The Host

[matt35mm]

Universal To Remake The Host
Source: SciFi Wire

Bong Joon-ho, director of the Korean-language monster movie The Host, told SCI FI Wire that Universal Studios will remake the film for American audiences and that he hopes they do the original film justice. The studio has purchased the rights to The Host, which centers on a dysfunctional family that must overcome its differences to save its daughter, who's been grabbed by a creature that an unresponsive government declares is the host of an unidentified virus. The film, which was a huge hit in Korea and Asia, opened March 9 in limited release in North America and made $314,488 on 71 screens, a healthy per-screen average of $4,429, the BoxOfficeMojo.com Web site reported.

"Maybe three or four years down the line, if The Host [remake] comes out, and there's a cool director who takes it on and makes it a real great film, then I'd be very happy," Bong said in an interview, through a translator. "On the other hand, if it's just crap, I think I'd be happy, too, because then people would be like, 'Oh, yeah, Bong's original was really good.' So, for me, it's a win-win situation. But Universal has a tradition of doing horror and creature films, so I anticipate that they will do a great film."

Bong has said that his next film will be a Korean production of a more intimate, non-genre nature, but the film after that likely will be a big-screen adaptation of the French SF comic book La Transperceneige by Jacques Lob and Jean-Marc Rochette. The story follows the last remnants of mankind, who, following a second ice age, live aboard a train.

"It's about the struggles and fights that go on even in such a critical state," Bong said. "There's the tension. There's the fighting, and that appeals to me also. Outside, it's like ice, but inside it's bubbling over, all these human emotions and whatnot. The contrast there is interesting. I want to keep the tension going. And I think everyone feels the charm of a train."

FINALLY!  I can't believe it took them this long to start remaking it.

Why did dubbing go out of style?

I think it has more to do with studios thinking that the majority of Americans don't want to see non-Americans onscreen.  I really do.  And... the studios might not be wrong about that.

After all, dubbing is much more prevalent in other countries.  I can see Zoolander in Spanish on Telemundo but I'll never see Infernal Affairs (or any popular foreign film) in English playing on ABC, or USA or TBS or TNT.  And stuff like Anime is dubbed over here because, one, cartoons (especially fantasy-based stuff) don't appear to be as country specific in general, and two, anime characters are often white anyway.

Sure, dubbing also usually turns out badly and makes the whole movie ridiculous.  Oh wait, now I remember that the US did have dubbed versions of some of Jackie Chan's movies like Drunken Master and Police Story.  Still, we prefer him in American movies.

Kinda funny though.  Most people would deny being racist but at the same time wouldn't care as much if they saw some Asian person get their heart broken in a movie, then go walking in the rain while some acoustic pop song (let's say Snow Patrol) plays and they reflect on what's happened in the movie so far and then dissolve to the other non American characters also reflecting on what's happened in the movie so far and so on.

Ahem, anyway... so, The Host.  Is this movie any different than previous monster movies or did a studio just pay millions to rip off a guy who ripped off something else?

[Pubrick]

what the hell are you talking about, matt? your thoughts are really weird and wrong.

[polkablues]

No, it's true.  We really do hate foreigners.

[pete]

dubbed foreign movies do get played on American TV.  jackie chan movies, crouching tiger and life is beautiful and such do get undubbed.  in foreign countries, most of the foreign language-shows come in dual tracks (and most TVs are capable of playing such) and they do take adventage of the dual tracks, broadcasting shows in both the original and the dubbed soundtracks.  I think animes get dubbed more frequently because it's much easier to match animated lips, plus it's assumed that their target demographic is children, and it's further assumed that tv watching children probably don't wanna read.
however, I don't think matt is completely crazy or wrong.  it's no secret that foreign films, even foreign blockbusters, don't get no love in America (as opposed to foreign films getting love in other countries).  and it's no secret that recent foreign blockbusters keep on getting re-made.  something's going on, and maybe Pubrick and Polkablues, with their brilliantly overreactionary one-liners, can care to explain.

[matt35mm]

I agree with Pete that I'm not completely crazy or wrong, but I also agree that my thoughts were poorly put forth, as, when I wrote that post, I was nervous about being late for work but also delaying leaving the house (silly, I know).  A thoughtful post it was not.

I had originally meant only to write that studios assumed that the majority of Americans didn't want to see a movie that had South Koreans dealing with destruction in a South Korean city.  I kind of meant it in a jokey way, but then I realized that that may very well be true, so then I attempted to expound on that idea in a very rushed manner.

I brought up anime because I figured that seemed like an obvious rebuttal against the idea that Americans don't like to watch foreign things, dubbed or not.  But I don't really know that much about anime or why it's accepted in dubbed form more than The Host would be.  Pete made better points about this.

I'm thinking more of the whole middle part of America, without which you cannot have a full-on blockbuster (this is a general statement; of course there are people in all parts of the country that like foreign films).  I was also going to bring up Crouching Tiger and go further into Jackie Chan stuff, but those are anomalies, and I truthfully can't explain why.  Actually, there is the thing about name value--Jackie Chan, Chow Yun Fat are known names.  The Host doesn't have that going for it.  Nor does The Lives of Others (which I bring up because it's also being remade, probably with... Jude Law, Stanley Tucci, and Vera Farmiga).

So, though a few foreign films have been popular, foreign films certainly are not bankable.  Even though most Americans would probably like The Host, it's just not gonna penetrate the bubble as it is, even if it was released on 2,000 screens.  It just makes more sense now that I think it through for the studio to take a formula that seems to work (in the sense that it's popular, people seem to like it and so on) and then be able to put a Made in USA stamp on it.  It may not be a good way to make movies, but, as far as I know, it's been a good way to make money, which I want the studios to be able to do.

If this post makes no more sense than my previous post, then I'll concede in advance that I really don't know what the fuck I'm talking about.

[polkablues]

I had originally meant only to write that studios assumed that the majority of Americans didn't want to see a movie that had South Koreans dealing with destruction in a South Korean city.  I kind of meant it in a jokey way, but then I realized that that may very well be true, so then I attempted to expound on that idea in a very rushed manner.

I think that's entirely true.  The sad fact is, Americans who would have no reservations about seeing a non-English film made with non-American-or-European actors and characters are very much a niche audience.  No matter how bad the remake may end up being, it will ultimately be a better return on the company's investment than if they were to simply release the original (foreign) version and market it as they would market any other major-release film, which would probably only work for one weekend.

[bonanzataz]

all they really needed to do if they wanted this movie to do well was find some interview where quentin tarantino said he liked it. that'd get them, like, at least $100,000 more. i guess. what?

[Gamblour.]

So I saw it and it was ok. Kinda like any other monster movie, but with some developed characters. Not unlike Lake Placid.

[MacGuffin]

I really enjoyed this. I thought it made the right choice to focus on the family, the characters, and not about the creature and fighting it (which I'm sure the remake will do). I guess that's where the comparisons to Jaws comes from, because, although it is no where near as scary or great as that film, it does have some great sequences, done with great compositions, editing and use of slow motion. The effects were perfect in that they didn't stand out as effects.

[davidchili]

a lot of dark humor in this movie works under that korean political context or whatever it is, otherwise it would be soooo cheesy

I nearly hate this movie when the family was lamenting at the girl like a bucn of morons , and I love this movie until the monster was set on a CGI fire that looked so fake like shit.

overall I enjoyed it pretty much!

[Raikus]

I liked the setting and the situation. I found it appealing to watch the movie in another culture's context and see another booming metropolis other than New York or Chicago on film. I really don't think this film would work at all in the American setting. It truly would just be another monster movie - void of any feeling or heart.

SPOILERS HENCEFORTH:

What was confusing is the mix of Americans in the film. I get the origins prologue, but the crazy eyed doctor that wanted to find the virus in his head just seemed out of place. Especially when he later admitted to the virus being hoax. Why did he do a lobotomy? Shits and giggles? That really made no sense other than anti-Western sentiments. Also, contact with the monster seemed to give the guy immunities that later helped him survive the Agent Yellow. I thought they'd set up the ending to be where the father would morph into the next Host for sequel.

I guess the tragic element is just part of the Asian influence to film. Because really, everyone dies for the sake of the goof-off father being able to redeem himself. I don't know if it's a cultural gap that makes it hard for me to fathom that or not.

[pete]

that's really cute that any part of the film you don't get must be cultural gap.

[Raikus]

That's really adorable that you're trying to make this about ignorance.

If this movie was pitched to a Western studio it would have been rejected. They aren't that big on loss of life in exchange for honor. However Asian cinema makes that theme it's bread and butter. Is that a cute cultural gap? I got the meaning, it just wasn't appealing to me as it would be (obviously as the South Korean audience shows) to Asian audiences.

[davidchili]

to me on of the greatiest impacts was how director portrayed the korean goverment: by showing nothing of them at all. Americans  were the ones on the TV news through out the movie while the society was a huge mess. you can't help thinking how incompetent the goverment is. the director was pretty clever i think.

[pete]

SPOILER

again, this reminds me of what herzog said once about foreigners like the French or American critics watching his films.  All the French critics knew about Germany was expressionism, so everything Herzog did was expressionist, and later neo-romanticism.  The Americans didn't know that, so they looked for nazi parallels in everything he did.  It's the same thing with this film.  It's about as political as 28 days later, meaning it exhibits the general paranoia that any healthy filmmaker has against authority in the world.  The Americans were actually there to make the film more marketable and savvy in our post-Iraq War market, but the people on this board who were confused by the film started claiming that 'twas because it was "too Korean."  I might be able to buy that too, but Raiku's logic went something like -- "the girl died in the end, which meant the film was about honor, which was an Asian theme (Americans studios won't let little girls die!), which justified my inability to understand the movie because how could I?  That's a ginormous cultural gap!"