How is their very existence "dismissive", exactly?Īs for the second part, you're bridging two ideas that are unconnected. If we valued our artistic heritage enough to make sure movies like the original Scarface aren't forgotten we wouldn't need remakes that then eclipse them.Īgain, more assumptions that don't really reflect reality. Good ones exist and so do ones that are better (Although it's rare) but they're in such the minority I approach the entire undertaking with automatic irritation. I think their very existence is dismissive of what came before. And as far as the studios are concerned, it's a win win because they make money on the remake and can bring attention to the original (bring out new versions on disc and so on). What's the evidence for this? ANY time you listen to a filmmaker talk about the film he's remaking they go on and on about honoring the original, wishing more people watch the original, and so on. Like, people in the 80s would definitely understand the story more because it's in their context. It's not always a case of "expanding upon", it's usually a case where they're telling the story in a different context. One can remake a film and still think the original is "vital". Remakes are designed to "update" and to me this is code for "replace." "Inspired by" or "homage" movies would be enough to spread the love. If they already felt the original was vital and didn't need expanding upon, remakes would have no reason to exist. I mean, the creators when you think about it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |