Why can't Americans watch originals ?

Yes, but if money is the argument, wouldn't it be cheaper to just re-release the original movie ?

By the way, just in case people are thinking that my original post was anti-american, I honestly didn't intend it that way, I like america, I've been there many times and will probably go many times more.

But why is it, that producers feel that you can't watch a show unless it has been americanised ?

School for Scoundrels is a book. The two movies are based on the same book.

I could ask the question:

"Why can't you appreciate the original work by reading the book instead of watching an inferior movie version of it?"

My question seems stupid to you? It is. But yours is just as stupid.

I fear this discussion will spiral into the old well-trodden path of UK vs US. To get back to the actual subject, it isn't that Hollywood (Hollywood is NOT America - just as I don't consider the British film industry to represent me, thank God) insists on remaking classic Brit fayre, it's that Hollywood insists on remaking classic films of all genres. While there is an awful lot of originality about, there is also a lot of finance money chasing around for projects that are sure to get bums on seats. Remakes are felt to be good, bankable commodities and so long as old and new audiences keep going to see them, the money will keep following them. Don't get me wrong - I think some remakes are superior to the originals and are different enough to stand alone, but I would rather see some of that money going on producing original, new material.

"Someone has been tampering with Hank's memories."

I'm totally lost trying to watch a british move. Those things need subtitles so you can understand what they are saying..

First - to snake-63,
I hear many US viewers complain of not being able to follow London gangster films because of the language, these are a lot truer to English than most US speech because it is - guess what - English. Has Hollywood ever even tried to put English subtitles on its output. No, it expects us to be able to follow a very mangled version of our language. However, as a good film is worth a bit of work we make the effort and can, usually, understand the great variations in pronounciation. As for vocabulary, regular, hood, fag, etc etc etc. I always thought that 'mother' was a term of endearment but apparently it is an aggressive insult in the US. To summarise - try to watch non-US films, it is well worth the effort. You may then even be able to enjoy some of the really great films from totally alien cultures.

Hey bamboopandacat,
I can understand the 60s lifestyle with no problem. By your argument noone is going to make a film with a setting earlier than 1950 as there will be no significant audience. And there is a whole mass of films (e.g. 'Gone with the wind' for one) that were failures that nobody could understand?

Also, the 60's version was all about manipulation. How can it be interpreted otherwise? The great 'Potter' - 'Mr Palfrey' - 'Mr Potter' - 'Henry' dialogue was pure manipulation with neither feeling in a better mood for it, as was the pen & other parts.


I haven't seen the US 'School for Scoundrels' ( and see no point in doing so) so please excuse me if I talk about "The Ladykillers' instead as a prime example of why this remake mania seems so odd. The 1955 version has very little that could be improved upon. Alec Guinness as the creepy, but still charming, gang leader was great. He gave a totally believable appearance of someone appearing to remain in control while events crashed into ever greater disasters. The rest of the cast was great as well, even Peter Sellers played his part straight as the script was strong enough to not need any of his characterisations to be hilarious. For someone to try and beat Guinness's performance they would need to overemphasise the traits at the risk of hamminess, a trap Tom Hanks fell right into. The rest of the cast didn't fare much better.

So why waste millions remaking it instead of just rereleasing the 1955 version. Maybe because modern audiences could not understand the concept of holding up a security van, or the existence of sweet little old ladies, or that a high fall into a moving train is likely to be fatal. Ahh, I've got it, it's the concept of policemen walking around being helpful instead of screaming round in fast cars & holding people up at gunpoint.

To wrap up the post, I believe that the problem really lies in the consumerist obsession, the belief that something has to be new to be any good. Sorry, folks, but I'm afraid that believe as hard as you like but the reality is often otherwise.

kimdino