Just so long as we get to see her swimming in baked beans, fine.
Marc
NO NO NO! I could see it now…Eminem playing Alex…Jesus, please no…
Jon
I hate to break the news to you, but that’s exactly what major motion pictures are.
If more artistic, less “product”-like films eventually get made and shown to a wide audience, it will be because they sell, not because of their artistic merits.
I think we’re assuming a decent, if not “perfect” remake, not the usual Hollywood remake drivel. Just for the purposes of this thread. Now some movies don’t need to be remade at all. We watched Planet of the Apes a couple nights ago (Chuck Heston!) and it honestly struck me…it’s held up damn well, other than the “space” shots in the beginning.
Robin Hood.
Without Kevin Costner.
With Alan Rickman.
Three Musketeers. - Not like the Disney drivel with a cast all under 25. But, with fresher faces than the one with Oliver Reed, Richard Chamberlin, Michael York . Russell Crowe as the moody one. Rupert Everett as Aramis. Hugh Jackman as Athos -porthos-pathos (whatever) and somebody else for D’Artagnen.
The chick could be that Monica Belluci who is hot right now.
Basically, I want to see some new swashbuckling films. Is that too much to ask, men prancing around in tights with their sword in hand?
Oh wait, Brad Pitt has to be in the production too.
How about an updated remake of FREAKS? Granted, it wouldn’t get made today because of PC-ness and the general shortage of genuine freaks, but it would be pretty cool.
GMRyujin, I agree with you about POTA, but I saw the remake a few weeks ago and I expected to hate it, but it was actually pretty good. Not as good as the original, but I wouldn’t have complained if I had paid to see it at the movies.
Jon
When I think of remake I think of an updated adaption of a story that had its origin in film. I don’t think it’s fair to call a film based on a book or play that has been previously adapted a remake, even if an earlier film is considered the definitive filmed version. Of course there are exceptions, like when the film is overwhelmingly better known than its source.
I say this mainly because I notice that a lot of the suggested remakes are adaptions of novels or plays, and I honestly don’t think of those as remakes. I think of them as new versions of previously adapted works. Frankly, I think the story of Robin Hood deserves better than to be so closely associated with Prince of Thieves that any future adaption of the tale be thought of as a remake of it.
Moving on I see no problem with a remake that brings something new to the table or sheds some new light on the story, the subject matter or the characters.
Remakes that attempt to recreate too closely the original film are a waste of time. Gus Van Sant’s Psycho was quite possibly the most assinine, egotistical film project of the last 25 years. It was rightfully scorned and was a waste of time for everyone involved. I mean really, recreating a previous film, one considered an absolute classic, shot for shot? What a colossal waste of time. What was the point? You can paint a copy of a great artwork, that doesn’t make you a great painter.
I also had the opportunity to recently watch both Charade and its recent remake The Trouble With Charlie.
I didn’t like Charade. It’s exactly the sort of “old movie” I loathe. It was a silly, stilted piece of fluff that didn’t even try to make sense. (Tell me, how exactly do you drown an full-grown adult man with military experience in a bathtub without anyone hearing the inevitable struggles?) It was just a showcase for how cute Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn look together. I hated, hated, hated it. This movie also made me wonder why Grant and Hepburn are considered great actors. I could hardly imagine worse “acting” than watching those two standing around and trading smug, supposedly witty one-liners.
I also hated The Trouble With Charlie because, having just watched the original film, I was able to notice all the subtle and not-so-subtle similarities between the two films. Indeed, The Trouble With Charlie seemed unnatural to me somehow, everything about it just as stilted as in the original. Perhaps the director ordered his stars to be just as self-conscious and unsubtle in their acting as the stars of the original?
One of my all time favorites, and I don’t think it could be done with the high tech world the way it is now, but**Hopscotch **
Story line: Master CIA spy (Walter Matthau) gets in trouble for letting a KGB operative go and gets assigned desk duty by his boss ( Played wonderfully by Ned Beatty).
Walter decides he is out of the biz. Shreds his CIA file and proceeds to lead the CIA, KGB and Interpol on a merry chase around the world while he sends off his behind the scenes dirty deeds book of what he has seen and done in the agency, chapter by chapter, to said agencies and book publishers.
Wonderful work by Glenda Jackson, too.
I just can’t get over Marky Mark. Yes, he was good in Three Kings. But dude…it’s Marky Mark!
And he didn’t even wear a loincloth, dammit!
I don’t get Exapno Mapcase’s objection to remakes. If the source material is good and the film was mediocre, I see no reason not to remake it and create a better product. Tommy started out as a concept album, then it was astage show, then a movie, then a play. I see no reason not to make another, better adaptation.
Some remakes are unnecessary. Gus Van Sant’s remake of Psycho strikes me as a prime example.
Leonardo DiCaprio apparently wants to play Johnny Eck. I’m not kidding, this came up in another thread.
I’m aware of how Hollywood works. What I’m saying is that there seems to be minimal creativity and risk-taking with original or untried ideas. Just remakes and sequels that they feel are guaranteed to sell. I’m sure complaints like this have been made for years, but this particular form of it really ticks me off.
I don’t understand where Exapno’s coming from either. I’ve heard this argument before and don’t understand. Originality is overrated anyway. It isn’t the material, it’s what you do with it. There’s no reason a remake can’t be a great film, just as an “original” film isn’t necessarily going to be anything special.
Besides, most “original” films are inspired by multiple sources anyway, the The Matrix and Star Wars probably being the ultimate examples.
You aren’t going to see risk-taking from Hollywood because movies these days are, largely, over-produced and over-hyped product. They’re designed to sell, with entertainment value taking a backseat and originality not even a factor.
Anyway, originality in and of itself isn’t necessarily a plus.
When most people speak of “originality” I tend to think it’s just shorthand for “risky and/or seldom-used ideas”.
I don’t think its as important to be original as it is to be daring, but even when you take risks it can backfire. Just ask Vince Gallo.
I think Snoop Dog would be good as Alex. He has that stone cold killer look. Plus he has the charisma to pull off the role.
I think Suge Knight as a washed up alex, might prove interesting.
slaps WortMeWorry
Oh, wait a minute . . .
Were you kidding?
slaps WortMeWorry again, just in case he wasn’t kidding
I will agree with you one count though. As soon as I read the idea for a Clockwork Orange remake, the first idea that sprang to mind was recreating Alex as a black or latino gang-member.
True true, Fibber. One of the most unique movies I’ve seen was Peter Greenaway’s Tempest adaptation Prospero’s Books. Gah.
But I think it’s important for art to try new things, otherwise you get mediocrity (and not really art). Some of it sucks, but you don’t get Citizen Kanes and such if everybody plays it safe.
I agree Marley, but asking for art and/or true innovation (As oppose to the latest whiz-bang computer effects.) from Hollywood at this point . . .
There’s a reason most of my favorite movies of the last decade or so have been independent films.
slap shields turned on
How about 50 Cent? He looks like a genuine badass and he’s been shot 9 times, I think he could pull off an ultraviolent gangster role.
A Clockwork Orange is one of the movies that should forever be off-limits to remakes–it was perfect the first time around. Besides, it’s impossible to set the movie in any other time or place. The book was written to feature verbally adroit thugs with a penchant for Beethoven to demonstrate the conflict of the superego and the id. Can you really see Snoop Dogg or Fifty Cent mouthing the flow of language in Burgess’s novel? C’mon, it would be impossible to imagine gangsta rappers who have even heard of Beethoven, let alone fancying his music.