Which is itself a remake of "Bedtime Story", from 1964. I still remember the times when things were remade because people saw potential in it to be a better product.
A lot of times, it's made with a "modern cast" because people think watching movies before they were born are unwatchable.
For example, WTF was up with the remake of Red Dawn using the totally unbelievable premise that the North Koreans were the invading force?!?! I mean, the crazy Nazis on the backside of the moon plot was more believable than that. It is unusual that I have seen a remake that made me think, "yup, that was totally worth it" and improved the story
The unbelievable part of Red Dawn was the notion that the US could be taken over by a surprise attack of paratroopers. The largest paratrooper operation was the Allied invasion of Normandy, and the paratroopers' job was to soften things up for the main invasion force.
Again, the original had them mainly coming over the border with Mexico. Nothing about the remake was any good. Nothing. Even the remade War Games sucked less than Red Dawn
Books are notoriously hard to make into movies though. Can be done, but often the cuts and changes are so drastic that the movie (or tv series) becomes just a shell of the book.
Yet some of the better movies made were based on a book. You really need a screenwriter just as good (if not better) as the author of the book to make it really happen.
My favorite Stephen King adaptations were from his shorts vs novels. Shawshank and Stand By Me are deserted island movies for me. But I agree, short stories are just long enough to put a concept out there with just enough to establish characters, motives, plots, yet leave enough room to expand on for the movie version without conflicts from deviating from canon.
The strategy was to first secure the rural high school, and then the cows would be defenseless.
But "Red Dawn" (1984) did have some redeeming qualities as a film, and apparently it was influential in at least one way...
Circa '96, I was talking with grad student from the former USSR (attending a US Ivy university), and I got the impression that the film had been taken more seriously there than it was here.
Like they thought it was some influential propaganda that people in the US fervently believed: the Communists will invade the heartland of America, and you should prepare to engage in guerilla warfare with your guns.
On second thought, I suppose it's possible some people did get that message, especially some demographic of gun-enthusiasts. IIRC, the movie has the invaders getting the list of registered gun owners, which sounds like a sensitive policy question. But I'd wildly guess only 50/50 chance that any US student at the Ivy in '96 had seen the '84 movie, though they would've had about the right age overlap.
Um, the original did not have the Chinese in it either. If the Chinese were okay with the North Koreans being the bad guy, why would they be opposed to the Russians?
