MovieChat Forums > The Lion in Winter (2004) Discussion > Was there a need to remake this?

Was there a need to remake this?

posted 19 years ago by moviegeek5760
42 replies | jump to latest

I'm not going to bash this mini series, I haven't seen it, so I can't say if it's bad or not. But was there a need to remake this? The original movie is amazing. I saw it over a year ago and absolutely loved it (I had developed an infatuation with Peter O'Toole after watching Becket in my English Lit. class in high school). O'Toole was mesmerizing and Katherine Hepburn was amazing, and I love Anthony Hopkins as Richard. It was such a great movie, with wonderful acting, and an interesting story. Why did they have to remake it? Maybe it's just that Hollywood doesn't seem to have any original ideas anymore, and that really bothers me, but why remake a classic? No one my age (I'm 19) has seen this movie, and if they have, I doubt they recognize how wonderful a movie like this is. I just don't understand what compelled someone to want to remake this movie...leave classics alone. Remake a bad movie.

"I remember everything..."

[–] nubianprncss 19 years ago

I'm 19 too and I fell in love with the original movie when I first saw it two years ago. I didn't think it was possible for a remake to be any good. However, I just saw it and it was pretty good. Jonathan Rhys-meyers was great as Philip as was the man who played Geoffrey. Stewart and Close gave very good performances, as long as you don't compare their portrayal to that of O'toole and Hepburn.
To enjoy this movie, you need to see it for itself, not to compare it to the original. If you just watch it, its great. If you try to compare every bit to the original, you will not enjoy it. They are quite different.

"That was so terrible I think you gave me cancer!"

[–] lawgirl24 19 years ago

I just watched the remake and was disappointed in it, because it pales to the original in my mind. This is a prime example of a movie that should not be remade. I can only picture Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction and Patrick Stewart as the guy from Star Trek, so I had trouble taking them seriously. Hepburn gave her lines a venomous (spelling not so sure) feel that Close's interpretation lacked. O'Toole's energy as Henry was greatly missed in this version. The movie was a particular disappointment in one of my favorite scenes when king and queen are greeting people and insulting each other under their breathe. I could only picture Hepburn and O'Toole doing it. Oh well, I guess it's my lost for not noticing any benefits of this remake.

"I outrank you." Brad Chase
"And I'm such a slut for authority." Alan Shore

[–] ThePleasantBoy 19 years ago

I'm 18, and I've seen this movie, and I recognize how wonderful it is. kthx. But i do agree, I don't see why a remake was needed.

[–] MountainMan 19 years ago

The Lion In Winter is showing right now on HBO and when I flipped to the channel I was surprised to see Glenn Close. I expected Hepburn or O'Toole. So then I wondered if I had the Hepburn movie title right and checked here to discover that Lion In Winter title was right, and this one is a remake of the 1968 version. The first thing I thought was what you did, i.e., why remake an absolute baseline top-notch version that Hepburn's was? It would make sense to remake a version that was poorly done or had bad acting, or low box-office draw. The original '68 version was nominated for 7 oscars and won 3. This obviously great made-for-TV version was nominated for 14 tv-related awards and won 4. I guess how they did at the box office would mean a lot, but I could not find all that information. Does anyone out there know?
Mountain Man

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] seeyouonthescreen 19 years ago

As of lately, I think Hollywood has a fascination with remakes, and in this case, I don't think it was purely terrible, and it does pale in comparison to the original, but it was a fresh and nice try. It's always interesting in seeing actor's take on a challenge of trying to live up to an original.

Personally I had more fun reading the play in my Humanities class in highschool, we weren't allowed to read ahead, just read the parts aloud, and to watch the expression on the guys faces during the 'bedroom scene' when they realized what was going on between Richard and Phillip, was hilarious.

[–] divk85 19 years ago

What went on between Richard and Philip?

[–] wildsilver_fairy 18 years ago

To answer divk85's question: Richard and Philip were lovers in the play (historically I doubt they actually were, but there were rumours about Richard's alleged homosexuality during his lifetime and afterwards)

I am glad that I saw the remake without having seen the original before hand. They're two completely different screen productions of the same play. I thought the 2003 version was just as wonderful as the 1968 version, albeit in different ways. I suppose it is trite to remake classics, but speaking for myself, I'd prefer to see a new version of a classic than another superhero movie :) lol

[–] divk85 18 years ago

Ah, thanks for answering my question.

"One must always observe the niceties. Otherwise we are less than human." - Frank Herbert.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Colkitto 16 years ago

there were rumours about Richard's alleged homosexuality during his lifetime and afterwards

Not exactly rumours. What happened was that churchmen angered by Richard's separation from his wife warned him to "remember the destruction of Sodom" and later historians piled a bit more interpretation on that phrase than it would bear. That sort of warning was flung around all the time by medieval moralists as a response to what they saw as general sinfulness, not necessarily specifically homosexuality. We don't know what Richard's "sin" was.

____________________________
"An inglorious peace is better than a dishonourable war" ~ John Adams

[–] corsair103050 15 years ago

I don't understand Hollywood's infatuation with remakes either, especially when the originals are so excellent. "The Manchurian Candidate" and "The In-Laws" are two that pop immediately to mind. Just looking to cash in on the popularity of the originals, I guess.

[–] BeEarnest 15 years ago

Hollywood & Co. are simply running out of ideas...

2000+ movies are produced per year, 500+ of those in America,
additionally india churns out 1000+ of its movie sized telenovelas.

Lets just take that number of 500 and multiply it by lets say 50 years,
then we get the ballpark figure of 25.000 movies made worldwide,
since the begin of time.

Surely that number is incorrect,
yet it is also easy to memorize :)

The number of potential plots that work for an audience is limited,
by the cultural environment of the time of its production and
the historic material still untouched by the medium.

Movies also have become much more expensive to produce
in comparison to the early days.

Reusing and in the most cases Abusing a plot that worked before,
is a rational yet uncreative alternative to betting ones money on a risky new venture.

*shruggs* just my few cents.

[–] Mr_Wentworth-Brewster 18 years ago

I'm watching the remake right now and it's very well-acted, but feels very unneccessary - it's basically a copy. Nothing can ever top Hepburn's performance, but I like Close's too.

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 18 years ago

It was unnecessary, but I was surprised what a good job they did; it wasn't the usual hatchet job they do with remakes. Another tv remake that was superb was "A Man for ALL Seasons" with Charleton Heston. I couldn't believe what a great job was done with it. Once in awhile the remakes do live up to their originals. Glenn Close was superb and Stewart was majestic, indeed.

Nothing exists more beautifully than nothing.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] filmbuffsnemesis 18 years ago

It's always the same old thing with people who have seen the "original" or "read the book".
Always starving to make people think they are well educated or cultured (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean?)
There is no way that you people really believe that the remake is so much worse than the original. The lines in the original were delivered too quickly and in poor fashion in comparison to Stewart and Close. If you think you're impressing anyone by dogging the remake so people might think that you have an appreciation for classic movies you're sadly mistaken.
Watching the original lion in winter after watching the 2003 version is like listening to a symphony orchestra and then playing violin sounds on a keyboard.
Although, I understand that since the original had set the tone and it made it easier for the new one to improve, the comments on here are sounding like moviegoers in denial. Most of you probably are people who saw the new one first, then got the original and now blabbing that you're a Peter O'Toole or Hepburn fanatic.

I love the original but I love the new one even more.
I almost forgot the point of this post. In reply to that "Was there a need to remake this?", of course there was. The remake being broadcast on television probably reached a whole new set of viewers who have no idea who these characters are, what the story is about and just history in general. It's never a bad idea to remake classic, historical movies. They do NO harm and can only help educate and reintroduce people. If you loved the original, you should be happy it was remade.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] filmbuffsnemesis 18 years ago

You apparently didn't read my post that well and you act like I'm talking directly to you. You act as if you were in the original movie. If you would like me to kneel to your "theatrical understanding and experience", please tell me your real name so I can look it up and see how well known you are in the business.

Who knows, I might be a big fan of yours or seen you perform!

Was there really a need to cuss me out?
Keep it clean.

P.S. This movie was my first post. It's a lot of fun!
I was told there are people like you who get all bent out of shape and are easy to play with.

Funny!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] filmbuffsnemesis 18 years ago

Wow, your use of profanity is extremely classy and intellectual. You definitely are more worthy than I am. Basically I have you figured out. You're a no talent unknown loser who gets squeaky every time someone disagrees with you. You have done this on many postings.

You can tell me to eat whatever you want, but the fact remains that you're a coward. Telling me your real name would serve a purpose. It would limit the amount of profanities you lash at the users on this website. Read this next part carefully because by your responses, you're not reading anything anyone posts.

YOU'RE A COWARD AND ALWAYS WILL BE!

But I'll give you this, I'm having a lot of fun making you mad. You're pathetic.
I guess that makes me a little too?
Oh well, there's a little geek in all of us!

Sincerely,
Your biggest and only fan!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Fletista 18 years ago

This movie is good. I enjoyed it. It's well done and the wardrove is amazing, but I prefer the original and I will love it always more than the new version. Why it can make someone "snob"? The new version is too long. It exhausted me a bit. And then, for me Eleanor will be always Katharine Hepburn -and I'm not precisely a fan of this actress- and Peter O'Toole has something Patrick Howard doesn't have.

I don't enjoy a lot the remake because it doesn't tell us anything new. I don't like to see a repetition. It's a bit useless. Scene by scene seems the old version. I felt a bit bored watching it. Included the style of Glenn Close is the style of Katharine Hepburn.

This version, as I was saying before, is well done, but doesn't improve -and doesn't want it- the level of the original, and sincerely, I have no idea why someone would want to do a remake doing exactly the same without any ambition to change something. I'm not saying this movie has not a good level, because it has, but why to have two versions that are the same? Maybe it's my artist corner but I would love a bit of innovation -and I'm not referring to the kind of exotic innovation as the curious turbans of Glenn Close-.

About the power of television to approach the History to the people, sure. But the original version has been broadcasted on television more times. I know a lot of people that has watched the old version. It's very known. And if it's a classic has to exist a reason.

About what do you say about the poor fashion of the original movie, sadly I'm not anglosaxon and my English is not as good as I would, and I don't understand what "fashion" you are referring to. So I will speak about the sets.

New version = Too clean castle. Yes, I know it could seem superficial but... Where are the chickens of the original version? And the mud? And the straw? The old version exploited it. Kings and queens between chickens and dirtiness. That's the Middle Age.

And then the intrigues... Those three brothers are "ok" but I'm sorry, I miss John Castle and Anthony Hopkins. Call it nostalgy . John IS Geoffrey, and Anthony Hopkins is great there.

[–] taliecat 18 years ago

I don't think that Hollywood should have remade this film. Don't get me wrong, I love Patrick Stewart, he is a great actor, but he should stick to Prof. X and leave King Henry to O'Toole.
The original was perfect- you don't mess with perfect.