There are more or less confirmed rumours that this will be remade - portraying the clash between vikings and indians instead of the saamis and tsjuds.
Directed by Marcus Nispel - "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (2003).
Script penned by Laeta Kalogridis - writer for Stone's "Alexander".
Reportedly there are negotiations with Ken Watanabe to play one of the leads.
Release scheduled for 2007.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446013/
[deleted]
All political and cultural issues aside, the most important reason for native dialogue in any country is immersion. It's not really possible to become as engulfed in the picture when your brain is split between processing the visual imagery of the film and reading the words at the bottom of the screen.
Of course, the same problem exists with bad dubs, when the dialogue is stilted and/or obviously not consistent with the action on the screen -- it just feels "wrong". I'll take subtitles over a poor dub any day.
Ok, I realize you posted this a while back but still here it goes. PASSION OF THE CHRIST is one of the most successful films in America and not a single word of it was English, don't go trashing Americans just because they rule the film industry at the moment. I agree that studios should make more movies in the native language of the characters but don't get all anti-American or else you just seem ignorant.
shareWell.
It didn't work out too well.
How was Passion of the christ a succesfull movie? Because it made a lot of cash? True success is quality, and Passion of the christ was a dreadfull movie... There hasn't been a really good, intellegent, american movie since Kubricks days.
I hope there will never be a re-make. Hollywood always makes a mess of the good, foreign movies.
The director of the chainsaw remake and the writer of Alexander... Did anyone hear an explosion? It sounded like a gigantic BOMB!
shareIndians and Vikings? You mean around year 800 AD when they "visited" North America? This COULD be good, but for God's sake cast Lou Diamond Phillips. He's a class actor, and can add a LOT to the movie.
The Vikings are attacking! HUSS, HUSS, HUSS!
"Visited"? Dude, everyone knows they made a settlement in Newfoundland. That's common knowledge these days..
shareLast I heard, which was recently, Karl Urban is now in negotiations for the lead in this movie remake. A New Zealander.
shareyea, a couple of buddies of leif erikson went back to "wineland" as they called it and set up a home. after a while they were greeted by indians. they did some trading of fabric I think and then a bull came out charging at the indians. the indians ran off while the vikings laughed. later they came back tenfolds and attacked with slingshots and such. the vikings barely survived and left the land for good. but neither leif or columbus discovered america, people had been living there for god knows how long.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
It's not very important to the movie but it is fun to know.
Tjudits (comes from the word 'hundred' in north saami 'cuodi' because they came hundreds at a time to steal, kill and burn) are believed to come from Russia (from the east at least). They were starved and had a difficult time. In desperation they came to Sápmi to get food and clothes to survive in the arctic climate (ofcourse they could've just asked). There is not very much information about what kind of people this was, but a lot of myths and legends is told about them, or with them involved. One very beautiful myth is about the saami and the spider:
A family with saami's were escaping from a band of tsjudits that had slaughtered the whole siida(a siida is a "camp" with many families living together). The family escaped up to the mountains but their oldest member had trouble keeping up with them. Their only chance was to hide in a cave in the mountainside. They hid in the first cave they found. A spider sat in the cave entrance and saw this. It understood their situation and started to spin a web over the entrance immideatly. The tjudits came and saw the cave entrance but they just ran past it because they thought that nobody had gone into that cave for years because it was a web covering the entrance. The spider saved their lives.
Like most things I am nothing, but like everything I am part of a whole.
No , now get back to reminiscing when you were an A list actor. bye Lou.
shareI'll give a few good reasons why this movie is absolutely ridiculous:
- The vikings didn't stay in North-America for very long, and since they were an absolute maximum of 50-60 men, they would not be as stupid as to provoke the natives to war.
- What in the nine hells is Ken Watanabe going to play?? A random viking, or a pretty weird 'injun'?? The native Americans have a huge amount of brilliant actors, and it's a shame that Hollywood purposefully ignores them.
- I'm Norwegian, and though this film is first and foremost a Saami production, it's still a film that's highly treasured as one of the finest Norwegian motion pictures. To see Hollywood spit on it in this way, just like they're spitting on Elling (and countless other fantastic films), is an outrage, and it pisses me off more than anything ever has!
im gonna bet you a million bucks that the vikings are gonna be the bad guys....
shareUh, yeah...c'mon man, it's a film made in the good 'ol USA and the implication is this: if your ethnic group/race is the majority of the population, then the antagonist MUST be of that group and male (b/c males are violent little apes). In doing so, this has three affects Americans invariably try to attain:
1) we root for the little guy,
2) it makes the majority ethnic group humbled and not so haughty, and
3) not being politically correct is crass and weak, so we derive a great sense of strength by being so damn PC through making the majority group the bad guy.
Exemplified in the case: white males...ergo the vikings.
If the majority group are to be the bad guys then, since the Vikings would be the minority in North America at that time, the Indians will be the bad guys.
shareHere goes the hollywood machine again destroying a classic film. Americans lack the patience (let alone the literacy in many cases) to read subtitles and they lack the historical knoweldge to appreciate most historicaly inspired films. Hence the tendecy to favor complete fabrication and fantasy over historical fiction or dramatization.
And making the Viking look like demonic killers who never remove their helmets? C'mon! The Vikings who landed near Newfoundland were fishermen and farmers, not warriors. The trailers are just ridiculous looking, very 13th Warrior indeed.
Please just say "most" or "some" Americans. Yes, what you said applies to the majority of Americans, but I for one am getting tired of crappy US remakes (and some of us can actually appreciate historical accuracy, and believe it or not, read)
shareDon't waste your energy being offended by someone who judges all of America by it's cinema.
share I really don't even see why the big budget Hollywood "Pathfinder" is being called a "remake" of "Ofelas". It's very loosely based on the same plot, but being made 20-years and eons of dollars, technology, and intent away. This new movie is a commercially driven, p.c. fantasy, made for sheer audience entertainment and to rake in the bucks. It doesn't in any way diminish the stature of the original.
Calling it a "remake" is like calling "Last House on the Left" a remake of "Virgin Spring".