who else read that interview with Donnie yen at Kung fu cinema? He said there were people in America looking to remake Sha Lo Pang here in America....i seriously hope he was just kidding about that. and he also said he was heading to america to train some hollywood actors for some up and coming movie.
I don't know about you guys but this is really upsetting. Don't you guys think he should stay in china and continue making these hardcore Hong Kong movies?
I hope they don`t make a remake. Yes he should be in Hong Kong.
"Work In Progress" Dolph Lundgren
The Punisher
[deleted]
I really don't understand why people get so upset over remakes. The most frequent complaint I hear/read is "It will totally ruin the original." How could it possibly ruin the original?
Honestly, what this really tells me people are afraid the remake make the original they held so high and mighty look like garbage...which is true most of the time due to the tremendous advancements in the film industry. For example, look at the huge difference between Infernal Affairs and The Departed.
However, I don't think SPL will be as easy to improve on a technical level and if so, it won't be by much. Of course, the casting would be the most important aspect but I digress because why do an American remake when only the very best Asians would be the only suitable replacements for greats like Donnie Yen and Sammo Hung...well, I guess Chuck Norris would be cool .
Anyways, if they did get a adequete cast together, I'd like to see this story fleshed out a little more, add a bit of comedy (which I believe is essential for any action flick) and maybe have a few more action teasers involving the other cops to further establish their capabilities (althought the ones shown were pretty good). I gave the movie an 8/10 but there's potential for a 9 or 10 here with a few proper changes.
[deleted]
I still don't see how that ruins the original. If you don't like remakes, just don't watch them. I guarantee the original will be exactly the same as it was the first time you saw it...even if the remake blows it away.
share[deleted]
Oh,so you're saying S.P.L. and Infernal Affairs are perfect movies according to the ancient code of Hong Kong filmmaking? What a crock.
shareobviously you have got no idea what you are talking about. take it easy. departed was a crap film compared to infernal affairs and the fact that you saw a 'huge difference' leaves no credibilty in your 'opinion'. check out the scene in departed when mark wahlberg jack n sheen come face to face. its so poorly edited. there is a third man who appears out of nowhere. yet the film won best best editing oscar. Q. e. d. HUGE DIFFERENCE. develop some taste first.
shareWell put shajjo. Anyone who thinks The Departed was 'much better' than Infernal Affairs should develop some taste first. The Departed was full of holes, for example, Mark Wahlberg's character dissappears 3 quarters of the way through the film and re-appears to shoot Matt Damon's character, without a proper explanation as to how he came to know that the latter was the mole.
shareWell put shajjo. Anyone who thinks The Departed was 'much better' than Infernal Affairs should develop some taste first. The Departed was full of holes, for example, Mark Wahlberg's character dissappears 3 quarters of the way through the film and re-appears to shoot Matt Damon's character, without a proper explanation as to how he came to know that the latter was the mole.
yeah, the departed won a bunch of Oscars, but everyone knows that the oscars are just one GIGANTIC ASSKISSFEST.
Remember when the English Patient won best picture? That is when I quit taking the oscars seriously.
This thread title scared the crap out of me. I know some of y'all don't mind or even prefer remakes, but to me remakes seem almost like an insult to the original performers and directors and crew and everything. I just can't stand the idea of them anymore. I just find them lame exploitation at the expense of the original. For me, as a viewer, they don't hurt things, but for other people who haven't yet had the ability to see the old one (that almost always is better, simply because the actual original vision is still there) may just settle for the new one. It just seems kinda sick and cheap to me.
Plus, a remake of any kung fu movie at all would not work. Not unless you are going to totally reinvision the whole thing (like Fist of Legend). Fist of Legend only works as a remake because the fight scenes are incredible enough to be able to ignore the fact that the plot has been used before. I'm pretty sure (but I could be forgetting one or two others), but FoL is probably the only remake I can actually enjoy as it's own movie. It's one of my favorites ever, but so is The Chinese Connection, even though I saw it second. They can coexist nicely because of all the differences. Remaking SPL would be removing it from the only working context, removing from it some of the most amazing fights ever captured on screen, removing from it the awesome stylistic and artistic flair it was given, and just slapping it down in a standard Hollywood movie, with all the conventions and all the usual tricks and whatnot. Plus, in the end Marky Mark would come in and shoot Wong Po...
[deleted]
[deleted]
There should at the very least be sometime before a movie is remade. I'd say at the very least over a decade. If they're planning to remake Kill Zone, Joint Security Area, Battle Royale, etc in the next few years I think that's too soon. These movies aren't even 10 years old, and by no means are they weak films that need to be re-done.
share[deleted]
The whole time I saw this, I figured "This is ripe for an American remake, like The Departed". But I'm in the camp that doesn't mind remakes. It doesn't make the original disappear. You can enjoy both.
---
Halloween remake too violent for you? That's a shame. Go review the Bratz movie instead.
BATTLE ROYALE SUCKED I would really want the remake.. I was so disappointed by the
cast. It totally killed how the story was. THE BOOK IS LIKE 100X better. THey then do the #2 ANd I thought I would shoot myself. I couldn't even complete the movie
Comparing a movie to a book is like comparing apples and oranges. If you read the book, you would know that Battle Royale would be one very boring six-hour film of talk and not much else. No, the book in its entirety will not work as a film. Watch a bunch book-to-film movies. Only a handful actually worked.
I did wish there were some things left in for the film, but budget and time constraints, and the director's vision make it not so. Why not see this movie for its merit and not some geeky book purists' idea of what this film should be.
Hell, I like Along Came The Spider, both book and movie. But they are so different from each other. Same with Fight Club. No one can compare books to movies as they are two completely different mediums, like comparing music and movies. Anyone that does so is a fool. And if I'm wrong, show me why.
The only reason that I could justify a remake is if Donnie Yen was given more opportunities to fight on screen, and if Sammo Hung still played the bad guy.
I still find remakes to be pointless(except for a very select few) so lets hope this doesnt happen.
I agree. It would be silly if they shoot a remake but call on Donny Yen and Sammo Hung to be in it and put American actors around them just for the sake of making a remake. But that seems to be the type of thing Hollywood likes to do (ka-ching!).
Plus the strongest point of the movie was the fight scenes. Hollywood really suck at those, unless they call on foreign (usually Hong Kong) choreographers (and then limit their creativity by butting in and changing things). The only recent Hollywood movie with a good fight scene that I've seen was the one in Bourne Ultimatum.. the most recent to that one would be the Matrix..
They can try all they want but they're not going to beat the original (but they'll make more money) *sigh*
alternatively to spending a "load of money" and $hitting on the original cast on a remake
easier way would be to just dub the movie, but problem with that is....well i don't know about you guys but i rarely seen 'good dubbing' there were a few good jackie chan movies that dub alright (eg my lucky star, dragons forever' but the most recent dub movie i seen (kung fu hustle) did soooo bad i stopped half way, killed the movie
remake or not, i'd rather not cuz like alot of people on this thread i found departed a snooze, waay too long and holes all over didn't watch all of that either for one, then also cuz like the other guy said, it just $hits on the original actors and their creditbillity, and i just find remakes a total waste unless something was to change in the movie ain't seen much good remakes good the only good remakes i can think of is
300
cape fear
scarface (believe it or not, al pacino isn't the first to make this movie, there was a PG black and white version)
those movies had a reason to be remade
300 used to be called 300 spartans, it was rated PG so i think they wanted some blood in the movie
cape fear, its black and white....i ain't seen the original but the one now seems pretty hard to beat
scarface, yup yup...the original was black and white and rated PG i think everyone knows why this movie was remade (blood, gore and al pacino)
plenty more good remakes like psycho (the later version) which i think was done by alfred hitchcock as well i think........ and so on
now to the pointless remakes
the ring
pulse
departed
need i say more and why ?
like the old saying goes, if its not broken, don't fix it
besides whose gonna outdo donnie, sammo and wu jing, in an attempt to make this movie better ?
First things first, Hitchcock didn't remake Psycho. It was just a shot-for-shot remake that might as well have been made by Hitchcock.
Second, 300 isn't quite a version of 300 Spartans, but the line of inference works, especially since it's an adaptation of an adaptation of 300 Spartans, so it's close enough.
I'll give you Cape Fear, that's true.
Scarface and Scarface are two rather different movies, though. The core of it, the idea of a mobster and his eventual downfall, sure, the same. But then it could be argued that Shottas is, too.
As for the remakes of The Ring and Pulse, well...having never seen the originals, I can't properly argue the point, but having seen the remakes, I can honestly say, it was not necessary to make them. They're just badly done. Whether that's simply how they pulled it off or what, I can't say.
Departed was far from a bad movie. Did it bring a whole lot to the table that wasn't in Infernal Affairs? Not really. There were some interesting points to it, some differences, and I must say I thoroughly enjoyed the performances of The Departed in a regard that I did not do with Infernal Affairs (I blame the different languages, unfortunately...it's always in the translation over that some emotion seems to be lost, in my opinion...whether it is subtitled or dubbed, it doesn't matter).
That's not all, though. I had never even heard of, never mind seen, Infernal Affairs anywhere until The Departed was in theatres. I started to hear about IA while reading various stories about The Departed. Then, if I remember correctly, I saw it in my local video store (which I worked at) around the time that The Departed arrived on DVD...after that, I believe. I wanted to see it after reading all the stories about the movie and seeing The Departed. So, there is one major advantage to a remake, if it acknowledges the original: It can get people to see the original.
After all, what about The Magnificent Seven? Any movie based on a book, comic or play (think in the general scope, if there are any that are at least good movies unto themselves)? Are these wastes of time, as wel, simply because they are not the original source material?
And finally, you bring up the old phrase: "If it's broke, don't fix it". Well, change the audience of the movie, and it may not translate. After working at a movie store for a couple of years, I know that a large percentage of people avoid foreign movies if they're subtitled, and sometimes even if they are dubbed. That would be a deterent to a large percentage of an audience. Sadly enough, that's also broken. After all, if I movie doesn't appeal to them, then it doesn't work for them: ergo, broken. That doesn't invalidate the original, merely suggest an opportunity for a different rework to appeal to a different crowd, so that they might be able to see some of what makes that movie good. That means that it will appeal to them, and will likely not appeal to the same people that the original did. Get over it.
Plus, it's not like a remake erases the original. They aren't going to take every single VHS with SPL on it and tape over it with the American version (should one come to fruition). They'll simply supply a second tape for viewing (forgive the VHS reference, it just works better than DVD in the metaphor).
Hell, after watching City of Violence earlier today, I thought for a few minutes about how there could be a rather well-made adaptation (because that's what an intercontinental remake is) from Hollywood, if it were handled by the right people. And if it weren't, well, it would join the pile of trilogies and bad movies that already exists. And we could get on with our lives. I'm waiting for The Warriors to be remade, and it's American...I'll even watch the Evil Dead remake, too. I like to see what other people think would've been interesting twists, and see how they might've preferred them. After all, it's an artistic endeavour.
yo ain't been on for abit
internet was down coz had to relocate
now where were we
to keep it nice and short
this is the problem with remakes i see
when people see the word "REMAKE" they assume its better due to
1, technology (cgi, better animation etc)
2, more complex (more twist etc)
3, more dept (character build up)
now, most of the time its true
but sometimes it backfires
such as new technology
theres a tonn of movies and cartoons that originally was good but after included CGI etc the movie turned into rubbish, can't think of any on the top of my head (i'll get back to ya on that)
more complex sometimes changes the whole movie, add alil twist to outdo the original and the whole movie/ending changes coz the movie is more complex
but i won't spoil any movies for now
more dept, sometimes tooo much dept makes the movie tooooo long, slow paced and alil boring lets use infernal affairs for example coz everyone is talking about it here...so i won't spoil it for no one...(soz in advance if i did)
ok...in infernal affairs you pick up the character instantly ain't seen it in abit so if i get the character mixed up...excuse ay
but you see tony's character at the police accadamy, bang instantly you know he's sharp, switched on, i think one of the cop said something like (so what can ya tell me about me, and he answers you were in a hurry, something something, thats why ya socks don't match).....which kinda backfired in my opinion since if he's that sharp and accurate, why would he not recognise the final mole, but thats another story
now andy's character, when tony got "expelled" from the police accadamy he looks at tony's character and said something like 'wish i was the one expelled'
so again bang...you can instantly tell he didn't wanna be a mole for the bad guys to start with and did all the things he did later in the movie and what he regret etc
now what happen in departed, was they 'made more dept' into the characters by sending leo's character to jail, make him look like a thug then send him out as undercover etc
matt's chacter i can't remember how he was introduced, i think it started when he was a lil kid then how he grew up close to jack's character how jack looked after him etc took a good 30 - 40mins to get to where infernal affairs start
and jack's character, i know he was trying to be bad but overdid it abit
i know he's meant to be a bad guy but saying the world should work for him and cussing out *beep* that was abit uncalled for
now finallly a last word
say a 'remade movie' is good, then most people wouldn't bother with the old 'original' thinking *remade* means better everything so why go back to some either 'black and white movie (which we've all ignored at some part)'
or even take a look at the recent transformers movie, when it came out it was gold, but who actually went back and watched the 80s version of it, there were several transformers movie (cartoon) despite it being good or bad
i kinda think CGI animation is replacing cartoons sort of, just like the matrix slow mo is being used everywhere now
now if the 'remade movie' was crap, why would anyone bother with the original ?
thats just silly
either ways original loses out
.... yu go to any asian film lately and yu find that a Hollywood remake is bout to happen. Is there really no originality anymore? In the last dozen HK and korean films i just looked at there is a USremake in the works....
Everyone associated with these in Hollywood should put bags on their heads at awards.
"scarface, yup yup...the original was black and white and rated PG"
The original 'Scarface' isn't rated PG; it was made back in 1931, long before the M.P.A.A.
This is such a saddening mass-misconception, brinking on superstition:
"A remake destroys the original"
lol. With evil magic, I assume?!
"I just find them [remakes] lame exploitation at the expense of the original."
Unlike you, the producers of the originals know why they sold the rights to their material. Sale does not happen before the original producers notice that they are not making any worthwhile profit of their material anymore (compared to selling the rights). In other words, there is not a sufficient audience for the originals anymore.
Thus the exploitation does not happen at the expense of the original. Not even at the expense of its reputation. It is a neglectable minority of people that assumes that an original 'must' be as bad as its remake. The majority of people either knows of the inferiority of remakes or simply doesn't know/care (which leaves the original with the same credit it previously had).
"when people see the word "REMAKE" they assume its better due to
1, technology (cgi, better animation etc)
2, more complex (more twist etc)
3, more dept (character build up)"
That is not precisely what they assume. The actual assumption is far more simple. If it is the remake of an old movie: "Ah...That old movie is finally brought up to date. Now I don't have to bother with the direly outdated feel anymore". If it is the remake from a foreign country movie: "Ah...My language and my culture. Now I will be able to appreciate/understand the content better".
"say a 'remade movie' is good, then most people wouldn't bother with the old 'original' thinking *remade* means better everything so why go back to some either 'black and white movie"
You miss the point that those people never cared to watch the original in the first place. Either because they never heard of it, or because they generally never watch black&white, foreign, subbed/dubbed, low-budget, etc. movies. There is not the tiniest trace of a reason to believe that any original version of a remake would have gained anymore fame and fortune (than it previously had), if the remake had not happened! Aside of that, what other reason can you have to be interested in whether or not John Doe sees the original? Of course, you might have the desire to force your taste onto other people...I just hope every person with that desire also recognizes the absence of sanity aligned with it!
"now if the 'remade movie' was crap, why would anyone bother with the original?"
The reason the rights for the original were sold indicates that people stopped bothering about the original beforehand. A movie naturally only reaches a limited amount of people. The audience that watches a movie despite its heritage or age (etc.) is the same audience that eventually watches an original 'after' having seen its remake (no matter the quality).
"If it's not broken, don't fix it"
That would be a nice argument...if doing remakes would be about fixing something that is broken. If you draw a picture of a black cat and another person sees it and decides to draw himself a white cat (cause he prefers white), would you call that fixing something? Even if that person asked you for permission and gave you money to make a direct copy of your cat, which he then paints white, it would still not be considered "fixing".
"I still find remakes to be pointless(except for a very select few) so lets hope this doesnt happen."
It is exactly about those select few exceptions. The original movies are not hurt by a remake at all - no matter how much you believe they are. There is no reason to not retell a story. If it turns out bad, no one will be hurt (except for some purses, but that is a drawback related to the general concept of cinema). If the remake is good, everyone wins (yes, even the original, because it regains the attention it once lost!). Thus, remakes are not pointless.
There are thousands of ways a story can be told...but not a single one that appeals to everyone. Allow remakes for the sake of diversity...and for the sake of creative freedom!
Drop your unreasonable hate and prejudice. Be creative rather than forestalling.
firstly, i didn't say remakes kills all originals, i even said 'cape fear' with robert di nero is probably better then the black and white original (even thought i ain't seen it)
that aside, all your arguements is all insane
when people see the word REMAKE they assume its better due to technology, dept etc thats what i said
then you said, 'the movie is finally brought up to date, Now I don't have to bother with the direly outdated feel anymore
how so i ask ya ?.... say the best fighting movie was made in 1920's, which is where all the black and white movies come from
the fights look slow, when they kick the crap outta someone you can clearly see that its a doll, the blood looks like cheap red paint
now...how do you suppose they bring it up to date ?....by using slow fight scene, using cheap red paint and beating the crap outta dolls ?
nah mate..... they 'bring it up to date' by 'making the fight scenes faster, flashier, when they kick the crap outta someone...it actually looks like someone got kicked
and not some doll, blood will actually look like blood and not cheap thick red paint
now, if a remade movie is good people won't bother with the old thinking remade means better everything (i'll put culture, language etc in this one together)
i see what ya mean but put it this way if they didn't care about the movie and don't plan to watch it, then fine they won't say anything negative about it, take Titanic (leonardo dicaprio) for example (i don't care for that movie or dicaprio) but i know its been labelled 'the greatest love story ever told' and most aussies will agree, i come from an english speaking country which is most part of the world so i'll assume you are as well, now take a closer look why that movie was sooooo popular just 3 simple random reasons i can think of,
1, its a love story that was moving (if ya into those kinda movies)
2, the ship looked pretty impressive
3, leonardo dicaprio is in it, this was when the girls all love him
all that with an aussie values and culture where the man rescue the girls be the has to be the hero, knight in shining armour ready to sacrifice himself etc and etc
lets just say in the end, dicaprio stayed in the water so the girl can survive the ship wreck by floating away on a log
ok so now lets say another country remade the movie with their own completely different actors different cultures and value and different language, so lets say
1, they twised the story changed the ending etc
2, the ship looked crap
3, a different actor replaced dicaprio
ok lets change the ending to this movie here
at the end of the movie after the ship wreck, this new actor didn't wanna freeeze to death so he pushed the girl into the water while he floats to safety (or even if the girl jumped into the water and offered the guy the log to float awayon)
cuz they don't share the same culture and values of us aussies
ok if this movie was to be released, it'll have a major clash for the original aussie fans of the movie Titanic
1, they changed the ending, to us that is completely unheroic, and will defy all moral deeds to us aussies etc
2, if the ship looked like crap, aussie gonna mock the crap outta that as well
3, if they changed the actor and replaced dicaprio the girls here won't accept the new actor
now if this 'remake' failed in whatever country and language...... now they have a reason to say
1, movie was $hit
2, this titanic ship wasn't impressive at all
3, actor did a crappy job
even worse, cuz their language was being used, their culture was being used they ain't gotta read subtitles etc so therefore the judgement of original dicaprio titanic must really suck if their version didn't work out
now do ya see the difference between not knowing something and knowing something thats been done 'for the better' and failed
but if its something that can be pulled off.....then by all means....remake it to ya hearts content like (bruce lee's fist of fury been done like 5 times or more), i said Cape Fear by robert di nero was better then the old version and i stick by it cuz i seen it etc..... i'm only concerned cuz the last 10 movies that was 'remade' from japanese and chinese into hollywood sucked big time
now something we can agree one,
"The reason the rights for the original were sold indicates that people stopped bothering about the original beforehand. A movie naturally only reaches a limited amount of people" thats what ya said
and i agree, remakes is done when a movie 'expires' or can't make anymore money then they remake it to refresh it, titanic was made like 10 years ago i'm pretty sure its milked its last penny already and theres no remake for a movie that big, robert di nero's casino, i watched it in 96 or 97 i think it was or might have been earlier, a movie that big i think has made its mark and theres no remake either, my point....ya can make a remake but not straight away, SPL has barely reached 3 years old....a remake is not necessary,
why do i think SPL, titanic and casino (robert de niro) do not need a remake (and it hasn't been remade yet, not that i know of anyways) cuz its perfect the way it is, the cast is good, their acting was good its like a role that they were born to play abit like matt damon's 'the bourne ultimatom' i'm pretty sure they are not gonna remake that movie into french or germany with a different cast for that matter
and finally, this fixing business
say you directed a steven segal movie and its got a good plot perfect fight scenes etc
and i came along and thought everything about ya movie was good but hey jackie chan can fight better so i got jackie chan to do the exact same role steven segal was doing
you wouldn't call that me 'fixing your movie' to suit my preference ?
not only that, to change/fix a movie completely turning it from 1 culture to another will definately cause a clash, i know them asians see infernal affairs as some religious movie with their different levels of hell etc, what the departed was about was just 2 moles trying to outsmart each other plainly speaking ofcourse
but heres a better example, i'm sure everyone has seen or heard of 'passion of the christ' now if there was an anti christ religion who did the same movie
and made jesus christ out to be the bad guy whipping and torturing people now tell me that will not offend people who really loved that 'passion of the christ' movie, yet, all the anti christ people that remade the movie did was put forth their culture/belief or their version of what happen on that event
which is why they should stick with subtitles or even dubbing like Nightwatch ( i think its called) it stuck to its original language on the big screens, no change in language or cast or culture still a big hit when it came out here
all in all.... i'm not forcing no one to watch anything, i couldn't care less what pepole watch, i was only proving my point about seeing 2 movies on the shelves, an original from an early time and a remake from a recent time
say a movie thats made in the 1950s and a remake from 2007, theres a good chance people will pick up the newer one rather then the old one
yeah , i feel the same . it didnt make sense to do this movie with actors that don't know *beep* about kungfu.
who 's gonna do the donni yen and jacki wu scene?? nobody .
so it's absurd.
and i agree too that chinese got to "stay in china and continue making these hardcore chinese movies"
I'm usually against remake but this actually sounds intriguing.
SPL had a very interesting premise. On the night before his retirement, a cop had a chance to bring down the crook he's been after. Even without the martial arts action this could be a very good police thriller.
I've never seen an American made film with a fight scene close to as epic as the fights in SPL. They would have to hire Donnie Yen himself just to choreograph and direct the fight scenes for a remake.
shareTo a non American movie fan the two most horrifying words in the English language are "American remake". None of this "it'll ruin the original" nonsense, just the fact that American remakes are almost universally awful
If you called a Centaur a horses arse, would he be offended?