Needs to be Remade


I feel like this movie needs to be remade! I'd love to see someone like Christopher Nolan direct it, and I always thought that Christoph Waltz would be a great O'Brien. Kind of random I know, but what do you guys think?

reply

Why do you feel that it needs to be remade? Most remakes (not counting 1984 itself) are disasters. The remakers usually try to bash the earlier version and boast that they did it better; this annoys a lot of people, so if anything goes wrong with the ramake, they'll jump on it.

The remake of PSYCHO was a slavish disaster; somebody even made a video showing the two versions of the shower murder side by side. Somce people still prefer the Kubrick Lolita to the 1980s remake, in spite of the censorship problems in the early 1960s. The recent TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY was more atmospheric than the BBC version, but the BBC version had a clearer story line and Sir Alec Guiness.

Unless a remake has some clear virtue that didn't exist in the original, there's not much point in remaking it.

reply

A new movie based on book 1984 needs to be made. It would not be a remake at all. Most people know 1984 by reading of the book as it is often required school reading material .

Reason why it needs to be made because now, today, we are more than ever loving in a world of 1984. We literally do have cameras in many places. I guess UK has it most like in the book because the cameras are I stalled by the government. In USA we have fewer of them. We have drone technology that is essentially the helicopters described in the book.
Governments spy on our Internet, look at us from the skies, from space, and can detain people indefinitely. Wars are started for no good reasons.

Perfect timing.

reply

Yeah, based on the book .. right. Sadly, I am skeptical that would really happen. AT the moment, Hollywood studios engaged in remakes as well as those film's apologist fans, have constructed this myth of "re-adaptation not remaking", yet in every single case of supposed re-adaptation, the resulting film has proven instead to be a simple remake, in that is shot for shot similar, contains the same merged characters and modified plot points, retains plot beats found in the prior film adaptation, etc.

reply

I think you're right. When they do shot to shot "remakes" it is extremely annoying. It is like a wasted opportunity. I also reread my post and found mistakes. Sorry about those. It is from my phone's autocorrect and my not proof reading it.

reply

Perfect timing, but not for the reasons you mention. The UK is the closest?

I'd like to tell you about a little country known as North Korea, where people live in fear and love of their great leader, Kim Jong Un. To speak badly of their leader or the party means death, torture or concentration camps. The news are overflowing with fantastic news about the country and the evils of foreign countries, impressive feats like how North Korea has recently become the first nation to land on the sun (a feat that took 4 hours by rocket). There are speakers shouting propaganda and kids giving up their parents to the NK police for talking ill of their nation. Very few people are allowed to leave, get access to info, the internet or the outside world in general.

The whole country is basically 1984 right now. So yes, very timely.

reply

Christopher Nolan? I wasn't aware 1984 was an action movie. David Fincher would be a far better choice if you need to remake the movie, which you don't.

reply

Not a remake, but an adaptation of the book if that's what you mean. David fincher, christian bale, helene bonham carter, hugo weaving, that's where I'll put my money on.

No Signature. Deal with it.

reply


Who on earth would Helene Bonham Carter be playing? She's too old for Julia, nor does the rebellious-girl-beaten-down character fit her history of roles, which consist of ingénues (ROOM WITH A VIEW, HOWARD'S END), dowdy villainesses (HARRY POTTER, SWEENY TODD, LES MISERABLES) and a queen of England (KING'S SPEECH). Jennifer Lawrence might be a great Julia (she's already played a rebel against a dystopia) but I don't see a good reason for a remake anyway.

reply

Are you kidding me? Helena Bonham Carter? She is talentless! the only reason she has the little bit of celebrity that she has is because of her husband! Go back to watching jack & Jill.

reply

I can't visualize Carter in 1984, but she was famous long before she got married, playing sensitive teenage girls in the Merchant-Ivory movies.

reply

You clearly haven't seen nolan's earlier work. In fact action is his bitter weakness if you saw the gun fights in inception you'll know what I mean.

Nolan's strengths lie in his ability to take a concept (be it of his own imagination or another medium of literature) and mould it into a story that reflects almost all the dimensions, emotions and angles of the story as it would be in our world.

In other words he brings an awe inspiring and often terrifying reality off the page and onto the screen evoking emotion with disturbing honesty, reflected best in his writing and direction of the prestige and adaptation of Batman in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. At his best he always gets the most out of a story in the standard 2.5 hour slot and his films exude the quality their stories demand in their execution and thematic density, without losing a measure of pace throughout.

So we come to the real question, what does 1984 require as a remake to be successful, a stellar cast, a director with an ability to transfer the themes expressed in the book with a knack for altering the story to fit into it's time slot with out affecting its pace and flow. A director who can inspire the viewer into the emotion on the page. A man who can understand on a deep bare bones level so as to be able to build cinematic ideas from a place in harmony with George Orwell's message.

My choice would be Terence Malick for his work on the thin red line and days of heaven I think a project of this thematic magnitude and meaning for the world we live in today needs to be metaphoric and made with layer of depth whilst following a linear storyline, a more mainstream choice would be Nolan and admittedly he could and maybe would do a better job of making it an enjoyable movie. I just don't think it's enjoyment is as important as the power of its message and the unflinching delivery of that message to the world. In conclusion I think a Nolan film would be more popular but a Malick film would be more congruent with the material.

reply

I think you are a half wit.
Why would anyone want to remake this film?
It couldn't be bettered.
Christopher Nolan?
Who?

reply

Mwahahahahahahaha!!!

reply

Mwahahahahahahaha!!! I'll laugh along with you. Anyone who disagrees with the FACT that Nolan is a cinematic genius is a tool who should have their eyes gouged out with a spoon. 1984 should be re-imagined and updated for this century and every century that follows as long as we live under the observance of Big Brother.

"I am Groot." - Guardians of the Galaxy

reply

Thank you, driver84! I think he would do an excellent job. Also, I'm really looking forward to Interstellar...

Leave the gun, take the cannoli.

reply

Christopher Nolan -- pretty good writer, lousy director. I hated "Interstellar". I never want to see Matthew McConaghy's face ever again. 3 hours of it has given me nightmares.

reply

REMAKE is not the right word.

It would be a NEW ADAPTATION, and I'm not axactly opposed to the idea, because this movie is good, is solid, but it's not an all-time classic, there's room for improvement.

However, it would be difficult to come with something better than this 1984 version, because the book is a masterpiece, and you simply can't fit everything in less than 3 hours, Hollywood is too coward and they rather continue churning film adaptations of this new "franchise novels" trend (Twilight, Hunger Games, etc.)

reply

Excellent post. This is a good film and Brazil is good, too, but each does not stand up to the novel, imo.

There is room for improvement.

reply

Wow I couldn't agree with you more!!! Definitely desperately needs to be remade. I even agree with you about Christopher Nolan directing or producing it, He definitely needs to have a hand in it Somehow someway.

reply

Christopher Nolan???

He hasn't made a decent film since Memento. That was 13 years ago.

Limit of the Willing Suspension of Disbelief: directly proportional to it's awesomeness.

reply

[deleted]

Alfonso Cuaron would be perfect. Children of Men was obviously inspired by 1984. He can do dystopian science fiction.

Limit of the Willing Suspension of Disbelief: directly proportional to its awesomeness.

reply

As the book (and film) are a British author's grey and grimy dystopian vision of a future totalitarian Communist Britain, what possible benefit do you think a flashy Hollywood director - and American actors - would bring to any remake? Greater authenticity? Please!

It would be a totally-missing-the-point "reimagined" embarrassment on a par with the Nic Cage version of The Wicker Man, or the mini-series version of The Prisoner.

Some things are better left as they are: they're already in colour, they already speak English, and if they're dated in any way then that just adds charm. There's nothing of value that a remake could offer, and much opportunity for a remake to get it all horribly wrong.

The film version of 1984 that we have here achieves a near-perfect balance of run-time versus depth, IMHO. Sure, you could argue that a longer version might be able to go deeper into Orwell's ideas, but the answer to that will always be: if you want to know more, go read the book.

This version also sports two of the finest actors you could ever hope to cast in the lead roles. It has a great sense of time(lessness) and place: the oppressive grime, poverty, smallness, and ugliness of the world Orwell imagined. It is also full of authentically lo-fi iconic imagery that no amount of CG could improve.

The only thing that was ever really "wrong" with this adaptation was the original 80's electro-pop soundtrack by Eurhythmics - which was jarringly inappropriate to the tone of the film (even on initial release) and instantly dated it. ("Sex Crime! Do-boop-de-boop-de-boop-boop-boop!" - embarrassing doesn't begin to describe it)

Luckily, that "problem" seems to have been remedied since - the R1 DVD that I own has an entirely orchestral soundtrack, IIRC. Whether it was rights issues or just plain good taste that caused the removal of the 80's electro-pop, all I know is that I was grateful for the alteration - and that it was the only "update" this film really needed.

reply

I wouldn't mind a updated version, but also not waiting for one, if one is made i would watch though.

the best remake ever imo still is John Carpenters The Thing (1982), which is a sort of remake from the 50s film, The Thing From Another World

reply