Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Remake Of All Time Classic Movies


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-09-2013, 14:18
julie2009
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 825

Does anyone think a remake of the Great Escape would work and which actors would portray each character
Such a wonderful cast and outstanding acting from each one.

Who could play the one and only Cooler King - Steve McQueen
julie2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 05-09-2013, 14:35
CBFreak
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 16,797
My initial reaction is a big fat no. But it on reflection there is potential.

As to the Steve McQueen role. Possibly go with Robert Downey Jnr Karl Urban or Josh Brolin
CBFreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 22:31
Roland Mouse
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 9,323
I just don't see the point in any remake of a classic film - Just watch the bloody original!

Why do some think they they add anything just because it has some latest celebrity in it?

It shows shallowness that some just can't watch something that isn't new and trendy.

I've watched "Gone With The Wind" and "The Wizard Of Oz" but that doesn't mean that I was alive in 1939, so they were 'old' by the time I got around to seeing them. Those a many other old movies do not diminish with time and so there is no point in remaking them at all and no valid excuse for it.

What next?
"Schindler's List" featuring One Direction?
"The Sting" with Ant and Dec?
"Platoon" staring the cast of Hollyoaks?

NO! JUST NO!
Roland Mouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 22:45
rfonzo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,871
The Italian Job should never have been remade.
rfonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2013, 09:00
Lathamite
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 556
Does anyone think a remake of the Great Escape would work
No...
Lathamite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2013, 10:22
gashead
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 7,116
There's no reason why a re-telling of the events very losely portrayed in The Great Escape wouldn't work. I doubt anyone would do a direct re-make of the actual film, because what would be the point? The stories of the men and events portrayed in that film are more fully known than they were in 1950 and 1963, so if you have any desire to tell them again, research it from scratch and do it properly. No-one would play Hilts, because he wouldn't feature, seeing as he's entirely fictional. On that basis, no it wouldn't work, because it would be extremely lazy.

That's my general attitude to re-makes. No matter what the popular reputation of an existing version, if you can add to it, go for it. Nothing should be off-limits. Without this approach, we'd never have had Jackson's King Kong, LOTR or Dam Busters, Cameron's Titanic, Mann's Heat and countless others.
gashead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2013, 10:43
julie2009
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 825
I just don't see the point in any remake of a classic film - Just watch the bloody original!

Why do some think they they add anything just because it has some latest celebrity in it?

It shows shallowness that some just can't watch something that isn't new and trendy.

I've watched "Gone With The Wind" and "The Wizard Of Oz" but that doesn't mean that I was alive in 1939, so they were 'old' by the time I got around to seeing them. Those a many other old movies do not diminish with time and so there is no point in remaking them at all and no valid excuse for it.

What next?
"Schindler's List" featuring One Direction?
"The Sting" with Ant and Dec?
"Platoon" staring the cast of Hollyoaks?

NO! JUST NO!
It is a just a general suggestion but I can see from your reply is a definite No.
julie2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2013, 11:13
kippeh
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 6,319
I would like an Escape from New York remake. I love the original but the scenes of a walled, dilapidated Manhattan would really benefit from modern special effects, as they were limited in the original. Also, Escape from LA was truly awful by comparison, but I think the role of anti-hero Snake could be portrayed well enough by somebody else.
kippeh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2013, 11:18
KevJ
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 63
Escape from New York?

You may be getting your wish.

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/esca...york-shortlist
KevJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2013, 12:18
Johnny Clay
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,871
The problem lies with making a remake relevant to modern audiences, otherwise it does look like they're just trading on the name for the recognition factor.

Plus, you're not just dredging up an old film, you're dredging up an old genre that's long shown any signs of life. Sprawling, big cast, wartime romps with gung-ho yanks and stiff upper-lipped brits fighting stereotyped nazis used to turn up fairly often in the first few decades after the war - even into the late seventies we had the awful, barrel-scraping likes of Escape to Athena, full of fading A-listers grabbing a quick cheque.

But they were phased out - changing tastes and the advance of time rendering them a relic. Thus, they just aren't a part of the landscape anymore. So it's difficult to see a solid reason to remake The Great Escape that would draw in the modern audience, unless the scriptwriters can put a spin on it that would make it appealing. Pumping it full of big names and modern production values wouldn't go that far - a problem The Lone Ranger had perhaps.
Johnny Clay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2013, 14:29
Lathamite
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 556
There's two reasons for a studio to ever make a remake:

1) Artistic. You look at an existing idea, and say "hmm , that could be done very differently". The name is pretty meaningless to audiences, so it's a very loose remake. For example, The Fly.

2) Money. Trade off an existing name which has good associations for the audience. For example, Robocop is a famous film. People know what's it's about, so half the marketing is done already. It's guaranteed to make some money because it's building on an existing brand. It's the same reason Hollywood churns out sequels.

For dopey audiences, it's a bit different. For sequels, they just want "more of the same" under the misapprehension that simply reuniting the actors will automatically beget magic. They'll queue up as long as the studios keep on suffixing roman numerals to the title.

Remakes, though? Pass. I will *never* understand why any so-called fan of a movie would be eager for a remake.

The Great Escape : Most of the stars are dead, the director is dead, even the guy who did the music is dead. Very little of what you associate this movie with (no matter how brilliantly conceived) was directly influenced by real-life events.

So, yeah, it would be nice if someone could do a retelling of the real story (away from McQueen and his motorbike) and, oh, look; they are: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/t...ed-by-BBC.html

...but I don't see why any fan of the movie should automatically like this adaptation or even keen to see it being made.
Lathamite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2013, 15:00
gashead
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 7,116
Plus, you're not just dredging up an old film, you're dredging up an old genre that's long shown any signs of life. Sprawling, big cast, wartime romps with gung-ho yanks and stiff upper-lipped brits fighting stereotyped nazis used to turn up fairly often in the first few decades after the war - even into the late seventies we had the awful, barrel-scraping likes of Escape to Athena, full of fading A-listers grabbing a quick cheque.

But they were phased out - changing tastes and the advance of time rendering them a relic. Thus, they just aren't a part of the landscape anymore.
BIB - sounds a lot like Inglorious Basterds, circa. 2009, and that was very well received by audience and critics. Similarly, Tarantino re-invigorated the heist genre (and, some have argued, the western, although I'm not convinced that it ever really went away). Tastes change, for a while, but then a new generation of film-makers will refresh a genre for a new generation of film-goers. If the film is good enough, the audience is there for it. (Alternatively it could just mean that Tarantino is the only director brave/ stupid/ talented enough to have a stab at them.)
gashead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2013, 18:52
jenzie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: BUDDIETOWN
Posts: 16,570
the BBC are making a version of the great escape ..... closest you might find
jenzie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2013, 22:10
J B Oddsocks
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 542
I can't think of one remake which comes close to bettering the original. A lot of remakes are absolute rubbish, think Get Carter and The Wicker Man. Some do a little better like The Italian Job.

As to who could possible replace the king of cool, Steve McQueen? No-one.
J B Oddsocks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2013, 22:26
Roland Mouse
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 9,323
I would like an Escape from New York remake. I love the original but the scenes of a walled, dilapidated Manhattan would really benefit from modern special effects, as they were limited in the original. Also, Escape from LA was truly awful by comparison, but I think the role of anti-hero Snake could be portrayed well enough by somebody else.
Well in the original, they dropped 'Snake' off on top of one of the World Trade Centre towers! That would have to be re-written.
Roland Mouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 08:48
andy1231
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,045
I can't think of one remake which comes close to bettering the original. A lot of remakes are absolute rubbish, think Get Carter and The Wicker Man. Some do a little better like The Italian Job.

As to who could possible replace the king of cool, Steve McQueen? No-one.
Someone has already mention The Fly which is a far superior film to the origional. As for the "Cooler King" as played by Steve McQueen, he was a totally ficticious character and could easily be left out of any remake or re- telling.
Peter Jackson has said that his remake of The Dambusters is on hold, I will be amazed if we ever see that and I have my doubts if Robocop will be better than the origional.
Jackson's remake of King Kong was another great film that was much better than the origional, mainly due to better special effects.
andy1231 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 13:46
Johnny Clay
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,871
Alternatively it could just mean that Tarantino is the only director brave/ stupid/ talented enough to have a stab at them.
But that's the thing. We expect Tarantino to draw on past genres to explore and put his own spin on. A Tarantino film is pretty much a genre itself (no mean feat, btw). True, Reservoir Dogs inspired a slew of similar violent crime capers (easy to imitate, perhaps, and gaining from a modern setting), but Django and Basterds were a much more acknowledged nod to the past - a tacit agreement between film and audience that this was not so much a resurrection of a genre as a one-off historical revisit, one skewered by the vision of this particular auteur. Very much exceptions to the rule.

Jackson's remake of King Kong was another great film that was much better than the origional, mainly due to better special effects.
Wrong in so many ways.
Johnny Clay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 14:42
Wetherby
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 478
I prefer the 1976 version of King Kong to Jackson's.
Original is best of them all though.
Wetherby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2013, 08:17
andy1231
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,045
But that's the thing. We expect Tarantino to draw on past genres to explore and put his own spin on. A Tarantino film is pretty much a genre itself (no mean feat, btw). True, Reservoir Dogs inspired a slew of similar violent crime capers (easy to imitate, perhaps, and gaining from a modern setting), but Django and Basterds were a much more acknowledged nod to the past - a tacit agreement between film and audience that this was not so much a resurrection of a genre as a one-off historical revisit, one skewered by the vision of this particular auteur. Very much exceptions to the rule.


Wrong in so many ways.
Pray tell. The acting in the remake was better, the CGI Kong was far more realistic compared to the stop motion model the sets and locations were far better etc etc. Yes I know the origional Kong was a milestone in movie making but watching it now it is very dated. As for the 76 remake how the hell did a man in a monkey suit deserve a best oscar ?
andy1231 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2013, 16:27
Takae
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 7,898
A Tarantino film is pretty much a genre itself (no mean feat, btw).
And what's that genre called? Excuse my scepticism, but that's quite an extraordinary claim.

True, Reservoir Dogs inspired a slew of similar violent crime capers (easy to imitate, perhaps, and gaining from a modern setting), but Django and Basterds were a much more acknowledged nod to the past - a tacit agreement between film and audience that this was not so much a resurrection of a genre as a one-off historical revisit, one skewered by the vision of this particular auteur. Very much exceptions to the rule.
You'll have to do better than that. There is a huge number of films that are "a nod to the past" and "revisits". What Tarantino does is highlight (or rather in his case, fetishise) tropes, elements and conventions of a genre; just like other directors have been doing for decades. The Coen brothers, for instance. Like I say, you'll have to do better than that, to justify your claim that Tarantino's films are a genre of its own.
Takae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2013, 18:09
Johnny Clay
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,871
^ Whoa there, horsey. The comment wasn't meant to be taken that heavily.

It was a simple allusion to a director's style being so characteristic that you could say it has conventions similar to the way genres have conventions, albeit differently. Hitchcock's dry wit and high tension are but two of his 'genre conventions' as it were. The icy visuals and weighty thematics of a Kubrick film are part of how we acknowledge it, in the same way we acknowledge shoot-outs and barroom brawls as conventions of the western genre perhaps.

And that was all. Not a genre per se, just something that relates to how we recognise these things.
Johnny Clay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2013, 18:21
Johnny Clay
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,871
Dear Lord, how long have you got?

Suffice to say that the original Kong is visually superior (it is simply more interesting to observe, regardless of production advances), more effective, a damn sight sharper, and isn't bloated out by endless, pointless sludgy CGI sequences to stretch the film into faux 'epic' proportions (three arse-dragging hours FFS). It also didn't make me want to punch Jack Black. I could go on, and on...

btw - the notion of a film being 'dated' is purely subjective and I never see the original Kong as such. The product of a certain era certainly, and thus concessions must be made, but never 'dated'.
Johnny Clay is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:22.