| mike_intellivision said: Well, Hollywood has always done that. The Wizard of Oz movie (1939) that is so revered was actually the third movie by that title produced (1910, 1925), including one (1925) that sounds as revisionist as the Tim Burton take on Alice in Wonderland. Basically, you see this because the classics are great source material. In other words, the same reason some characters and series and IPs appear over-and-over-and-over again in the video game world. |
The difference is that neither the 1910 nor 1925 versions would have been classics. The original 1910 one was a 13 minute silent movie - it makes sense to make a new one after that.
And I don't mind remakes of great stories, when they're done tastefully. There have been many Alice in Wonderlands over time. Only the Tim Burton one bothers me, and the reason why is the same reason why I'd have no problem with some indie developer doing effectively a "reimagined Mario Bros", but if Sega were to do it, I'd be pissed off. It's a matter of scale and purpose, and of screwing with classics.
But then, this one bothers me even more. It's not even meant to be a reimagining - it's meant to be a prequel. And by doing a prequel, they're screwing with the canon of the movie.
But what bothers me most is that there's so many other classic stories out there that go ignored. If they insist on taking from old stories, why can't they at least do something that hasn't been done before?
