In article <Xns9A1F983C2404taustingmail@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <terry.notaniceperson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> JohnGavin <dagdern@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> news:54dd2c83-b2e5-4fbb-b8f4-15894bd3d007@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> om:
>
> > On Jan 8, 5:02 pm, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <ws21-83A0DD.14350108012...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Bill
> >> Steele <w...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > The 1990s version is noteworthy mostly for its unoriginality.
> >> > It was,
> >
> >> > AFAIK, the first ever remake of a TV series as a TV series.
> >> > (In the o
> > ld
> >> > Hollywood sense of a remake, actually redoing the original
> >> > plot.)
> >>
> >> The Mission Impossible revival did it first.
> >>
> > It would then be more accurate to say that it was the first and
> > only remake of a daytime soap as a TV series. It's pretty weird
> > to think that a daytime soap opera is soon to become a major
> > feature film. I mean, could anyone imagine Days of Our Lives as
> > a major motion picture??
> >
> > The 1990s version had none of the charisma or magic of the 60s
> > Dark Shadows. It was completely plastic.
> >
> Is it really more suprising than the Bewitched movie?
It certainly can't be any worse.
--
Jitterbug phones:
Fourth one is in hand. Doesn't work. Yet. :(
|
