Remakes have always been a part of Hollywood.. with some even better
than the original versions..
Do you guys like William Gillette's version or Sherlock Holmes or
Basil Rathbone's ?? How many other actors have played the famous detective??
How about Tarzan ?? There were a number of good Tarzan flicks w/ Lex
Barker.. all are the same stories as the Wesimullers used at different times.
Wizard of Oz.. this movie was made before & after the Garland classic
and of the Bond movies.. how many stories did Fleming write that were
adapted 2, even 3 times?
The reality is that with the exception of when we get something new -
like Terminator, Star Wars, Usual Suspects, Matrix, Crying Game,
Shawshank, Hudsucker Proxy, Devil's Rejects.. there is a reality that
most films are of a repertoire of maybe 20-30 storylines.
I loved the Front Page as done by Billy Wilder with Lemmon-Matthau..
It is however a remake of a 1931 film with Pat O'Brien that is quite
good and it was also remade as His Girl Friday with Cary Grant and
Ros Russell in a superb version.
The thing about King Kong being remade to old time fans is we hate to
see someone mess with "our girlfriend" so to speak. We despised the
1976 version because A) we hated the man in a monkey suit B) we all
thought Jessica Lange couldn't act ((boy were we wrong about that
one!)) C) it just wasn't our idea of a good film. But I didnt gripe
when King Kong met Godzilla! I thought that was cool.
If Jackson does a good version of Kong.. we may all love it. If he
doesn't.. we'll hate it, and guess what.. for the next generation
there will be yet another remake of the film.
Kirby is right that some films just cannot be remade because of the
time they were made in. How anyone could ever remake Citizen Kane
would be a feat of Herculean proportions (I wonder if Rupert Murdoch
could be satirized instead of W.R. Hearst?), but remaking Gone With
the Wind would be another matter and the only reason it isnt being
done right now is that "period films" arent as popular with the
public today as they were in the 30's-40's when the story wasn't so
old to much of the population who had family members who may have
remembered the time vividly. I'd say it is more likely to be updated
as a sci-fi film!
I have no doubt many of our "sacred cows" that have not yet been
remade will be.. Casablanca will be updated, Double Indemnity will be
as well, , Metropolis could easily be remade today.
It's a matter of taste I know... But sacred cows... well there is a
time in life when they aren't so sacred, and that's usually when the
next generation comes around. It isn't history to them. It's
something they have no connection to like we did wehn we were kids
(for the over 40's). History today is more throw-away then a candy
wrapper in our world now. That's the sad comment..
as for Kong.. I hope it's a really good film .. cause I'm gonna see it!!
Rich============================
At 10:47 PM 11/21/05, you wrote:
It's always good to hear Walter's take on things. I've known him
for a long time, and he put out
the most erudite film poster catalog ever - his first one - and I
still own my copy of it.
Some films present opportunity for a remake, with room for a twist
of tone or plot.
Others however are not so much sacred cows as just films that were
just right for the moment they
were made, and have lived on in our collective memory simultaneously
"classic" and "modern."
Do we EVER want a remake of:
THE WIZARD OF OZ?
GONE WITH THE WIND?
CITIZEN KANE?
RIVER KWAI?
BRINGING UP BABY?
A CLOCKWORK ORANGE?
ANNIE HALL?
THE THREE STOOGES GO AROUND THE WORLD IN A DAZE?
HELEN OF TROY? Oops, I forgot, they remade that already.
Kirby McDaniel
On Nov 22, 2005, at 12:27 AM, Walter Reuben wrote:
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: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(323) 651 3313
www.walterfilm.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>JR
To: <mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
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: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Tom A. Pennock
To: <mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
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
<http://www.filmfan.com>www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[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
<http://www.filmfan.com>www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[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
<http://www.filmfan.com>www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[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.
