Why hasn't Hollywood remade it?

They really don't. I liked Saws 1 & 2, though.

Originally Posted by JimJ[VT]

Bah, Bond does not play poker

You do realize that to most everyone this is but a minor quibble. Yes, he played baccarat -- who the L knows how to play baccarat? How would one show the game to the detail that the poker game was shown without having to explain how the game is played? I think compromising and changing the game to poker was an excellent decision.

[doctorbongo]

"Hotdog Down the Hallway" was a perfect execution of cinematic technique.
I hope they release a director's cut.

[doctorbongo]

Originally Posted by Dusty Chalk

You do realize that to most everyone this is but a minor quibble. Yes, he played baccarat -- who the L knows how to play baccarat? How would one show the game to the detail that the poker game was shown without having to explain how the game is played? I think compromising and changing the game to poker was an excellent decision.

Then you will want his martini stirred, not shaken.


And I agree with your point. Some pundit from outside the US remarked you can always turn on the TV and find a program about sharks and Hitler. Add poker to the list. I sure as hell would have taken advantage of its popularity.

[Andyman]

Originally Posted by doctorbongo

Then you will want his martini stirred, not shaken.


And I agree with your point. Some pundit from outside the US remarked you can always turn on the TV and find a program about sharks and Hitler. Add poker to the list. I sure as hell would have taken advantage of its popularity.

Wel, I went and reread the book after seeing the movie and the film is actually quite true to the book.
Maybe if it were set in the States, or Vegas, but Texas Hold'em just wouldn't be right in that setting, unless there were American Idol contestants and Nascar involved in the plotline.......................

[soundmotor]

Originally Posted by doctorbongo

Some pundit from outside the US remarked you can always turn on the TV and find a program about sharks and Hitler.

I see I am not the only one who refers to The History Channel as The Nazi Channel.

Oh, & BTW, we've met the conditions for Godwin's Law with your post.

[soundmotor]

Originally Posted by doctorbongo

I have a great idea. Write something new.

I have to agree. Were I king, there would need to be a certain threshold met before a remake project could proceed. Such as the original story showed promise but was so horribly botched by the director that the resulting film was a disaster. (I do put the blame entirely on the director too. It is his job to get the performances he needs from his actors and hold the story together. You can look at Altman for "MASH" (Sutherland & Gould wanted him fired) or Gondry and what he got out of Jim Carrey in "Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind".) If the director totally botches the original, it might be a candidate for remake.

Case in point, the first "Dune". What a mess. So bad it was rescued by Sci-Fi channel in their own remake that exceeds the original in virtually every way. But the list gets pretty short after that. "Planet of the Apes" is rightly mentioned here. I could not agree more that the original was a masterpiece. It was spare, with great plot twists, & shocking reveals. Perhaps the most interesting was the knowledge being concealed by Dr. Zaius. Great stuff! The remake? Talk about an abomination. Who thought Tim Burton would be the right pick for this? He's fine in the genre he prefers but when you throw in his re-envisioning of the original Boulle story you have a absolute trainwreck. "Planet of the Apes" is an excellent example of an awful remake.

In looking back at the -books that should be made into films thread-, I can think of another 50 or so to add that have never been anywhere near a theater. Fertile ground for the screenwriter and absolutely fuels the posit above, "Write something new."

[RussinOhio]

My opinion is that Hitchcocks film is fine and should be left to stand alone. Advances in SPX technology would do very little in making a better movie. Hitchcocks editing is what made "The Birds" fun to watch. Next time you see it watch very carefully the scene with the crows on the playground monkeybars....how the number of birds grows suddenly!
It's all about the editing, and AH was very good at it.


Just my 2cents,
Russ

[JBL 4645]

Originally Posted by doctorbongo

Vacant.
Void.
Devoid.

I have a great idea. Write something new. Produce it with old style values.
TRY to come up with some actors with the subtlety of Fonda or Bogart or Stewart or Peck. Stop pissing all over the legacy of classics by remaking them with trite, special effects-driven scripts.

The sequels to "Planet of the Apes" got progressively worse,
but they were MASTERPIECES compared to the remake of the original.
What a convoluted pile of vomit.

The reason "The Birds" remake would be atrocicious:
The suspense in the film is based on the silence and the acting.
The INTERLUDES are what build the mood.
Your proposed version would center on a huge flock of digital birds.
I'm not scared of digital birds, but I'm scared they will remake the movie.

Remaking most films for the sake of technology today seems like a good idea and then a bad idea but it won’t tarnish the original I think with a black eye, it might even work out better than the original. But looking at it from today’s standards seems like a real poor excuse for CGI and Dolby digital to put bums on seats.

Leave, The Birds alone its fine as it is all it needs is a better presentational sound system like JBL and THX sound system to make it look good and sound good not a remake heavens no.

The first Planet of the Apes was a knockout “Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!”

I think Hollywood is running out of ideas now seriously running out of ideas and need to halt on remaking films and get a new bread of screenplay mavericks to write new and original stories not simply rehashing the same story over again and again.

The Thing From Another World VS The Thing are two different things entirely one the original always remained the same creature in a suit, where’s with the remake showed it as it was in the book a shape shifting alien that could take on any form or shape at will!

Anyway this debate can go on and on until some remakes this thread into the son of “Why hasn't Hollywood remade it? Part 2!”

[Twenty20Man]

remake all the classic "silent" films, ( I can't think of any offhand) but it seems it would give someone of talent a chance to showcase what they can do, free rein so to speak....

[jonman]

Originally Posted by Twenty20Man

remake all the classic "silent" films, ( I can't think of any offhand) but it seems it would give someone of talent a chance to showcase what they can do, free rein so to speak....

The new breed of actors would probably forget their lines.

[JBL 4645]

I know why where at why not The Jazz Singer 1927 first film to introduce sound to the public via the Vitaphone and JBL sound system. Or wasn’t that remade sometime around 1980 Neil Diamond.

[Cosmic]

...for starters, noone in Hollywood should be allowed to touch any film for a re-make until they have proven they can actually make a film to begin with.

That film would be one that:
DOES NOT appeal to dumb teens who think anything that has happened before 1975 is, like, unknown, you know, and stuff.

Actually has a script that is: intelligent, well-thought through and has wit in it (if need be, they can look up the definition of wit.)

DOES NOT RELY DESPERATELY ON a 'big' name for said film to be considered sellable (see 'dumb teen' point for clarification.)

DOES NOT rip off (and, inevitably stupidify) major portions of a better film in the pursuit of the "target demographic..."

...and for anyone who thinks this is incorrect, I refer to some studio hack who was asked about the fact that the stinker "Pearl Harbor" was in fact a second-rate soap opera, despite the, well, hard-to-ignore Japanese attack on the place that was featured in the ads.

His answer: along the lines of, 'well, it's not really about the attack on Pearl Harbor, it's a love story...'

In other words, even one of the most memorable moments in US history would be too boring if told without the usual syrup, despite the film having at least as many explosions as any of Arnold's epics.

I rest my case

C.

[arrow 68]

I have done very little reading in this thread. What I can't figure out, is why remake a movie to begin with. And please, don't fuck up a classic movie, or good novel. And why is every movie geared towards dumb people. This goes for people in any age group. I had one person in there 50's that thought that the Thomas Crown Affair was a Brosnan Original. And many younger people that can't watch a movie because it's in B/W. Sadly there are many more of these kinds of people, then astute, engaging, open minded, individuals.

[JBL 4645]

I agree I’d sooner see Kate, vamping out in “Underworld” rather than taking “Pearl Harbour” seriously it was dumb it was “Flash Dance Beverly Hills Cop Top Gun” load of nonsense, I’d sooner watch “Tora, Tora, Tora.”

I mean really do they expect audiences to take "Pearl Harbour" seriously, about the only thing good about it was the Dolby mix during the attack and that’s just about it.

(Michael Bay) hmm, where’s he hiding too these days haven’t heard his name popping up on the billboards since 2001, I guess the audience is bored with him now, I know I am unless he can redeem himself without “Armageddon” loud Dolby dynamics! TURN IT DOWN ITS TOO LOUD IN THE MID RANGE!!!!!

What the BLEEP!!!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0884788/

I see his name on production of “THE BIRDS” oh no! WARNING! Except extreme high frequency squeaks from those bloody BIRDS that will shatter glass windows!

Thank god I have audio limiters to tame (Michael Bay’s) extreme remake of THE BIRDS!