Should The Old Films Be Re-Made?
V12Vanquish
Posts: 7MI6 Agent
I was chatting to a mate of mine the other day, and he doesn't like any of the films except those done by brosnan. He says its because they are more real and the spcial effects are much better, and the old films are not worth bothering with.
I don't think they should be, but thats me.
Anyone got any opinions on this?
I don't think they should be, but thats me.
Anyone got any opinions on this?
Comments
Hmmmm ... very common these days.
I have to ask why there is such a demand to remake films. The obvious answer is that there are no (or very few) original ideas in Hollywood. The easy option for the studios is to take a successful old title (which they don't need the rights for) and remake it with their current set of young stars. Low risk for high return. However, it's just lazy and greedy filmmaking.
To remake the early Bonds would be pointless as most of the Brosnan films have taken elements from the preceeding films anyway. Evolution not revolution and all that.
There is one exception to this though and that's Casino Royale, a film title that is dying to be remade into a superior film ...
Dr No, FRWL, GF, LALD etc are all more realistic than all of Brosnan films...which all revolve round special effects etc..who can say that Goldeneye for example is more realistic than Live and Let Die
Don't get me wrong, i enjoy all the films, and brosnan is my second favourite bond, but i do feel that if we take away the classic feel to the films (either by remaking them or by making new films without it) we run the risk of losing what is a great franchise.
:007)
IMO they stand as the best, so any attempt would be inferior.
Let's imagine it, though. Then who would you cast as Pussy Galore, Auric Goldfinger, or Dr NO ? Not that easy indeed.
No self respecting film fan would discount a film on account of the film's age.
Bond is not the only example. People who prefer modern day special effects are only going to miss out on practically all the classics like The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jaws, Citizen Kane, etc.
Just tell him to go watch 2Fast2Furious at the cinema and that'll keep him quiet. Meanwhile you can stick on From Russia With Love again.
Oh, and by the way, if your buddy only likes the Brosnan Bonds because on screen they seem more realistic, well he should really invest some time and watch for what they truly offer, which is something more.
The Brosnan Bonds more realistic? Have him watch just the final battle on the plane in DAD and compare it to the similar final battle on the plane in TLD and see if he can look you straight in the eye and claim that. Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed DAD but all the overdose of CGI in the final quarter gives MR's finale strong competition for least realistic, most cartoonish finale to a Bond film.
However, one or two of the less-impressive fims could be re-done by perhaps revsiting the original stories and remaking them in this vein under the titles.
I know that this has been discussed in other topics, but I feel that the following could benefit from a makeover in this way:
Casino Royale
(From) A View to a Kill (just for a change!)
The Man with the Golden Gun
The Spy Who Loved Me
One suggestion I have also put forward elsewhere would be to make these into a series of short dramas for TV, perhaps trying out an actor they might have in mind to replace PB in the films...?
Seems his friend has already invested time with the Brosnan Bonds, after all they are the only ones he likes. An indoctrination of all things Bond is really the prescribed medication here.
...and welcome to AJB Female 00 Agent! :007)
We saw what happened with the last remake of a classic Bond film, it was not the success Kevin McClory had hoped for. Stay original, don't rehash.
All interesting points of view!
Don't stop on my account!
DN was later remade as YOLT
YOLT was later remade as TSWLM
TSWLM was later remade as TND
GF was later remade as AVTAK
DAF was later remade as DAD
to name a few.
The films are as individual as they possibly can be, when you take into account the kind of story that has to be present to make a film a Bond Film, and not just another spy film. :007)
I agree with your assessment.;)The older films don't need to be remade.They cannot be improved upon.And they set the standards for all of the other films that followed-including those now starring Brosnan.Simply put,good films are good films,regardless of their age--and the early Bond movies are some of the finest adventure films ever made.
W.G.
Could there be a re-vamp of the JB style on the way?
I hope there is, but i really hope they don't make it to far away from the original feel of 007!
Half the problem with NSNA was the fact the the plot was too known. It's like when you hear a cover version of a song ... it's never quite as good as the original.
Look at the H.G Wells novel "The Time Machine". This spawned a classic 1960 movie warning of the threats of nuclear war, yet for some reason some executive somewhere decided to remake this wonderful movie and the result was never a patch on the original.
A more successful remake was with Oceans Eleven - originally an all star cast movie that somehow flopped, yet with its flaws analysed and rectified, made an excellent remake in 2002 with George Clooney, Brad Pitt and co. The disappointing 1963 film Cleopatra is another prime candidate that could go through this remake treatment. Catherine Zeta Jones would be perfect for the title role and perhaps Michael Douglas as Julius Caesar?
Should Eon ever decide to remake any Bond movies, I feel this should be taken into account - namely remakes of bad films are more successful than remakes of good ones. A Bond movie that is just begging to be remade IMO is Casino Royale, or maybe Diamonds Are Forever too.
Please Mr Wilson though, leave the likes of Goldfinger and YOLT alone. They just cannot be improved on!!
I think there are some people that do...;)
Nah, no way.....
(said ajb's resident Dalton fanatic...)
Anyway...
I'm sure there were people during Moore's reign who thought Connery's films were old hat and should be re-made with Moore to stay with the then-up-to-date technology and tone. In every era there are those (usually young people) who think "today's films are more realistic," whatever they may mean by that.
The notion that today's films are "more realistic" is such a vague, subjective idea. If you're comparing, say, MR's sfx with today's sfx, well, ok. Yet even there, I find much of today's cgi effects to be so obviously fake (the surfing scene in DAD was one of the most obvious I've yet seen recently), I feel like I'm watching a couple of animated stick figures manipulated by some unidentified programmer sitting behind a PC screen somewhere----which I am.
Realistic how? Realistic in the portrayal of, say, women? That's such a complicated issue....how "realistic" would it be to show a female M in 1962 as compared to today? I'm not saying it would be an impossible idea, because women throughout history have always been *present* in mostly male occupations to some limited degree. Certainly in Brosnan's films we have less of those women who so easily, mindlessly succumb to Bond's charms....or do we?
So realistic in what sense? Personally, I find more realism in the scenes between Bond and Kerim Bey (a very hard-nosed, traditional man in a tough, dangerous job) than those between Bond and Zukovsky. And I *like* Zukovsky very much, by the way, that's not a slam against him. (When it looks like he's dead in TWINE, it's one of the few times in Brosnan's films in which I'm emotionally caught up in the loss of a character I've come to care about).
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I am assuming that your friend is young, and some young people have a hard time watching older films. Many people of my generation, for example, have a hard time watching silent films of the 20s or films from the 30s. They have a hard time with the old style of acting (which many erroneously label as "bad" acting) or dated effects, and so on. Depending on the film, I sometimes share that difficulty, but I also love watching the silent Phantom of the Opera, Metropolis, Nosferatu and especially Chaplin's City Lights (that one brings tears to my eyes every time). On the other hand, I have a very hard time sitting thru the old Busby Berkely musicals
I recognize the artistry and talent and delightful extravagance, and I know they were HUGELY popular but I'm always fidgeting around when watching them.
I've always been a bit of an old fogie and I find that I have a hard time watching most contemporary commercial films as opposed to old films because I find them to be rather bland, cold and soulless. I find the people in them to be far too self-aware. I also find a lot of contemporary films to be too *obviously* made by corporate CEOs. But that's me.
The quality of sfx of a film is the last thing I look at, if at all. I can still watch the original Star Trek series or the old BBC Blake's 7 series and totally get into the characters, the plots and so on. The cheap effects do not touch me at all as a viewer.
Anyway, I'm blabbing on and on as usual.
There have been many remakes of different films. As someone pointed out, we're getting far too much of it lately (and they're scraping the bottom of the barrel by remaking old TV shows). But remakes are hardly anything new---there were several made in the 50s of old films from the 20s and 30s, for example. And just about all of them failed to match the power of the originals. Tho it's still a subject of debate, the 1950s remake of the 1930s Charles Boyer-Irene Dunne "Love Affair" with Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr ("An Affair to Remember") is the only one I can think of that can be said to be just as good as the original, or maybe better (maybe).
There are no original ideas anymore. Only (perhaps) new styles and tones and interpretations of old ideas. The scripts of Brosnan's films have done pretty well in dealing with a world devoid of the polarized atmosphere of the Cold War. It's a more complex political world today and his films have provided some very interesting adventures for that world. Perhaps your friend means the old films should be re-made to reflect that world?
Well, no, I don't think so. And, no, broadly speaking, I don't think Brosnan's films are anymore "realistic" than the older films. And sure, go ahead, re-make Dalton's films----just hire him to star in them!
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
I like the way you think, Jarvio.