Is There Anybody Except Tarantino Or Rodriguez We Could Trust To Remake?
Any ideas?
share[deleted]
I dont see this movie as a remake movie, specially by those guys
Metal will live. Yo-da-lin in the valley. Polyfuze method
MovieChat Forums > Rolling Thunder (1978) Discussion > Is There Anybody Except Tarantino Or Rod...
His style is not to everyone's taste, but Tony Scott would be my choice. In a similar vein, Wayne Kramer could probably do a bang-up job (bad pun, sorry). Of course if you want it to stick to its 70's roots, William Friedkin is still working and could apply the appropriate layer of sleaze.
shareKudos on Dead Man's Shoes. Excellent revenge movie.. gives me chills every time.
Tarantino? Rodriguez? Those guys *WISH* they made Rolling Thunder. I just watched it last night, and it's above and beyond anything those two hacks could ever hash out. It has an element of greatness QT & RR aren't capable of summoning.
"For anyone looking for a new revenge movie, check out the Irish-made Dead Man's Shoes. This film proves there are plenty of new ideas out there, and we don't need remakes."
Thanks for the tip! =D
"Cain and Abel will go to Heaven... if they can make it through Hell!"
-Los Hijos Del Topo
[deleted]
"Of course if you want it to stick to its 70's roots, William Friedkin is still working and could apply the appropriate layer of sleaze."
Hilarious! I love how the '70s are synonymous with dirty, grimy sleaze...
"Cain and Abel will go to Heaven... if they can make it through Hell!"
-Los Hijos Del Topo
[deleted]
I wouldn't trust them either. I think Paul Schrader got this right the first time.
shareI agree. This is a hell of a film here and I don’t think a remake could capture its feel. There’s something about Major Rane’s emotions throughout the film that you can feel without him ever saying anything. I just can’t see anyone else but Devane playing the part. “You’ve got to learn to love the rope.”
share[deleted]
Stupid_Young_Fellow wrote:
"Trust those clowns with Rolling Thunder? No way. Tarantino and Rodriguez claim to be champions of low budget '70s exploitation/action cinema, but they distort, mock and exaggerate the genre too much to be sincere. They don't really love '70s exploitation cinema, they just exploit it and steal ideas from it."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that they don't treat the more serious aspects of 70's genre films with the respect they deserve, but I don't think this means they don't really "love" the 70s exploitation cinema. On the contrary, I think QT and RR deserve praise for injecting new ingredients (humor) into it. However, it's time that these guys moved on from the pop-culture banter and did something more serious. Could Machete actually be that film? We'll see. I doubt it.
It will be a feather in Tarantino's cap if he ever actually does evolve his craft beyond the formula that's been so successful for him for a decade. Unlike you, perhaps, I think he could actually do it if he's willing to take a chance.
'However, it's time that these guys moved on from the pop-culture banter and did something more serious. "
Have you ever seen Jackie Brown? And where was the pop culture references in Inglourious Basterds?
Seriously people really talk nonsense.
A lot of dumb ignorant haters defended an entertaining yet flawed and often poorly choreographed and acted B movie.
share[deleted]
why is it that fanboys on imdb ALWAYS start threads like this in message boards to cool 60s/70s films? WHY?
can't they just love the movie AS IS?
or do they just not get it?
or is it some inferiority complex and they feel empowered by suggesting something absolutely stupid like this?
it's funny cuz fans of these older, better films seem to be first in line to scream "enough with the crappy remakes and sequels", yet there is always a thread like this. sheesh.
coex wrote:
"it's funny cuz fans of these older, better films seem to be first in line to scream "enough with the crappy remakes and sequels", yet there is always a thread like this. sheesh."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your point would make sense if it were the same fans complaining about remakes and then starting threads like this one. Except they aren't. All you're basically saying is that some fans of the classics despise remakes (especially these days) and some don't.
The point about there always being a thread about remakes on older (and sometimes even newer) films is very valid, though. It's a shame that the various production companies who pitch all these remakes can't just call it something else and not recyles the same things over ansd over... I know it's a safer bet to go with a name already out there but come on. And in Rolling Thunder's case, I doubt it has muc recognition anyway, not that I know of any remake plans anyway.
But anwyay, I wish all these remake threads would go away. Especially those calling for QT and RR to helm them. Although I don't think Rodriguez is so guilty, a couple of things notwithstanding.
Although actually, I wouldn't mind seeing either of them remake something, just out of curiosity. QT steals so much from old films anyway it would be interesting to see just how he'd approach a remake. you know, if his giddiness didn't stop him from doing it shot-for-shot.
Emily? Who's Emily?
Tarantino couldn't direct my **** to the nearest toilet, using both hands.
If you could bring Don Siegel, Sam Peckinpah or Ted Post back from the dead, I'd greenlight that remake.
My sig? A milestone! Landmark! A masterpiece! I laughed, I cried!