Kurosawa remake - finally someone will improve his average effort (1 Viewer)

[Terrell]

Ken is correct Dome. Star Wars is in no way a remake of THF. Kurosawa and THF were definitely inspirations for Star Wars, and Lucas borrowed certain ideas. But it isn't a remake.

 

[Damin J Toell]

all of the "desecration" talk is pretty funny, considering how Seven Samurai survived well (as evidenced by the love for it expressed here) despite an American remake 42 years ago. i'm sure it will continue to survive, despite the quality (in either direction) of another remake.
DJ

 

[Dome Vongvises]

D'OH!!!
smacks hand onto forehead and cringes for such a blantant mistake

[Cartman voice]
Screw you guys, I'm going home!!! Being corrected is where I draw the line.
[/Cartman voice]

 

[Mike Broadman]

Is nothing sacred? Apparently not.

Yes, some things are sacred. Movies aren't one of them. Let's get some perspective, here.

One can't blame a remake if people are unaware of the original. It's not a studio's fault if some folks are too ignorant, lazy, or apathetic to seek out the original.

Most people don't even know anything about Kurusawa. Perhaps this new movie can draw people's attention to it.

 

[Carlo_M]

My problem here is that people are saying "why not?"

So why not make a remake for Gone with the Wind, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Jaws, Vertigo, etc. [insert your own favorite movie name here].

The question should be: WHY REMAKE A MOVIE?

For me, it's should be to improve on the original. Does anyone think the Kurosawa remake will better the original?

 

[Terrell]

I agree Carlo. A remake should improve on the original, but they rarely if ever come close. The question should be "why should we remake this film?" That's what a studio should ask themselves.

It's not a studio's fault if some folks are too ignorant, lazy, or apathetic to seek out the original.

I don't like that statement Mike. People lead different lives. Maybe some people don't care enough about movies to even want to search it out. That's doesn't mean they're lazy, ignorant, or apathetic. You know there are people that aren't movie nuts like we are. So let's not generalize or get into name calling people who don't know about Kurosawa. Everyone's different.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

If there was some talented creative person behind the concept of the remake who brought it to the studios' attention (a la Stephen Soderbergh and Ocean's 11), I would be hopeful. This deal does not seem to have gone down that way. It also helps if you remake an interesting but flawed film rather than an all-time classic. Of course, by that logic, one would think that the 1950 King Solomon's Mines (itself a re-make of the 1937 version) would have been ripe for a remake due to the somewhat anti-climactic ending to the film, but the remake from the 80s was an atrocious crime against cinema.
Regards,

 

[Joseph Young]

Remakes occur for a variety of reasons ($$ being primary), but there is a psychological slant for the 'well meaning' folks who greenlight such re-hashes.

Rarely is it the case that someone is hoping to 'improve on an original effort,' but rather 'modernize and recontextualize a classic.' In trying to pull our film heritage into the present day, they feel that old classics (even as recent at 10 years ago) are going to fall by the wayside. These people responsible for projects such as this latest completely unnecessary waste of celluloid don't have any trust or faith in the longevity of classic cinema. They are essentially 'blowing off' the incredible and studied careers of film preservationists and historians.

To these people, these monkies in suits and ties, film should not exist to explore new themes in the human experience, or in discovering new ways to entertain and tickle the mind. To them, film is about finding a formula that yields the highest dollar amount, and regurgitating it again and again until the filmgoing public catches on and stops watching...

...they're still watching...

Joseph

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

Apparently everyone giving MGM hell for this missed the name MIRAMAX as being involved in it. I'd bet they are the more nefarious studio of the two in regard to this project. (They don't mind cutting up foreign or domestic films for release here, and they also don't have a problem with buying up films and shelving them either.) I'm more concerned with their involvement than MGM.

 

[LarryDavenport]

Maybe they could set Seven Samurai in space! Oh wait, that was Battle Beyond the Stars!!

 

[Mike Broadman]

I don't like that statement Mike. People lead different lives. Maybe some people don't care enough about movies to even want to search it out. That's doesn't mean they're lazy, ignorant, or apathetic. You know there are people that aren't movie nuts like we are. So let's not generalize or get into name calling people who don't know about Kurosawa. Everyone's different

Yes, that's what "apathetic" means- a non-movie buff may not know of the original or care about it. I never said it's a bad thing or made a judgement about it. I'm just saying that it's not the producer's responsibility to make people aware of classic cinema.

Besides, I really don't think there is a danger of a new movie "replacing" the original in the minds of the public. Everyone new that the Psycho and Lolita movies that were released a couple of years ago were remakes and that Lord of the Rings was a book.

 

[Rain]

Everyone new that the Psycho and Lolita movies that were released a couple of years ago were remakes and that Lord of the Rings was a book.

Since both Lolita and LOTR are based on novels and both have been put on film at least once before, how are you drawing this distinction?

 

[Seth Paxton]

Wow, guess I'm not the only bent out of shape over the thought of this.

Regarding Shakespeare...making a film from a story/script is how films go. But Seven Samurai was already made as a film and has already been translated closely by Mag 7 and Bug's Life. Plus, those are "translations".

This says "modernization".

Plus, the key to things like Mag 7, Bug's Life, or the Shakespeare stuff (hey, Kurosawa used Will as the story source many times) is that they have there own style, setting and themes laid over top the original story.

Mag 7 is still a western, drawing upon the obvious western themes that Kurosawa used. Bug's Life is still a CGI kids film, simply piggybacking on the 7 Sam story as a device.

It's different when you bring "nothing" to the table and just remake a classic film.

DePalma is the best example of walking that fine line. He spins just enough of a twist to give the Hitch stuff a new feel and avoids ripping the stories exactly. Yet still he can be criticized for simply aping Hitch's style.

Modernized - that's the key word in this story that bothers me.

 

[Terrell]

Mike, it's not the word apathetic that I didn't like. It was the words lazy and ignorant.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Modernized - that's the key word in this story that bothers me.

Good call. Any modernizing would be mere window dressing as the themes that underlie Seven Samurai do not need such a treatment.

 

[Dave Barth]

My feelings are:

It is likely it will suck, and thus I'm apt to think it shouldn't have been remade.

It's possible it will be good or better, and then the remake would be a good thing.

 

[SteveGon]

At least tell me that Bay and Bruckheimer aren't involved in the remake. Please tell me that so I can get some sleep...

 

[Dome Vongvises]

At least tell me that Bay and Bruckheimer aren't involved in the remake. Please tell me that so I can get some sleep...

Why not, SteveGon? Seven Samurai was way too long at 207 minutes. Good ole Bay will whittle it down to 100 minutes and have explosions and what not. Instead of rifles, maybe the marauders will have chain guns and
THUMP!!!
Due to fortunate circumstances, the ghost of Akira Kurosawa has killed Dome for even suggesting the possibility.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Since both Lolita and LOTR are based on novels and both have been put on film at least once before, how are you drawing this distinction?

btw, Psycho was based on a book, too.
anyway, i don't think Mike was drawing any distinction. it seemed to me that his point was that the original versions of works aren't necessarily supplanted in the minds of the viewing public by the release of a remake.
DJ

 

[Josh_Hill]

"The Horror The Horror"