[MOPO] REMAKES

[Walter Reuben]

For what it's worth, a couple of people I know have seen a not quite complete version of this film by Jackson, and they were both mightily impressed.  Who knows...There are cases in film history where a remake was as good as the original. Think of MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH   Two Hitchcock versions, both quite different, both classics Renoir's 1937 LA BETE HUMAINE became Fritz Lang's HUMAN DESIRE (1954),  Again, two great films. John Stahl's IMITATION OF LIFE of 1934 is remade by Douglas Sirk in 1959.  Personally, I prefer the earlier version, but they are both clearly great in very different ways. And, oddly, Howard Hawks makes RIO BRAVO in 1959, then basically remakes it as EL DORADO in 1967.   On the other hand, we have Hitchcock's PSYCHO remade by Gus Vant Sant, awful! And then there was Ross Hunter's ghastly musical remake in 1973 of LOST HORIZON, which featured such great singing talents as Peter Finch, Liv Ullman, and George Kennedy. What are your favorite and least favorite movie remakes? Walter Reuben Walter Reuben, Inc. 500 North Harper Avenue Los Angeles CA 90048  USA Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (323) 651 3313 www.walterfilm.com ----- Original Message ----- From: JR To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 8:55 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] the original KONG is on the loose ! (film at eleven... All the surveys I've seen (plus random sampling of my own among my son's friends) indicate that most "young people" (who at this point are anyone under 30 as far as I'm concerned... what an ironic turnaround... but I digress...). Anyway, it seems most "young people" really won't watch old black and white movies, even if the old fogies keep telling them they are classics and they don't know what they're missing. Such is youth. Besides, since the only place the original KONG has played on TV in decades is Turner Movie Classics, there's a good chance that even a lot of those who might watch a film in black and white haven't had the opportunity. I doubt that TMC reaches more than 30 million households in the U.S. (if that). It is a premium "add-on" channel that a lot of people don't get, even if they have cable, believe it or not.   Like a lot of people, at first I was surprised that Jackson didn't take his new found wealth and power and strike out with a completely original screenplay -- but, unlike George Lucas, who really wanted to remake his childhood favorite of FLASH GORDON but couldn't get the rights and so had to create STAR WARS instead, Jackson was in a position to actually get the chance to do his childhood favorite, KING KONG. I don't think many of us with filmmaker aspiration (such as myself) could resist the temptation to remake one of our childhood favorites, so I can't fault him for that, particularly since I have every confidence he would do a great job. Plus, since I believe that the original *has* in  fact been fading from public consciousness over the years, list so many classics of the '30s and '40s, I was very glad he got the opportunity to turn the spotlight on it again. For him to invest his own personal funds in the remastering of the original KONG onto DVD is certainly not something he had to do -- or something that most would have done. I believe he did it out of respect and fondness for the original -- and to help insure that his new version wouldn't become "the only Kong" that young people knew. I think it is also a way for him to publicly say "Hey, the original will always be great, no matter what I do with this modern version." I can't help but respect all of that.   As for his new version, all we can do is wait another 3 weeks and see for ourselves. I'm betting it will be flamin' fantastic.   -- JR       ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom A. Pennock To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 12:08 Subject: Re: [MOPO] the original KONG is on the loose ! (film at eleven... I also like Peter Jackson as a director and the "Rings" trilogy but I wish that he would choose a "new" project instead of a remake. It was well made in 1933 and the original have a lot of charm to it. All I can see is that Peter Jackson will use CGI which was not available in 1933. CGI does not make a good movie. A good story (screenplay) does. So IMHO I think a remake is unnecessary. We have the 1933 version which always will be the best version. Even with no CGI.   --Tom Pennock Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.