Quote:
Originally Posted by DNSB
As far as I remember from the item, the major issue was the investors having qualms over the portrayal of slavery in the book preventing the movie from being able to reach profitability. The colour green rules!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by meeera
Oh wow. That's 100% different from the original claim. Doesn't even bear any resemblance.
|
Really? Perhaps my wording could have been better and I could have used they were unable to find the funding required for the remake due to the portrayal of slavery in the book and/or remake. Perhaps a multi-page spewing of how the portrayal of the slaves in the book and original movie as being basically stupid and childish who needed their masters to take care of them like members of an benevolent extended family? A few more words on the subject of the positive portrayal of the Ku Klux Klan in the book? Great Ghu alone knows how many words have been used in discussions of the inaccuracies in the original book and movie.
The item I read was short and, as usual these days, seemed to oriented at those who lack the attention span to read more than 100 words.
My personal favourite theories were in no particular order:
- That the people attempting to raise money for the remake were going to make a more historically accurate version where the slave owners would be from the Simon Legree school of slave owning. More Roots than Gone With The Wind.
- That the cost of the movie if they included such scenes as the escape from the burning of Atlanta would make it a very risky proposition.
Edit: And yes, allowed was a poor word choice.