MovieChat Forums > I Wanna Hold Your Hand Discussion > Wouldn't A Remake Be Cool???

Wouldn't A Remake Be Cool???

posted 15 years ago by peace_love_and_happiness
24 replies | jump to latest

I haven't heard any rumors or anything, so don't get your hopes up. =( I'm just thinking, with all the money Zemekis has now, wouldn't it be cool if he remade his biggest "flop"?? It would do great now I'm sure, with all the young people who like the Beatles because of things like Across The Universe but really don't know anything about them or the mania they caused! Aaaaaaand you could probably portray the boys' faces this time around! It could be like an extended edition hahahah! I really wish he'd re make it...maybe we should send him a letter??

~*~All We Are Saying Is Give PEACE A Chance!~*~

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bookworm111 15 years ago

No.

[–] slasherfilmsthree 11 years ago

Yes!

Look daddy, I'm gay-Gay Rodd Flanders

[–] Blueghost 15 years ago

Why on Earth would anyone want a remake of this?

[–] Chesterfield_Invincible 15 years ago

I guess now 'cause with CGI, we can have more visible, virtual Beatles in the movie, plus NYC could really look like NYC!

[–] freudified_n_funkified 15 years ago

Part of the charm of the movie, intended or not, is actually not seeing the Beatles full on. As a satire on Beatlemania and not an out and out Beatles movie, watching the kids react to them and obsess is the fun of the piece. The little fleeting moments of visibility and contact are much more satisfying than any mo-cap CGI versions of them prancing around would be. It would be ridiculous. Despite this movie's failure when it was released, it's aged incredibly well and the material still feels fresh and funny. Because it's not a love letter to the Beatles, it's an absurd comedy about the effect they had on the culture. Not showing them actually serves to both increase the mystique, and crank up how bizarre the hysteria surrounding them is.

Plus, there already was a remake. It was called Detroit Rock City.

[–] Blueghost 11 years ago

Your first sentences sums it up. It's the whole idea that you don't get to be in touch with them directly that's part of the film's draw.

Otherwise why make it in the first place?

[–] VinnieRattolle 14 years ago

Why in God's name would you want a remake of this movie?! There are certainly exceptions (though none of recent years that instantly spring to mind) but generally speaking, remakes suck.

Part of the charm of "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" (much like "Grease" and "American Graffiti") is that it wasn't too far removed from the era in which it was set. As such, they were able to fairly accurately recreate 1964 and retain the innocence of the era whilst adding some of the real-life teenage hijinks (sex, drinking, etc.) that wouldn't have been allowed in a film in 1964. Trying to recreate 1964 in 2010 would be more than a little difficult, considering few involved with the production would have even been alive in 1964 ("Across the Universe" tried and turned out an uneven, overlong acid trip of a film).

"Detroit Rock City" basically is a remake, but instead of a group of teens going to see the Beatles, they're on the road to see KISS... and it includes flatulence jokes, graphic projectile vomiting and other atrocities. Don't get me wrong, I like "Detroit Rock City" (despite some of the unnecessary gross-out humor) but I have a feeling if they were to remake "I Wanna Hold Your Hand," it'd go more that route than this innocently fluffy flick.

And I agree that we don't need to see their faces; the film works better without them. If you wanna see lookalikes, track down a copy of "Beatlemania: The Movie."

http://vinnierattolle.blogspot.com/

[–] YankeeDood 14 years ago

Nope. Most remakes suck and the characters in this movie will never be matched.

Connect With Fans Of UP ALL NIGHT
http://drop.io/usaupallnight

[–] scottythefield 14 years ago

A remake? Uh, no.

[–] PunkBuster88 12 years ago

I'd argue that there is no other actor in human history, past, present, or future, who could play the role of Ringo Klaus.

[–] blakjak_cc 12 years ago

This movie is perfect as it is.
Would you prefer more explosions & Jessica Simpson & Leonardo DiCaprio playing the lead roles?

[–] solex10 11 years ago

Where did you get the idea that they would have explosions in it, moron? Please keep your hatred of remakes and current movies to yourself on your own blog; you don't run the rest of us, and you don't run Hollywood.

[–] Paris4242 11 years ago

No. The original film captures Beatlemania so well.

[–] solex10 11 years ago

A remake would work for a lot of reasons;

1) Beatlemania II had not yet caught on at the time of the original movie's release like it has now (everybody was into disco, punk rock, funk, etc.) so the movie failed then because of that (the movies Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and All This And World War II-both of which featured Beatles music-didn't help matters any.)

2)Everybody would be fans now as opposed to back then when they probably really weren't fans at all.

3)People today barely remember this movie (it isn't seen much on cable or regular TV, and the DVD's out of print.)

That said, I don't think that having the faces of the Fab Four shown would work this time out either, so it's best to just have it be like last time and focus on the main characters. But other than that, I support your idea (in fact, I wonder why this movie hasn't been remade already!)

[–] uruseiranma 11 years ago

Zemeckis is not one to go back and tamper with films he's done. It's interesting in the commentary for 'Back to the Future,' at a USC Q&A, he was asked if he considered cleaning up Back to the Future digitally. There are some spots you can see wires and other things, but Bob Z claims that the problems are there, warts and all.

Besides, one of the issues you have these days compared to the time this film was made, is the cost of music. You have to figure that the budget would be really high given how much it costs to license/use the Beatles' recordings.

I always loved the ingenuity of not actually showing their faces until we see the camera monitors at the end.

I think on the commentary, they likened it to whenever you saw Jesus in 'Ben-Hur.' You saw a bit of clothing, a foot, etc, but you never really saw him. And that was fun to see them do with IWHYH, and your imagination fills in the rest.

I like to think it was Zemeckis' first step in wanting characters in his films to interact with real-life types. Of course, he took the leap in 'Forrest Gump,' and then there were those who said he went too far with the inclusion of Clinton in 'Contact.'

"Thanks, guys." "So long, partner."

- Toy Story 3 (9/10)

[–] Washingtonnative (2613) 7 years ago

No, a remake of this is completely unnecessary. The movie is perfect.