Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sniffles" data-source="post: 2300846" data-attributes="member: 30035">I tend to despise remakes on principle - I usually don't see them.  But on reflection I'm being a bit elitist, I suppose.  Many, many films have been remakes; it's not just a feature of current Hollywood.  Take Ben-Hur as an example that Joshua Randall mentioned - the familiar version starring Charlton Heston was actually the -third- remake of that story on film.  There were versions of Frankenstein before the Karloff film, and versions of Tarzan well before Johnny Weismuller.  There are at least 6 different versions of The Three Musketeers.  And does anyone think it's funny that while The Magnificent Seven was a re-interpretation of The Seven Samurai, Kurosawa's Ran was a reinterpretation of Shakespeare's King Lear?   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />   I wonder how many of today's audience members under the age of 30 would bother to see the earlier versions of most of these remakes?  They'd probably find some of the older films rather funny.  The acting style has changed a lot over the years, as have directing and editing, not to mention special effects, of course.  It's not so much fear or laziness that encourages remakes, it's a desire to have something new, believe it or not.  But why worry about finding a new script to film when you can make a new version of something old - but something that most of your target audience isn't even aware of?   "What has been will be again"What has been done will be done again,"There is nothing new under the sun."Ecclesiastes</blockquote>

Verification