MovieChat Forums > Sergeants 3 (1962) Discussion > Complete Rip-off of 1939's Gunga Din

Complete Rip-off of 1939's Gunga Din

posted 14 years ago by srevad-1
9 replies | jump to latest

With the exception of moving the local from India to the old west, this movie is a complete steal/copy of 1939's Gunga Din. And sadly, in the writing credits,there is no thank you to, tip-of-the-hat for, or even the slighest mention of Rudyard Kipling.
I myself am so tired of remakes. It makes me think me believe Hollwood thinks the movie going population is to stupid to realize its being sold the same story twice, or three, or four times. Everyday new books are written and published, are there no libraries in Hollwood???

[–] human37 14 years ago

Well you are right, and you are wrong. LoL

It is a direct ripoff, but that is exactly what they intended.

However in my opinion, after ripping something off you should be better off then before. Not the case here.

Kipling at least does get credit on the IMDB page. I did watch close enough to see if he was mentioned in the movie.

I did read that there was a lot of legal trouble with this movie and infringement issues.

Maybe I'll watch paint dry.

"Save me Jebus!", Homer Simpson

[–] ksf-2 13 years ago

i USUALLY agree with orig post on remakes; they seldom live up to the original but... the 1939 version of Wizard of Oz was itself a remake. I don't think any of us want to sit thru the earlier versions of that one.

another example of a successful remake might be the 1968 version of romeo & juliet, which won 2 oscars. one of the (many)earlier versions had n. shearer & l. howard (in their 30's & 40's) playing teenagers....

[–] tenement-funster 13 years ago

The 1941 "Maltese Falcon", starring Bogart, Greenstreet and Lorre, was a remake, and I don't see anybody complaining about that. Heck, when they made "The Prisoner Of Zenda" in 1937, it was already the third version. Remakes have always happened, and they always will. Some will always be bad, and some good. Either way, there's no hiding from them!

http://www.46664.com/

[–] nammage 8 years ago

The Wizard of Oz from 1939 was not a remake. All of them made are adaptations of the L. Frank Baum novel "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz".

-Nam

I am on the road less traveled...

[–] Mrs_Bundy 13 years ago

So painful to watch Sammy Davis abasing himself as Gunga Din and more proof that 1961 belongs to the 50s decade, not the 60s.

[–] tenement-funster 13 years ago

Sammy loved that movie. He certainly didn't see it as "abasing himself". There's a hell of a lot of satire in that film. Think about it. He's a black guy, who desperately wants to stay with his new white friends, but isn't allowed to. Sinatra's character keeps pointing out that Sammy isn't allowed to join the army with them. Why? They never outright say why, but if you know your history, you'll know the answer. And, at the end, when Sammy has saved his friends and their unit, and practically the whole damned cavalry, their thanks is to boot him off to join the Tenth. The segregated black unit. It has a lot to say about the segregation that still existed at the time the movie was made - a time when Sammy was allowed to work with the rest of the Rat Pack, but not allowed to stay in hotels with them. There's a lot more to "Sergeants 3" than a lot of people seem to realise.

Plus he got to be the hero. He really loved that!

http://www.46664.com/

[–] Mrs_Bundy 13 years ago

Dear Sammy, may he rest in peace, also loved Richard Nixon.

To anyone who thinks they might enjoy one unfunny joke after another about Davis's complexion, this is the film for you!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mam13143 11 years ago

This could have been a funny parady of Gunga Din, but sadly it is a lame excuse for the rat pack to cavort on screen with tasteless and poor jokes. Even bob hope could have done better in his latter years. Back then people just enjoyed seeing the boys on screen. Sammy gets the worst of it but back then it was not looked at as we do today.