It irks me so much when people use the term 'remake' to refer to things that are not remakes and then judge the actors as if they are simply doing an impression of an actor that came before them. A film remake uses an earlier film as its main source material instead of returning to the original source material.
Wicked (2025) is not a remake of The Wizard of Oz (1939). Wicked is a film adaptation of a stage musical based on the same book The Wizard of Oz is based on. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) is not a remake of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971). They're two different adaptations of the same book by Roald Dahl.
The Parent Trap (1995) is a remake of The Parent Trap (1961). Even though they're both based on the same book, Lisa and Lottie, the 1995 version is a remake because it is not revisiting the original source material, it's using the earlier film as its source material.
I think the massive influx of Disney live action remakes has primed people to expect that any new version of a movie must be almost a shot-for-shot remake of its predecessor, and creates absurd criticisms because people feel betrayed when a new adaptation doesn't match the previous film adaptation.
Johnny Depp's performance as Willy Wonka is often criticized as not coming close to Gene Wilder's, but that's not what the movie is doing. Johnny Depp is not playing Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka. He's playing his own version of Roald Dahl's character and making new choices. In fact, he's very deliberately doing the inverse of what Wilder did, because he's a professional actor who understands how to analyze and interpret a character. Wilder is playing Wonka as a charming Mephistopheles, putting on a facade of charisma and wit to hide devilish malice. Depp plays Wonka as a tortured genius, putting on a facade of offputting oddness to hide vulnerability and sincerity. You might dislike his take on the character, but the movie is not a failed remake of the Gene Wilder version. It's a completely different adaptation.
Likewise, when Wicked first came out, there were comments on practically any video of Margaret Hamilton's performance in the original MGM musical declaring that she was far superior to Cynthia Erivo. But Cynthia Erivo isn't playing Margaret Hamilton, she's playing her own version of Elphaba. Comments suggesting that Margaret Hamilton would be rolling in her grave over Wicked are ridiculous. Margaret Hamilton loved The Wiz. She was an experienced, very good actor with a 60 year career in film, television, and musical theatre. Obviously she understood what an adaptation was.
Same goes for Paapa Essiedu in the Harry Potter HBO show. So many comments (amidst the egregiously racist ones) denounce him on the basis that he will never be Alan Rickman. He's not playing Alan Rickman's Snape, he's playing his own interpretation of a character from a book, which is being re-adapted. Similarly to Margaret Hamilton, Alan Rickman spent most of his career as a Shakespearean actor, playing roles that other actors had played for hundreds of years before him. He absolutely would not hate Paapa Essiedu or talk shit about him.
It's like actors playing the same characters in different stagings of a play. David Tennant's Hamlet is not a failed remake of Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet. They're completely different interpretations of the same text and each actor is doing something different with it. I dislike Branagh's Hamlet. But not because I think he was somehow failing to accurately replicate Asta Neilsen's Hamlet or Laurence Olivier's Hamlet. Actors are not circus monkeys reciting lines. Actors think about, talk about, and engage with the characters they're playing. They aren't just doing impressions of the actors who preceded them and it's absurd to critique the films or performances as if they are.
prguitarman
kianamaiart
titsay
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
izzy806
andulkaphoto
gummygunk
dailybridgerton
