| Aielyn said:
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? |
I don't think this movie is meant to have any connection with the old movie, comming from a different studio and all, besides the movie was already quite different from the book. I belive that this movie is bassed on the non cannonical (written posthumously, different author) Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West, which is already a prequel, so I guess that in a way this is an original adaption.
@TheVoxelman on twitter
