|
| Hmm.
I
don't
know
if
I
would
call
it
a
re-make.
|
|
 |
|
 |
Because it was a book first, and as nice as the Gene Wilder version is, they kinda killed the spirit of the author in it. Roald Dahl was a twisted little author, and that was the whole fun of the books.
Anyway, since a good portion of the people who worked on the film hadn't even seen the other movie, its hardly by definition a remake.
Funny how some books get made into movies dozens of times (like Gulliver's Travels or Moby Dick), but those movies are never considered remakes, because the movie was not the original version.
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
AUTHOR OF THIS MESSAGE
The Chia Rhino
MESSAGE TIMESTAMP
25 august 2005, 10:14:54
AUTHOR'S IP LOGGED
65.29.9.192
|
|
|
|
