Terminator 6 (film) - The coolest/best thing I've ever heard Schwarzenegger say

[JDP]

If you think that reading Shakespeare in the original 17th century English versions is tough, try reading Chaucer, Gower or Langland in their original Middle English!

[beat_truck]

I though it was more dull than tough. Classic literature just isn't my thing, though. I think the last book I read was Johnny Cash's autobiography. That was at least interesting to me. I have Undead by John Russo, World War Z, and a couple Stephen King books that I would like to read. I am just not an avid reader and have a hard time actually sitting down and doing it.

[shootemindehead]

The source material of The Thing was not the original film, but the novel on which the original film was very losely based. As for remakes, I'm actually starting to get around to the idea of them. Don't like em? Don't watch em. Worst case scenario it brings new attention to the original. Best case - we get a great film. So what's the fuzz? It's the laziness and cheapness of the general idea, I suppose, coupled with the fact that they are nearly always a piss poor version of the original film and in the minds of some, if can have a stymieing affect to some degree. It irks the fuck out of me when I talk about 'Dawn of the Dead' to some people and they say "Oh yeah, Ving Rhames was great in that". In certain cases the worse film can over shadow the better one. Stuff like the remake of 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' are destined to be dumped into the memory hole though. - - - Updated - - - Imagine someone trying to "rewrite" Homer, or Chaucer, or Shakespeare, or Cervantes, or Victor Hugo, or Jules Verne, or Edgar Alan Poe, etc. "NO!", just "NO!", "N" and "O" and "!" = "NO!" Their books/plays may not have been rewritten. But their stories have, in every screenplay that adapted them.

[EvilNed]

Imagine someone trying to "rewrite" Homer, or Chaucer, or Shakespeare, or Cervantes, or Victor Hugo, or Jules Verne, or Edgar Alan Poe, etc. "NO!", just "NO!", "N" and "O" and "!" = "NO!" This has been done literally hundreds of times.

[JDP]

This has been done literally hundreds of times. "Adaptations" to other media than writing is one thing, attempting to "remake" the literary works themselves is a wholly different one. I can't recall anyone who has tried to "remake" The Canterbury Tales, for example. And when someone has the audacity to try to do such things, the result almost invariably can't hold a candle to the original writings. Same with movies.

[EvilNed]

"Adaptations" to other media than writing is one thing, attempting to "remake" the literary works themselves is a wholly different one. I can't recall anyone who has tried to "remake" The Canterbury Tales, for example. And when someone has the audacity to try to do such things, the result almost invariably can't hold a candle to the original writings. Same with movies. The purpose is not always that a work should be held in higher regard than it's source material. Works of art are not always rated on a scale, and may have different purposes. Often the purpose is to update the story to fit a modern narrative, to bring the story to a wider audience and introduce it to younger people. Remakes are very rarely meant for people who know, and love, the original - however those people always do end up watching / reading it anyway...

[shootemindehead]

Works of art are not always rated on a scale Dr. J. Evans Pritchard would disagree with you Neddy.