MovieChat Forums > The Wild Bunch (1969) Discussion > Wild Bunch Remake Becomes Real? Casting...

Wild Bunch Remake Becomes Real? Casting announced.

posted 5 years ago by ecarle (14979)
11 replies | jump to latest

I've always put three movies over the rest in my life for impact on my life:

Psycho
North by Northwest
The Wild Bunch

...this is all pretty "instinctive" on my part. In my ponderings, I'll sometimes wonder something like "The Wild Bunch OVER The Godfather?" (which I love as much as the next fan.)

Psycho and North by Northwest are pretty seminal to me. When they invaded my life, I simply thought they were the best of their type that any movie could be...any movie WOULD be. In terms of what I responded to.

Take North by Northwest. My main regard for that movie is that: Hitchcock gave us everything he could here. Its probably a work of commerce before its a work of art. A top star for a hero(Cary Grant, not Bob Cummings.) A top star for a villain(James Mason, not Otto Kruger.) An Oscar winning serious actress surprisingly turned hottie for a heroine . Top notch support. A cast of hundreds, familiar faces all. Real locations across the US. Three big action set-pieces, one of which is literally unstoppable(Rushmore at the end.) OTHER types of set-pieces(A UN murder, a madcap auction). A love story that moves from flirtatious sex to committed marriage. All launched by a massively exciting Saul Bass/Bernard Herrmann credit sequence(even Leo the Lion gets into the act.)

Armed with a budget from MGM that allowed him to do it all, Hitchcock gave his all. And we got North by Northwest. After that one, Torn Curtain, Topaz and Family Plot(scripted by Ernest Lehman) didn't have a chance.

And that vision of NXNW "locked in" even as a decades of action movies bettered it with machine guns, explosions and action: On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Star Wars(lasers in for machine guns), Raiders of the Lost Ark, Die Hard, The Matrix. Beside them, NXNW looks "old and slow." But it started everything. And nobody else got to us Rushmore like that.

Psycho followed NXNW by less than a year(amazing!) and though it was made cheap, it never FEELS cheap. Movies like "Oh God" and "Mr. Mom" LOOK cheap, by comparison just off the top of my head -- Psycho has TEXTURE. The house from the outside at all times, but never better than when Arbogast walks up to it. Mother moving across the window. Norman's eye at the peephole, Marion's dead eye on the bathroom floor. The brilliance of the morph on Norman's final leer. And again, as with NXNW, the feeling that Hitchcock had given us his all, pulled out all the stops, followed one great shot with another. With a Bass-Herrmann credit sequence to start us off with a jolt.

As it turns out, North by Northwest, Psycho and The Wild Bunch all hit my life within two years of each other, even if the first two were made almost a decade before the third one.

NXNW debuted on the CBS Friday Night Movie in September of 1967; Psycho got its LA debut in November of 1967(I couldn't see it , but I "saw it" in my mind as told to me by friends); and The Wild Bunch came out in July of 1969, less than two years later.

In between came the violent Bonnie and Clyde(released the first time in September of 1967 , then re-released through early '68.) Technically Psycho, Bonnie and Clyde and The Wild Bunch should have been a natural "trilogy of landmark violence" for me, but with the passing years, Bonnie and Clyde fell out as being on the level of the other two films (too fake-arty, too much Method acting, the climactic killings "not really enough.")

Psycho and The Wild Bunch make sense together -- I was drawn in by the taboo of ultra-violence in accepted genres. But how does the comparatively non-violent NXNW fit in with the other two?

Simple: North by Northwest doesn't fit with Psycho and The Wild Bunch by meaning of its violence, but gave its all, too. All three of them did. I felt-- with NXNW, with Psycho, and with The Wild Bunch -- that the filmmaker felt some sort of obligation to take his audience places they had never really been, "give 'em all you got," go for broke. I never watch NXNW, Psycho, or The Wild Bunch feeling that I'm "just watching a job, a director's desultory turning in of a couple of hours entertainment to make a few bucks." I'm watching a testament.

And there's this: the sheer cinematics of all three films. The Wild Bunch climaxes with that exciting, gorgeous, gory and moving ultra-violent gunbattle and the cinematic fireworks of that scene(in image AND in sound) ultimately exist at a level of commitment that The Godfather(with its more quick and perfunctory bloodletting) never really does. The Godfather is a movie of great talking scenes as much as violent ones. The Wild Bunch goes way higher into the stratosphere to deliver its movie experience.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Sam Peckinpah was a "genius on the downswing." Drink and drugs would take him pretty quickly. William Holden was a "once handsome Golden Boy" in visible decline. Drinks would take him down, too. Those two men are the linchpins of what's unique about The Wild Bunch -- it is the work of men who put it all on the line this one time. And won. (That Ernest Borgnine and Edmond O'Brien were great two was a surprise -- and something about how Robert Ryan LOOKS in this movie is compelling to me -- he's quite handsome for a dissipated man, tall and thin, with longish hair and a great moustache.)

The casting announced for the new Wild Bunch so far is: Michael Fassbender, Jamie Foxx, and Peter Dinklage. Hey, now. I don't sense any of the "aging outlaw at the end of his rope" feeling to that casting. The racial change is de rigueur for this day and age, I expect we will never see an "all White" Western again (as Django Unchained and the new Magnificent Seven proved. Heck, as Silverado proved over 30 years ago.) Dinklage is perhaps the most interesting casting -- his capacity for violence is unknown to me(is he a violent guy on GOT? Must be.)

Mel Gibson is directing. His climb back has worked, he's very respected now (and looks prematurely aged -- HE would have been a fine Pike Bishop but I don't think he's quite box office anymore.) Mel Gibson is co-writing. Eh...maybe. Peckinpah's script was somewhat well written by himself and some other hands, but certainly it was pretty basic in its lines ("You stick together, otherwise you're just animals.")

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

But my feellng about a new Wild Bunch is like my feeling about a new Psycho. You can't better the original for execution, for passion of the artist to tell THAT tale, and for shock value. I'm not screaming "don't do it!" here -- that's a futile gesture these days and I did like the "True Grit" and "Mag 7" remakes.

But "True Grit" and "Mag 7" weren't the "off the rails" achievement of The Wild Bunch circa 1969 was. "Psycho" and "The Wild Bunch" share that. They didn't feel like "usual" American studio movies. They went off the rails, took audiences to dangerous places.

The Wild Bunch in addition to being very violent, was very MEAN. The opening scene of children torturing real scorpion with real ants. Innocent bystanders getting shot, trampled , and used as human shields in the opening gunfight. Pike shooting one of his men in the face because the man was in agony from a wound to his face. Young Angel shooting his ex-girlfriend in public. The torture of the young Mexican Angel by the corrupt Mexican army. Borgnine using an innocent woman as a human shield in the final gunbattle; Pike shotgunning the woman who shoots him i the back.

If I weirdly "liked" all that when I first saw The Wild Bunch in '69, its because I felt I was being shown some unvarnished truths about outlaws and posses and war itself: the innocent die too. And if I weirdly "liked" all that more, it was because, at the very end, Mean Bill Holden and his three Mean Wild Bunchers proved humane enough to die trying as they took down 200 . It was the most moving slaughter (and self-slaughter) in movies.

And because Psycho, NXNW and The Wild Bunch all hit me at an impressionable age, its been difficult for later movies I saw when I was older(and more blasé) to top them.

Well, that's that.

So we had a Psycho remake and we'll have a Wild Bunch remake.

I'm pretty confident nobody wants to remake NXNW. Its just too tame.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

The casting announced for the new Wild Bunch so far is: Michael Fassbender, Jamie Foxx, and Peter Dinklage.

---

I return two years later to note: boy, did I "bury" that information in my OP. Sorry.

Oh well, the history of this project is important, I think.

And: two years later and no real forward motion on making this movie. Of course, COVID-19 has put many movies into "limbo."

[–] MichaelJPollock (649) 3 years ago

Hi ecarle,
Speaking of Mel Gibson possibly directing the Wild Bunch remake (which I'm also greatly anticipating) I wonder if you've had a chance to watch any of Craig Zahler's films, in particular 'Dragged Across Concrete', an excellent film featuring an excellent Mel Gibson in top form?

[–] christomacin (4528) 2 years ago

The events on the set of Rust make me wonder what future, if any, this remake has. It may ultimately get made, but you can forget about "real" blanks being used. It's gonna be all CGI from now on. There's been some talk of air guns or some such, but it'll be CGI in the end. Maybe our technology is good enough to pull it off, but prop guns are on the way out so it's probably a moot point. It'll look as good as it's gonna look, but I doubt the verisimilitude of Peckinpah will quite be achieved. Not to mention, the increase in budget required for a genre that isn't that popular anymore. Back in 1903 a cowboy fired a gun at the screen in The Great Train Robbery. No one died. Despite all the alcohol and other nonsense on the set of the Wild Bunch, a half crazy director fired off more ammo than the Mexican Revolution itself, and yet no one died. Have we become so incompetent, or can we just not do anything right anymore? Let's hope there are no equestrian accidents on any set or they'll be riding CGI horses as well. Saloon girls and topless Mexican maidens are right out (ditto bottomless Mexican maidens). Here's a question: Is the Western, that most rural and Luddite of genres, still a Western if it's all fake? Still, if the alternative is people dying, then I guess it is what it is. On top of that, Clint is a walking skeleton. The Wild West (the Silver Screen version, anyway) has finally come to a close in a certain sense. Morton's choo choo train has finally come to Sweetwater.
(Cue the Morricone music)

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Hi ecarle,

--

Hi, sorry I only recently saw this

---

Speaking of Mel Gibson possibly directing the Wild Bunch remake (which I'm also greatly anticipating)

---

Its two years since my OP, can't say this one looks too "imminent."

--

I wonder if you've had a chance to watch any of Craig Zahler's films, in particular 'Dragged Across Concrete', an excellent film featuring an excellent Mel Gibson in top form?

--

I have not seen these films yet, I've read of them and had them recommended and they should be right up my alley in terms of content, style, and violence. AND actors. Vince Vaughn I like. Mel Gibson was pretty major and has aged well -- is his sentence considered over? It would seem so.

I will try to see the films soon.

--

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

The events on the set of Rust make me wonder what future, if any, this remake has.

--

Immediately in the news (October/November 2021) as I post this response, the "Rust" tragediy will certainly put a focus on "guns in movies" and how they are used.

The final massacre in The Wild Bunch is getting touted as an example of how Westerns USED to get made with thousands of bullets properly blank and properly not killing or injuring anybody.

We must remember that The Wild Bunch was a big budget production that kept getting money pumped into its making by a Warner Brothers boss who LOVED the daillies. Peckinpah was given all the money and time he needed to "get it right" and get it safe. No doubt the production had experienced armorers , and Peckinpah was famous for firing (on the spot) sub-par workers(or they quit quickly.)

Ironically, perhaps the "violence" in The Wild Bunch was mainly "blood hits" wired on the bodies of the victims and bullet hits wired on tables and walls. Guns didn't HAVE to be aimed at people too much(exception, the woman who shoots Holden in the back).

--

It may ultimately get made, but you can forget about "real" blanks being used. It's gonna be all CGI from now on. There's been some talk of air guns or some such, but it'll be CGI in the end. Maybe our technology is good enough to pull it off, but prop guns are on the way out so it's probably a moot point.

--

I think the original John Wick(2014) had tons of shots of Wick shooting men in the face and head -- and the blood hits were ALL done in the computer (you could kinda tell, but the action was so fast it didn't matter.)

So its do-able. But noticeable. Which may be the only way it gets done from here out. But could a cheap production like "Rust" afford such CGI post-production?

--

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Have we become so incompetent, or can we just not do anything right anymore?

--

One trade article I read made an interesting point: Thanks to "Peak TV" cable and streaming productions as well as movie productions(back underway as COVID changes), there are simply too many cheap productions out there right now and too few "experts" to hire. So you get armorers like the novice woman (working two jobs) in trouble here (and everybody else who will get blamed when the lawyers jump all in.)

---

Let's hope there are no equestrian accidents on any set or they'll be riding CGI horses as well.

---

Those have happened. A veteran stunt man died in director John Ford's arms after breaking his neck in a horse fall on The Horse Soldiers(1959.) A fatal wagon spill over a cliff in The Hallelujah Trail(1965) ended up in the movie -- and the trailer! So there has always been some danger on Western sets...

---

Saloon girls and topless Mexican maidens are right out (ditto bottomless Mexican maidens).

--

Ah, you are speaking to the raw R-rated sexual side of The Wild Bunch(includuing a shot of a topless woman suckling her baby with a bullet belt over her chest.) Yes...sex is largely out these days...unless the actress REALLY really agrees that she wants to do it.

--
CONT

[–] Galactus03 (4289) 2 years ago

Well I love the original wild bunch and I doubt a remake would have the same impact on me....

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

I feel that the original "Wild Bunch" was one of those once-in-a-lifetime works of art (popular action art) that turns out to have been fueled , ironically enough, by a studio head loving the daillies so much that he PILED ON more money and more time for Peckinpah to "go on forever" filiming his gunbattles. More bullets(fake) were bought, more costumes(bloody) were made, more extras were hired.

And Peckinpah, while starting to suffer from drink and drugs, wasn't burned out yet. He was aching to prove himself after some years in Hollywood exile.

Also -- it was 1969. Nobody had seen ANYTHING like that. Bonnie and Clyde didn't come close in terms of the mixed camera speeds, etc.

I think I heard somewhere (my old OP?) that the new Wild Bunch is meant to be a modern Mexican drug wars tale...

But its two years into development hell...

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Here's a question: Is the Western, that most rural and Luddite of genres, still a Western if it's all fake?

--

Great question. This was always at once a fantasy genre and yet "realistic." The wide open spaces were real, the mountains were real, the deserts were real. The horses were real and (I guess) the guns were real even if loaded with blanks.

Irony: the Western pretty much died out in the 70's anyway, certainly on broadcast TV, but also "at the movies." Evidently female audiences and urban audiences rejected them. (Says I: the machine gun ended them for action. The Wild Bunch has one, but it is set in the early 1900s. Six shooters aren't enough for John Woo/Die Hard type action)

Over the past few decades, a few Westerns made it, almost as "novelty items": Silverado, Pale Rider, Open Range, Tombstone, the "Lonesome Dove" series and, of course, "Unforgiven." Plus QT's made two. This may continue -- very intermittently. Clint's too old. The Duke's been dead for decades.

Still, if the alternative is people dying, then I guess it is what it is.

--

Well "Rust" is a stunner in that regard. It may turn out that the overall slapdash production created the "perfect storm" that killed a DP.

Even as we speak, I'll bet armorers are being triple-checked and fired if not good enough. Tragedies have a way of increasing safety.

--

On top of that, Clint is a walking skeleton.

--

Well, Clint figured out that the Western was dying even in the 70s. HIS Westerns made money, but he didn't make many (the Leones, Hang em High, Sister Sara, Joe Kidd, High Plains Drifter, Josey Wales, Pale Rider, Unforgiven...that's it, right?.) He used Dirty Harry and other contemporary action roles to stay "big."

--
The Wild West (the Silver Screen version, anyway) has finally come to a close in a certain sense. Morton's choo choo train has finally come to Sweetwater.
(Cue the Morricone music)

--

Well said. Sergio killed the Western star...