Digital Spy Forums

Digital Spy Forums (http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/index.php)
-   Movies (http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=44)
-   -   My Fair Lady remake. (http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1811780)

Chickens hit 28-03-2013 14:15

My Fair Lady remake.
 
What's the status of this? I seem to remember Emma Thompson was supposedly writing the screenplay and she had mentioned her preference for Hugh Grant to play Henry Higgins, but that must be a good 18 months ago now.:confused:

Keira Knightley as Eliza?

Bluray 28-03-2013 14:17

Hopefully the status is "DEAD"

A remake is not required.

Stan Marino 28-03-2013 14:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluray (Post 65037569)
Hopefully the status is "DEAD"

A remake is not required.

Spot on

Ted Cunterblast 28-03-2013 14:50

No remakes are required nor needed. But that won't stop them getting made.

Mystical123 28-03-2013 15:58

I think it's high time for a remake, with an Eliza who can actually sing the part and won't need dubbed - not Keira Knightley.

ETA: Just checked and it's actually Carey Mulligan attached to play Eliza now, not Knightley. Wonder if she can sing?

Bluray 28-03-2013 16:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mystical123 (Post 65039091)
I think it's high time for a remake, with an Eliza who can actually sing the part and won't need dubbed - not Keira Knightley.

ETA: Just checked and it's actually Carey Mulligan attached to play Eliza now, not Knightley. Wonder if she can sing?

Why is it high time to remake one of the most perfect musicals ever made - an Oscar winner no less - Best Picture.
Does it need to be "bettered" once it's won Best Picture?

What can a new version possibly bring other than over the top cgi enhanced scenes of London and Ascot a la Les Miserables.

Totally unnecessary.

Ted Cunterblast 28-03-2013 16:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluray (Post 65039198)
Why is it high time to remake one of the most perfect musicals ever made - an Oscar winner no less - Best Picture.
Does it need to be "bettered" once it's won Best Picture?

What can a new version possibly bring other than over the top cgi enhanced scenes of London and Ascot a la Les Miserables.

Totally unnecessary.


Because there will be whole generations who have never seen the original and will not be familiar with it. So it makes sense from the studios point of view, and will potentially make a lot of money.

And please don't bother saying they should watch the original instead...the truth is most of todays generation (who the remake will be primarily aimed at) will not be likely to rush out in droves to watch a 50 year old musical.

Fact is, it's going to be made, it's going to be different, most likely it will not be as good as the original, but the fundamental point is a remake can potentially find a whole new audience and be profitable.

And if you are not in favour of it, then simply don't watch it. The original is still there, still unchanged and untouched by any new version that may come along.

little-monster 28-03-2013 16:21

I could see Carey Mulligan doing this. I think she would be perfect.

Mystical123 28-03-2013 16:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluray (Post 65039198)
Why is it high time to remake one of the most perfect musicals ever made - an Oscar winner no less - Best Picture.
Does it need to be "bettered" once it's won Best Picture?

What can a new version possibly bring other than over the top cgi enhanced scenes of London and Ascot a la Les Miserables.

Totally unnecessary.

Because it was made almost half a century ago, and there are plenty of talented singer-actresses who deserve the chance to take on a big part and who I think would do a far better job than Audrey Hepburn. I think the original MFL is far from one of the most perfect musicals ever made - it would only have been that had Julie Andrews been cast instead of Hepburn.

It's the same with West Side Story - it's a wonderful movie, and fully deserving of Best Picture, but it looks very dated now, and a modern remake would open up the wonderful score and book to a whole new audience.

And you make a very large assumption that there would be over-the-top CGI, it's not a mandatory requirement for a movie, you know :rolleyes: Les Mis was partly CGI (not entirely, they did build a set at Leavesden Studios as well as filming in Greenwich) because quite frankly where in the world looks exactly like 18th Century Paris nowadays? Ascot is still Ascot, it could easily be filmed there with some strategic shots and moving of modern equipment. Same with certain streets in London.

Ted Cunterblast 28-03-2013 16:22

Bluray, a couple of more points -

I never understand why people assume he purpose of a remake is to 'better' the original? Where does this notion come from?

Remakes are primarily made for a new generation, and it is a fact that a lot of generations will not go back and seek out original classic movies, but will watch a new version. It does not matter whether you think they should, it's their choice not yours.

Secondly, never forget that the studio are always looking to make a profit, and the familiarity factor is important in selling a new movie.

You also mentioned Les Miserables, but that is a classic example of how a remake can appeal to a new generation, make a lot of money and also win oscars...and that movie has been remade countless times and has always been a very successful stage musical.

So the point is there should always be room for new adaptations and versions, and always remember that the original by definition cannot change, so if you want to stick with it and ignore any other versions, that's your choice.

Bluray 28-03-2013 16:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Cunterblast (Post 65039336)
Because there will be whole generations who have never seen the original and will not be familiar with it. So it makes sense from the studios point of view, and will potentially make a lot of money.

And please don't bother saying they should watch the original instead...the truth is most of todays generation (who the remake will be primarily aimed at) will not be likely to rush out in droves to watch a 50 year old musical.

Fact is, it's going to be made, it's going to be different, most likely it will not be as good as the original, but the fundamental point is a remake can potentially find a whole new audience and be profitable.

And if you are not in favour of it, then simply don't watch it. The original is still there, still unchanged and untouched by any new version that may come along.

Yes, i am an adult so i do understand that the original is still there and won't be affected.
And i'm well aware of the reasons behind a remake e.g profit, branding etc

Remaking this will only open the floodgates to remake Grease, The Sound of Music, Oliver etc.
It's bled the horror market dry and will happen with musicals.

One last thing, they should watch the original instead.

Bluray 28-03-2013 16:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mystical123 (Post 65039483)
Because it was made almost half a century ago, and there are plenty of talented singer-actresses who deserve the chance to take on a big part and who I think would do a far better job than Audrey Hepburn.

It's the same with West Side Story - it's a wonderful movie, and fully deserving of Best Picture, but it looks very dated now, and a modern remake would open up the wonderful score and book to a whole new audience.

And you make a very large assumption that there would be over-the-top CGI, it's not a mandatory requirement for a movie, you know :rolleyes:

And Les Mis was CGI because quite frankly where in the world looks like 18th Century Paris nowadays? Ascot is still Ascot, it could easily be filmed there with some strategic shots and moving of modern equipment. Same with certain streets in London.

I know CGI isn't mandatory and i don't appreciate your stupid rolling eys. But the fact is that ant film these days that has the chance to show vista's and landscapes like never before will use CGI.

Shall we just remake every bloody film just so dumb unintelligent kids who can't cope with something older than 20 years can enjoy it?

When i was a kid in the 80s i had no issue with watching films from the 20s,30s,40s etc etc.

I didn't need Safety Last, Rebecca remaking just so i could relate to it.

But that's today's youth for you. All about the modern image, just surface stuff. No ability to see beneath sheen and shine. Just like that crap Oz prequel.

Mystical123 28-03-2013 16:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluray (Post 65039587)
I know CGI isn't mandatory and i don't appreciate your stupid rolling eys. But the fact is that ant film these days that has the chance to show vista's and landscapes like never before will use CGI.

Shall we just remake every bloody film just so dumb unintelligent kids who can't cope with something older than 20 years can enjoy it?

When i was a kid in the 80s i had no issue with watching films from the 20s,30s,40s etc etc.

I didn't need Safety Last, Rebecca remaking just so i could relate to it.

But that's today's youth for you. All about the modern image, just surface stuff. No ability to see beneath sheen and shine. Just like that crap Oz prequel.

I don't appreciate your wild generalisations and assumptions.

I very much enjoy watching old films, but I'm not blind - they are dated, and while that works for some movies, it doesn't for others.

I'd much rather the wonderful Lerner and Lowe score was opened up to a new generation through a new adaptation than lost into the wilderness of film history because some people were too snobby to consider the idea of a new version. The simple fact is that cinema audiences today are not the same as cinema audiences 50 years ago, and one cannot expect them to completely like the exact same thing.

There is no reason why it couldn't be remade whilst keeping the integrity of the stage version, at the same time utilising modern cinematography and modern acting talent. Please give me one good reason why source material should be off-limits just because it was already used, and used years ago at that. I have yet to read one.

Ted Cunterblast 28-03-2013 16:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluray (Post 65039505)
Yes, i am an adult so i do understand that the original is still there and won't be affected.
And i'm well aware of the reasons behind a remake e.g profit, branding etc

Remaking this will only open the floodgates to remake Grease, The Sound of Music, Oliver etc.
It's bled the horror market dry and will happen with musicals.

One last thing, they should watch the original instead.


Why should there not be more remakes of classic musicals, especially as you have agreed that they don't afffect or change the originals?

And I don't understand your comment about 'bleeding the horror market' dry...? Sure, there have been a lot of recent remakes of older horror films, but again you have agreed that remakes don't change the originals, again why should this matter.

And no, it is not for you to insist that people should watch original movies, that is their choice. You know as well as I do that it is difficult to persuade people of todays generations to watch older movies, and regardless of whether you think they should, it's a persons individual choice.

We are talking about films here, and trying to insist that a person much watch the original movie makes you sound like a teacher insisting a pupil should read a specific historical text as a work assignment.

Bluray 28-03-2013 16:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mystical123 (Post 65039635)
I don't appreciate your wild generalisations and assumptions.

I very much enjoy watching old films, but I'm not blind - they are dated, and while that works for some movies, it doesn't for others.

I'd much rather the wonderful Lerner and Lowe score was opened up to a new generation through a new adaptation than lost into the wilderness of film history because some people were too snobby to consider the idea of a new version. The simple fact is that cinema audiences today are not the same as cinema audiences 50 years ago, and one cannot expect them to completely like the exact same thing.

There is no reason why it couldn't be remade whilst keeping the integrity of the stage version, at the same time utilising modern cinematography and modern acting talent. Please give me one good reason why source material should be off-limits just because it was already used, and used years ago at that. I have yet to read one.

Lost in the wilderness?
What the hell are you talking about?

Have you not heard of tv, dvd, blu-ray, streaming, cd's, downloads.

How on earth can the score be lost in the wilderness?

If you can't talk sense there's no point.

Bluray 28-03-2013 16:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Cunterblast (Post 65039670)
Why should there not be more remakes of classic musicals, especially as you have agreed that they don't afffect or change the originals?

And I don't understand your comment about 'bleeding the horror market' dry...? Sure, there have been a lot of recent remakes of older horror films, but again you have agreed that remakes don't change the originals, again why should this matter.

And no, it is not for you to insist that people should watch original movies, that is their choice. You know as well as I do that it is difficult to persuade people of todays generations to watch older movies, and regardless of whether you think they should, it's a persons individual choice.

We are talking about films here, and trying to insist that a person much watch the original movie makes you sound like a teacher insisting a pupil should read a specific historical text as a work assignment.

Remakes only exist for profit.

In years to come will people refer to Rob Zombie's Halloween or Gus Van Saints' Psycho?
No of course they won't.

Anyway, i'm off to watch Footloose, the 2011 version - remember that?

Ted Cunterblast 28-03-2013 16:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluray (Post 65039708)
Lost in the wilderness?
What the hell are you talking about?

Have you not heard of tv, dvd, blu-ray, streaming, cd's, downloads.

How on earth can the score be lost in the wilderness?

If you can't talk sense there's no point.


You're missing the point - the fact that they are available does not mean that a modern audience will seek them out. And as I said before it's no use you saying they should, because it's not for you to dictate peoples viewing and listening habits. People will not watch old movies if they don't want to.

Therefore a new adaptation will introduce a whole new audience to the original story and music.

It's done in the theatre all the time, so why not for films?

Mystical123 28-03-2013 16:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluray (Post 65039708)
Lost in the wilderness?
What the hell are you talking about?

Have you not heard of tv, dvd, blu-ray, streaming, cd's, downloads.

How on earth can the score be lost in the wilderness?

If you can't talk sense there's no point.

I notice you ignored the last part of my post, how convenient.

What I meant is very clear: as has been said many times in this small thread alone, the simple fact, whether you like it or not, is that many people nowadays do not care for old, dated films from 50-odd years ago. Thus if they do not watch said films, there is a very real chance that they would never come across the score. Hence the lost in the wilderness comment.

No matter how much you seem to want to think otherwise, you cannot force people to watch old movies, so whether you like it or not remakes ARE a way to bring a story to the masses nowadays, and not solely for profit.

And please do answer my original question - what exactly is a legitimate reason for saying that a source material (be it musical score/book/play/whatever) is not to ever be used again because it's already been made into a movie? That's what you're saying when you say nothing should be remade, so please, justify it.

nancy1975 28-03-2013 16:47

The film's very stagy and slow. Alan Jay Lerner didn't like it, he wanted Arthur Freed and MGM to produce it but unfortunately that studio then was in no position to undertake it. The best thing about it is preserving Rex Harrison's performance.

Actually the 1938 film of Pygmalion is FAR better. Scripted by Shaw no less and much more cinematic. And moving. Check it out if you haven't seen it.

Ted Cunterblast 28-03-2013 16:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluray (Post 65039745)
Remakes only exist for profit.

In years to come will people refer to Rob Zombie's Halloween or Gus Van Saints' Psycho?
No of course they won't.

Anyway, i'm off to watch Footloose, the 2011 version - remember that?


If you read my posts I have never made any reference to the notion of whether a remake is better than the original - that is not the point of this discussion. In a lot of cases they are inferior, is some they are pretty much the same or ok, and some are actually very good or even better.

So this is not about the quality of the movies or which version is better. You cannot stop remakes from being made, fact, and it's simply a waste of time to get upset over them.

And yes I remember Footloose original very well, recently bought the blu ray and enjoyed it just as much. Not particularly interested in the new version. And the fact that it was made never bothered me nor in any way affects my enjoyment of the original.

Bluray 28-03-2013 16:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mystical123 (Post 65039813)
I notice you ignored the last part of my post, how convenient.

What I meant is very clear: as has been said many times in this small thread alone, the simple fact, whether you like it or not, is that many people nowadays do not care for old, dated films from 50-odd years ago. Thus if they do not watch said films, there is a very real chance that they would never come across the score. Hence the lost in the wilderness comment.

No matter how much you seem to want to think otherwise, you cannot force people to watch old movies, so whether you like it or not remakes ARE a way to bring a story to the masses nowadays, and not solely for profit.

And please do answer my original question - what exactly is a legitimate reason for saying that a source material (be it musical score/book/play/whatever) is not to ever be used again because it's already been made into a movie? That's what you're saying when you say nothing should be remade, so please, justify it.

My Fair Lady has proved itself along with many other films that they are considered "perfect" so therefore don't require a remake. It won Best Picture, what can be improved?

Can you tell me the name of the art gallery where i can see the remake of the Mona Lisa? You know, the one that brings it to a younger audience? Makes it easier to appreciate for young minds? The original one is just too old and fussy for me.

Edit: :rolleyes: just for you - i believe young people get off on these smilies.

Mystical123 28-03-2013 16:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluray (Post 65039891)
My Fair Lady has proved itself along with many other films that they are considered "perfect" so therefore don't require a remake. It won Best Picture, what can be improved?

Can you tell me the name of the art gallery where i can see the remake of the Mona Lisa? You know, the one that brings it to a younger audience? Makes it easier to appreciate for young minds? The original one is just too old and fussy for me.

Ah yes, because every film that won Best Picture is utterly perfect and should never be be remade. Never mind that half the time the best movie of the year doesn't even win....

And considered "perfect" by whom? By you perhaps, and others, but certainly not by me, nor by everyone. You simply can't claim a film is too perfect to be remade because that's entirely subjective.

Art and sculpture are completely different genres to film, theatre and literature. The difference in this case being that art does not use a source with such exclusivity as you appear to think a film does - the same person/place/thing can be painted by a hundred people. The same score to a musical, on your logic, can only be filmed once and then never again. Yet again I ask, why is that justifiable?

Ted Cunterblast 28-03-2013 16:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluray (Post 65039891)
My Fair Lady has proved itself along with many other films that they are considered "perfect" so therefore don't require a remake. It won Best Picture, what can be improved?

Can you tell me the name of the art gallery where i can see the remake of the Mona Lisa? You know, the one that brings it to a younger audience? Makes it easier to appreciate for young minds? The original one is just too old and fussy for me.

Edit: :rolleyes: just for you - i believe young people get off on these smilies.



But who are you to decide if a remake is 'required'? What are these bizarre rules you seem to have about certain films which are not allowed to be touched?

And I asked the question before but you didn't answer, where do you get this bizarre notion that the purpose of a remake is to improve or 'better' the original? It is simply a new adaptation to appeal to a modern audience.

Who makes you the arbiter of taste here, allowed to dictate what the studios should make and not make, about what people should and should not watch?

No remake was ever not made because someone didn't like the idea, even when campaigns and petitions were started. They happen, always have happened, always will and there is nothing you can do about it.

Bluray 28-03-2013 17:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mystical123 (Post 65040024)
Ah yes, because every film that won Best Picture is utterly perfect and should never be be remade. Never mind that half the time the best movie of the year doesn't even win....

And considered "perfect" by whom? By you perhaps, and others, but certainly not by me, nor by everyone. You simply can't claim a film is too perfect to be remade because that's entirely subjective.

Art and sculpture are completely different genres to film, theatre and literature. The difference in this case being that art does not use a source with such exclusivity as you appear to think a film does - the same person/place/thing can be painted by a hundred people. The same score to a musical, on your logic, can only be filmed once and then never again. Yet again I ask, why is that justifiable?

Run along, i believe some repeats of High School Musical are just about to start. Maybe you can handle that - it's got lovely colours and bouncy beats.

Bluray 28-03-2013 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Cunterblast (Post 65040042)
But who are you to decide if a remake is 'required'? What are these bizarre rules you seem to have about certain films which are not allowed to be touched?

And I asked the question before but you didn't answer, where do you get this bizarre notion that the purpose of a remake is to improve or 'better' the original? It is simply a new adaptation to appeal to a modern audience.

Who makes you the arbiter of taste here, allowed to dictate what the studios should make and not make, about what people should and should not watch?

No remake was ever not made because someone didn't like the idea, even when campaigns and petitions were started. They happen, always have happened, always will and there is nothing you can do about it.

It's called an opinion Ted, you seem to be full of them so you should know.


All times are GMT. The time now is 15:33.