|
|
Post by geode on Sept 22, 2018 14:47:25 GMT
Basically no films should be remade. I disagree. I guess some remakes of silent movies such as "Ben-Hur" were justifiable but others in general? Most remakes use latest technologies that were not available at some point. Sound, color, CGI, 3D... And Ben Hur was a book originally. It just shows a lack of imagination and crass commercialism. Do you tell this theater directors who instead of writing their own pieces put Shakespeare, Molière and Goethe on the stage? All modern performances of pieces written by these great authors are remakes, so to speak. If you don't like a remake, don't watch it. The original is not going away because of a remake. The technology involved in making films was very technologically advanced by the mid-20th Century. I cited one remake that I would argue was improved because of the advent of sound. One can argue color improved some remakes, but usually this has not been the case. CGI has in many cases made remakes worse than the original. So "Ben-Hur" was a book first. I don't see the rekevence as we are talking about movies. Many films are adapted, but the medium isdifferent. For that reason I find your dragging stage plays into this to be irrelevent. I think the only time a stage production is at all comparable is if it is rewritten to materially alter the original. The way you are describing it two successive performances of "Julius Caesar" at the onset would be an "original"and a remake"... But the real bottom line is how seldom a remake actually is superior. I can only think of one or two after the advent of sound thay I think are better, and in these cases most everybody disagrees with me. Remakes are generally made from films that were successful. There were reasons why this happened. Most remakes are not done to correct the mistakes in failed films. Actually those would be the best candidates to be remade, but they are usually not because they were commercial failures.
|
|