Not again!!
Tam is fussing about the brand spanking new remake of Karate Kid.
I’m with her on that. Look, the original worked because of remarkable performance predominantly by Pat Morita, and the fact that most every kid was, at one time in his life, bullied or kicked around. All of it came together so well that “Wax on, wax off” has become part of the vernacular,
There are few films that can be remade, and few people who can remake them. It is possible; witness the three Howard Hawks films starring John Wayne: Rio Bravo, 1959,El Dorado, 1966, and Rio Lobo, 1970. Three movies, same story, one character never changes, and they are all (To me) watchable as ever. If The Duke were alive today and remade this film, I would go see it. In a new york minute.
Another, similar classic, is “Auntie Mame” starring Rosalind Russel, later remade as a musical, “Mame” with Lucille Ball. I prefer the Russel version, but they are both enjoyable to watch. I would go to a theater to watch either movie right this very minute, and if I see them on TV they distract me for hours.
My biggest bitch was with the remake of South Pacific. The slapped this bastard together and released it in 2001, and I can only hope that every remaining copy of it was burned in the world trade center. Sonsabitches.
Look: James Michener’s original work may have been a bit of a dry read, but Rogers and Hammerstein and Josh Logan made it amazing. The acting chops of Mitzi Gaynor, to say nothing of that insanely tasty backside of hers, the voice of Georgio Tozzi, the voice of Thurl Ravenscroft (he sings the part for Stewpot) the chops of ray Walston, the songs… oh, my god, the songs. If you can listen to “This nearly was mine” or ‘Some Enchanted Evening” or “Younger than springtime” and it doesn’t tug at you just a little, your soul is dead.
No, I’m not even remotely gay. Except maybe a little for Vman. But this is what the musical was supposed to be about, supposed to be like. And to try to freshen it up and inflict the “new” morality of it on a 2001 audience ought to be actionable.
How about this, Hollywood. Instead of filling the film cans in your studio vaults full of Madagascar 23, how about you digitally remaster a few of the old movies- movies like South Pacific, or On the Waterfront, or The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, and show those in theaters a couple times a month. I would GLEEFULLY buy tickets AND drop a twenty at the concession stand and suspend my disbelief for a couple hours, sitting in the theater watching Nellie Forbush wash Emile Debec out of her hair, pretending it was 1959, the war still a fresh memory in the minds of most Americans. Don’t remake ’em. Give us the originals again, in all their cinematic glory, they are reminders of far, far better times.
19 comments Og | Uncategorized
NAhh, Og, they’re too busy making crappy movies from comic books and not very good tv shows to do anything like that. The problem is you have to be able to think, write and read in order to do a decent screen play, It has become rather obvious in the last 20 years or so that nobody in hollywoodland can do that.
Almost forgot – “Seven Brides for Seven Brothers” – the adagio dance in the snow.
Then hold onto your horses. I just read about a remake of “Red Dawn” that’s got the Left all upset…
MC
“SHOWBOAT”, now there was musical!! I loved “Old Man River” piece.
YeOldFurt
“…how about you digitally remaster a few of the old movies…”
Somehow I get the feeling they would “remaster” them in the same way Lucas did the original Star Wars movies.
Suddenly Tuco would have long ears and a Jamaican accent and Blondie would never shoot first.
Lucas went far beyond the remaster and added crap like Han Solo shooting first (a pet peeve). I would pay to see the ORIGINAL original Star Wars in the theater or McClintock or Dirty Harry.
Haven’t been to a theater since Casino Royale with Daniel Craig (which I thought was a fantastic re-working of the book).
Yebbut… The studio executives have to justify their phoney baloney jobs.
M
Two double classics: The Thomas Crown Affair and The Italian Job.
Both the originals and the re-makes are excellent. We will watch them back to back on “movie night.”
sv
yes, it is possible to remake movies well, and make them enjoyable. But “South pacific”? “Karate Kid”?
Furt, I’m dead with you on Showboat. Though I loved the Paul Robeson version of Old Man River, I liked the rest of the cast in the newer version
I’m looking forward to the remakes of True Grit and Red Dawn.
Not that I’ll pay to see them…
Aarrgghh!
Did they ever do the remake of “Casablanca” they were talking about doing a couple of years ago, or did Bogie’s Ghost rise from the grave and bitch slap them?
Remakes as a general rule suck. There is always the exception to the rule, but not often enough in this case to justify all the trash placed on our cinematic plates, by the asshats in Hollywood.
Gone are the days of the director who calls the shots and the studio exec who’d roll the dice. The movie makers are cogs in the bigger entertainment industry. Movies even have investors now to carry the production cost, shareholders who better get some return on investment. The movie isn’t a movie anymore, it’s a mutual fund or money market account. So the board of the movie’s corporation has the writer storyboard a “proven story line” to make everyone just bitten enough to buy tickets to see what the fuss is about. No more cigar chomping directors calling the studio head and demanding “the kid stays in the picture.”
South Park is the only musical from the last 15 years I watched. As far as movies I’m secure enough in my manhood to admit liking, heck, Kenneth Branaugh in any of the Shakespeare he did, especially Henry the 5th, one of the most intense performances I ever saw an actor give, all adrenaline in a 5 hour movie. And the Romeo & Juliet movie with Brian Dennehey.
The problem is you have to be able to think, write and read in order to do a decent screen play
There’s a quote by G.K. Chesterton about the difference between a man who wants to read a good book, and the tired man who wants a book to read. Movie audiences are the same way, and unfortunately, a good chunk of them fall into the latter category. Therefore, if the studios want to make money, they go for the quick-and-dirty pack-’em-in-the-first-weekend flicks, where they spend the budget on talking animals and big-name stars instead of decent writing and directing.
For example: “Stranger Than Fiction”, starring Will Ferrel, is one of the most delicately human movies I have ever seen. It’s nothing short of brilliant, and Ferrel’s performance is nothing short of superb. But crude sex comedies have bigger box office takes, so that’s 99% of his curriculum vitae. If the movie expects the audience to actually engage their brains, if you have do some work to get the jokes or follow the plot, the movie goes straight into “gamble” territory.
Pixar is a notable exception, in that they sucker people in with animation and sneak in the intelligence when no one’s looking.
That is why my TV is parked on TMC most of the time.
“…where they spend the budget on talking animals …”
But… but… I like talking animals! ;)
… and yea, that “Stranger Than Fiction” video looks interesting; to say the least.
cond0010: Talking animals can be a blast (See: Babe.) But if the talking animal is the film’s only redeeming quality …
Ya, so true.
It was interesting to see how many stars from Tinselgrad moved to The Great White Way to score a Tony – where even Green Day sold-out to preform a Facismo-anarcho-anthem that rocked the Democrats hard.
it’s not so much remaking a classic, as filing off the serial numbers in order to try and own something they don’t deserve.