Old Movies, New Stars - Hollywood Remakes

[Wilpar76]

I have been watching a lot of TV over the past couple of days. I have watched my share of good and bad movies. A lot of the best movies were pre-1980. That thought brought about this question. Do any of the current star actors/actresses in Holloywood have the chops to take on the remakes of some classic movies?

There were several I thought about.

Sunset Boulevard (Originally Gloria Swanson and William Holden) - I could easily see George Clooney standing in for Holden. I am not saying he is better than Holden, but I could see Clooney playing the part. I have had some trouble with Gloria Swanson. Maybe Kathleen Turner? A star that was once bright but now is a little dimmer . . . it fits the story line of the movie. Plus I think she would be able to do the "I'm ready for my close-up . . ." line.

The Guns of Navarone - I can't think of a current day Gregory Peck type actor.

White Heat

Any others with modern actors/actresses that could carry the roles?

 

[xpavar]

+1
A lot of the best movies were pre-1980.

 

[M. McCord]

There were several I thought about.

Sunset Boulevard I have had some trouble with Gloria Swanson. Maybe Kathleen Turner? A star that was once bright but now is a little dimmer . . . it fits the story line of the movie. Plus I think she would be able to do the "I'm ready for my close-up . . ." line.

Kathleen Turner is, as much as it pains me to say it, not in a position to "star" in a movie. Think of her along the lines of Kirstie Alley, size wise. A shame too, because she was one of the best looking women in Hollywood.

 

[SRock]

I think remakes when done properly can be very cool and may even honor the originals but it seems like too many remakes fall miserably short of the original.

What was your take on the remake of 3:10 to Yuma?

 

[Hawkeye5]

I don't see Russell Crowe as holding a candle to Glenn Ford in the lead of 3:10
to Yuma. The original is just too good.

 

[KarthVader]

I think remakes when done properly can be very cool and may even honor the originals but it seems like too many remakes fall miserably short of the original.

What was your take on the remake of 3:10 to Yuma?

I have never seen the original, but I like 3:10 to Yuma.

Did anyone know that some one is remaking Clash of the Titans?

Do they really need to?

 

[gerwen]

Acting styles have changed considerably since Gregory Peck, but I think Tom Hanks could fill Peck's shoes. He never seems to get caught 'acting' in a performance. He always seems to naturally fit whatever role he's cast in. Like Peck, i consider Hanks to be an 'everyman' actor. Someone who can play the regular guy in exceptional circumstances believably.

I think some classic shoes that would be really tough to fill would be Humphrey Bogart. That's one guy who oozed charisma and manliness, despite his average looks and stature. (imho)

I think it'd take something special to remake one of his greats.

No knock on Peck btw, he played one of my favourite movie characters of all time. (Atticus Finch)

 

[sol92258]

did anyone know that some one is remaking clash of the titans?

Do they really need to?

noooooooooooooooooooooo!

 

[Captain Flint]

In my opinion, remakes are not necessarily a good idea; unless you commit to appreciating the new versions as different movies, the storyline and the characters operating the link with the older film. Don't forget many years have passed under the spotlight and the way actors play in front of the camera has nothing to do with the black & white age or even the 60's for that matter. Most directors have a different approach to directing nowadays. Genres have changed, independent cinema has left its imprint in the filmmaking esthetics... I'm not saying this one beats the other: it's just beyond comparison.

I myself am a big fan of 40's and 50's classics, and I honestly believe they should deserve all the praise in the world. But let's be honest : Cinema is in constant evolution and I wouldn't like to see current moviestars like Russell Crowe or George Clooney playing like Cagney, Bogart or Peck. It just wouldn't feel right.

 

[sol92258]

I like this thread...should produce some great insights.

I think technology is one of the biggest problems today. Over-reliance on special effects ruins too many movies for me. The movies that employ just the right amount of special effects to make the scene will always be much better than the movie that depends on SFX to sell the movie.

The previous generations of actors didn't have the "luxury" of special effects, so they had to act and sell the part. If they couldn't, then they didn't make it on the credit list at the end. So the movies that did well were because the cast made it so (not taking any credit from directors, producers, special effects from the time period, etc.).

It just seems more today "well, we can fix it digitally" versus then "you have to have the skill to make it work".

Does that make any sense to anyone else?

I'm not knocking SFX, at all, I love it, but it's the over-reliance on it that is a problem, and I think has an affect on the actors/actresses who have always had to "be" the part, versus many of todays that get the part adjusted to them.

I also think that a big difference between today's actors and the legends is that today's screen icons shave with Mach 3s, while the old school gentlemen rocked the straights and DEs

 

[KarthVader]

I just happened to be watching The Fugitive with Harrison Ford and I noticed that he saves his beard of with a DE razor. Can anyone ID it?

 

[SRock]

I have never seen the original, but I like 3:10 to Yuma.

Did anyone know that some one is remaking Clash of the Titans?

Do they really need to?

Yup, I posted a thread on it several months ago. I can't imagine it will have the same impact that the original did no matter how good it is. Some of the charm of the original IMO are the cheesy special effects. You know in a modern version it will look so good it will be believable.

Acting styles have changed considerably since Gregory Peck, but I think Tom Hanks could fill Peck's shoes. He never seems to get caught 'acting' in a performance. He always seems to naturally fit whatever role he's cast in. Like Peck, i consider Hanks to be an 'everyman' actor. Someone who can play the regular guy in exceptional circumstances believably.

I think some classic shoes that would be really tough to fill would be Humphrey Bogart. That's one guy who oozed charisma and manliness, despite his average looks and stature. (imho)

I think it'd take something special to remake one of his greats.

No knock on Peck btw, he played one of my favourite movie characters of all time. (Atticus Finch)

+1 on Hanks!

 

[kwk285]

I have seen so many movies over the years that it is rare that I see an original movie. Most of the movies I see today a rehashing the same stories

 

[ogopogo]

Yup, I posted a thread on it several months ago. I can't imagine it will have the same impact that the original did no matter how good it is. Some of the charm of the original IMO are the cheesy special effects. You know in a modern version it will look so good it will be believable.

"Cheesy" is a harsh word to describe Ray Harryhausen's work. The man was the master of stop-motion animation. Long before cgi, he painstakingly brought to life some of the most unforgettable monsters in cinema.

Clash of the Titans was his last movie. I didn't know there was a remake in the works.

 

[Nancy Boy]

"Cheesy" is a harsh word to describe Ray Harryhausen's work. The man was the master of stop-motion animation. Long before cgi, he painstakingly brought to life some of the most unforgettable monsters in cinema.

Clash of the Titans was his last movie. I didn't know there was a remake in the works.

Amen, brother. He was a trail blazer.

 

[Wilpar76]

I think remakes when done properly can be very cool and may even honor the originals but it seems like too many remakes fall miserably short of the original.

What was your take on the remake of 3:10 to Yuma?

Unfortunately, I haven't seen it yet. I want to see the original first. They have been showing it on cable. They are also showing the new one. Hopefully I will catch them soon.

 

[Wilpar76]

I like this thread...should produce some great insights.

I think technology is one of the biggest problems today. Over-reliance on special effects ruins too many movies for me. The movies that employ just the right amount of special effects to make the scene will always be much better than the movie that depends on SFX to sell the movie.

The previous generations of actors didn't have the "luxury" of special effects, so they had to act and sell the part. If they couldn't, then they didn't make it on the credit list at the end. So the movies that did well were because the cast made it so (not taking any credit from directors, producers, special effects from the time period, etc.).

It just seems more today "well, we can fix it digitally" versus then "you have to have the skill to make it work".

Does that make any sense to anyone else?

That makes perfect sense. I agree completely. Acting made the viewer believe, not the use of the green screen and other computer tech. I love the tech, but I love great acting even better.

I liken it to the music of the 50's and 60's. Songwriters and singers had to find clever ways and play on words to say "I love you" or even "I want to have sex." Everyone knew what they were talking about but there was an art to it. Nowadays, singers don't have the same level of creativity (or vocabulary it seems). All they talk about is I want to F you baby, and the like. Romantic, I think not.

The same goes for the movies.

 

[FreezerBurns]

I watched the '90's remake of "Psycho" over the weekend. FAIL. There was no use of modern technology as far as special effects is concerned, but the new version didn't have the same suspensful, mysterious, creepy aspect of the Hitchcock original - a perfect Halloween movie. As a matter of fact, the remake almost came across to me as comedic.