July 17, 2004

This Week's Sign the Apocalypse is Upon Us
Everett

I'm amazed. Simply amazed. Given our political differences (which may or may not be less than I'd assumed), I would never in a thousand years have expected Bob Praz to link to a piece on TechCentralStation.com, a site which I visit on a regular basis (Have you read James Glassman's piece on the AIDS conference on Bangkok, Bob?).

Anyway, I read the article, and I agree with its conclusions. My only immediate reaction to the proposition is that it gives us an excuse to keep visiting this site for another 20-30 years. In principle, I have no objections to a remake of LotR, especially if certain errors are corrected, though I expect that by the time a remake is done, I'll have a certain feeling of nostalgia for the original that the new one will have to overcome in order to win my approval.

Will LotR be remade? I think it almost a certainty. In addition to the reasons listed in the article, there is the fact that movies are remade all the time. Major Payne, The Truth About Charlie, The Manchurian Candidate, Blue Crush, The Jackal, and Ocean's 11 are all examples of movies that have been remade recently. Hollywood tends to have trouble coming up with new ideas that are good. Because of this, directors often seek to remake good, old movies. I see no reason why this wouldn't happen with LotR.

Should it be remade? That depends entirely on the quality of the remake. A lot of people were and are willing to give Peter Jackson a break on major flaws because his is the first decent attempt to make LotR into a movie. Whoever remakes it will not have this luxury, and his version must blow PJ's out of the water if it is to be regarded as worthwhile from an artistic standpoint. On the whole, when LotR is redone, there will be, I think, a fair amount of fear that, instead of being on a level with PJ's LotR, the remake will be on a level with Bakshi.