Boney Kapoor Quotes

The truth is that we're not remaking Sam Peckinpah's 'Straw Dogs,' we're making 'Straw Dogs.' We're taking this story, and we're putting our own spin on it. The mere fact that I have James Marsden in it is an indication that it's a very different film than the one that had Dustin Hoffman in it.

We all know that one can never recreate the magic of an original film.

I think plays deserve other interpretations. They should live on, and other people should should take their hand at them. I'm very supportive of that.

In my mind, I'm no longer daunted by the idea of a remake. In fact, I now look at it as a genre unto itself - so long as you make it your own.

I really liked 'Premam,' and when we decided to remake it, our intention was never to make a better film.

I wish someone would redo 'Dune.'

No, we've been performing our old songs a little differently each performance.

When you do a remake, there's a lot of pressure because people always love the original.

It's not a master plan to do every remake and every recreation of icons. It's just what I've been hired to do.

Another thing that really excites me: I'd like to do multiple versions of the same film.

Remakes are happening for a long time, and it is happening in the West, too. I don't believe anything is wrong in that.

I would never try and do a remake off a movie. I think that's a whole different thing. I think everyone will always remember the first movie, and they will always compare it with the second one.

If you are going to remake a film, you may as well remake a classic.

It's always that tricky thing with a remake, especially when it's something that's well loved. You're coming to something that has a built-in fascination, but with that comes people ready to feel disgruntled that it's being remade at all.

There are a lot of different elements in play when you're remaking something people care about.

Most writers are unhappy with film adaptations of their work, and rightly so. 'Field of Dreams,' however, caught the spirit and essence of 'Shoeless Joe' while making the necessary changes to make the work more visual.

Any director who comes into a revival owes a great deal to the original director. If I know the backbone works, it gives me, as a director, much more freedom to bring something new to it or try something different.

I'm not a big fan of remakes. I never wanted to do a remake.

I'm not rigid about directorial changes: I judge them on a case-by-case basis. In the case of a play whose text is widely familiar, I'm open to drastic changes that may alter the author's meaning, perhaps even considerably. If the results don't work, then I say so.

Shakespeare has always been up for grabs, and choreographers have every right to use him any way they choose.

I'm inspired when I find out about something that I didn't know was a remake. An example is, of course, stuff like 'The Fly,' or 'The Thing,' or even 'The Blob.' For our generation, all those things, whether it was 'The Blob' or 'The Fly' or something else, we had no idea they were remakes.

Is an audience open to seeing a film that isn't what they expect when they see a film that's been adapted from a children's book?

My advice to anyone adapting a novel is that once they've read it and learnt to understand it, then they must throw it away and never look at it again!

Classics stay alive because a great actor or a great director wants to do them.

I think a lot of fans immediately go, 'ugggh' when they hear that someone is doing a prequel or a remake, they sort of assume the worst sometimes.