4 ms·

This again. It comes up now and then. Herzog's film is not a "re-imagining", nor a remake. It has literally nothing to do with Ferrara's film other than the ti

This again. It comes up now and then. Herzog's film is not a "re-imagining", nor a remake. It has literally nothing to do with Ferrara's film other than the title; it's an original script and an original story. Herzog didn't even want to use the title, but the studio or the producer (Edward R. Pressman, who produced Ferrara's film) vetoed the decision. I don't know why you think Herzog somehow owes Ferrara anything. The controversy, such as it was, came from Ferrara, who complained to the press without having seen the film other than being told there was a remake being made. He didn't check his facts before making false accusations.

leephillips 10y ago
Your claim is that two films with the same title, very similar plots, and the same producer have "literally nothing to do" with each other. I don't know if Herzog "owes" Ferrara anything, but somebody thought so, because Ferrara was paid (just not much). Why would he be paid at all if the two films have "literally nothing to do" with each other? What "facts" would Ferrara have to check before deciding to be pissed off about this? What are these supposed "false accusations"? I'm willing to believe that the two films are artistically quite dissimilar, but everything in my comment is true regardless.
- lobster_johnson 10y ago
  The accusation was that Ferrara was not paid enough for the rights to something that wasn't even adapted. They took his title, nothing else. Ferrara, however, assumed they were remaking his film, which was not the case, so his public comments were out of line. (Also: If Ferrara did not want to sell the rights, he shouldn't have sold them. I don't know what he was paid for, in truth.) What exactly is "wrong with" Herzog? That was your assertion. It's a pretty bold statement. Herzog made an original film which has nothing to do with Ferrara's. It's not up to him to make things right -- whatever those things are. In short, what is your exact complaint here?
  - leephillips 10y ago
    I've read a handful of accounts of this episode, and my impression is that Ferrara was blindsided and was not a party to the negotiations that led to him being paid for rights - which, again, somebody, perhaps just lawyers, thought was appropriate. He never agreed to the making of a movie using his title. But you ask a fair question. Do you really think it's credible that, after having finished this movie, having worked with the producer of the original for over a year, that Herzog had never heard of Ferrara? I can believe that he'd never seen the original movie, but never heard the name of the filmmaker? Read the belittling language Herzog chose to use in the interviews about the incident. Everybody lies. But this lie was mean-sprited and spiteful. And that's what I think is wrong with Herzog. On the other hand, Ferrara did say he wanted Herzog to die in a fire. So there is that.
    - lobster_johnson 10y ago
      Having read a bunch of Herzog's writings, I wouldn't surprised if he genuinely wasn't aware of Ferrara. Herzog, as others have (Tarkovsky being a notable example), has professed to not being that interested in other filmmakers. Once Herzog was confronted with the "controversy", he was as magnanimous (not belittling at all) as anyone could be about it, saying that he'd gladly meet Ferrara over a beer and make up. The point remains that Herzog's film has nothing to do with Ferrara's — the whole debacle is just uninteresting, tiring politics. I don't know why you bother mentioning it.
      - leephillips 10y ago
        Whiskey, not beer. In the interviews, Herzog's lying is palpable. He protests too much. You're just going to have to accept the terrible fact that sometimes people are in possession of the same facts as you but simply come to different conclusions.

leephillips 10y ago

Your claim is that two films with the same title, very similar plots, and the same producer have "literally nothing to do" with each other. I don't know if Herzog "owes" Ferrara anything, but somebody thought so, because Ferrara was paid (just not much). Why would he be paid at all if the two films have "literally nothing to do" with each other? What "facts" would Ferrara have to check before deciding to be pissed off about this? What are these supposed "false accusations"? I'm willing to believe that the two films are artistically quite dissimilar, but everything in my comment is true regardless.

lobster_johnson 10y ago
The accusation was that Ferrara was not paid enough for the rights to something that wasn't even adapted. They took his title, nothing else. Ferrara, however, assumed they were remaking his film, which was not the case, so his public comments were out of line. (Also: If Ferrara did not want to sell the rights, he shouldn't have sold them. I don't know what he was paid for, in truth.) What exactly is "wrong with" Herzog? That was your assertion. It's a pretty bold statement. Herzog made an original film which has nothing to do with Ferrara's. It's not up to him to make things right -- whatever those things are. In short, what is your exact complaint here?
- leephillips 10y ago
  I've read a handful of accounts of this episode, and my impression is that Ferrara was blindsided and was not a party to the negotiations that led to him being paid for rights - which, again, somebody, perhaps just lawyers, thought was appropriate. He never agreed to the making of a movie using his title. But you ask a fair question. Do you really think it's credible that, after having finished this movie, having worked with the producer of the original for over a year, that Herzog had never heard of Ferrara? I can believe that he'd never seen the original movie, but never heard the name of the filmmaker? Read the belittling language Herzog chose to use in the interviews about the incident. Everybody lies. But this lie was mean-sprited and spiteful. And that's what I think is wrong with Herzog. On the other hand, Ferrara did say he wanted Herzog to die in a fire. So there is that.
  - lobster_johnson 10y ago
    Having read a bunch of Herzog's writings, I wouldn't surprised if he genuinely wasn't aware of Ferrara. Herzog, as others have (Tarkovsky being a notable example), has professed to not being that interested in other filmmakers. Once Herzog was confronted with the "controversy", he was as magnanimous (not belittling at all) as anyone could be about it, saying that he'd gladly meet Ferrara over a beer and make up. The point remains that Herzog's film has nothing to do with Ferrara's — the whole debacle is just uninteresting, tiring politics. I don't know why you bother mentioning it.
    - leephillips 10y ago
      Whiskey, not beer. In the interviews, Herzog's lying is palpable. He protests too much. You're just going to have to accept the terrible fact that sometimes people are in possession of the same facts as you but simply come to different conclusions.