Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why Do They Remake Old Movies?
15 views
Skip to first unread message
Wull
May 31, 2012, 3:41:44 PM5/31/12
to
When I see one I most often prefer the older version.
One that I remember was "Gloria". The remake was almost all new.
The original version was much better.
Last night I saw a remake of "The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone".
I was thoroughly disappointed. The two main caracters were good as they
always are. But I much preferred Vivien Leigh and Lotte Lenna (sp).
Wull
One that I remember was "Gloria". The remake was almost all new.
The original version was much better.
Last night I saw a remake of "The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone".
I was thoroughly disappointed. The two main caracters were good as they
always are. But I much preferred Vivien Leigh and Lotte Lenna (sp).
Wull
John Doe
May 31, 2012, 3:54:35 PM5/31/12
to
For some of the same reasons we remake cars.
Mack A. Damia
May 31, 2012, 4:25:53 PM5/31/12
to
On Thu, 31 May 2012 19:54:35 +0000 (UTC), John Doe
<jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>For some of the same reasons we remake cars.
Except we don't try to remake "the wheel".
<jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>For some of the same reasons we remake cars.
John Doe
May 31, 2012, 4:43:13 PM5/31/12
to
Mack A. Damia <mybaconbutty hotmail.com> wrote:
> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
>> For some of the same reasons we remake cars.
>
> Except we don't try to remake "the wheel".
New cars have wheels, too. We remake sports cars as well as all
other types of cars. And there are new makes of specific car
models.
I'm sure there are better analogies, but IMO it's a no-brainer.
Modern movies are in color because color looks better. Remaking a
movie in color might improve the movie simply because it's in
color instead of black and white. For example, a movie that
includes lots of flowers. Could you even say something like
"Aren't those flowers beautiful..." in an old black-and-white
movie? Did we ever say anything about the green grass or the blue
sky?
Did we make any movies to do with color before color film was
available? That would have been an interesting project.
--
> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
>> For some of the same reasons we remake cars.
>
> Except we don't try to remake "the wheel".
other types of cars. And there are new makes of specific car
models.
I'm sure there are better analogies, but IMO it's a no-brainer.
Modern movies are in color because color looks better. Remaking a
movie in color might improve the movie simply because it's in
color instead of black and white. For example, a movie that
includes lots of flowers. Could you even say something like
"Aren't those flowers beautiful..." in an old black-and-white
movie? Did we ever say anything about the green grass or the blue
sky?
Did we make any movies to do with color before color film was
available? That would have been an interesting project.
--
moviePig
May 31, 2012, 4:54:34 PM5/31/12
to
On May 31, 4:43 pm, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> Mack A. Damia <mybaconbutty hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> For some of the same reasons we remake cars.
>
> > Except we don't try to remake "the wheel".
>
> New cars have wheels, too. We remake sports cars as well as all
> other types of cars. And there are new makes of specific car
> models.
>
> I'm sure there are better analogies, but IMO it's a no-brainer.
> Modern movies are in color because color looks better. Remaking a
> movie in color might improve the movie simply because it's in
> color instead of black and white. For example, a movie that
> includes lots of flowers. Could you even say something like
> "Aren't those flowers beautiful..." in an old black-and-white
> movie? Did we ever say anything about the green grass or the blue
> sky?
>
> Did we make any movies to do with color before color film was
> available? That would have been an interesting project.
> ...
> Mack A. Damia <mybaconbutty hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> For some of the same reasons we remake cars.
>
> > Except we don't try to remake "the wheel".
>
> New cars have wheels, too. We remake sports cars as well as all
> other types of cars. And there are new makes of specific car
> models.
>
> I'm sure there are better analogies, but IMO it's a no-brainer.
> Modern movies are in color because color looks better. Remaking a
> movie in color might improve the movie simply because it's in
> color instead of black and white. For example, a movie that
> includes lots of flowers. Could you even say something like
> "Aren't those flowers beautiful..." in an old black-and-white
> movie? Did we ever say anything about the green grass or the blue
> sky?
>
> Did we make any movies to do with color before color film was
> available? That would have been an interesting project.
THE SCARLET LETTER...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Mack A. Damia
May 31, 2012, 4:56:29 PM5/31/12
to
On Thu, 31 May 2012 20:43:13 +0000 (UTC), John Doe
<jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>Mack A. Damia <mybaconbutty hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> For some of the same reasons we remake cars.
>>
>> Except we don't try to remake "the wheel".
>
>New cars have wheels, too. We remake sports cars as well as all
>other types of cars. And there are new makes of specific car
>models.
>
>I'm sure there are better analogies, but IMO it's a no-brainer.
>Modern movies are in color because color looks better. Remaking a
>movie in color might improve the movie simply because it's in
>color instead of black and white. For example, a movie that
>includes lots of flowers. Could you even say something like
>"Aren't those flowers beautiful..." in an old black-and-white
>movie? Did we ever say anything about the green grass or the blue
>sky?
>
>Did we make any movies to do with color before color film was
>available? That would have been an interesting project.
My point was that you can't improve on perfection, and there are a
<jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>Mack A. Damia <mybaconbutty hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> For some of the same reasons we remake cars.
>>
>> Except we don't try to remake "the wheel".
>
>New cars have wheels, too. We remake sports cars as well as all
>other types of cars. And there are new makes of specific car
>models.
>
>I'm sure there are better analogies, but IMO it's a no-brainer.
>Modern movies are in color because color looks better. Remaking a
>movie in color might improve the movie simply because it's in
>color instead of black and white. For example, a movie that
>includes lots of flowers. Could you even say something like
>"Aren't those flowers beautiful..." in an old black-and-white
>movie? Did we ever say anything about the green grass or the blue
>sky?
>
>Did we make any movies to do with color before color film was
>available? That would have been an interesting project.
number of films that stand out in their own right that have been
re-made, much to the viewer's misfortune. Could you see remakes of,
say, "The Third Man", or "Casablanca"? I'm certain some egotist will
attempt them sooner or later.
--
Old Movie Fan
May 31, 2012, 5:11:29 PM5/31/12
to
>Did we make any movies to do with color
> before color film was available? That would
> have been an interesting project.
Not that I know of, but they did make a silent movie talking about how
> before color film was available? That would
> have been an interesting project.
much they like the 'new' talkies ["A Cottage on Dartmoor" (1929)]. It
may have had a recorded score, but no voices are heard.
I laughed out loud when I first read that Lon Chaney's Silent Feature
was about a ventriloquist. Imagine; a silent film with a story about a
man using his voice.
And then he makes it again as a sound film (Lon Chaney's only talkie)
and it's still a pretty silly idea since anyone can be a ventriloquist
in a film.
Even funnier...there were those sceptics back then who doubted it was
really Chaney's voice they heard.
Even good stories get dated over time, but seldom does a remake outdo
the original.
The newer "Mighty Joe Young" had pretty good CGI and actors, but the
story wasn't quite as good as the original.
I really wanted "The Day the Earth Stood Still" to be better than the
original but it was just another big disappointment. Same with the
"Planet of the Ape's" prequel. They ruined it in the climax IMO.
moviePig
May 31, 2012, 5:43:07 PM5/31/12
to
novel. But who would finance CASABLANCA that wasn't on medication?
Mack A. Damia
May 31, 2012, 6:36:04 PM5/31/12
to
title tune?
You betcha.
--
Alan Illeman
May 31, 2012, 7:08:02 PM5/31/12
to
that the original title would be copyrighted!
Acquired this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ladykillers) today
on VHS (99c at 'Value Village') and watched it today. What an
amusing story! (saw it years ago)
As to..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ladykillers_%282004_film%29
..I've absolutely no interest
Heynonny
May 31, 2012, 7:09:10 PM5/31/12
to
On 2012-05-31 16:43:13 -0400, John Doe <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> said:
> it's a no-brainer.
> Modern movies are in color because color looks better. Remaking a
> movie in color might improve the movie simply because it's in
> color instead of black and white ...green grass or the blue
> it's a no-brainer.
> Modern movies are in color because color looks better. Remaking a
> movie in color might improve the movie simply because it's in
> sky?
I'm seeing the blowing grass on the mountain hillside in Kurosawa's
Sugata Sanshirô, dozens of other images washing over me.
Color film has been "available" as long as motion pictures have. There
were certainly ecomomic issues in the choice not to use it widely until
gimmicks were needed to combat the comperition of television, but the
color in film (especially early stocks) is a particular
stylization/distortion of reality that many artists chose not to employ
(and some did, beautifully at times).
Today the form by default includes color and to not use it is strictly
a departure for purpose. But to think that color is, by definition, an
improvement, is laughable.
wlah...@gmail.com
May 31, 2012, 7:18:41 PM5/31/12
to
On Thursday, May 31, 2012 7:08:02 PM UTC-4, Alan Illeman wrote:
> Worse is when they use the same title as the original. You'd think
> that the original title would be copyrighted!
You can't copyright a title.
> Worse is when they use the same title as the original. You'd think
> that the original title would be copyrighted!
>
> Acquired this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ladykillers) today
> on VHS (99c at 'Value Village') and watched it today. What an
> amusing story! (saw it years ago)
>
> As to..
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ladykillers_%282004_film%29
> ..I've absolutely no interest
Don't see it. An incredible mess and a good cast can't even make it watchable.
> Acquired this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ladykillers) today
> on VHS (99c at 'Value Village') and watched it today. What an
> amusing story! (saw it years ago)
>
> As to..
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ladykillers_%282004_film%29
> ..I've absolutely no interest
Mack A. Damia
May 31, 2012, 7:20:31 PM5/31/12
to
directed by Fred Zinnemann. Of course, it can always be said that it
was a different story with a slightly different title - but much was
borrowed, and it just failed to evoke the suspense and creativity of
the original.
--
Heynonny
May 31, 2012, 7:33:28 PM5/31/12
to
On 2012-05-31 16:56:29 -0400, Mack A. Damia <mybaco...@hotmail.com> said:
> there are a
> number of films that stand out in their own right that have been
> re-made, much to the viewer's misfortune. Could you see remakes of,
> say, "The Third Man", or "Casablanca"? I'm certain some egotist will
> attempt them sooner or later.
Look, I'm just spitballing here but I think I've got a monster of an
> there are a
> number of films that stand out in their own right that have been
> re-made, much to the viewer's misfortune. Could you see remakes of,
> say, "The Third Man", or "Casablanca"? I'm certain some egotist will
> attempt them sooner or later.
idea. Psycho was a decent movie for it's time, but think what we could
do today! Update everything. Color, obviously; fewer carbs on the craft
tables; we could do it in more modern in every way!
I say we all chip in, come up with $75-$80 million (including
distrubution & advertising) and do the same script, shot-for-shot.
We'll make a fortune!
Mack A. Damia
May 31, 2012, 7:50:34 PM5/31/12
to
about ten years or so ago. My sister had been cleaning and sorting
through memorabelia as my mother recently went into a nursing home.
I visited Universal Studios near LA in 2001, and there were a bunch of
photos including one of a motel. Guess which motel it was?
--
John Doe
May 31, 2012, 8:12:44 PM5/31/12
to
More bullshit than a reply can (or wants to) handle...
Heynonny <nospam noway.com> wrote:
> On 2012-05-31 16:43:13 -0400, John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> said:
>
>> it's a no-brainer.
>> Modern movies are in color because color looks better. Remaking a
>> movie in color might improve the movie simply because it's in
>> color instead of black and white ...green grass or the blue
>> sky?
>
> I'm seeing the blowing grass on the mountain hillside in Kurosawa's
> Sugata Sanshir", dozens of other images washing over me.
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 18:09:10 -0500
> From: Heynonny <nospam noway.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.past-films
> Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 19:09:10 -0400
> Message-ID: <2012053119091016807-nospam nowaycom>
> References: <jq8hhq$ldh$1 dont-email.me> <jq8i9r$p2k$3 dont-email.me> <3skfs75fjfg2utgak8917odvp2pj2ukie5 4ax.com> <jq8l51$dko$1 dont-email.me>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Subject: Re: Why Do They Remake Old Movies?
> User-Agent: Unison/1.8.1
> Lines: 22
> X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
> X-Trace: sv3-kGWXDdMso3ot9Rfd05T9UWCmXGwu0xVGBg8v4eOHxjlHNxgk4OIUF9ZncMncz6OA2Mfol0NpVxfvFvf!m1ah+WLknwi8F2qGfx5/88PXxQ1xz8PE2VhJ7iBPgbdVgyqhAitYGCE0U9Wqag==
> X-Complaints-To: abuse giganews.com
> X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
> X-Original-Bytes: 2115
> Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org rec.arts.movies.past-films:84095
>
Heynonny <nospam noway.com> wrote:
> On 2012-05-31 16:43:13 -0400, John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> said:
>
>> it's a no-brainer.
>> Modern movies are in color because color looks better. Remaking a
>> movie in color might improve the movie simply because it's in
>> color instead of black and white ...green grass or the blue
>> sky?
>
> I'm seeing the blowing grass on the mountain hillside in Kurosawa's
>
> Color film has been "available" as long as motion pictures have. There
> were certainly ecomomic issues in the choice not to use it widely until
> gimmicks were needed to combat the comperition of television, but the
> color in film (especially early stocks) is a particular
> stylization/distortion of reality that many artists chose not to employ
> (and some did, beautifully at times).
>
> Today the form by default includes color and to not use it is strictly
> a departure for purpose. But to think that color is, by definition, an
> improvement, is laughable.
>
>
>
> Path: eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.bbs-scene.org!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
> Color film has been "available" as long as motion pictures have. There
> were certainly ecomomic issues in the choice not to use it widely until
> gimmicks were needed to combat the comperition of television, but the
> color in film (especially early stocks) is a particular
> stylization/distortion of reality that many artists chose not to employ
> (and some did, beautifully at times).
>
> Today the form by default includes color and to not use it is strictly
> a departure for purpose. But to think that color is, by definition, an
> improvement, is laughable.
>
>
>
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 18:09:10 -0500
> From: Heynonny <nospam noway.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.past-films
> Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 19:09:10 -0400
> Message-ID: <2012053119091016807-nospam nowaycom>
> References: <jq8hhq$ldh$1 dont-email.me> <jq8i9r$p2k$3 dont-email.me> <3skfs75fjfg2utgak8917odvp2pj2ukie5 4ax.com> <jq8l51$dko$1 dont-email.me>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Subject: Re: Why Do They Remake Old Movies?
> User-Agent: Unison/1.8.1
> Lines: 22
> X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
> X-Trace: sv3-kGWXDdMso3ot9Rfd05T9UWCmXGwu0xVGBg8v4eOHxjlHNxgk4OIUF9ZncMncz6OA2Mfol0NpVxfvFvf!m1ah+WLknwi8F2qGfx5/88PXxQ1xz8PE2VhJ7iBPgbdVgyqhAitYGCE0U9Wqag==
> X-Complaints-To: abuse giganews.com
> X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
> X-Original-Bytes: 2115
> Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org rec.arts.movies.past-films:84095
>
T987654321
May 31, 2012, 9:00:33 PM5/31/12
to
Because they make MONEY.
John Doe
May 31, 2012, 10:26:43 PM5/31/12
to
gtr
Jun 1, 2012, 12:23:19 PM6/1/12
to
Mack A. Damia
Jun 1, 2012, 1:33:11 PM6/1/12
to
("Heeeeeeeere's Johnny!")
--
Nil
Jun 1, 2012, 2:37:35 PM6/1/12
to
On 31 May 2012, John Doe <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
rec.arts.movies.past-films:
> More bullshit than a reply can (or wants to) handle...
You can't handle the truth.
rec.arts.movies.past-films:
> More bullshit than a reply can (or wants to) handle...
Nil
Jun 1, 2012, 2:44:15 PM6/1/12
to
On 31 May 2012, T987654321 <qwrt...@gmail.com> wrote in
rec.arts.movies.past-films:
> Because they make MONEY.
Do they? I'm not always so sure. Was the Psycho remake profitable?
I guess they must make their money back + a little, on the average. I
think the main reason there are so many remakes is that they are such
safe properties and not a lot of ideas, creativity, or energy is
needed. Hollywood must keep cranking out product and it's better (in
some ways) to do it without risk.
rec.arts.movies.past-films:
> Because they make MONEY.
Do they? I'm not always so sure. Was the Psycho remake profitable?
I guess they must make their money back + a little, on the average. I
think the main reason there are so many remakes is that they are such
safe properties and not a lot of ideas, creativity, or energy is
needed. Hollywood must keep cranking out product and it's better (in
some ways) to do it without risk.
John Doe
Jun 1, 2012, 5:32:34 PM6/1/12
to
Remakes make money, Nildo, otherwise they wouldn't be made...
Nil <rednoise REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
> Path: eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!feeder.erje.net!news-1.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!news.informatik.hu-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
> From: Nil <rednoise REMOVETHIScomcast.net>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.past-films
> Organization: (?!)
> Lines: 12
> Message-ID: <XnsA06595EB984DDnilch1 wheedledeedle.moc>
> References: <jq8hhq$ldh$1 dont-email.me> <4ed9ad04-32c7-4593-8dfd-837a3b2ed2de googlegroups.com>
> X-Trace: individual.net kVwcog6EpRSUF/+OYQlr8g2HxXoA6WPL0TLphCFGB5jWyNDQlsDyCZOCkd/RfzvLES
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:yZ2pvBT2D24ryyASpjgZAN20+zU=
> User-Agent: Xnews/2006.08.24
> X-Face: esm\a~e7BW-JD"t0\Ww_~\t!z_p0}xokJ"]a4/!ZtMGxQ>t_J`\IuTO++qOqVx0&Y.=z(B!:d?HNxL}yTuIS^5T8W\iGv_s'oSFfLp%X|naUNr
> Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org rec.arts.movies.past-films:84131
>
> On 31 May 2012, T987654321 <qwrtz123 gmail.com> wrote in
Nil <rednoise REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
> Path: eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!feeder.erje.net!news-1.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!news.informatik.hu-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
> From: Nil <rednoise REMOVETHIScomcast.net>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.past-films
> Subject: Re: Why Do They Remake Old Movies?
> Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 14:44:15 -0400
> Organization: (?!)
> Lines: 12
> Message-ID: <XnsA06595EB984DDnilch1 wheedledeedle.moc>
> References: <jq8hhq$ldh$1 dont-email.me> <4ed9ad04-32c7-4593-8dfd-837a3b2ed2de googlegroups.com>
> X-Trace: individual.net kVwcog6EpRSUF/+OYQlr8g2HxXoA6WPL0TLphCFGB5jWyNDQlsDyCZOCkd/RfzvLES
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:yZ2pvBT2D24ryyASpjgZAN20+zU=
> User-Agent: Xnews/2006.08.24
> X-Face: esm\a~e7BW-JD"t0\Ww_~\t!z_p0}xokJ"]a4/!ZtMGxQ>t_J`\IuTO++qOqVx0&Y.=z(B!:d?HNxL}yTuIS^5T8W\iGv_s'oSFfLp%X|naUNr
> Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org rec.arts.movies.past-films:84131
>
> On 31 May 2012, T987654321 <qwrtz123 gmail.com> wrote in
Sol L. Siegel
Jun 1, 2012, 9:40:51 PM6/1/12
to
The Maltese Falcon and His Girl Friday were remakes. The former,
as most of us know, was the *third* version. The second was a
major rethink, and lord knows it worked.
I'm probably drawing some blanks in my old age, but the only
remake I can recall in more recent years with any fondness is
Down and Out in Beverly Hills, which was based on Jean Renoir's
Boudu Saved From Drowning (1931). Even there, some talented
people took a nice but relatively minor piece from a great
director and turned it into an amusing but relatively minor
piece from a good one. Both pictures were very much of their
respective times and places.
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
as most of us know, was the *third* version. The second was a
major rethink, and lord knows it worked.
I'm probably drawing some blanks in my old age, but the only
remake I can recall in more recent years with any fondness is
Down and Out in Beverly Hills, which was based on Jean Renoir's
Boudu Saved From Drowning (1931). Even there, some talented
people took a nice but relatively minor piece from a great
director and turned it into an amusing but relatively minor
piece from a good one. Both pictures were very much of their
respective times and places.
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
Blue
Jun 1, 2012, 11:39:36 PM6/1/12
to
Can you imagine the cost of remaking "It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World"?
Bill Steele
Jun 4, 2012, 1:58:33 PM6/4/12
to
money before, it probably will again." And in most cases they don't have
to pay again for he rights.
Problem 1 is that some people who think like that aren't smart enough to
make a good movie.
Problem 2 is that some people who think like that think they can
"improve" on the original.
Good thing 1 is that sometimes technical advances do make an
improvement. The CGI Mighty Joe Young was a lot more interesting to
watch because you could forgetyou were looking at animation. And How to
Marry a Millionaire made good use of color, Cinemascope and Marilyn
Monroe. OTOH, nothing beats the ghost in the original Uninvited.
Good thing 2 is that sometimes the filmmakers ARE smart and do an
interesting twist on the original. Can't think of a good example, though.
Nobody complains when someone does a new performance of a play. A movie
remake might present an interesting challenge to actors and directors.
Or it might allow an update to modern sensibilities. It would be
interesting to see West Side Story without the bowdlerized Bowery Boys
language. ("Cut the frabba-jabba.")
I'm sitting here trying to think of a remake that I liked better than
the original, but the best I can come up with is Watchers II, which went
back to the Dean Koontz book. And over the weekend I enjoyed Rise of the
Planet of the Apes. I didn't really think of it as a remake until they
called the chimp "Caesar." The Children's Hour -- both versions about equal.
0 new messages