Originally Posted by orpheus
I would rather not have a remake, but you know, I think it can be well done. King's novel is good enough to warrant a different approach.
This begs an interesting question, one that I've asked before about many a remake:
Can it really be considered a "remake" of a previous film if the original in question is itself an adaptation of pre-existing source material, ala King's novel?
There are many films like John Carpenter's The Thing
or the television version of "The Shining" (scripted by King himself) that are actually just differrent, and in these cases, more faithful, interpretations of their respective source materials.
Yet we call them "remakes", mainly because the previous adaptations had become so iconic.
I mean, there's no doubt that, say, Gus Van Sant's Psycho
really IS a remake of Hitchcock's classic film, and not an just another film version of Robert Bloch's novel. That's an obvious "remake" since it's shot-for-shot/word-for-word another version of the Hitchcock film.
Or even Zack Snyder's Dawn Of The Dead
. Romero's film was an original screenplay, and even though Snyder's film varies a bit from Romero's, it's still definitely a remake, as Dawn was expressly created in its original incarnation as a FILM.
But with projects like Carrie....is it a remake of DePalma's film, or another take on King's book?
I'm sure the filmmakers of the new version would rather you call it a new version of a King classic novel.
But what does anyone else think? I mean, what IS IT, really?!
Answer: In my opinion, no matter how you slice it, it's still not an original film. And even though I'm not opposed to new takes on old material, I would be more excited if this were something that had not been done before.
But I can't totally knock remakes.There have been more than a few that have become classics in their own right.
I don't want to live in a world without Carpenter's The Thing
or Cronenberg's The Fly.