Hazel-Ra Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 It's not like they balk at rehashing a previous success or anything... I suppose some would say that nobody dares try to outdo the original film, but lets be honest- so much of the book's material was left out of the film adaption. 1. Would a three hour film do the book better tribute? 2. How about two films, with the first centering on the hijinks of Scout, Jem, and Dill trying to out Boo Radley, Scout dealing with school and fighting boys and with the Tom Robinson case on the edge of her consciousness. Then the second film where the case crashes into her world along with the rest of Maycomb? 3.Who would you suggest to play the principle roles? (Tom Hanks as Atticus Finch?) Mods if you feel this isn't worthy of a thread then please merge to Random Thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 My favorite book of all time. My current dog is the latest in a line named after characters. Atticus is now 14, and I'm not sure my wide will allow the next dog to follow again. She wouldn't go for naming our daughter Scout . I'd love a remake. But it won't happen. The story just wouldn't appeal to today's movie going market Trivia. Do you know who Harper lee based boo on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazel-Ra Posted October 18, 2013 Author Share Posted October 18, 2013 My favorite book of all time. My current dog is the latest in a line named after characters. Atticus is now 14, and I'm not sure my wide will allow the next dog to follow again. She wouldn't go for naming our daughter Scout . I'd love a remake. But it won't happen. The story just wouldn't appeal to today's movie going market Trivia. Do you know who Harper lee based boo on? I hear Dill was based on Truman Capote, but no clue on Boo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 They tend not to remake "definitive classics." Gone With The Wind, Wizard of Oz, The Godfather, etc. Something like The Great Gatsby gets remade every 25 years or so, because it's never really been done correctly. If I was going to remake a "classic," I would take a stab at Breakfast at Tiffany's and really base it on the book. Embrace the fact that she is basically a call girl and he is a gigolo. Really delve into her backstory. No cat. No Mickey Rooney doing a horrible Asian accent. And they don't get together at the end. You could be true to the book and have a totally different movie. I hear Dill was based on Truman Capote, but no clue on Boo. I think every small town has a Boo Radley - moreso back before long-term care facilities and such. My tiny hometown has a Facebook page where people posts questions like "Remember the haunted house on such and such street" and then people who range in ages from 40 to 70 share what they were told about the "legend." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 Agreed, LKB. There are some films you don't remake. To Kill a Mockingbird is one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 Here's the AFI Top 100 from a few years back. Unless, I'm missing something, only Psycho and King Kong were remade. Double Indemnity has been copied 600 times. http://www.afi.com/100years/movies10.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 Remaking great action movies makes sense, because you can make the action better. Remaking classic "acting" movies makes no sense, because what are you going to improve in any signficant way. There is no remake of Casablanca, or The Godfather, or Citizen Kane, or Some Like it Hot, because what's the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazel-Ra Posted October 18, 2013 Author Share Posted October 18, 2013 I guess I'd just like a version that included stuff left out from the Peck film. Who knows maybe adding it wouldn't make for good viewing entertainment, but I've always felt the film adaption was...anemic. Guess I'm in the minority on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 I wouldn't trust Hollywood to do it right since they fail hard seemingly 99% of the time on remakes. Look at Carrie, in theaters now. Getting crappy reviews for the most part and you could tell just from the previews it was going to be bad. The original is great, especially the acting. No need to to remake it yet this new one is the 2nd attempt, both failed. You don't see people remaking classic art because there is nothing to improve upon. Attempting to remake something that was already great sets the bar impossibly high. Heck, even movies that were decent or just meh that got remade failed, and there was lots of room for improvement, like Total Recall. Some good re-makes off the top of my head: Cape Fear, True Grit, The Thing (1982), though newest one was awful. But you'll notice with the first 2 that to make a great re-make you need a great director and very talented cast. But even then with this move I just say no given how great it already is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEANDWARF Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 No, no, no, leave the classics alone. Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 Remaking great action movies makes sense, because you can make the action better. Remaking classic "acting" movies makes no sense, because what are you going to improve in any signficant way. There is no remake of Casablanca, or The Godfather, or Citizen Kane, or Some Like it Hot, because what's the point? This is how I feel about it. Remake action pics because current tech makes it better, remake sci fi for the same reason and you can update the stories to current fears..... but who is going to re-do Gregory Peck? Why bother? It's been done right. It's a powerful movie, and the performances are superb. They stand up to time. A classic example of a 'no need to do this" would be another Gregory Peck movie, "Cape fear".. which was redone with big names, (DeNiro playing the Robert Mitchum character..), etc.. and the original is still more suspenseful and exciting. I am a BIG fan of old movies, i love classics because in those days the action was driven by dialogue for the most part, acting and direction.. the art of film acting. (Take "The Maltese Falcon".. a great movie about smuggling, organized crime, conspiracy, and gangsters,, how over the top would that movie be today? The original is taut, tense, and absolutely boring in terms of action. It's like a stage play, dialogue and direction must move the action. It doesn't need a lot of gunplay and a lot of special effects. Humphrey Bogart, Sidney Greenstreet and especially Peter Lorre,, they're brilliant. (Peter Lorre was ABSOLUTELY amazing as an actor.) That isn't to take away from big special effects pictures, I love them too for different reasons. But chances are if given the option of watching the original of a movie of the nature of "Mockingbird".. or a remake, I'll take the original every time.. Classic Hollywood rules, I'm sorry. Big screen presences like Peck, Stewart, Bogart, Grant, etc.. there's nothing like it. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 This is how I feel about it. Remake action pics because current tech makes it better, remake sci fi for the same reason and you can update the stories to current fears..... but who is going to re-do Gregory Peck? Why bother? It's been done right. It's a powerful movie, and the performances are superb. They stand up to time. A classic example of a 'no need to do this" would be another Gregory Peck movie, "Cape fear".. which was redone with big names, (DeNiro playing the Robert Mitchum character..), etc.. and the original is still more suspenseful and exciting. I am a BIG fan of old movies, i love classics because in those days the action was driven by dialogue for the most part, acting and direction.. the art of film acting. (Take "The Maltese Falcon".. a great movie about smuggling, organized crime, conspiracy, and gangsters,, how over the top would that movie be today? The original is taut, tense, and absolutely boring in terms of action. It's like a stage play, dialogue and direction must move the action. It doesn't need a lot of gunplay and a lot of special effects. Humphrey Bogart, Sidney Greenstreet and especially Peter Lorre,, they're brilliant. (Peter Lorre was ABSOLUTELY amazing as an actor.) That isn't to take away from big special effects pictures, I love them too for different reasons. But chances are if given the option of watching the original of a movie of the nature of "Mockingbird".. or a remake, I'll take the original every time.. Classic Hollywood rules, I'm sorry. Big screen presences like Peck, Stewart, Bogart, Grant, etc.. there's nothing like it. ~Bang Well, to be fair, a lot of movies that came out of classic Hollywood sucked ass - but no one remembers those movies anymore. Only the great ones ever get replayed. Go try and watch one of the 14 "Boston Blackie" movies, or endure Bette Davis in "Beyond the Forest" or Gary Cooper in "Saratoga Trunk" or thousands of other boring, pathetic offerings. Hindsight can be misleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 Well, to be fair, a lot of movies that came out of classic Hollywood sucked ass - but no one remembers those movies anymore. Only the great ones ever get replayed. Go try and watch one of the 14 "Boston Blackie" movies, or endure Bette Davis in "Beyond the Forest" or Gary Cooper in "Saratoga Trunk" or thousands of other boring, pathetic offerings. Hindsight can be misleading. Oh, for sure., but the same can be said for any actor or studio.. any Hollywood "era" is always defined by the best they offer. . Take "Joe vs the Volcano" as exhibit A for a guy considered maybe the top actor of the current era and his share of dogs.. All the greats have their share of dogs,, and in the old days the contracts to studios were much more binding in terms of what pictures they did. Even now actors and actresses have to make their share of 'vehicle' movies before they get to the rarified air of being able to choose their own material. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 Ditto. There are some movies that you just don't remake. One of my most favorite books ever. And my brain probably wouldn't be able to process any other Atticus Finch outside of Peck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazel-Ra Posted October 19, 2013 Author Share Posted October 19, 2013 Well... The consensus has spoken. No remake, guess I'll just have to fix my jones by reading the book again! Have a good weekend people! Be excellent to each other, Party on, And beat Chicago! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 Bang, The Maltese Falcon you describe was actually a remake. Just saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 Bang, The Maltese Falcon you describe was actually a remake. Just saying .. touché sir. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momma There Goes That Man Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 One of my favorite books and movies though I agree the movie left out quite a bit. It stands the test of time though and holds up well today and as others have mentioned, definitive classics aren't remade and for good reason. If I ever saw a TKAM or Casablanca or Godfather etc remake I'd lose it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 The difference between tkam and Casablanca is that tkam was a great book first. That's what it's mainly know for. Casablanca is simply the greatest movie ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabR Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 Remaking a four star classic will fail. Can you imagine remaking gone with the wind, citizen cane,etc Off hand I can't think of many remakes of classics that were successful. I would not be interested in watching them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 I never got the offense that so many people take from remakes. Particularly when it is a new movie take on a existing book. "oh the horror... another theatre troupe is redoing Hamlet YET AGAIN.. egads..!" what i find PARTICULARLY confusing, is people that hate new versions of movies, and REALLY hate them because they "don't stay true" to the other version. Seriously, how does a new version offend the existing one? Watch it on its own merits, if you like it, you like it, even if it is not quite as awesomely perfect as the other version. If you feel like it... redo To Kill a Mockingbird, Casablanca, The good the bad and the ugly.. whatever. Do a good job, and i will like it. (and aren't ALL of the 1960s/1970s American western classics just remakes of 1950s Japanese samuri classics, anyway? does that make them bad?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.