HELP! I need to hire somebody who can convert my Kindle to accommodate Nook and other e book services. I'll pay $40 an hour but please don't respond unless you really know what you're doing. I know that sounds harsh and I apologize for the tone but I've had trouble with even welll-intenioned people who knew only slightly more about computers than I do. And since I know nothing...I think you can figure out the level they were operating at. Thank you very much. email@example.com
John FarrEditor, bestmoviesbyfarr.com
Posted: March 7, 2011 05:34 PM
The Dirtiest Word in Hollywood
You'll never guess. It's "originality".
But perhaps I should explain.
A few weeks back, I read an announcement that the now white hot Colin Firth might be signing on for a re-make of "My Fair Lady".
Not since Steve Martin decided to put a new spin on "The Pink Panther" have I been so moved to ask, "Why?"
Will a remake of this venerable 1964 musical, even one featuring Mr. Firth, really improve on Rex Harrison's definitive performance, one he originated on Broadway?
Flush with success, does Mr. Firth really think he can bring something new and fresh to Rex's immortal rendition of "Why Can't A Woman Be More Like A Man?"
I for one doubt it.
The truth is, if you span the course of movie-making history, it becomes abundantly clear that remakes and sequels tend not to improve on the originals.
Recognizing this, the actor Michael Caine, who knows a thing or two about the industry, once suggested that it would be more logical for Hollywood to remake mediocre movies rather than acknowledged classics.
(This is why the new "True Grit" worked out so well in my opinion...the original was never really all that good, even with the Duke on-board.)
But the Hollywood suits who took Marketing 101 know better. You remake past successes because that's where the name recognition lies. From purely a sales standpoint- that is, getting butts in movie seats, it gives you a big head start on piquing the audience's interest, or so the thinking goes...
for the rest go here: