Why remake this?

No kidding. I have an idea. Why don't we remake Citizen Kane for TNT starring Dennis Franz? Now, don't get me wrong, I'm in love with have the cast of the USA miniseries for this and think some of them are top-notch actors. Angus McFadyen is uber-talented. Goran Visnjic is hot and isn't a terrible actor. James Frain is superb. Henry Simmons can act pretty well and he's gorgeous too. Still, the cast isn't enough to make up for the fact that this never should have been remade --let alone for tv...

--Kat

"Every face spoiled by beauty,
Every adult tamed by duty,
Is falling at your feet…"
-Bono

I demur. As I noted elsewhere, this production is well done, and probably more historically accurate than the earlier film (to the extent we really know the details of the true slave revolt) The original was tied up in the politics of the late 1950s and early 1960s, and thus another approach is welcome. At least Tony Curtis isn't in this version (although Ustinov and Olivier will be missed). I really look forward to part 2 tonight. 6000 crosses lining the Via Appia will be a sight to see!

Why remake a classic? Simple, many people have no interest in classic movies. If it looks old, younger people tend not to watch it, so if you got a good story that you want to be remembered then you need to revisit it for the current times. The original was amazing and Kirk delivered what is quite possibly his greatest role ever, but a lot of people don't care because they won't watch a 44 year old movie. Perhaps seeing this remake will inspire those people to go rent the original. When you think about it, reasons for remaking a movie are very clear. Either the original is too old to still generate a lot of interest, or the original wasn't all that good or faithful to the source material.

That's why! For 1 thing, while Kirk Douglas is really of Russian stock (Issur Danielovitch is his real name), at least Goran Visnjic (sp?) is really Serb; therefore closer to the real Thracian roots of the real SPartacus. Further,as I said in my previous post - the wide-screen SPARTACUS was a product of the egos of DOugals, Kubrick and Trumbo, that a new telling was in order; closer to Howard Fast's book. I've never read Fast's book, but I wonder how far or close that is to the original; and if anything, his version is also probably highly fictionalized since there probably are very main ACCURATE renditions of Spartacus' TRUE story. I mean he was Enemy #1 for Rome which had a written language -- so the victors, the ROmans, naturally rule written history. And the offical Roman policy probably was to debunk or play down this arrogant upstart's story. SO whatever truth there is/was about SPartacus was an oral history and you know how that goes... ANyway, I found this new version to be a lot more credible and entertaining than the previous one.

Because unoriginality sells. Imbeciles who would not see the real adaptation of "Spartacus" will likely see this drivel instead. Many thinking viewers will hesitantly decide to watch it, too, if only to see how unintentionally ridiculous it is, and how it butchers the true Spartacus - just as one might be repulsed by, yet still tempted to see a dead six-legged calf with three eyes. Sadly, a dead six-legged calf with three eyes would still be infinitely more interesting and entertaining - and even prettier - than this ludicrous travesty ("remake") could ever hope to be.

Well maybe because you can watch the entire mini series of the remake of Spartacus and not find one Gladiator from the Bronks,like the Tony Curtis character, saying "I luv ya Spa-da-gus." The Kirk Douglas version is entertaining in its own very Hollywood way, but it is not the quality version we find in this wonderfully acted mini series. This new version is really something that belongs on Masterpiece Theatre.