W. Dixon is dead
I've recently finish reading the Hardy Boys, returning after a very long break. Having finished the series during my first year in high school, I was expecting dejavu or some old feelings but boy was I mistaken. It was like reading a totally unknown and sadly unrelatable characters. Much like the new Macgyver, the Hardy boys are now more arrogant, brash and stupid. Even the way they talk in the book is markedly different, if one was familiar with the originals. Suffice to say, I did not return to meet old friends. Id rather read the old again than the new ones. It still says the writer is Franklin W. Dixon, although it really is a collection of ghost writers, but somehow it does not read like it is. The Dixon I know is dead.
Rarely is the remake better than the original.
NMGal wrote:
Rarely is the remake better than the original.
True.
Usually the reason is that the remake is no longer driven by passion. Rather, the remakes and story extentions are just there for the money.
And this is likely to generate a photographically based discussion?
Orphoto wrote:
And this is likely to generate a photographically based discussion?
Wrong section. I thought it was posting on general diiscussion. Must request admin to move the post
ddgm
Loc: Hamilton, Ontario & Fort Myers, FL
Franklin W. Dixon was a Pen Name used by various authors who wrote the Hardy Boys, not uncommon then or now.
The world we knew is definitely GONE!
Orphoto wrote:
And this is likely to generate a photographically based discussion?
It just did. ^^
MUST GO BY THE BOOK, eh?
Call them out if they don't. NO SLACK.
Right?
Orphoto wrote:
And this is likely to generate a photographically based discussion?
Old pictures are better than new pictures.
Wallen wrote:
Wrong section. I thought it was posting on general diiscussion. Must request admin to move the post
It happens....
I myself am not worried about it.
Wallen wrote:
True.
Usually the reason is that the remake is no longer driven by passion. Rather, the remakes and story extentions are just there for the money.
Not always true. Compare the 1942 film Roxie Hart with the 2002 film Chicago. With all due respect for Ginger Rogers (I'm a big fan of her movies in general.), the 2002 film blows the first one away.
Compare the 1934 film Anne of Green Gables with the amazing films and sequels from the 1980s.
The first Star Trek movie after the TV series really sucked. Those that followed were better.
There are more examples, but I just woke up and can't think of them.
therwol wrote:
Not always true. Compare the 1942 film Roxie Hart with the 2002 film Chicago. With all due respect for Ginger Rogers (I'm a big fan of her movies in general.), the 2002 film blows the first one away.
Compare the 1934 film Anne of Green Gables with the amazing films and sequels from the 1980s.
The first Star Trek movie after the TV series really sucked. Those that followed were better.
There are more examples, but I just woke up and can't think of them.
...and some old wines are better than new ones from the same vinyard...what's your point???
goofybruce wrote:
...and some old wines are better than new ones from the same vinyard...what's your point???
I was replying to this post.
"Usually the reason is that the remake is no longer driven by passion. Rather, the remakes and story extentions are just there for the money."
I was merely pointing out that remakes can be better than the original. Same with sequels. For example, the second Addams Family movie is considered by critics to be far better than the first. As for Hardy Boys books, I don't know. I've never read any of them to have an opinion.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.