Ice Castles

Some things do not get better with remakes. . . or time.

I grew up in the era of the original "Ice Castles" which, yeah, is total OTT melodrama, but it was the kind of melodrama that you rather enjoyed (I also enjoyed "International Velvet" which was a similar sort of movie only without the blindness).

So the 2010 remake played on some cable channel last night and I have to say, the changes they made in characters are... telling.

Issue #1: Why are two of the primary characters that were female characters in the first movie now MALE characters? Was there anything wrong with the hard-nosed coach being a WOMAN? Was there a problem with Lexie's hard-nosed parental figure that picks her up off her ass being her Grandmother? Now? The coach is a man and the primary caregiver is a man. Was it really necessary to turn two of the female roles into male ones? In a DVD movie that was aimed at teen girls?

Issue #2: Why did they clean up and make the relationships more... traditional? In the Original, the boyfriend actually did resent the hell out of the girlfriend's success. It wasn't subtle. The viewer knew that he really did resent that she was successful when he wasn't. And, that was presented as very. jerky. behavior. And he did push her away. He was passive aggressive in an ugly way. He was a crap boyfriend. That was part of the story! That was his redemption. When she was injured, he saw what a pig he had been. And rather than tearing her down he learned to want her to succeed.

Meanwhile, when she became interested in someone else it wasn't "She's cheating on her awesome boyfriend!" It was her having a crappy boyfriend and being presented with a guy who was great on paper.

Why, in the remake is all the responsibility of the break-up down to "Lexie didn't support Nick enough. She was so busy pursuing her ambitions that she didn't support HIM enough. She didn't travel to his games and such." Why was all the responsibility placed on her? In the original, both characters were flawed.

The remake seems to have some retro-slant about how she was so busy pursuing her dreams that she didn't nurture his enough as opposed to the original which seemed to understand that the guy was actually resenting her for being more successful than him and this was a bad. thing. that. needed. to. change.

Issue #3 How she was injured was changed. ( spoiler - just in case anyone would remotely care )

Why did they even bother to change it? The first way worked fine. This was just... not particularly compelling.

Which could actually be said of the whole movie. The first one was melodrama. But it was melodrama with enough friction and flaws that you could convince yourself that there was some story there with a little bit of substance. This one was melodrama sanitized down to a Disney Channel production, where everyone is perfect, problems are glossed over, and the girl needed to pay more attention to her boyfriend.

Some things are not improved by remakes.

Ice Castles

Some things do not get better with remakes. . . or time.

I grew up in the era of the original "Ice Castles" which, yeah, is total OTT melodrama, but it was the kind of melodrama that you rather enjoyed (I also enjoyed "International Velvet" which was a similar sort of movie only without the blindness).

So the 2010 remake played on some cable channel last night and I have to say, the changes they made in characters are... telling.

Issue #1: Why are two of the primary characters that were female characters in the first movie now MALE characters? Was there anything wrong with the hard-nosed coach being a WOMAN? Was there a problem with Lexie's hard-nosed parental figure that picks her up off her ass being her Grandmother? Now? The coach is a man and the primary caregiver is a man. Was it really necessary to turn two of the female roles into male ones? In a DVD movie that was aimed at teen girls?

Issue #2: Why did they clean up and make the relationships more... traditional? In the Original, the boyfriend actually did resent the hell out of the girlfriend's success. It wasn't subtle. The viewer knew that he really did resent that she was successful when he wasn't. And, that was presented as very. jerky. behavior. And he did push her away. He was passive aggressive in an ugly way. He was a crap boyfriend. That was part of the story! That was his redemption. When she was injured, he saw what a pig he had been. And rather than tearing her down he learned to want her to succeed.

Meanwhile, when she became interested in someone else it wasn't "She's cheating on her awesome boyfriend!" It was her having a crappy boyfriend and being presented with a guy who was great on paper.

Why, in the remake is all the responsibility of the break-up down to "Lexie didn't support Nick enough. She was so busy pursuing her ambitions that she didn't support HIM enough. She didn't travel to his games and such." Why was all the responsibility placed on her? In the original, both characters were flawed.

The remake seems to have some retro-slant about how she was so busy pursuing her dreams that she didn't nurture his enough as opposed to the original which seemed to understand that the guy was actually resenting her for being more successful than him and this was a bad. thing. that. needed. to. change.

Issue #3 How she was injured was changed. ( spoiler - just in case anyone would remotely care )

Why did they even bother to change it? The first way worked fine. This was just... not particularly compelling.

Which could actually be said of the whole movie. The first one was melodrama. But it was melodrama with enough friction and flaws that you could convince yourself that there was some story there with a little bit of substance. This one was melodrama sanitized down to a Disney Channel production, where everyone is perfect, problems are glossed over, and the girl needed to pay more attention to her boyfriend.

Some things are not improved by remakes.