I KNEW that this new Tom Hanks/Coen Bros movie was a remake!! It's being promoted all over the place and I kept thinking that I've seen this plot before in an English setting. I thought it was an earlier/older film (probably because I remember seeing it in B&W)....But I definitely remember the little music group front for the criminals.
Will they ever give credit where credit's due??
Will have to find a copy of this original.
BDomings
NYC
The original's in colour, dude.
shareah well, at least they can't take Zulu away from us, i'd be very interested to see how they would do a remake of that.
shareWhy do we need one Zulu.
shareah well, at least they can't take Zulu away from us, i'd be very interested to see how they would do a remake of that.
Although your point is valid for "The Ladykillers," "The Italian Job," or "The Seven Samuri"/"The Magnificent Seven," there is a big difference. "Zulu", and "Zulu Dawn" as well, are based on actual, real historical events from the Boor Wars in South Africa. "Zulu" is an incredible story, but using your thought process, you might say "Zulu" is a remake of "Sahara" starring Bogart. "Sarhara" has a similar scenario, but is also based on an actual event during WWII. Making a movie that is inspired by these types of events, such as the B western you talked about, doesn't make it a remake of either. Additionally, a new movie based on the Battle at Rourke's Drift would not necessarily be a remake of "Zulu". That would be like saying "Pearl Harbor" was a remake of "Tora Toar Tora."
share.....but would you want to bet the farm that it hasn't been done before? I'm not talking about a remake but rather taking the essential elements in a film and shifting them to a new location....like RAN, for one example. Again, I can't think of a film where this has been done from a factual event but I'd be willing to bet that its been tried.
Also, A John Ford western is hardly a "B" film.
First off, you were the one who called it a "B" western. I didn't know which film you are talking about, and actually, I still don't know. Just look at your previous post.
Secondly, you are proving my point. "RAN" is Shakespeare's "King Lear," an adaptation of the play, not a remake of many different film adaptations of the play.
You said: "Again, I can't think of a film where this has been done from a factual event but I'd be willing to bet that its been tried." Let's see, how about "Braveheart"? That is a fictional account of the real life of William Wallace. There were many elements that had a basis is history, but much of the story is fictionalized. Now, taking a change in setting, and you have "Gladiator" or "The Patriot." The essential elements of theme and plot are intact, but the settings are different. On top of that, you could argue that all these films were knock off's of any Robin Hood movie ever made. And speaking of Robin Hood, would you say that Kevin Costner's version is a remake of the Erroll Flynn version or the Douglas Fairbanks version? I wouldn't. They are simply using the same source material to tell a story.
Now getting back to the John Ford classic film you fail to name (Fort Apache, maybe? That was based on Custer's Last Stand, an obvious rip off of The Alamo), it may have the same essential elements of the events depicted in "Zulu" or "Sahara," but that does not make it a remake of either of these films.
Ok, I guess I need to summurize my point. History repeats itself. Making a fictional film inspired by historical events does not qualify it as a remake of a film protraying an historical event. I would be willing to bet the Farm this HAS been done many times.
Every story is a rip off of every other story, whether it be a film, book or reality.
*shrug*
But a remake is a remake and to be a remake you have to have the same title and a reasonable amount of similarity in the plot (okay some remakes have different titles but that's where the lines get blurry so I'm ignoring them except where they are based off the same book). The Italian Job is a remake of The Italian Job, The Ladykillers is a remake of the Ladykillers. Pretty simple pattern to follow. Of course it's not unknown for Hollywood to change history for the sake of making a film more American (because they think Americans will only like it if it is more American, sadly that is true of some, but it must be intensly patronising to more intellegent Americans) such as in U-571, and really to hollywood historcial accuracy has never had any kind of relevence (even aside from the desire to make films more American), so it wouldn't suprise a huge amount if they did somehow work Americans into the British Empire for a Zulu remake.
I don't think it would be that likely however.
Anyway some remakes, like the Ladykillers are actually pretty damn good. Infact some are even better then the origional (Like the Thing for example, although technically that was based on the same book/short stoary (can't remember which) rather then the old film itself).
It's true though that most remakes are vastly inferior to the origonals. Anyone care to make a list?
Night of the Living dead - remake sucked
Dawn of the Dead - Remake was okay but hugely inferior
Psycho - Remake sucked
Texas Chainsaw - Not seen it yet (not anticipating anything good though)
The Thing - Brilliant and better then the origonal (which was above average)
Ladykillers - Remake was excellent but can't compare cos not seen origional
Planet of the Apes - Remake was an okay effort but still vastly inferior to the origonal (so why bother?)
13 Ghosts - Not seen the origional, but remake was unimpressive
Oceans 11 - Not seen the remake
Manhunter/Red Dragon - I liked both, but Red was better IMHO because it was truer to the book (and well, it's my all time favorite book).
Bodysnatcher variants - Liked the 70's one best and the most recent one least.
The Stepford Wives - Remake sucked and the fell into the remake trap of creating a happy ending.
Cape Fear - Didn't like the remake at all (although it seems I'm a minority)
Incredible Journey - Both great family films and different enough to not matter that the first is marginally better.
Rollerball - Arrrrrgh! That remake is probably the worst film ever made! The origional was excellent.
The Blob - Actually prefered the remake there.
The Ring - Remake isn't bad, but again way inferior.
Italian Job - Not seen the remake
Thomas Crown Affair - Not seen the remake
(racking my brain for more here..um)
...Actually come to think of it I mostly avoid movie remakes when i know it's a remake. The exception being for films I really like (such as DoTD) because I just have to know, and that's probably why a lot of the classics are remade. Curiousity = bums on seats. Well unfortunatly for the remake makers, P2P and broadband now means if your curious about a film but reckon it'll be bad you don't have to spend the money on it. Some remakes though are pretty obscure, like the Ladykillers so that's probably just a shortcut to a good film, but I won't complain about that because I'd never have heard about the origional if it wasn't for the remake, and that I think makes remake those films more worthwhile. But what's the point in remakes mega famous classics? I'm waiting for the remake of Citizen Kane with a contestant from a lame reality TV show in the lead Role. It's about that time I will gouge out my own eyes so I never have to watch a movie again.
How the hell can you call The Ladykillers obscure? It's easily one of the most famous british films of all time, and anyone who knows anything about Alec Guiness, Peter Sellers, Ealing or even basic film history in general is well and truly aware of it. Even those who aren't aware of any of these things, but are, say, 45+ years old will be aware of this movie.
If that qualifies as 'obscure', then I guess Battleship Potemkin, The Rules of the Game, The 400 Blows et al are also 'obscure'.
i'm nowhere near 45 and i'm well aware of 'the ladykillers'. it's one of my favourite films and is a classic, like all of the ealing films!
share.............but I was referring to an old western whose name I couldn't remember and not a John Ford film. I should have made that obvious.
sharejust to pick you up on a couple of things.
1.Boer. not boor
2. The boer war was fought between the British and the Afrikaaners.(the Boers). not the zulus.
3. Harbour. Not harbor.
4.The British/zulu conflict were called the Anglo/Zulu wars.
t.t.f.n.
3. Harbour. Not harbor.
Sorry, but when you refer to the American naval base "Harbor" is correct.
Although your point is valid for "The Ladykillers," "The Italian Job," or "The Seven Samuri"/"The Magnificent Seven," there is a big difference. "Zulu", and "Zulu Dawn" as well, are based on actual, real historical events from the Boor Wars in South Africa. "Zulu" is an incredible story, but using your thought process, you might say "Zulu" is a remake of "Sahara" starring Bogart. "Sarhara" has a similar scenario, but is also based on an actual event during WWII. Making a movie that is inspired by these types of events, such as the B western you talked about, doesn't make it a remake of either. Additionally, a new movie based on the Battle at Rourke's Drift would not necessarily be a remake of "Zulu". That would be like saying "Pearl Harbor" was a remake of "Tora Toar Tora."
You've never seen 'Black Hawk Down' - with the exception that 'Zulu' at least credits the 'locals' with bravery.
Can't wait for 'Black Hawk Down Dawn' - the tale of a foolish imperial war begun for political purposes and leading to disaster. Hang on...
When I saw it the first time it was in black & white! Recently there was a coloured version of the original on TV. Probably in original it was B/w and they coloured it later, like they did it with Tati's "Jour de fête".
shareThe original film was made in Colour, so what you would have seen recently was the real version. Why colour a colour film?
Where you watching a Black & White set when you saw it the first time?
Million to one chances happen nine times out of ten.
Yes but near the initial release (1955), not every household had a color television. No matter how it was made, some saw it in color, others saw it in B&W.
Your statement isn't false, but your assumption is.
We've met before, haven't we?
they DO give credit. Right after the film before the credits it says "based on the movie "The Ladykillers"
shareJust had an email from friends in the US who have now seen the remake of this classic, gentle British comedy.
Their comment was that the language was unbelievably foul.
What a pity this foul mouthed aspect seems to be a "must" for every new film nowadays.
i saw an advance screening of this. only marlon wayans' language was really foul. and as for the rest, the woman who plays the landlady is a riot! and there's a vietnamese guy who i found amusing. but aside from that, it's totally inferior to the original, and tom hanks shows how overrated he is. i like him, but he's a not the best!
shareJust had a look at the board for the new version (2004), and it is full of adverse comments about the bad language. The English language contains some 80,000 words; what a pity film makers try to restrict their scripts to just a few well worn childish examples. We all know that children use them to try to shock their parents, but you'd think they would eventually grow out of it as they matured.
Perhaps they haven't yet matured.
Most profanity is used to emphasize strong anger or frustration in character dialogue, and the majority of people, no matter how old, DO swear from time to time. Saying "I'm f---in' p---ed off!" is more effective than saying "Goodness gracious me, I do believe I am quite enraged at this current situation." to convey the feelings of a character. And if they said "I'm freaking ticked off" that just sounds like a joke and ruins the mood because no one talks like that. Scripts are written so that the audience will identify more with the characters, not so people will laugh and say "hee! he said the f word! haha! I am a mindless toddler!"
Now insult my intelligence and taste in movies, you know you want to.
I think that Tom Hanks is a wonderful actor, but I will not watch the remake (as I will also not watch the remake of The Manchurian Candidate or King Kong). When the original is perfection, why bother?
shareThat's a true shame!
The great thing about the original is that it is quintessentially british, the characters in it all represent something from the culture (down to the police man at the end). But, I guess I don't mind losing that, since it supposed to be re-located in the American South; the Brothers have shown that they can treat the South with the respect and sensitivity it deserves in "Oh Brother Where Art Thou" (though I still like the way it's portrayed in "Angel Heart", but that's different all together).
The other thing about the original Ladykillers, is that it is a film noire (is that why the first post said it was in B&W?). Now, again the Brothers have shown they can do that kind of genre with "The Man Who Wasn't There", but it is not a genre I know very much about so I don't know successful they were at it.
So have they lost everything that made the original great? well it wouldn't be the first time really...
I guess that I very biased on re-makes: I'm french. The number of bad American re-makes of popular french films: 3 men and a baby, the bird cage, la femme nikita,... it goes on and on.
I guess you can't replicate cultural sentivity; Tom Hanks is no Alec Guiness <joke>tho I reckon he'd do a passable Obi-Wan Kenobi</joke>
[deleted]
I'm sure the respect you attribute me is unwarranted, especially since you are completely accurate and that I stand corrected.
I was merely referring to the dark, dingy (and sometimes even damp) atmosphere that perspires from the original film, an ambiance that the contemporary, high cost Hollywood productions can only poorly emulate, or caricature gauchely.
dubferatu
Don't Panic!
Really it's just an updating of Chaucer's Pardoner's Tale anyway, so the term 'remake' is very much up for grabs.
shareFenris Fil said:
Night of the Living dead - remake sucked
Dawn of the Dead - Remake was okay but hugely inferior
are you kidding? the remake of Night was at least average, im not saying it should have been done, but at least it was done by Tom Savini, with a lot of contribution from George Romero, so they knew what they were doing. and it aimed to fix the parts where the original was showing its age - the original was notable for having a black man as the leading male character, something taken for granted these days, however the woman went into hysterics early on and was pretty useless, something that seems sexist nowadays. hence the remake made the woman the stronger character.
the remake of Dawn sucked. it is sickeningly hollywood, made by a hack director and did not even attempt to have a theme at all, let alone take the theme of the original and contemporise it as the remake of Night did.
you can have your preference, but as far as having a reason to remake a film goes, there was more reason to remake Night than Dawn as it had aged more. there was very little wrong with Dawn to start with.
Everyone in Britain has seen the original at least twice, and most of us probably closer to a dozen times. It's one of those rainy weekend movies that never loses its simple charm. It's a dream cast full of brilliant comic thesps at the top of their game, and it looks like they were enjoying every manic eyerolling second of it.
Is there anything remotely charming about the remake?
Sadly (and as much as I love the Coen Brothers' work), the remake of The Ladykillers has joined two other films to form the unholiest of triumvirates: the worst three re-makes of all time. The two ugly bedfellows are The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Vanishing. To qualify for this dubious honour a film has to look as if its makers have set out, deliberately, to undermine the reputation of the very film they're paying 'homage' to.
As for Red Dragon, Psycho* and Get Carter (which I have no intention of ever seeing), they surely qualify as the most pointless re-makes imaginable.
*A note on the Psycho re-make. There is a scene in the original film in which Hitchcock makes use of Anthony Perkins's physicality by focusing on his Adam's apple, to emphasise Bates's anxiety of course. Astonishingly, the shot is copied in the re-make, despite Vince Vaughn not having a pronounced adam's apple!
This is a fitting testimony to the wasteland of the imagination that is preserve of the 'the re-make'.
The lion and the calf shall lie down together, but the calf won't get much sleep.share
Er . . . wasn't the Psycho remake done shot-for-shot? So . . . that'll happen. The Psycho remake was only inferior insofar as the acting was so much better in the original -- thus rendering the remake pointless, of course, but just saying: I think EVERY shot is copied in the remake. Could be wrong, but that's what I heard when they were making it.
shareEr . . . wasn't the Psycho remake done shot-for-shot?
Astonishingly, yes it was - and the example I give above illustrates the artistic bankruptcy (not to mention sheer stupidity) of doing just that.
The lion and the calf shall lie down together, but the calf won't get much sleep.share
totaly agree with podwilliams, artistic bankruptcy is rife, but the new generation (i believe) can bring something fresh into an industry which relies upon remakes in order to line its pockets. Heres to the new generation,,,
share[deleted]