Here's my personal rule of thumb for remakes:
If you set out to remake a MOVIE (basing your remake on the original film), its probably a bad idea. If you are going back to the source material (book, etc) and trying to do what you think is a better job then you *might* be ok (or even if it sucks your heart might be in the right place.)
I finally saw Burton's 'Charlie' and I'll agree that is was closer to the novel- a much more literal translation in many ways. But I personally find the Wilder film to be a more enjoyable movie overall. That said, any one of us can read the same book and visualize it different ways- that's the joy of reading. Its when filmmakers try to stamp their book-based product as 'definitive' that I have to laugh. Remember the year of 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' and 'Mary Shelley's Frankenstein'? Funny I though both of those author's long dead. And what I saw was 'Francis Coppolla's Dracula' and 'Kenneth Branaugh's Frankenstein' neither of which were much like my reading of the novels. Luckily *that* trend ended quickly.
I realize new ideas are very rare (if not nearly impossible) but I'd rather see a well-executed 'knock-off' or derivative film than a crappy film with a familiar name.
And there ARE exceptions that I like of course. I love Carpenter's 'The Thing' but then again I also love 'The Thing From Another World'. Both are great cinema IMHO. And yes, Cronenberg's 'The Fly' is awesome as well and makes an entirely different type of film. But what do those have in common? Great filmmakers! Those are directors who busted their chops making original pictures and then decided to work on labors of love. And it shows. I'm still torn about the need for PJ's 'King Kong' but I have heard its well done and it was a labor of love. Hell, PJ is a bigger geek than most of us. Then again geeks with huge budgets can be dangerous at times.
More later...
