4 ms·
Did we need a live version of Lord of The Rings? What was wrong with the print version? The original Mulan legend is good material as is the original movie. If
by debuggingnoob 6y ago
Did we need a live version of Lord of The Rings? What was wrong with the print version?
The original Mulan legend is good material as is the original movie. If the new movie had been any good we'd likely all be happy for it.
A Star Was Born has been re-made 4 times. The most recent is the highest rated. Pride and Prejudice has been made several times. I personally really enjoyed the mid 90s version. Mutiny on Bounty has been re-made more than once. I liked the 60s version over the 40s version. I liked the 2005 King Kong (and the 1933 King Kong)
There's nothing wrong with remaking. It's just disappointing when it's a bad remake.
- foobarian 6y agoI'll tag along: I liked the live action version of Aladdin a lot more than the animated.
- vertis 6y agoI enjoyed the Aladdin stage play, though TBH it's not my favourite play I've been to in recent years. Would settle for any play right now.
- jkinudsjknds 6y agoI'd argue some of the recent disney efforts like the Lion King don't qualify for this because, unlike remakes of the past, it's basically a shot for shot recreation of the animated version. Something about that feels wrong to me. They're more like remasters.
- vertis 6y agoThese are all good examples. Lord of the Rings is an interesting example because it's such a different medium. I guess for me it's not so much the remaking even as Disney remaking it's own properties. I like the BBC pride and prejudice more than the more recent remake, but perhaps that's just nostalgia. I haven't watched it yet, but I'm told the most recent Little Women is a better version.