Even with revivals, I don't really pay attention to previous incarnations. I always just go with the script and with the director and am willing to treat it as brand new.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
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.
The challenge of a revival is how to bring something fresh. The reward is the opportunity to add different flourishes. You're dealing with different actors, designers and a different time.
There have always been revivals. Some have always been successful. And many of them have failed.
I like coming up with new characters. Whether it's revamping an old character no one likes or just coming up with brand-new stuff, that's kind of what excited me as an artist.
Any revival in which I am involved is liable to change.
If I do do a sequel, I'm going to have to know for sure that the script is better than the original. So I'm going to be very careful about that because I'm not eager to repeat myself.
Personally, I'm not too fond of remakes.
No producer should revive a play unless they have a very good reason for it. I think there's quite enough about a good play to make it available to new audiences.
I'm not yet fortunate enough to take only the scripts that capture my fancy, but each one has to be a new experience, to put me in a light that audiences haven't necessarily seen me before.
I have always thought if you are going to make a film, it's much better to have an original script that will play to film's strengths.
No opposing quotes found.