MovieChat Forums > Lost Horizon (1937) Discussion > We need a remake

We need a remake

posted 17 years ago by deadparrotsoc
41 replies | jump to latest

I know what everyone is thinking: NO. I am usually the same. I dislike to loathe most remakes and am fiercely possesive of these classics but as I was watching this film, I kept thinking of how wonderful a remake would be. There's so much going for Frank Capra's version but there are still some elements missing (and I don't mean the missing scenes). Mostly, I think there is much more to be done on the plot that was crammed into the last 30 minutes or so.

A remake would be fantastic but ONLY if it was handled by someone who truly appreciated this film.

"He's not Ginger! He's African Sunset!"

[–] bengt-ove 17 years ago

Who do you see as the director? And which actors would you like to see in the parts? And should it be updated?

Just curious.

[–] llanwydd 17 years ago

If it were made almost scene for scene in color I could maybe go for that. But think of all the beautiful cinemetography. How could you possibly improve on that? I don't think it should ever have been remade but sometimes I wish it was in color.

[–] philipphs 17 years ago

Dan Day-Lewis - Hugh Conway

Jonathan Rhys Meyers - Mallison

Peter o'Toole or Paul Schofield - High Lama

Ric Young - Chen

Director - Bernardo Bertolucci

[–] enneagram4 16 years ago

Well done!

[–] puirt-a-beul 17 years ago

Maybe it's cynicism, or maybe it's a hefty dose of weltschmerz or even just simple ennui, but I find it hard to credit that a faithful version of this story -- of James Hilton's novel, say -- could be made nowadays. It'd be scoffed at and rebuked. The world's too full of Georges and Marias.

But ... I'd still like to believe I'm wrong.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] kimilseung 16 years ago

> world's too full of Georges and Marias.

what does this mean ?

[–] puirt-a-beul 16 years ago

> world's too full of Georges and Marias.

what does this mean ?

Hi kimilseung,
What I was meaning by that was a reference to two of the characters in the film -- to George, Bob Conway's brother, and to the young woman Maria, who had been rescued and allowed to stay there when most of her party perished in the snows, over a century before. Neither of them could believe that simple happiness or peace of mind were possible, and so they scoffed at the whole idea of Shangri-la.

I was thinking that the same sort of scoffing might greet a remake of this film, if it were attempted nowadays. It seems to me it has become the dominant Western mindset to equate a simple life (as in uncomplicated, peaceful, unhurried) with hopeless simple-mindedness and pointlessness. People seem to think they're only really "living" their lives if their existence is chaotic and verging on being out of their control, and in that mental climate, I would expect that any attempt to remake this story would simply be ridiculed out of any hope of success.

Or so it seems to me.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] philipphs 17 years ago

If this story were to be told again on film I think an updated version circa 2001 (the events of 9/11)and the Iranian hostage crisis in 1980,might be interesting.These events,like the Boxer Rebellion in the novel,creats a backdrop of international unrest against which the story unfolds.

It could open at the United Nations in 2001,where diplomats,politicians and high profile media people are leaving an emergency meeting of the United Nations General Assembly.The events of 9/11 are weeks old and the clouds of war are gathering.Two old friends in their late 60's,one a correspondent for the BBC,the other an American politician,not having seen each other in a dozen years or so,decide to catch up on old times drinking and talking about the looming trouble in the middle east.While chatting about people and places in the past,they discover an unusual common acquaintance in one particular person,Hugh Conway.Coway,had been a gifted former Presidential cabinet member and diplomat before becoming a highly respected international political reporter - he disappeared during the confusion surrounding the evacuation of westerners from Tehran on the eve of the embassy take over in 1980.It was aasumed that he,along with four others were taken by radicals and killed.

The correspondent confides to the politician that Conway was not killed and that he had seen and spoke to him in a refugee hospital near the Tibet/Chineese border a year after the hostage trouble in Iran.He would then give the politician a transcript of Conway's account of what happened to him and the four others who were taken.The actual story would take place as the politician reads the transcript on his way back to Washington.

[–] Harold_Robbins 17 years ago

I wouldn't want LOST HORIZON updated in any way to reflect the events of 2001 - in fact, I re-read the novel not long after those tragic events, and they completely overshadowed it for me - I've read the novel many times over the years, and that was the only reading I didn't enjoy. It's probably time for a re-read to exorcise the ghosts, as I will not give up my love of LOST HORIZON to terrorists.

"Stone-cold sober I find myself absolutely fascinating!"---Katharine Hepburn

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] andrewgage 16 years ago

Ugh! This is EXACTLY why we don't need a remake... unless you give it an entirely different title and make no reference to the original. Kind of like what they did when they "remade" All About Eve using strippers in Las Vegas and called it Showgirls. Then it's not so much of an insult to the original production and can flop on its own merits.

Hollywood has tried so many tricks to remake classic pictures and failed at just about every one of them. All of them box office disasters. A partial list:

Psycho (at least Gus Van Sant worked with the original script and direction, but it still bombed)
War Of The Worlds
Journey To The Center Of The Earth (not really a remake in the classic sense)
Poseidon
Godzilla
King Kong
The Mummy
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (formerly Willy Wonka - neither was worth the effort actually)
The Ladykillers
Ocean's 11 (then Twelve, then thirteen... ad nauseum)
Manchurian Candidate
The Thomas Crown Affair
Heaven Can Wait (remake of Here Comes Mr. Jordan, not the original Heaven Can Wait)
etc. etc.

One would think that after so many grand (not to mention expensive) failures, studio heads would get the picture (so to speak). But they seem to be making child-like decisions based on 'new and shiny' and how they can show off their newfangled special effects rather than on the quality of the script or adherence to the original story.

One notable remake that didn't make the mainstream theater circuit was the 2005 sound remake of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. It remains relatively faithful to the original, right down to the director having lifted images of the backgrounds from the 1920 film and recycling them while his actors performed on green screen. Presented in black and white, it is technically interesting, but it still loses something of the original's creepiness in its execution.

I will say Kenneth Branagh's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was a definite improvement over James Whale's picture largely because of the manner in which it paid much closer respect to the original Mary Shelley story, whereas Whale's did not. And the 1939 Wizard of Oz was a vast improvement over the previous 2 film versions (both silent). But such improvements are the exception, not the rule in Hollywood and I really wish they would stop. There are plenty of talented writers out there who have original ideas. They should be given a chance. After all, it's original scriptwriting and book adaptation that made Hollywood successful to begin with.

[–] joni46231 10 years ago

NO UPDATED REMAKE! Please God NO!!!

A remake could be very well and faithfully done, but I doubt the funding for such a project could be found.

Personally I'd prefer a remake to be faithful to the source material and not the wonderful
existent Capra movie.

To make it 'modern day' would be absurd, an absolute abomination! Aside from which, with technology being what it is, Shangri-la could never remain hidden, which is key to the story. Sooo, keep it faithful to the novel and time period.

I haven't seen the musical version remade in 1973, and from what I've read, I can see no point in seeking it out.

I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me.

[–] paengmanila 17 years ago

They tried it once:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070337/

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] slayerswine-1 16 years ago

I would appreciate a remake as well but I would like to see it updated to take place as the world is now.

[–] roulin 16 years ago

I think a remake is a good idea. I would definitely NOT want it set in the current day. People whining about their cell phones not working and critizing Shangri-La because there's no wi-fi or Starbucks. No--keep it in the 1930s.

I'd like Shangri-La to look a bit less art deco and a bit more Tibetan. But that's just because that's how I pictured it when I read the book.

Go easy on the CGI (maybe by using the same sort of "bigatures" that Peter Jackson used in The Lord of the Rings) and stick close to the book. Cut the Sondra Bizet character, make the Maria character Asian and especially make the Gloria Stone character less of a hysterical floozy. Her character in the book was vastly better than the movie character.

Forget the big names like Tom Cruise (horrible choice for Robert Conway) and try lesser known actors.

I don't know, Capra's movie is wonderful, but it's such a great story that I think a modern remake (NOT set in modern times) would be worthwhile.

[–] jamallen-1 16 years ago

I agree. Remake.

With a good, well-known director and good little-known actors.

And NOT set in 2009.

And NOT a pop musical with several dance numbers, the other remake.

And no, it should NOT be a shot-by-shot remake in color. Anybody remember Psycho?