Remakes are unoriginal, pretty much by definition. So it’s not unreasonable for people to complain when it seems like Hollywood is churning out remake after remake. With that said, I think a line needs to be drawn between your standard remake of a popular movie, and a remake of a movie that was based on a book. A remake of an original movie seems like an obvious cash grab. Oh, sure we can argue that there are advantages to updating a story for a modern audience, and there are arguments to be made there, but that a discussion for another day. A re-adaptation of a popular book isn’t quite the same thing as a remake of a popular movie, unless the new movie is actually using the first movie as its primary source material. But how often is that the case?

Is the attempt to adapt The Stand for the big screen intended to be a remake of the 1994 miniseries starring Gary Sinise, Molly Ringwald and Parker Lewis Can’t Lose star Corin Nemec? Or is it actually an effort to capture the excellence of Stephen King’s book, which is still as beloved as it was decades ago? Let’s give Hollywood the benefit of the doubt here and assume it’s the latter. Looking at The Stand miniseries, we could argue that it was a fine movie, because as a miniseries, it was above average, especially for those of us who hadn’t read the book first. But if you did read the book, you know that — as is often the case — the adaptation pales by comparison. Alterations and abridgments had to be made to condense the story, and it was made for a TV audience on a TV budget. Was it good? Sure, but a big screen version of The Stand could be amazing, assuming they can manage to keep a director attached. Arguing that the original was fine or even good doesn’t change that, nor is it a valid argument against re-adapting it.

See also the 1990 miniseries It. I can make numerous arguments as to why It was a great miniseries, the cast being a major part of it. And I’m pretty sure Tim Curry ruined clowns for a generation of kids who watched it when it first aired more than two decades ago. In 1990, I hadn’t yet begun to read King’s novels. In fact, I didn’t read It until I was in my 20s, and when I did, I discovered how much more story and character development there was in the novel, which didn’t make it into the miniseries. I still love the miniseries, but I wouldn’t say no to a new adaptation — especially one that consisted of more than one film, to truly capture the full scope of the story.

I could make a case for Harry Potter and why we need a better, more organized adaptation of J.K. Rowling’s series, but that argument’s about five years premature, as I don’t think those movies should be remade just yet. So instead, let’s look at Flowers in the Attic, since that one’s actually coming, as Lifetime plans to air a TV movie starring Heather Graham and Ellen Burstyn in January. I’m going to politely disagree with anyone who tries to claim the original movie was good, either as a film or an adaptation, but go ahead and rewatch the 1987 movie on Netflix in all its campy glory and decide for yourself. It has its redeeming qualities, I’m sure, but it doesn’t really matter whether or not the film qualifies as good because when it comes down to it, it’s not a good adaptation of the book on which it’s based. It’s really just a watered-down shell of V.C. Andrews’ novel. Lifetime’s TV movie adaptation doesn’t air until January, so I can’t make a case about why the remake is better, but looking at the trailer, it already looks like a closer adaptation to the novel than the original film turned out to be. Will it be a great movie, or even a great made-for-TV movie? Who knows, but when factoring in the 1987 film, the effort to re-adapt the book isn’t unjustified or even unwanted by the people who loved Andrews’ story and have always wanted to see it adapted properly.

What it comes down to is that, when we’re deciding as an audience what should and shouldn’t be re-adapted, the "original" movie doesn’t set the standard for what deserves a remake. The book does. Or it should, anyway. Just because someone adapted the story first doesn’t mean someone else can’t adapt it better. In the end, a proper feature adaptation of The Stand may never come to fruition. Regardless, I support the effort to make it happen, because there’s a potentially incredible movie (or series of movies) just waiting to be made there, and as movie fans — and in this case, fans of King’s books — we should be supportive of that. There are some adaptations, like Shawshank Redemption or The Notebook that can never be topped, but anything that isn’t pretty much a perfect adaptation is fair game. Set the standards high. Set them by the book.

Blended From Around The Web

Related

Hot Topics

New Reviews

Top Movies

Features

Gateway Media ©copyright 2016