Reply to Comment

Perrak_the_Crazed said: Well, if they're going to remake the movie anyway, why would they stick with the same plot? Film is a mass-market product designed to make money, yes, but of the producers and directors I've met - a paltry handful, but I can't imagine it's that much different for the rest of them - they were all creative type people. There's a definite hierarchy on- and off-set, but ultimately they are constructing a piece of art. You try and tell an artist that he should just do what someone else has already done.

I'd imagine folks who remake movies see the new ones as entirely separate entities. If that's the case, would it really make sense (other than, perhaps, financially) to keep always the original plot?

I saw the '98 version of Psycho, understood it entirely, and thought it answered a non-burning question I'd had for a while. I've watched old movies and thought, "Man, I wish they'd done this in color or with better special effects." Apparently Van Sant had the same itch to scratch, but he's Van Sant, which means he gets $60 million back scratchers. I think it failed because Hitchcock's Psycho was not made for today's audiences.

Edit: sorry about the lack of spaces. I swear I know what a paragraph is.