Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

3:10 to Yuma (2007) which I enjoyed, was a remake. The original (1957) was a black and white film, I don't know how much of a classic it is considered, but The Magnificent Seven is generally considered a classic, even though The Seven Samurai also is a classic.

If a film is a classic, remaking it is fraught wih dangers. If you change anything you're probably going to make it worse. If you don't change anything then why bother to make a new version? If it's just to introduce the story to a new audience, why not introduce the original to them? (Because you can' make cheap money that awy, of course.)

Translating The Seven Samurai into The Magnificent Seven removed a cultural hurdle for western audiences. Though I would argue people should get used to the idea that other cultures have their own film ideas and we should explore them for their own qualities.

I also liked 3:10 to Yuma - I didn't know it was a remake actually.

Availability of old films is higher than ever, thanks to cheap digitisation to DVD and the new-fangled network services like Amazon Prime.

However there is a such a massive back catalogue that it's difficult to notice things unless you go searching or get one of those 1001 Best Films type of books.

Also, the spread of free additional TV channels requiring content to fill them has brought back the good old tradition of cheapo B&W films being shown in the afternoons. That's how I found Sea of Sand (1958) and The Desert Rats (1953), which got me interested in the LRDG and the North Africa campaign of WW2.

This looks pretty cool.

 CptJake wrote:
Looks horrible. It seems they've changed some major things just for the sake of diversity/political correctness and special effects opportunity.

I'm not against remakes. The recent remake of True Grit was pretty darned good, actually followed the book closer than the John Wayne version. I like them both.

This? Based on the trailer looks like typical Summer Movie garbage.

If those "diverse" characters are actually good, interesting and well written characters in their own right and not just tokens, who cares?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Availability of old films is higher than ever, thanks to cheap digitisation to DVD and the new-fangled network services like Amazon Prime.
.

And yet I still cannot find a region 2 english language copy of "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom" !

Thanks Obama.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Looks horrible. It seems they've changed some major things just for the sake of diversity/political correctness and special effects opportunity.

I'm not against remakes. The recent remake of True Grit was pretty darned good, actually followed the book closer than the John Wayne version. I like them both.

This? Based on the trailer looks like typical Summer Movie garbage.

If those "diverse" characters are actually good, interesting and well written characters in their own right and not just tokens, who cares?

No, if the cast isn't all white males with a token (white) female as a damsel in distress (because it's physically impossible for a female to match a male), it is *obviously* just PC run amok done to appease the SJWs. Also Hollyweird and lamestream media.

Seriously, though, glad to see the Western making a modern comeback without being on a spaceship.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Looks horrible. It seems they've changed some major things just for the sake of diversity/political correctness and special effects opportunity.

I'm not against remakes. The recent remake of True Grit was pretty darned good, actually followed the book closer than the John Wayne version. I like them both.

This? Based on the trailer looks like typical Summer Movie garbage.

If those "diverse" characters are actually good, interesting and well written characters in their own right and not just tokens, who cares?

Frankly racial make up of the actors does not mean much to me. But having a mowhawked indian firing arrows like Legolas in Lord of the Rings is silly (and if that is a 'well written character' I'll be surprised. Taking away the dirt poor campesinos and changing the bandits from a gang led by a hard man trying to keep his gang together but really not much better off than the campesinos but including a Gatling Gun is silly. And I very much bet the move away from Mexican Banditos to what in the trailer appear to be Big Capitalist Bad Guys is a PC type change. It doesn't really add to the story in my opinion. Yul Brynner and crew played well written characters. Denzel definitely has that capability. But the trailer didn't come across as a movie based around well written characters as much as the next special effects driven action sequence.

Clearly I'm in the minority, but this does, to me, look like the typical Hollywood Summer Garbage offering we have seen over the last several years, and not some great remake of a great movie.

Is the Indian one of the main characters? I couldn't really tell from the trailer.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Is the Indian one of the main characters? I couldn't really tell from the trailer.

Seems to be one of the Seven as far as I can tell. If not, it is even worse to give him as much time in the trailer as he got.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
How dare they remake a remake!

The original The Magnificent Seven may be a remake of Seven Samurai, but both films are still timeless classic of cinema. It's not the first classic western film that was a take on a Kurosawa film.


The problem is that Hollyweird has a tendency to butcher classic films because of a lack of originality. But on the plus side, the classics will be remembered while these "remakes" and "reimaginings" will be long forgotten.


And that's all I'm going to say on the matter, since I'm not going to take the bait.

To be fair, Jurassic World was a pretty good flick, and more or less a reimagining. I also enjoyed the hell out of the 2011 Thing, which was a prequel to Kurt Russel's film. I'm not normally a fan of remakes, but if done right, they can be a lot of fun.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
How dare they remake a remake!

The original The Magnificent Seven may be a remake of Seven Samurai, but both films are still timeless classic of cinema. It's not the first classic western film that was a take on a Kurosawa film.


The problem is that Hollyweird has a tendency to butcher classic films because of a lack of originality. But on the plus side, the classics will be remembered while these "remakes" and "reimaginings" will be long forgotten.


And that's all I'm going to say on the matter, since I'm not going to take the bait.

To be fair, Jurassic World was a pretty good flick, and more or less a reimagining. I also enjoyed the hell out of the 2011 Thing, which was a prequel to Kurt Russel's film. I'm not normally a fan of remakes, but if done right, they can be a lot of fun.

Both of which are remakes of the incomparably better 1950s The Thing From Another World. *

*The first "sci fi" movie to have a respectable director and budget by the way.

I dunno, I truly love the first remake, the John Carpenter version. I haven't seen the 1953 or whatever original but it seems difficult to me to think it could have been superior.

The prequel\whatever was pretty bad though, a few smart bits here and there aside.

I've seen the original 1950s film, but I can't remember enough about it to think if it's better or not. I think the monster appears at the end as a shambling manlike creature, so the SFX in the Carpenter would be better as a body horror pic, but the horror could be more psychological in the original.

The first was a very different film. More philosophical on the duty of man, had a conversational style that you can't find now, and at least one member was very easy on the eyes

Agreed the prequel was utterly forgettable.

On the flip side, while I love the Duke's acting, I found the remake of True Grit to be at a wholly higher level of filmaking than the original.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I've seen the original 1950s film, but I can't remember enough about it to think if it's better or not. I think the monster appears at the end as a shambling manlike creature, so the SFX in the Carpenter would be better as a body horror pic, but the horror could be more psychological in the original.

The monster was James Arnes -aka Sheriff Dillon as a killer plant man.

 reds8n wrote:
And yet I still cannot find a region 2 english language copy of "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom" !

Thanks Obama.

Have no fear, there is an alternative available for when that whole DVD thing inevitably blows over, just as Tom Kirby never proclaimed.

So many movies copy off of so many other movies (or books, plays, etc) throughout history...one could argue that there is nothing original....just a "remake" of the story.

Name a movie and I bet you can find some old movie or historical...whatever...that matches up fairly well with it.

Superman = Achilles (as an example)

 Frazzled wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
How dare they remake a remake!

The original The Magnificent Seven may be a remake of Seven Samurai, but both films are still timeless classic of cinema. It's not the first classic western film that was a take on a Kurosawa film.


The problem is that Hollyweird has a tendency to butcher classic films because of a lack of originality. But on the plus side, the classics will be remembered while these "remakes" and "reimaginings" will be long forgotten.


And that's all I'm going to say on the matter, since I'm not going to take the bait.

To be fair, Jurassic World was a pretty good flick, and more or less a reimagining. I also enjoyed the hell out of the 2011 Thing, which was a prequel to Kurt Russel's film. I'm not normally a fan of remakes, but if done right, they can be a lot of fun.

Both of which are remakes of the incomparably better 1950s The Thing From Another World. *

*The first "sci fi" movie to have a respectable director and budget by the way.

But note that the Carpenter film and following "requel" were much truer to the original novel ('Who Goes There') than the 1950s film.

I also think the Carpenter film is every bit the horror classic that the 1950s film is.

 Frazzled wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
How dare they remake a remake!

The original The Magnificent Seven may be a remake of Seven Samurai, but both films are still timeless classic of cinema. It's not the first classic western film that was a take on a Kurosawa film.


The problem is that Hollyweird has a tendency to butcher classic films because of a lack of originality. But on the plus side, the classics will be remembered while these "remakes" and "reimaginings" will be long forgotten.


And that's all I'm going to say on the matter, since I'm not going to take the bait.

To be fair, Jurassic World was a pretty good flick, and more or less a reimagining. I also enjoyed the hell out of the 2011 Thing, which was a prequel to Kurt Russel's film. I'm not normally a fan of remakes, but if done right, they can be a lot of fun.

Both of which are remakes of the incomparably better 1950s The Thing From Another World. *

*The first "sci fi" movie to have a respectable director and budget by the way.

Excuse me, but I will go on any stage and declare John Carpenter's classic to be the penultimate film so many memorable moments: the guy who gets his arms eaten by the stomach, the detached head that they all just kind of stare at. It was one of the great films of the 80's

 TheMeanDM wrote:
So many movies copy off of so many other movies (or books, plays, etc) throughout history...one could argue that there is nothing original....just a "remake" of the story.

Name a movie and I bet you can find some old movie or historical...whatever...that matches up fairly well with it.

Superman = Achilles (as an example)

Achilles is the opposite of Superman. He is a vainglorious murderer out only for himself, who gains fame by stabbing people to death.
Superman does literally none of that.

Here's a couple:

*African Queen
*Silence of the Lambs or alternatively Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer
*Seven Samurai
*My Dinner with Andre (I may be the only person that saw that in a movie theater).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Excuse me, but I will go on any stage and declare John Carpenter's classic to be the penultimate film so many memorable moments: the guy who gets his arms eaten by the stomach, the detached head that they all just kind of stare at. It was one of the great films of the 80's

I remember seeing it and just laughing and laughing. People kept looking at me. Thats not terror, or horror. Its just lazy.
Halloween was much, much better.

I was comparing them as in: invulnerable with inly one weakness

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I was comparing them as in: invulnerable with inly one weakness

OK, interesting thought there.

I am pretty sure Superman is basically Moses/Jesus. But he does have a lot of traits that line up with demigods. in many ways, superheroes are modern demigods. And fanboys are their priests :-)

I don't see a Moses/Jesus connection in any way...well..aybe when Superman is killed by Doomsday and comes back.

But last I read, Jesus didn't have eye beams.

Though he did have super strength vs money changers...

 jmurph wrote:
I am pretty sure Superman is basically Moses/Jesus. But he does have a lot of traits that line up with demigods. in many ways, superheroes are modern demigods. And fanboys are their priests :-)

This is deep, although I'd say some fans are priests, some are cult groupies.

Normally, when Hollywood re-makes a classic, my first instinct is to track down the offending director and introduce my left foot to his ass!

And yet, I cannot for the life of me think of a bad Denzel Washington film...

I'm going to need a few cans of premium lager to think this one through

The Film Industry has been adapting and re-imagining since the origination of the art form and business. Peak points of the practice do not mean they are all bad or that we should pretend that it is bad.

All art adapts and re-imagines. It's part of what art is. I think the issue is less that Hollywood is remaking things, but rather that Hollywood is often more interested in cashing in on prior fame when they do so than in taking any new ideas to an old form. The movies are often bad on their face, not because they're remakes per se.

 Ahtman wrote:
The Film Industry has been adapting and re-imagining since the origination of the art form and business. Peak points of the practice do not mean they are all bad or that we should pretend that it is bad.

Don't you get all liberal and cultured on us mister smartypants, otherwise you'll be visiting the dakka dungeon for 're-education.'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
All art adapts and re-imagines. It's part of what art is. I think the issue is less that Hollywood is remaking things, but rather that Hollywood is often more interested in cashing in on prior fame when they do so than in taking any new ideas to an old form. The movies are often bad on their face, not because they're remakes per se.

Make room for one more in the dakka dungeon

Are big-budget movies still art or are they something else? Some amalgam of craft and commercialism with a does of nihilistic materialism? I don't know anymore!