Wait, back up a moment. A new Three Stooges movie? How? Why? Okay, it's not too bad. They do actually look like the Three Stooges. (Cue clip of a nun coming out of a swimming pool in an ungodly small bikini.) Okay, they ruined it.
In all seriousness, people know that remakes are generally a bad idea, but they get made nevertheless. I have issue with remakes of characters/series that is defined by one actor/actress. Let's take the Three Stooges. Sure, they look like them, they hit like them, but whoever they are, they aren't the original Moe, Larry, and Curly. Not by a longshot.
Another example would be Richard Hurndall in "The Five Doctors." No matter how nice of a job he did, he was still not William Hartnell, and they should have not used the First Doctor instead of hiring a replacement (of sorts) for Harnell. Actors like William Boyd and Clayton Moore became their fictional counterparts. Many children growing up now don't have the experience of watching the "originals" and accept these remakes as new.
But should we view remakes as an insult to the originals? Is it offensive that Sebastian Shaw is deleted from the final moments of Return of the Jedi? In defense of the movie industry, they're just trying to make money any way they can.
There are two series that I can think of that are the exceptions to the rule. The first is the aforementioned "Doctor Who" series which has a built-in dramatic device to explain all the various actors playing the title role. The second is James Bond. Be it Connery, Moore, Brosnan, or the rest. Each actor defined Bond for their decade and their generation.
It's shame that younger generations don't seem to be aware of this.
No comments:
Post a Comment