Movie ReMake Challenge Part II: AND THE WINNER IS...

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by stevew

Im thinking more of the outtakes, with the body builders, etc.

oh you're right. i forgot about them.

in a nutshell it's a 'what if the starkwether/fugate murders happened in 1990?"

edit: from trutv

This frightening rebel twosome inspired a whole series of mainstream and not-so-mainstream movies like the 1974 Badlands of Terrence Malick, Wild At Heart by David Lynch, Quentin Tarantino and Tony Scott's 1993 True Romance, Dominic Sena's 1993 Kalifornia, and Oliver Stone's 1994 Natural Born Killers.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Grover

Jason Segal would have probably been my Cowardly Lion.

....you need to GTFO of my head already!

The two roles where we differed would have been Dorothy (I would have taken Zooey Deschanel) and the Scarecrow (I would have taken David Tennant).

[Subby]

This voting is tough. There are only a few movies I have zero interest in seeing.

I should have remade Deliverance with hot chicks cut loose in the steamy florida everglades. THAT would have been inspiring!

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Subby

This voting is tough. There are only a few movies I have zero interest in seeing.

I should have remade Deliverance with hot chicks cut loose in the steamy florida everglades. THAT would have been inspiring!

Skin to win!!!

[Izulde]

I actually think The Wizard of Oz is perfect for this remake challenge. Great concept and story idea, but the execution of the film was painfully boring and dull.

Giving it the Pixar treatment is precisely the sort of genius stroke that it needs to become great.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I think people are missing the point of the remakes. It's not that they are necessary, it's "Who would you cast and what would you do if you got to remake X?".

I don't agree. To my mind the point of a remake is to envision something that actually could/should be made. Not just recasting a movie, but seeing if you can do a better or newer version. As I said, taking a movie that either kind of missed the target the first time, or that was great but is now kind of outdated. Or, as Wizard of Oz demonstrated, finding a new way to recreate a classic. That's the ideal remake to me.

Just doing something that also would be decent, but brings nothing new to the table, isn't what's going to get my vote. For example, I didn't watch the remake of Psycho they did years ago, but my understanding was that it was a note for note remake, just with new actors, a new director, new camera work. That's not a remake that would get my vote. If you reboot it should be because you can do a better job of something.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Izulde

I actually think The Wizard of Oz is perfect for this remake challenge. Great concept and story idea, but the execution of the film was painfully boring and dull.

Yes, tha'ts exactly what most moviegoers over the past 80 years have said.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I don't agree. To my mind the point of a remake is to envision something that actually could/should be made. Not just recasting a movie, but seeing if you can do a better or newer version. As I said, taking a movie that either kind of missed the target the first time, or that was great but is now kind of outdated. Or, as Wizard of Oz demonstrated, finding a new way to recreate a classic. That's the ideal remake to me.

Just doing something that also would be decent, but brings nothing new to the table, isn't what's going to get my vote. For example, I didn't watch the remake of Psycho they did years ago, but my understanding was that it was a note for note remake, just with new actors, a new director, new camera work. That's not a remake that would get my vote. If you reboot it should be because you can do a better job of something.

Completely disagree. I believe (if I remember correctly from the first draft), the spirit of these drafts was to remake any movie, with talent that is alive, regardless of it's a classic or a flop. Otherwise it would be nothing but Gigli and Mars Needs Moms kind of movies.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Yes, tha'ts exactly what most moviegoers over the past 80 years have said.

When was the last time I cared what the masses thought?

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Completely disagree. I believe (if I remember correctly from the first draft), the spirit of these drafts was to remake any movie, with talent that is alive, regardless of it's a classic or a flop. Otherwise it would be nothing but Gigli and Mars Needs Moms kind of movies.

i think it's an 'eye of the beholder' situation. there is no right or wrong only what resonates with people.

[tarcone]

Obviously my Rocky isnt what fans want. I really thought I nailed this one. Walken was a stretch. Hopper would have been better, but he had to go and die on me.

[TRO]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Obviously my Rocky isnt what fans want. I really thought I nailed this one. Walken was a stretch. Hopper would have been better, but he had to go and die on me.

Hopper would have been great. I also could see Duvall in the role.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Completely disagree. I believe (if I remember correctly from the first draft), the spirit of these drafts was to remake any movie, with talent that is alive, regardless of it's a classic or a flop. Otherwise it would be nothing but Gigli and Mars Needs Moms kind of movies.

oh so YOU are the lowest common denominator that Hollywood caters to all the time, eh?

[CrimsonFox]

I'm really confused by some of the movie choices here really. About half of them seem incredibly uninspired choices and I can only guess they are personal favorites. And if you're going to choose something that either wasn't that popular or overpopular and iconic, then you'd better damn well nail the casting and have a reason for it. But I'm not seeing that either for many of them. I do see a few utter gems.

[wade moore]

For me it was dead the second you picked Wahlberg. Why would I want to watch him play an underdog boxer again?

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by wade moore

For me it was dead the second you picked Wahlberg. Why would I want to watch him play an underdog boxer again?

interesting. I actually love wahlberg as a choic for rocky. He seems a great fit. LIke Walken too. I think that whole cast is really good with Gandolfini being the biggest cliche of the lot. But the rest NOT being cliches yet really strong choices really would make that film interesting.

[3ric]

Johnny Depp as Madmartigan was a strange casting choice for me - why putting him in a role that offers little variation from the Jack Sparrow role he's already been milking dry?

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by 3ric

Johnny Depp as Madmartigan was a strange casting choice for me - why putting him in a role that offers little variation from the Jack Sparrow role he's already been milking dry?

so he can choose yet another pointless hard to understand accent and act like a prat?

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Completely disagree. I believe (if I remember correctly from the first draft), the spirit of these drafts was to remake any movie, with talent that is alive, regardless of it's a classic or a flop. Otherwise it would be nothing but Gigli and Mars Needs Moms kind of movies.

I'm not talking about remaking Gigli. As I said I think the prime candidates for a remake are A) Movies that were a great idea but not that well done. I don't know anyone who thinks Gigli was a great idea, but a movie that got you very excited about and then let you down would be prime here. B) Movies that were great but are hard to watch now because they're out of date. This is especially ripe for sci-fi movies where the vision of the future was either silly looking now, or they just didn't have the special effects for it.

I actually voted for some movies that probably didn't need to be remade, so it's not an absolute. I was just surprised how many of these movies were already classics. I expected more moves like Flash Gordon, something that you would say, "I know it wasn't great, but imagine it like this!" It's a harder sell to convince me we need a new Godfather, for example.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Obviously my Rocky isnt what fans want. I really thought I nailed this one. Walken was a stretch. Hopper would have been better, but he had to go and die on me.

I thought you made great choices. I think this was just one of those movies that didn't seem different enough from the original to bother. Those guys could probably all nail the roles, but I've already seen that movie! And yes, I think Wahlberg having just played a boxer hurt too.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by 3ric

Johnny Depp as Madmartigan was a strange casting choice for me - why putting him in a role that offers little variation from the Jack Sparrow role he's already been milking dry?

I liked that. I could totally see him and Sean Astin, that would be fun. I think Glenn Close (this was the one with her, right?) was what hurt it for me. Seemed too typecast. Plus Willow just isn't a movie I remember that well.

Similarly, I"m guessing that The Searchers and Metropolis were very well done, but I don't know the originals enough to really be sure.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

the searchers is tough because it's a stylistic 180 from the original.

also, deniro hasn't put in a good performance in over a decade and after that rnc the other night i think maybe we should take eastwood off the board permanently.

metropolis is interesting but i haven't seen it since high school and i barely remember it. trying to convey what it would be is very difficult in this format

[stevew]

Originally Posted by wade moore

For me it was dead the second you picked Wahlberg. Why would I want to watch him play an underdog boxer again?

+1

He's also at least 10 years too old.

[stevew]

I'm surprised BTTF has not been rebooted. I'd imagine we will see that happen within 10 years.
Harry Potter will probably resurface as a TV show I'd think.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

bttf will definitely get a reboot @ some point

i wanted to remake watership down but what animation studio would do it? first thought was the iron giant guys but wb studios did that. some anime company? bah

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by stevew

+1

He's also at least 10 years too old.

and juliette lewis is 40

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

bump

one day left with the wiz of oz and 12 angry men in a shootout and deliverance just off the pace.

fwiw, there's a guy that used to own a video store that comes into my work. in about 5 minutes he came up with like 100 movies. this is what i remember

THEY LIVE
GOONIES
DUNE
THE DARK CRYSTAL
LABYRINTH
WHERE THE BUFFALO ROAM
BRIDGE OVER THE RIVER KWAI (a shitload of War movies)
THE LOST BOYS
THE WARRIORS
THE PRINCESS BRIDE
HEATHERS
BATTLE ROYALE (fuck the huger games)
EL TOPO
BILLY JACK
SUPER FLY
HITCHCOCK FILMS
SOME LIKE IT HOT
DR. STRANGELOVE

[CrimsonFox]

At first I was very adamant that 80s movies shouldn't be remade. Now I realize they are prime candidates. Take them out of the 80s and do them totally differently. So I was against Back to the Future as it was TOO dated and too cheesy and of its time, but take it out of the 80s and it's a new movie entirely (provided Zemeckis doesn't do it again and they completely change the mood)

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

bump

one day left with the wiz of oz and 12 angry men in a shootout and deliverance just off the pace.

fwiw, there's a guy that used to own a video store that comes into my work. in about 5 minutes he came up with like 100 movies. this is what i remember

THEY LIVE
GOONIES
DUNE
THE DARK CRYSTAL
LABYRINTH
WHERE THE BUFFALO ROAM
BRIDGE OVER THE RIVER KWAI (a shitload of War movies)
THE LOST BOYS
THE WARRIORS
THE PRINCESS BRIDE
HEATHERS
BATTLE ROYALE (fuck the huger games)
EL TOPO
BILLY JACK
SUPER FLY
HITCHCOCK FILMS
SOME LIKE IT HOT
DR. STRANGELOVE

He points out several movies that are on a list of ones I think would make good new movies, but are terrible for this game. The Goonies is a perfect example. In this game, you can't cast the Goonies because there's just not a selection of known child actors to work with here. They have to be cast in a casting room with people no one has ever heard of.

Any movie that relies on child actors just doesn't work for this game imo.

[stevew]

Yeah. You could cast the peripheral adults and use the wildcards for other stuff. I Would buy using "recently discovered talent" in those kid roles.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

i agree. but i was hoping it would inspire some people. when we fire this up again i want to get people out of the pattern of remaking classics beat for beat with modern actors.

my idea for this falls more in line with what Autumn mentioned above.

[CrimsonFox]

dark crystal, labyrinth would also not work at all.

They Live is a great idea.
Warriors and Heathers great choices too. Princess Bride I dislike for this game. Things that are that HUGE and overquoted I just don't think would make a good remake. They run the problem of being compared to the original and merely being remade just to make money but would never be as good as the original.

[Carman Bulldog]

Regarding remaking classics and mixing it up...

The movies ranked in how they finished in voting, with the IMDB rating in parenthesis.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (8.9)
Ghostbusters (7.8)
The Godfather (9.2)
Blade Runner (8.2)
Jaws (8.2)
Logan's Run (6.8)
Scarface (8.2)
The Sting (8.3)
Rain Man (8.0)
Flash Gordon (6.3)

And now the present rankings of the second event as I type this...

Wizard of Oz (8.1)
12 Angry Men (8.9)
Deliverance (7.9)
Metropolis (8.3)
Back to the Future (8.4)
The Running Man (6.5)
The Untouchables (8.0)
Rocky (8.0)
Bull Durham (7.0)
Star Wars: Phantom Menace (6.5)
Die Hard (8.3)
Star Wars (8.8)
Natural Born Killers (7.2)
Willow (7.1)
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (7.2)
The Searchers (8.0)

The italicized ones above are for the most part, major aberrations.

Now, a few possible solutions. First off, ban anything on the IMDB Top 250. That basically equates to an 8.0.

Alternatively, we change up the voting. This would probably take a bit more work on the organizer's part, but I think it could make it much more interesting.

Voters would give every movie a score from 1-10. That number would then be averaged out to give the movie a grade. That grade then gets compared to the IMDB grade, with the resulting difference determining the winner.

For instance, if I remake Flash Gordon and it receives a "7.5" then I score a +1.2 and I finish higher than the guy who remade Scarface, which received an "7.8" grade but a score of -0.4.

That would mean major consideration would go into how much of a classic are you going to remake and if so, how confident are you that you can top the original?

Some caveats, could be put in place, such as the movie must be presently above a 6.0 or something to avoid a default win, so to speak by simply remaking Battlefield Earth or Gigli (I mean, I think you could easily get above a 5.0, no?).

Just a thought.

[Grover]

It really depends on how you interpret how the draft is supposed to work. The spirit of these past two were to remake any movie in the history of film using today's actors and crew members. It wasn't a specific draft to take a movie with a great idea that tanked, or a movie that was merely average and could be greatly improved upon with different pieces in the puzzle.

Is any remake of these classic movies we come up with going to be better than the original (iMDB top 250)? Maybe, now honestly, probably not. The fun is dreaming up what we would do with these terrific movies if given the opportunity to do such things.

[chadritt]

We may have started overthinking this just a bit.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by chadritt

We may have started overthinking this just a bit.

This.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

well, i guess i should have been more forthcoming. i'm trying to develop this idea as a facebook game or an app or... something (this is the problem. what is it?) so any and all discussion about rules and game structure is welcome and appreciated.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

poll closes tonight at 10 pm est. it's still wiz of oz by a nose over 12 angry men with deliverance firmly in third

[ntndeacon]

I am amazed that not one person thought the Searchers was worth a vote. I thought it was a well thought out plan. I do not believe it is the worst of the movies given.

[WVUFAN]

Firstly, great job by everyone. Some of the movies are a bit outside the box (I'm look at you, Harry Potter!), but you have to hand it to Surtt -- he took a recently made series of movies and tried to reboot them. I like how he's got a very specific idea in mind. Not my cup of tea, but you have to hand it to him.

WIZARD OF OZ by Grover
----------------
I'm sorry, but having it done via animation is a bit of a cop-out, since you're not casting the entire actor, just the voice. I like the idea of remaking the Wizard of Oz, but do it live-action. Animated in this draft form is the easy way out.

NATURAL BORN KILLERS by NorvTurnerOverdrive
-----------------
This is the perfect movie for Tarantino, since he wrote the original, and he could certainly put a twist into it for modern audiences. I like the casting choices as well, specifically Charlize Theron and Willem Dafoe. I haven't seen enough of Rooney Mara to know one way or another with her. Good casting, a perfect fit for producer and director, and a film dying to be done again for this generation's audiences.

UNTOUCHABLES by Carman Bulldog
------------------
I'm probably alone in thinking Scorcese would make this 30 minutes too long and take away some of the flavor and action of the original. I like how Carman didn't try to cast someone in Sean Connery's role that would be just like him, but rather someone with his own distinct style. Matt Damon has the chops to deliver in the lead role, probably better than the original. My only caveat is Scorese, but I know that's just because I'm not a Scorcese guy. Great job.

BACK TO THE FUTURE by JediKooter
-----------------
An inspired idea for a reboot, but I'm not sold on the director pick. The director pick is god-awful -- don't get me wrong, I love Ridley Scott, but with him directing you're losing the comedic aspect of the movie, since Scott is known for more hardcore sci-fi efforts. Scott doing this movie would be akin to Eli Roth remaking Tootsie.

Eisenburg and Freeman are great choices, as is Murphy. I initially shook my head at Tatum as Biff, but the more I think of it, the more I like it.

The whole thing gets ruined by Ridley Scott, though.

ROCKY by Tarcone
-------------------
No. No, no, no. Wahlberg would be horrible as Rocky. Walken would be awful as Mickey. Having Raimi as co-director would be awful (why not have Stallone do it since he wrote the original, or at least serve as Producer). Gandolfini would be awful as Micky. Lewis and Snipes are very good choices, though.

Just ... no.

STAR WARS by Tarcone
--------------------
Take Lucas out of the picture entirely and you really, REALLY have something. The casting choices are fantastic (especially Spacey as Tarkin -- I would watch the movie for this alone), the idea of Proyas as director is an absolutely inspired choice, and I would be facinated as to what he would do in this movie. Hell, I can even see Alba as Leia.

Just ... kick Lucas out of it, for goodness sake.

THE SEARCHERS by ntndeacon
--------------------
Never seen the original so I can't comment on this one. Malick sucks as a director, though -- well he's sucked since he came back.


THE RUNNING MAN by Coffee Warlord
--------------------
I can dig this. The Rock is the modern day Arnold, only with better acting chops. The rest of the cast is cool. I'm a Hackman fan, so seeing him in a movie again would be cool.


PHANTOM MENACE by Larrymcg421
--------------------
If this gets rid of Jar Jar, I'm all for it. I haven't heard of many of the actors aside of McElvoy and Fiennes, so I can't comment on them. Whedon doing Star Wars would be ... I don't know really what to think of that.

12 ANGRY MEN by TRO
--------------------
Now THIS is a movie the Coen Brothers could do. I'm just wary they would screw with the script too much. The casting is perfect, as well. Easily one of my favorite submissions

METROPOLIS by saboltai
--------------------
Haven't seen the original.

BULL DURHAM by Chief Rum
---------------------
...
Um ... Costner and Apatow on the same movie?

Um ... it would either be really, REALLY good, or the worst thing in movie history. For this reason alone I would like to see it. Cooper can pull the main role off, but some of the rest of the cast seems to be there just because they're staples in other Apatow movies.

DIE HARD by SackAttack
-----------------------
Jackson is too old for this part, and couldn't pull of the role. If you don't have a convincing McClane, you don't have Die Hard.

DELIVERANCE by Subby
-----------------------
Best casting of the lot. Each role is built for this. This is a movie that's ready for a reboot with a perfect cast. Singer is a fantastic pick for director, as he's already proven he can pull movies like this off. Great, great job on this one.

My Vote: Deliverance, followed 12 Angry Men, then The Running Man.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

bump

poll closes @ 10 pm est

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

would you believe stanley tucci's one of the highest valued actors on hollywood stock exchange? people are bullish on tucci! who knew?

[Grover]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

WIZARD OF OZ by Grover
----------------
I'm sorry, but having it done via animation is a bit of a cop-out, since you're not casting the entire actor, just the voice. I like the idea of remaking the Wizard of Oz, but do it live-action. Animated in this draft form is the easy way out.

I... disagree. You can call it a cop-out all you want, but casting voices for a film (animated or otherwise) makes a huge difference in how I would draft. I couldn't just take any actors/actresses, I had to take people who could sing.

But to each their own, I respect your opinion.

[Grover]

Wow, congrats to TRO.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

it's def not a cop out. i thought the casting was great.

enchanted... that was the name of the flick sarandon was witchy in (had to look it up)

IT'S COMING DOWN TO THE WIRE!!!

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

holy shit that was nuts

[Grover]

Insane, TRO deserves it. 12 Angry Men was my single vote and definitely the best movie made.

[SackAttack]

I didn't finish last. I'll count that as a win.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

holy crap that was fun. i thought it would be close. i didn't think it would be that close

56 Members of the community have chimed in and now to present the winners...

Coming in 3rd place and Winner of FOFFI (FOF FILM INSTITUTE) Peoples Choice Award is....

Spoiler

DELIVERANCE by SUBBY!



With 42.86% of the vote 24 FOFC voters agreed there's just not enough male rape in movies today.

CONGRATS SUBBY!

Coming in 2nd place and Winner of FOFFI Golden Globe Award is...

Spoiler

THE WIZARD OF OZ by GROVER!



50% of voters endorsed a PIXAR Wiz and Grover's visionary casting.

CONGRATS GROVER!

and theWinner of the FOFFI Academy Award goes to...

Spoiler

12 ANGRY MEN by TRO



In a miraculous comeback the Coen/Lumet powerhouse overtook the lead in the eleventh hour with 51.79% of the vote.

CONGRATULATIONS TRO!!!

What a crazy episode. What started with a bunch of hand wringing ended in an absolute barn burner.

HUGE THANKS TO EVERYONE! PARTICIPANTS AND VOTERS!!!

We'll fire up another round once the new car smell wears off the football season.

[TRO]

?!?!?!

Wow, didn't think I could overcome the Pixar powerhouse. I guess using our left over budget to buy votes worked.

Thanks to everybody that voted.