[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I don't know. I liked the miniseries but Crawford is so perfect in the original that any attempt to remake it without her would be struggling to compete.She defined tht character, almost like an alter-ego.

i liked the movie a lot too but when i meant better in several ways (not every way) i was thinking for example of the detailed period reconstruction and the muted color of the cinematography and the detailed novel-like narrative and all kinds of attention to detail in the todd haynes version. more naturalistic, less melodramatic (there's that word again).

both definitely have their merits and i wasn't really declaring the new one better than the original-- but to have remade such a classic, i thought the hbo series justified its existence well-- it wasn't a superfluous piece of work and i think it's better tailored to our audiences today. works kinda like "mad men" looks at the 60s but looking at the 30s, whereas the original didn't need to add a sense of historical perspective because the great depression was a recent thing and everything was sort of a given.

but what the hell is chicken and waffles anyway? i've never eaten that stuff in my life (separate yes, together no).