The_Rev Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 I recently heard a story about a bloke in his mid twenties proudly declaring he had never heard of Blade Runner because "it was before his time" :shock: I'd have swung for him if I had been in the room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straggler Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 It isn't a remake,but I want Buck Rodgers the movie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norton65ca Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 none of the films listed in the poll warrant a remake, IMHO. I think they are really too good in their original form to be subjected to that. I can't think of too many remakes that have really done it for me to be honest, but there are possibilities. I echo the earlier calls for a new version of the Battle of Britain, as it really cries out for the full special effects treatment (even though Flyboys wasn't a great movie, the aerial scenes of the Laffayette Escadrille were fantastic, as were those in films like Pearl Harbour.) Historical epics I think are really among the best candidates for another look after some time has passed, however there are so many great tales from many periods that haven't had one treatment yet, without having to remake classics. In the case of the polled films, they are absolute classics and really it would be a crime to consider remaking, for example, Casablanca. Tsk tsk for even contemplating the idea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norton65ca Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 the sheer volume of both remakes and sequels in the offerings from the mainstream of Hollywood, these days, shows in effect how lacking in ideas and imagination the great movie machine is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDuck Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 the sheer volume of both remakes and sequels in the offerings from the mainstream of Hollywood, these days, shows in effect how lacking in ideas and imagination the great movie machine is. There's no lack of ideas. It's just that a remake or sequel is a far better bet to make money. It's less of a financial risk than going with something original. Like most things these days, money is the primary motivation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shambles Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 The entire Harry Potter series. To be directed by the bloke who did Prisoner of Azkaban. The rest of them were dire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Dambusters is the one to do IMO. The SFX in the original let it down badley but some bits in it are proper funny, always liked the old couple who live buy the lake where they practised the low flying. I would be happy to just sit and listen to the engines on the Lancaster Bomber for quite some time also. Best noise ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norton65ca Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 this^^^^^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 They should probably change the dogs name too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 I'm in the Just say NO to remakes camp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted August 3, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted August 3, 2011 The Dambusters remake is still coming by the way. It's just not got started yet. The dogs name is being changed. Regardless of it being historical fact, I don't think you can release a film today for the popular family audience, that features a dog being called a racist epithet. Worse, IIRC, they used the dogs name as a codeword for the raid, so at one point you have a bunch of people shouting that word with delight as they know it's gone ahead successfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted August 3, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted August 3, 2011 The Dambusters remake is still coming by the way. It's just not got started yet. The dogs name is being changed. Regardless of it being historical fact, I don't think you can release a film today for the popular family audience, that features a dog being called a racist epithet. Worse, IIRC, they used the dogs name as a codeword for the raid, so at one point you have a bunch of people shouting that word with delight as they know it's gone ahead successfully.Then people need educating about the way things were in 1943, rather than having history neatly censored for them. The dog was called Nigger. The codeword was Nigger. Nothing whatsoever to do with 21st century racism, even if it - in passing - says something about 1940s ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingram85 Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Im adding another to my list, 'Batteries not included', while not particularly old or that well remembered, i think it would be magical to see an updated version. Also, im not the biggest fan of 3d but seeing the end scene and the little guys flying up in 3d would bring a tear to my eye. What a film! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted August 3, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted August 3, 2011 The Dambusters remake is still coming by the way. It's just not got started yet. The dogs name is being changed. Regardless of it being historical fact, I don't think you can release a film today for the popular family audience, that features a dog being called a racist epithet. Worse, IIRC, they used the dogs name as a codeword for the raid, so at one point you have a bunch of people shouting that word with delight as they know it's gone ahead successfully.Then people need educating about the way things were in 1943, rather than having history neatly censored for them. The dog was called Nigger. The codeword was Nigger. Nothing whatsoever to do with 21st century racism, even if it - in passing - says something about 1940s ideas. There is some talk that they might go for the halfway house of the dogs nickname - 'Nigsy', to try to compromise. I don't think changing it is that big of a problem... but leaving it might be, no matter that it is historically accurate. You just can't release a film with a dog called Nigger, with people shouting 'Nigger!' for joy, for a modern audience. The film won't claim to be a documentary, and things will change for the narrative's cause. Changing the dogs name is an easy way (if also a case of a rock and a hard place, admittedly) to make the film palatable to a modern family audience. I don't think teaching people a lesson about 1940s society is quite something the film will want to do, admirable as that might be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted August 3, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted August 3, 2011 The Dambusters remake is still coming by the way. It's just not got started yet. The dogs name is being changed. Regardless of it being historical fact, I don't think you can release a film today for the popular family audience, that features a dog being called a racist epithet. Worse, IIRC, they used the dogs name as a codeword for the raid, so at one point you have a bunch of people shouting that word with delight as they know it's gone ahead successfully.Then people need educating about the way things were in 1943, rather than having history neatly censored for them. The dog was called Nigger. The codeword was Nigger. Nothing whatsoever to do with 21st century racism, even if it - in passing - says something about 1940s ideas. There is some talk that they might go for the halfway house of the dogs nickname - 'Nigsy', to try to compromise. I don't think changing it is that big of a problem... but leaving it might be, no matter that it is historically accurate. You just can't release a film with a dog called Nigger, with people shouting 'Nigger!' for joy, for a modern audience. The film won't claim to be a documentary, and things will change for the narrative's cause. Changing the dogs name is an easy way (if also a case of a rock and a hard place, admittedly) to make the film palatable to a modern family audience. I don't think teaching people a lesson about 1940s society is quite something the film will want to do, admirable as that might be.And therein lies the problem. When the original was made the war was fresh in peoples' minds, as an ordeal that they had all been through in some way or another. Yes, it was an entertaining action film, but it was about real events and real people. Even when I first saw it, it was comparatively recent history, that my parents could comment on with some authority. In 2011, WWII is probably no more real than the Wars of the Roses to anyone under about 40. It's just another bit of eye candy so we can all be thrilled by the CGI explosions. It may as well be Transformers. And I think that is sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted August 3, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted August 3, 2011 I don't think thats the case. Most straight war films or dramas of recent years I can think of, dealing with the Second World War, are tinged with a sense of sadness and a sense of great sacrifice. Saving Private Ryan was a special effects film, it could be said, but I still watch that film, despite it largely being hooey and despite it being a little grim with the truth (throwaway line about Monty, for example, accurate to US sensibilities but not the whole story and unfair on him), and can't help but feel a weight of sadness about it. It may not be as real to me as those that lived through it, but I still can reflect on it, understand the power of it, etc. I don't think anyone makes a straight war film these days (as opposed to something Inglourious Basterds, which is purposefully overwrought and comedic) with the intent to gun for the Transformers buck, or simply to wow audiences with CGI. Even today I think WW2 has a resonance and weight that people still understand to be very real. Even in pieces of film fluff. I don't see how this ties into a minor change to what is still, despite the weight of the subject, a piece of entertainment for a modern audience that will not be too enamoured hearing a racist term thrown about (even if it is accurate - its not 'cool' so to speak, and thus it's easer to change it to Digger, or whatever, and save the uproar for something so unimportant in the grand scheme of things). I can't overstate how much I disagree with that statement Mike, I really can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 I cringe something fierce when I read that vile word in old books, I don't think my modern sensibilities would allow me to sit through an entire movie of characters repeating it with such whimsy, regardless of historical accuracy. The dogs name isn't terribly important, and changing it won't rid the film of it's emotional core, and so it should be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted August 3, 2011 Author Share Posted August 3, 2011 The Dambusters remake is still coming by the way. It's just not got started yet. The dogs name is being changed. Regardless of it being historical fact, I don't think you can release a film today for the popular family audience, that features a dog being called a racist epithet. Worse, IIRC, they used the dogs name as a codeword for the raid, so at one point you have a bunch of people shouting that word with delight as they know it's gone ahead successfully.Then people need educating about the way things were in 1943, rather than having history neatly censored for them. The dog was called Nigger. The codeword was Nigger. Nothing whatsoever to do with 21st century racism, even if it - in passing - says something about 1940s ideas. I agree, but remakes of old movies tend to update the content to appeal to a modern audience, and with a word like "Nigger" remaining in the script in that context, nobody would put one dollar up to make that movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts