Adam & Joe did a version where instead of the seven sins it was the seven dwarfs, including Sleepy.

So Al is referencing not just the AV article, but its first post too - "Hoosiers Waitress
4 days ago: It's nice of Jourgensen to let his 13-year-old nephew design an album cover for him."

You're pendantic.

Wasn't exactly a box-office hit, though, was it?

If they start killing off members of their own family then it defeats the whole object of what they're trying to do.

"Heisenberg is not, in fact, Gus"
Gus is higher than Heisenberg; Gus would be a bigger catch.

I'm hoping against hope that he'll surprise us all some time soon by turning up again as "Gandalfini the White".

Like George Galloway, or Walter White.

I don't think I'm being obtuse. I don't really get what you mean by 'must' when you say it the film 'Must address that footprint'. Do you they are obligated to, and if so, by what? West is camp, Nolan is gritty. Why assume he was responding or protesting to West or even Burton/Schumacher in his Batman films? Perhaps…

I really like that version. The original sounds quite slow after you've listened to Mandy's take.

I really don't think the remake is worse in EVERY way. It's full of great actors and memorable performances, whereas Wilder is the only memorable actor in the original. You really prefer whatsisname and who'sthat to Freddie Highmore and David Kelly? Plus some of the songs really drag in the first version, whereas…

You reckon? Burton already had quite a noirish, gothic outlook, didn't he? Likewise Nolan was already making gritty movies. And both films could be said to be influenced more by the comic books than an attempt to distance themselves from the campy 60s series – in particular works like 'Batman: Year 1', in the case of…

How do you mean 'address it'? Did Michael Keaton and Christian Bale have to 'address' Adam West?

It seems there are two meanins of definitive being used here, hence confusion (rather than equivocation). It can mean closest to the text, or simply how people define it. The former could be used as an argument against a remake (though not a good one), whereas the latter meaning makes no sense at all as a reason not…

Sure, but if anyone argued that they shouldn't have made the Shining miniseries or another Heart of Darkness because 'we've already got definitive versions', that would be a bad argument. Perhaps many people associate Frankenstein with Herman Munster, but so what? No-one would ever have a second go at adapting a book…

Yeah, Wilder's Oompa Loomoa's were awful, nothing like the book's free-spirited forest people.

That's an Oompa Loompa you just kicked, you ruffian!

"Departing from the source material has nothing to do with whether a movie is definitive or not."

Why didn't he just take Wonkavite? Never made sense, that.

Mozart wrote Twinkle Twinkle when he was about six years old, didn't he?