The Lady Vanishes - 2012?
![[Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/1afcc7eb5953677e38c6b6a3a3a69f6b.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 640 Forum Member
✭✭
I wondered if anyone knows if and when the 2012 remake of the Lady Vanishes is on?
0
[Deleted User]
Posts: 640 [Deleted User]
Posts: 640 [Deleted User]
Posts: 640
Comments
Looks good though
The 1938 version is on BBC2 during the day on Friday. :eek:
It’d better be a cut above the BBC’s limp and lacklustre Rupert Penry Jones’ version of The 39 Steps. 80 odd minutes of dullness foisted upon us several Xmas’ ago,
Exactly!
The original beats anything made since.
Re-makes I find, aren't usually much cop, they make 'em as they can't come up with a halfway decent original story line.
The same lack of talent is usually evident in the re-make.
Unless the BBC are going to use the Sidney Gillat and Frank Lauder script, rather like Gus Van Sant did to Psycho in 1998, then it simply false to say that they are doing a remake of the Hitchcock film. They are making an fresh adaptation of a 1936 novel.
I do not understand the argument that once someone has made a good adaptation of a book or play then nobody else should bother. So much excellent film and TV has come about because people have gone back to original material and given it a new treatment.
Eh, I just like Julian Rhind-Tutt - and am a fan of the Angela Lansbury version too, which isn't exactly known for it's genius. I've also just read on the 1938 IMDb page that it is based on the book, which is why the director (presumably) had a problem with it.
Thanks for the information everyone!
Very few re-makes in my opinion are as good as the original
I mentioned yesterday in another thread the 1948 film of the musical "One Touch of Venus." The 1987 "The Mannequin" more or less copied the plot and was dire compared with the original.
You must have missed the part of my post where I pointed out that this is not a re-make. It is another adaptation of the original story.
There are numerous counter examples to disprove your suggestion that once one adaptation has been made very few new versions are as good.
Agatha Christie novels, plays and stories have been adapted for films and TV in many different eras since the 1930s and the Sherlock Holmes stories have been made into films since the 1920s, and TV series since the 1950s. Were the first films made of each story really the best adaptations?
Shakespeare plays are always being adapted, and sometimes the new results are spectacular as in The Hollow Crown this year.
The Lord of the Rings was first filmed in 1978, but many people would consider that Peter Jackson did something worthwhile in what you would presumable call a "re-make".
I could go on and on and on. The idea that you can only make a good film or TV if you use an original story is nonsense.
Correction - The first book was, not the entire trilogy and aside from the (still quite effective) rotoscoping of the live action parts most agree that it fell far short of everyone’s expectations so Jackson wasn’t exactly competing with a classic when it came to his version.
Thanks for not doing that, you're welcome to your opinion, it won't change mine.
I didn't miss anything.
Whatever you call it, with The Lady Vanishes, it's a re-make of the same story, however you want to dress it up, no need to split hairs, is there?.
But not a "fresh" adaption of the same plot.
I think the clue is in the title. "The Lady Vanishes" Unless of course she doesn't, that'd be "fresh."
So you don't agree with Doghouse that the 1978 adaptation of the Lord of the Rings was better than the Peter Jackson "re-makes"? Neither do I.
So you think that Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings was not "fresh" because there was still a Lord, Rings, etc in his version, just like in the 1978 "original".
Look, you've your opinion on The Lady Vanishes, I've mine.
Does it really matter?
No need to drag anything else into it.
I've no opinion on, The Lord of The Rings, never read the book or seen the film, it doesn't appealed to me.
Some people can get rather obsessive about particular stories.
The plot is significantly different - and it is overall a lot more faithful to the original novel than the Hitchcock film.
If you don't like the idea of someone adapting a novel for TV that has been adapted for a film in the past - just make a note not to watch it.
He hasn’t offered an opinion either way on Bakshi’s LotR. Your comparison is flawed, as I’ve already pointed out, because the 70s cartoon was only a third complete and didn’t really satisfy anyone so to cite it in the same breath as Hitch’s widely praised Lady Vanishes is chalk and cheese really.
No need for notes, I've seen the original film of the Lady Vanishes(a few times, it's often repeated) and watched a bit of the 1979 re-make, but I thought it didn't compare with the original, which I won't be watching again. Don't want to watch another version of the story. But feel free to watch it yourself.
My point is simple. Just because there has already been one adaptation of an original story such as The Fellowship of the Ring, that does not mean that there should not be others.
If that was the case then we would never have had David Lean's Great Expectations, because there had been at least two films made from that novel before 1946.
Just think how impoverished our TV and film library would be if the rule that you are advocating were followed, and how very silly it is to condemn a film that you have not seen just because there has been an earlier adaptation of the same original story.
I’m not advocating any such rule. In your rush to polarise opinions you seem to have misrepresented me. Wilfully or accidentally only you can say......
Also, as pointed out above the BBC’s recent track record on re-making acknowledged Hitchcock classics (The 39 Steps) is hardly encouraging when anticipating their version of The Lady Vanishes particularly seeing as those involved bizarrely feel the need to rubbish Hitchcock’s version in order to publicise theirs!