|
|
Post by Anna on Jan 11, 2013 17:32:11 GMT
I don't usually judge it on the original.
The thing is there are remakes.... Like Burtons Sweeney Todd. I've seen one version of Sweeney Todd (the one with Ray Winston) but there is like 20 version if you look (slight exageration.)
Then theres Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. We are all old enough for the old version to be embedded into us. But that is it. There is one version that EVERYONE remembers. Not 3 or 4. It wasn't better when it was on the TV with unnamed actor a,b or c.
I think that is were the line lays.
If it is something like Sweeney Todd you'll get people who don't know of it, people who do and know better versions and people who don't care. I'm one that doesn't care.
But then you get Charlie, or Planet of the Apes which are classics. Burton does a good job in my opinion, especially with Charlie as he based it on the book and not the film, but people will have seen both movies millions of times.
Its the same as us Doctor Who fans. Doctor Who has been Doctor Who for 50 years, but 11 men have played the Doctor, and millions (slight exageration) have written for him. We've had so many "golden eras" so much "trash" but its the easiest way to explain it. Every year, every era, every Doctor and every writer is different. And they are different because times change. I had a conversation with someone who watched the Celestial Toymaker series and thought it was racist back in the day, I've never watched it but I've read about it and I don't think it is even a little racist, but attitudes change, life changes. The thing with Doctor Who is execpt for the gap between the TVM and 2005 it was a constant change and even if people disliked 4 they might have liked 5 more.
But with Charlie, Planet of the Apes and others (this includes prequels like Promethus) you can do so much but you can't have the magic of the eras they were originally made in. Burton and everyone else has to make a movie that would attract us, and yes we might like the classicals but if Steven Moffat dressed a load of men in tin foil over alls and called them Cybermen and paraded them on BBC1 in 2013 he'd be crucified. With all the CGI, all the special effects and they've reverted to tin foil and method acting?
Of course he won't do that, and Burton wasn't going to make his space ship seem futuristic to people 30 years ago.
.... Which doesn't answer the question.
The actual answer to your question is that you have to remember that a remake isn't being made to be the exact same thing that they are remaking, else it would be like James Cameron and bringing out Titanic in 3D for no reason. A remake is there to be remade not to be judged by what they took and didn't take from an original.
I personally go into everything with an open mind but it is difficult to override emotional connections to things like Charlie which was a childhood film that I'd seen since before I could remember. I'd also read the book, but if they remade LotR now I wouldn't know how to take it as Jacksons films are my bases for an emotional connection. It doesn't mean I give it a bad review because it doesn't live up to a classics standard.
But I do know people like my mum can't get originals and stuff out of their head. Which is fine too, my mum usually watches it a few times after and finds a reason to love it.
When a question like this arises I always remember my joy, then annoyance then joy again of the Discworld TV series. Especially Going Postal and Teatime in Hogfather.
|
|
