First Look at the New 'Smurfs' Poster

I've said it before and I'll say it again: There's nothing wrong with remakes. We might be in the middle of a terrible hurricane season for them - and who knows when that will be downgraded - but on a case-by-case basis, I have zero problem with a remake, an update, a movie version of a TV show, a new adaptation of classic literature, and on and on. Audiences change. Filmmakers find new influences. Stories have new points of emphasis years later. Interpretation is not a crime. For example, the Smurfs need a movie, or at least, they need a movie as much as they needed a TV show back in the '80s. It's a beloved product, the parents and grandparents of today's youth were fans of previous incarnations, the technology allows for a new direction, so yes: A new Smurfs movie is good business sense and it gives the audience what it wants. That was also true of Alvin & The Chipmunks; the movie just happened to blow. Here's a new poster, which the crack staff at Latino Review found, featuring one of our first official looks at a Smurf. I don't love it, and yeah, the movie's over a year away so it could change quite a bit between now and then, but I did think they'd be a little more progressive with the animation. I don't have much hope for any movie directed by Raja Gosnell, and this poster doesn't assuage any fears. But I'm sure it'll do bang-up business the week before Christmas next year, no matter how bad it looks in September 2009.

Comments

[Frnkln0385]

That really looks like claymation

[Asana]

"I have zero problem with a remake, an update, a movie version of a TV show, a new adaptation of classic literature"

Au contraire, Mr. Boyd! In your own words from January 28, 2009, regarding the Robert Downey led Sherlock Holmes...

"It's true that I don't see the point in remaking something just to remake it, but with one of the most iconic characters in English literature, it seems that reinventing him is also something of a disservice."

That sounds far from someone who has "zero problem" with remakes.

[Get The Big Picture]

To the first issue, I don't see the point of remaking something solely to remake it; that argument, such as it is, runs counter to the point of the first paragraph, which is, there are good reasons to do it.

Issue number two: In the case of Sherlock Holmes, my fear is that they may have gone too far the other direction, making Holmes into Austin Powers. But I have no problem with the idea of a remake of Holmes. To wit, I direct you to an article from April 11, 2008, about Natalie Portman starring in an update of Wuthering Heights:

"Here's a question for you, though: What other literary classic should be made or remade? My top five would be A Tale of Two Cities, a Pixar Animal Farm, a resurrection of Sherlock Holmes for a possible trilogy or more, Slaughterhouse Five, and Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man."

http://www.getthebigpicture.net/blog/2008/4/11/natalie-portman-set-to-star-in-wuthering-heights.html