-quality modern writing and other additional elements whilst still respecting the “core” of the original.

—————

Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂

Why Are Modern Remakes “Edgier”? – A Ramble

Well, I thought that I’d talk about modern remakes today. I ended up thinking about this after re-watching the rather enjoyable 2010 film remake of the classic TV show “The A-Team”. One of the interesting things about this remake is that, whilst it keeps a lot of the goofy humour, character dynamics etc… the original TV series, it’s noticeably “edgier” in almost every way.

The fight scenes are a bit grittier – with the characters deliberately not missing whilst shooting at the bad guys, the humour is mildly more “edgy” etc… And this made me think about “edginess” and remakes, since it’s an absolutely fascinating subject.

A lot of this is down to censorship. For example, the cliched “shoot to miss” thing in the original A-Team TV show was probably there to give the impression of fast-paced gun-fights whilst also staying within the stricter censorship (and silly moral panics about media violence) of 1980s early evening television.

Ditto with the excellent 2000s TV remake of “Battlestar Galactica” – which is definitely a lot more “edgier” in mood and atmosphere than the more “feel good” style of the one episode of the original series that I’ve seen. Interestingly though, the modern remake of “Battlestar Galactic” actually re-uses a trick that the original TV series used to get around the censors (eg: using made-up words like “frak” instead of traditional expletives).

This sort of thing can also work in reverse too – mostly due to the popularity of the MPAA “PG-13” rating amongst Hollywood studios. Although this means that there can sometimes be watered-down remakes or sequels of things that work best when aimed at older audiences (eg: classic Paul Verhoeven sci-fi films, classic action movie series etc…), it can also mean that remakes of more “innocent” or “feel-good” classics can be made a bit more “edgy” in order to get this lucrative rating.

The 2010 “A-Team” film is a good example of this, with many elements of the film giving the illusion of grittiness whilst actually being relatively puritanical. Whether it is characters deliberately leaving various expletives unfinished, or the fact that the more “brutal” fight sequences are almost always eerily bloodless, or just the slightly more heavy focus on the militaristic elements of the series – this is a film that has been designed to look like a serious “mature” action movie, whilst still having a low enough rating for studios to sell tickets to younger teenagers (who may possibly… maybe… have seen repeats or DVDs of the original series).

So, yes, one of the main reasons why modern remakes can be “edgier” is to do with censorship.

Another major reason is simply context. In short, the world is a bit less of an “innocent” place in some ways than it was when older TV shows, movies etc… were made. A great example of this is the 2000s remake of “Battlestar Galactica”, which was released in the years after 9/11. The gritty visual style and tone of this series was part of a general trend of post-9/11 gloominess in US film and television at the time, but the real-world context also means that the series can include a number of topical elements such as Cylon-based scenes that evoke the fear of sudden terrorist attacks and a story arc that is an allegory for the invasion of Iraq. Since science fiction is about the present day, and the “present day” of the time was a bit more nervous and grim, the series is a bit more “edgy”.

Likewise, there are also artistic and creative reasons for this change too. These days, “feel good” media is less prestigious and popular than “serious drama”. And I can sort of understand some of the reasons behind this, mostly because “serious drama” – depressing as it can often be – usually requires things like more complex characterisation, more complex storytelling and other things that allow for a bit more creative freedom and substantial storytelling.

On the other hand, “feel good” storytelling used to be more popular in the past. The classic example of this is how, in 1982, the family-friendly film “ET” did much better at the box office than the atmospheric, complex, intelligent and melancholy sci-fi noir masterpiece “Blade Runner”. Thankfully the latter has been rightly recognised as a classic in the years since, but it’s initial sales and reception do hint at the greater popularity of “feel good” storytelling in the 1980s. And, yes, the *groan* modern superhero movie trend might also be a mildly “grittier” extension of this trend.

So, yes, context and/or censorship will usually explain why a modern remake of an older film or TV show may be a bit “edgier” than the original.

——————–

Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂

Why Remakes Should Change Things – A Ramble

Well, I thought that I’d talk about remakes today. This is mostly because, the night before I wrote this article, I finally got round to watching Tom Savini’s 1990 remake of George Romero’s classic 1968 zombie film “Night Of The Living Dead” (MAJOR SPOILERS ahead for both films) and it was a better film than I’d expected.

Not only do some parts of it seem to have been an influence on the very first “Resident Evil” videogame (in terms of atmosphere, scares, location design etc…) but it also manages to keep a lot of the tense small-scale suspense of the original film whilst also adding some faster-paced action-thriller elements too. Not only that, it manages to actually be vaguely scary at times too. Although it would be heretical to say that it was better than Romero’s original, it is still a much better film than I’d expected it to be.

Of course, like any remake, it changes quite a few things – whilst some changes don’t work that well and I have mixed feelings about the different ending, many of the changes work surprisingly well. Whether it was the increased gruesomeness, the film’s extra thriller elements, the extra character development for Barbara, the decision to use “modern” colour film (whilst still giving everything a vaguely “retro” look) etc… A lot of the changes work surprisingly well.

So, I thought that I’d talk about three of the main reasons why changes in remakes can actually be a good thing sometimes.

Firstly, changes keep things unpredictable for fans of the original. When I watched the remake of “Night Of The Living Dead”, I already sort of knew how at least two or three scenes were going to play out. And, although these scenes still basically did the same thing, there were enough differences to surprise me. Yes, a few of the changes are slightly less dramatic or horrifying than the original – but the changes were still enough to make the film feel more unpredictable than I’d expected and were still in keeping with the spirit of the original film too.

This latter point is important to remember. These types of changes in a moderately “faithful” remake only really work when whoever is remaking something either has a good reason for them and/or understands why the original did things the way it did.

For example, although I was disappointed to see that the original film’s unforgettably horrifying “trowel” scene was reduced to a brief visual reference and an “ordinary” zombie bite in Savini’s remake, I could at least accept the change because Savini was trying to be consistent with all of the zombie movies that have followed the original “Night Of The Living Dead” (eg: since this was the first modern-style zombie movie, Romero was still working out the “rules” of the genre at the time). Likewise, the reference also reassures the audience that Savini has actually watched the original film too. So, yes, “surprising” changes can work well if there’s a good reason for them.

Secondly, a remake will often be made in a different context to the original, so changes can help to make the remake seem more relevant. For example, Romero’s original 1968 film was a mildly topical film that subtly criticised both the brutality of the Vietnam war and racism in 1960s America.

Of course, in 1990, the Vietnam war was over and, whilst racism was still present in the US in 1990, there had been at least some progress in terms of reducing it when compared to the late 1960s. So, to make a relevant point that wouldn’t require younger viewers to read a history textbook, the remake distils the original film’s themes into a more timeless “humans can be monsters too” theme instead. And it sort of works.

Yes, it means that the remake sacrifices one of the most shocking moments of the original (eg: in the remake, Ben turns into a zombie before he is shot by the rural mob) but the altered ending has aged slightly better for the simple reason that it goes for a more “timeless” point that is as relevant today as it was in 1990. Likewise, the different historical context also means that some of the characters can also be a bit more well-written too – with the remake’s version of Barbara getting more character development and a “grittier and edgier” 1990s-style character arc that is eerily prescient of the version of Sarah Connor that appears in James Cameron’s 1991 film “Terminator 2: Judgement Day”.

Finally, a good remake can also be a bit like a “cover version” of a song. In other words, the new writer or director might decide to add some of their own creativity and personality to it. When done well, this results in something that is both familiar and fascinatingly new at the same time. The classic musical example of a creative cover version is probably Jimi Hendrix’s cover version of Bob Dylan’s “All Along The Watchtower”.

Instead of just copying Dylan’s brilliantly haunting and atmospheric minimalist folk song, Hendrix added his own style to it and turned it into a jaw-droppingly majestic masterpiece of guitar solo-filled rock music instead (which has either directly or indirectly had an influence on every rock and metal musician since). This is pretty much the perfect example of someone adding their own style and creativity to a remake in order to produce something that is as good as – or even better than – the original.

Another good cinematic example of a director adding their own creativity to a remake is probably Luca Guadagnino’s 2018 remake of Dario Argento’s 1977 horror classic “Suspiria“.

Although the remake ditches the cool visual style that made the original film such an amazing-looking work of art, the remake’s gloomier and more muted palette is a perfect fit for the style of film that Guadagnino is trying to make (where there’s more of a focus on subtle creeping unease than on sudden “shock” moments). Likwise, by being bold enough to make major changes to both the characters and story, Guadagnino drastically improves both things in a way that he probably couldn’t have done if he tried to be “accurate” to the original.

So, yes, the changes in remakes can – when done well by someone who knows what they are doing and has a unique “style” – result in a much more creative and interesting remake than an “accurate” remake could ever be.

—————

Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂

Three Reasons Why Remakes Of Your Old Art Can Fail

Well, whilst preparing some of the artwork for next March’s daily art posts, I found myself feeling slightly uninspired. After a couple of mediocre paintings, I decided to try remaking of an old digitally-edited painting of mine from 2017 in the hope that it would be a quick and easy project that would also look great.

Unfortunately, it turned out to be none of these things. Yes, it isn’t completely terrible – but the old version just looks so much more dramatic, detailed and visually interesting. Here’s a comparison:

Well, so much for showing three years of improvment…

Naturally, this made me wonder why remakes of old drawings and paintings can fail sometimes. After all, half the fun of a remake is seeing how much you have improved over the years. But, if this happens to you, then don’t worry – you are probably still a better artist than you were in the past. Remakes can fail for a number of other reasons.

1) Context: The context surrounding a piece of art can have a surprising impact on how well it turns out (or at least how you feel about it). Since this context will probably be different when you are remaking a piece of art several years later, this can sometimes have an effect on the quality of what you are making.

For example, when I was making the original version of “The Lost Room”, I’d been watching old episodes of “Jonathan Creek” on DVD and was briefly fascinated by stage magic. I was also in a bit more of a “retro” mood than usual and wanted to draw and paint a scene that looked like it could easily have come from any time between the 1920s and 1990s. Other recent influences included a lot of cyberpunk anime too – with the high level of visual detail that you’d expect from this sort of thing. All of these things combined to produce a painting that not only felt really cool to make but which also really impressed me after I’d finished it.

Of course, as the introduction to this article probably showed you, the context behind the remake was nowhere near as exciting. It was something that I made because I thought that it would be an easy way to make some cool-looking art when I was feeling too uninspired to think of a new idea for a painting. Needless to say, this differs a lot from the excited, inspired and creative mood that I was in when I made the original painting.

And, in some subtle way, this probably had an effect on the quality. The context behind a piece of art – your inspirations, imagination and mood when you made it – will shape what you create. Since the context will be different when you remake a piece of art – because you’ll be older, you might be in a different mood and you may have subtly different inspirations – this will change the “atmosphere” of your remake slightly and this can occasionally result in it looking less good than the original.

2) Tools and skills: Another reason why a remake can look less good than the original is because you might be using different tools or have a slightly different skill set to when you made the original. If you are used to doing things slightly differently to how you used to in the past, then this can change how your remake looks. Sometimes this is a good thing, but it can sometimes result in a less dramatic piece of art too.

For example, when I made the original version of “The Lost Room”, I was using a different brand of cheap watercolour pencils (which looked a little bolder and brighter than the ones I’m using at the moment). But, most crucially, I also had a vintage mid-2000s computer with older image editing software and less knowledge about how to use it. As such, the digital effects I used in the original were a bit simpler. In addition to adding basic skin tones, I also adjusted the brightness, contrast, colour saturation etc… in a late 1990s editing program and then used an old version of MS Paint to add some very bold-looking rain to the background. This was about the limit of my “everyday” image editing skills back then.

Of course, when I was making the remake, I not only had slightly different pencils, but I also had a slightly more modern computer that could run more advanced modern versions of this free open-source editing program. I’d also had a lot more experience with using this program and knew how to create a lot of effects with it. As such, the new version included a lot of airbrush effects, mist effects, more advanced colour adjustments etc… that, whilst they looked more “professional”, also lacked some of the vivid and bold simplicity that made the original so interesting.

So yes, your tools and skills can play a huge role in how good a remake can be. As paradoxical as it might sound, sometimes a simpler piece of art made with less advanced tools can look bolder and more striking than a more “advanced” version where you want to show off all of the stuff that you’ve learnt during the past couple of years.

3) Format: If you use a slightly different format to the one you used to use in the past, then this can have an effect on the quality of any remakes that you make. When you made the original, you custom-built it for whatever your preferred paper, canvas etc… size was at the time. The picture was optimised for a particular format.

Of course, your preferences may have changed over the years and this can affect any remakes that you make. For example, a couple of months before preparing the remake I showed you earlier, I switched to a much smaller painting size. This has had all sorts of benefits for me and, when I make a painting that is designed for this format, it often works really well. It can make even fairly “uninspired” paintings look like the kind of “good” paintings I used to make a couple of years ago. I love this format 🙂

But the painting I was trying to remake wasn’t designed for it. It was a larger painting that includes a lot of fine detail in a few crucial areas – with the dark background also intended to both save painting time and to focus the viewer’s attention on the more detailed parts of the painting. It was the sort of painting that just wouldn’t “work” at a smaller size.

And I only realised this whilst I was actually editing the painting. Initially, I’d tried to make a reasonably similar copy of the painting – but I soon realised that everything looked too “distant”. In order to get the remake to look even vaguely good at a smaller size, I had to “zoom in” on part of the picture, simplify everything a bit (since too much detail at in a small picture can look visually “cluttered”) and also make heavier use of shadows and silhouettes too.

Yes, the changes did improve the remake a bit – but it still meant that it looked less good than a painting which had been primarily designed to use the smaller format that I’d been using. For starters, since the two characters had been drawn slightly smaller than I would normally do in one of these paintings, they look even less detailed than they should. Plus, the background gloom from the original painting no longer serves its purpose of drawing the viewer’s attention to the detailed areas of the picture – because I had to remove a lot of detail to get the small painting to look good as a whole.

So, if you are changing the format or size when you are remaking a piece of your old art, then this can cause all sorts of issues and problems. Yes, you can get around this with a lot of planning and a few changes but if you – for example- try to “accurately” recreate a larger painting at a smaller size (or vice versa), it will probably result in failure.

————–

Anyway, I hope that this was useful 🙂

The Complete “Damania Revisited II” – All Four ‘Episodes’ Of The New Webcomic Mini Series By C. A. Brown

Well, in case you missed any of it, here are all four comics from my recent “Damania Revisited II” webcomic mini series in one easy-to-read post. You can also find links to lots of other comics featuring these characters on this page too 🙂

And, yes, due to not really having time to plan a new mini series, this mini series is a series of remakes of old comics from 2012/13 (if you want to see the originals, they can be seen here, here, here and here). It’s also something of a follow-up to last year’s collection of remakes too.

As usual, all four comic updates are released under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND licence. Likewise, you can click on each comic to see a larger version of it.

“Damania Revisited II – Absinthe (II)” By C. A. Brown

“Damania Revisited II – Old School (II)” By C. A. Brown

“Damania Revisited II – Strange Noises (II)” By C. A. Brown

“Damania Revisited II – Difficult To Tell (II)” By C. A. Brown

Three Reasons Why Books Don’t Get Remakes

Well, the day that I wrote this article, I ended up thinking about the subject of remakes after seeing a trailer for the then-upcoming remake of a classic 1990s horror videogame called “Resident Evil 2”. Although the game itself looked far too modern to actually run on the computer I was using, even just seeing footage of it evoked lots of nostalgia… and made me think about the subject of remakes.

But, since I’m going through more of a reading than a gaming phase at the moment, I started to wonder why books don’t really get remakes. After all, there are plenty of compelling vintage classics which could probably be spruced up with more readable and/or fast-paced modern narration etc… So, why doesn’t this happen? Here are a few of the reasons.

1) There’s no need: As I sort of mentioned a couple of days ago, the “technology” behind literature is pretty much the same as it has been for quite a few years.

In other words, most English-language books use 26 letters and standard systems of spelling, grammar and punctuation. None of this has really changed too much during at least the past century or two.

In purely technical terms, old books are still as readable as new books. Unlike with film or games, where the technology is still constantly changing and growing, the written word has pretty much been perfected these days. As such, a new remake of an old book would still look like… well… a book. It would still contain 26 letters and the usual spelling, grammar and punctuation.

In other words, remakes of films and games allow people to add modern graphics, special effects etc.. to older works. With books, there’s less of a need for this. Sure, you could update the wording or the settings slightly, but the original would still be pretty much the same thing as the remake.

2) Authorship: Unlike films and games, which are large collaborative projects, books usually have just one author. As such, books will often have more personality and uniqueness to them than films or games do.

Yes, you should always view a novel on it’s own merits, but there’s no denying that part of what makes a good novel so compelling is the unique way that the author describes, sees, thinks about etc.. the story they are telling and the world they are describing.

And, without getting into questions of copyright, moral rights etc…., this is a major practical reason why slightly older books don’t usually get remakes in the same way that films or games do. After all, the author is an integral part of what makes a novel so interesting. By changing the author, you change the story itself in a fairly major way.

In other words, another author’s remake of a classic novel wouldn’t be a remake… it would be a different novel altogether. After all, novels aren’t usually collaborative projects in the way that films and games are.

3) They get adapted instead: Sad as it is to say, books are no longer a popular entertainment medium in the way that they apparently were a few decades ago.

As such, if there’s a really compelling older story that someone wants to bring up to date so that modern audiences can really enjoy it, then they’re probably not going to reach a large audience with a rewritten book.

As such, instead of remakes, interesting older novels usually tend to get adapted to more popular mediums like film and television instead. Yes, these adaptations will sometimes do all of the things that a remake would do (eg: updating the settings etc..) – but they will still be adaptations rather than remakes.

So, yes, because the largest popular audience is more likely to be found in front of a screen than a book these days, interesting older books usually tend to get adapted rather than remade.

—————-

Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂

The Complete “Damania Revisited” – All Six Episodes Of The (Sort Of) New Webcomic Mini Series By C. A. Brown

Well, in case you missed any of it, here are all six comic updates from my recent “Damania Revisited” webcomic mini series. You can also find lots of other comics featuring these characters on this page too.

As the title suggests, this mini series was a series of new remakes of old “Damania” comics from 2012/13. Although I’ve been meaning to make a mini series like this for ages, I only got round to it due to writer’s block and/or time issues shortly before making this mini series.

Still, I quite like how these remakes turned out and it was an interesting little trip down memory lane. Interestingly, some of the remakes here are actually composites of two old comics (eg: because the comics were either too short or too similar to justify individual remakes). Likewise, I also did a little bit of rewriting etc… when remaking these comics.

But, if you want to compare them to the original source comics, then the original comics from 2012/13 can be found here: “Damania – Youtube“, “Damania – Copypasta“, “Damania – Newsagent“, “Damania – Dark Electric“, “Damania – Evil Cyborg“, “Damania – Trolls“, “Damania – 11:11” and “Damania – Haunted“.

As usual, these six comic updates are released under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND licence. You can also click on each one to see a larger version. Enjoy 🙂

“Damania Revisited – Youtube/Copypasta (II)” By C. A. Brown

“Damania Revisited – Newsagent (II)” By C. A. Brown

“Damania Revisited – Dark Electric/ Evil Cyborg (II)” By C. A. Brown

“Damania Revisited – Trolls (II)” By C. A. Brown

“Damania Revisited – 11:11 (II)” By C. A. Brown

“Damania Revisited – Haunted (II)” By C. A. Brown

Three Tips For Remaking Your Old Webcomic Updates

At the time of writing, I’m busy preparing this month’s webcomic mini series (which will start on the 21st). But, due to writer’s block, the mini series will consist of modern remakes of several old comic updates from 2012-13. As such, I thought that I’d provide a few tips for remaking webcomic updates.

1) The older, the better: This one is fairly self-explanatory – but if you’re going to remake an old webcomic update, then try to make sure that it is as old as possible. Not only will this be a good source of nostalgia for older fans of your comic, but it also means that the difference in art quality will be a lot more noticeable too. For example, here’s a comparison of a panel from an old comic update from 2012 and the modern remake:

So, this is what the comic looked like in 2012 and this is what it looks like in my current style.

However, one thing to watch out for in older comic updates is what TV Tropes calls “Early Installment Weirdness“. Chances are, when you started your comic, you had a completely different idea about what it would be like. As such, seeing ultra-old comic updates can be a surprisingly weird experience.

For example, in my webcomic, the characters used to have slightly different personalities to their current ones and there were also a lot more horror/fantasy elements (because I’d originally intended it to be a slight parody of “Buffy The Vampire Slayer“, of all things) in the older updates.

To avoid confusing your audience, it’s usually best to avoid remaking comic updates that include too much “Early Installment Weirdness” or to do a very minimal amount of rewriting, so that your remade comic updates are more comprehensible to newer fans of your webcomic.

2) Artistic licence: Unless you have a George Lucas-like attitude towards your past work, then the originals will probably still be on the internet for people to view.

This means that you can use a little bit of artistic licence when remaking your comic updates. Whether this involves visual changes or rewrites, don’t be afraid to do something a little bit different. But, try to make sure that your remake is at least mostly faithful to the original and that you have a good reason for making any changes.

For example, the first update in this month’s mini series will actually consist of two shorter comic updates that have been merged together. This was mostly because they were both set in the same location and neither comic was quite long enough for a full remake. Of course, in order to merge the two comics, I had to rewrite a couple of lines of dialogue and remove a panel. However, the bulk of the comic update is a reasonably faithful remake of these two old comic updates:

“Damania – Youtube” By C. A. Brown [2012]

“Damania – Copypasta” By C. A. Brown [2013]

Think of your remake a little bit like a “live version” of one of your favourite songs. People listen to live recordings of music because they are often very slightly different to the studio version. A live recording will still usually be the same song, but it is the variations that make it interesting.

3) Have a good reason (or do something else): Simply put, if you can make new and original comics, then make them instead!

Remakes are something that you should only make if you’ve got serious writer’s block and/or you have an extremely good reason (eg: it’s an anniversary or something like that). Basically, a new comic update is better than a remake, but a remake is better than no comic updates at all.

If you’re feeling nostalgic, but you don’t want to do a full remake, then either make a partial remake or include some kind of call-back in your comic. Doing this is more creative than just remaking your old comics. For example, the final panel of last year’s Halloween comic is a new comic panel in the style of my old comics from late 2012. This isn’t a remake of a specific comic update, but it is a call-back.

This is a new comic panel, made in 2017, that is mostly in the style of my comics from 2012. It’s an example of a more creative alternative to a simple remake.

So, unless you’ve got a good reason for remaking a comic update, then try to do something slightly different instead.

————–

Anyway, I hope that this was useful 🙂

Alternate Versions Of Recent Paintings – A Good Idea If You’re Uninspired?

Well, although I was still busy writing last year’s Christmas stories at the time of writing this article, I thought that I’d talk very briefly about making art today. This was mostly because I found myself feeling somewhat uninspired.

Basically, I’d made a 1980s-themed drawing that didn’t really turn out as well as I’d hoped – even after extensive editing. So, I thought that I’d try to make another piece of art instead. But, I was a little bit pressed for time and needed to come up with a good-looking painting quickly.

Luckily, I remembered the view from the kitchen window earlier that morning. Thanks to the season and the time of the day, the world outside was shrouded in wonderfully atmospheric dark blue blue light. Needless to say, this seemed like it was worth painting. But, I’d already made a painting of the same view about a month earlier:

“Kitchen Window” By C. A. Brown

So, thinking quickly, I decided that my upcoming painting would be a companion piece to that one. I could use the old painting as a reference, whilst also doing a few things differently in my new painting. Here’s a preview of it:

This is a reduced-size preview, the full-size painting will be posted here on the 5th October.

So, is this sort of thing a good strategy when you’re uninspired?

Simply put, anything that works when you’re feeling uninspired is a good thing. Plus, since you’re partially repeating what you’ve done before, then it also means that you can make a good-looking piece of art quickly too. So, as a way to make art when you’re uninspired, it can certainly work!

However, I’d advise either not doing it too often, making extensive changes or waiting as long as possible before making new versions of your existing art. The thing to remember is to set your new version apart from the old version in an immediately noticeable way, and to make sure that there’s still a decent level of variety in the art you produce.

The main advantage to waiting as long as possible is that you’ll have become a better artist (if you practice regularly) during the time gap, so a remake of a painting from say – a year or two ago- can also be a good way to show how much you’ve improved.

Still, if you’re feeling uninspired, then making a new alternative version of one of your more recent paintings can be a good way to actually make some art. Just don’t rely on this technique too often.

————

Sorry for such a short, basic and rambling article, but I hope it was useful 🙂

Two Things That Remaking Your Old Art Will Show You (Apart From Your Skill Level)

For today, I thought that I’d look at a few things (other than improvements in your skill level) that making new versions of your older works of art will show you. For best results, it’s usually a good idea to wait until a piece of art is at least 1-2 years old before attempting to create a new version of it.

So, here are two other things than how much better you’ve got at making art that remaking your old art can show you:

1) Your influences: Whilst writing yesterday’s article, I went looking for a painting that I remembered making in 2015. When I saw this painting, I just had to remake it. But, something interesting happened when I did…

Here’s the painting from 2015:

“Data Tower” By C. A. Brown [2015]

And here’s a reduced-size preview of the new version, which will be posted here in December:

This is a reduced-sized preview, the full-size painting will appear here on the 17th December.

As you can tell, both versions look radically different. This is mostly because of all of the extra inspirations I’ve found in the time between making these paintings.

When I made the original painting in 2015, the two main influences were “Blade Runner” and a game called “Dark Forces“. But, when I made the remake, I’d also been influenced by other things in the sci-fi/cyberpunk genre like these “Doom II” levels, “System Shock“, “Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex“, “Technobabylon” etc… too.

So, remaking an old painting in your current style can be a great way to see how many extra influences you’ve picked up.

2) Your best works: Generally speaking, you can find out a lot about what your “greatest hits” are by seeing which of your old paintings or drawings you really want to remake.

Whilst everyone’s motivations for remaking a piece of art might differ, it often happens because you want to see what one of your favourite pictures looks like at the highest level of quality that you can produce. In other words, you probably want to see a clearer picture of what you really wanted to draw when you had less experience.

This can be a good way to find a group of paintings or drawings you can show off if you ever need to give a brief overview of your art to anyone. Seeing which paintings you’ve remade (or want to remake) can be a quick way to find your own collection of “classics”.

Likewise, if you try to remake a picture and find that any remake doesn’t look as good as the original does, then this is usually a sign that the original is one of your best works because it has stood the test of time (although it can sometimes mean that you need to wait longer before remaking it). For example, here’s a painting of mine called “La Chanteuse” that was posted here in 2016:

“La Chanteuse” By C. A. Brown [2016]

I really like this painting! It’s dramatic, gothic and atmospheric. So, naturally, I tried to remake it about a year or so later. The remake was an absolute failure – although the lighting looks slightly more realistic and the characters are more well-drawn on a technical level, the remake just really doesn’t have the same atmosphere and ambience that the original did:

“La Chanteuse (II)” By C. A. Brown

So, if you really want to remake a painting and/or if the remake doesn’t turn out as well as the original, then this usually means that it’s one of your best works.

——-

Anyway, I hope that this was useful 🙂