MovieChat Forums > The Sand Pebbles (1966) Discussion > Remake needed?

Remake needed?

posted 19 years ago by bhague-2
74 replies | jump to latest

Given the changing nature of the relationship between the U.S. and China, and the harsh realities of U.S. imperialism depicted in the original, perhaps it's time for a remake, to bring this story to a modern audience. While it would be tough to match the performances of McQueen, Attenborough and Crenna, I'm sure that if a good cast were assembled, this could be a worthy project for remake. There's also plenty of talented Chinese actors who could fill some of those roles (Mako, who starred in the original, is actually ethnically Japanese), which could provide interest for the Asian market. I'm not sure who could play Jake, (Matt Damon, maybe) but I think Scarlett Johansen would be terrific as Shirley . . .

[–] Paul_Jay 19 years ago

I've always held the opinion that if you can't improve a movie, leave it alone. I don't see how CGI and bigger explosions would match, let alone improve this one.

In addition, I'm not sure that, at the moment, the American public would accept a movie where the US is represented as a small impotent group of people overwhelmed by the convulsions of an emerging nation.

[–] bhague-2 19 years ago

Point taken. But maybe a reissue would be good for exactly the reason you made in your second point!

[–] Midshipman18 19 years ago

Why in the world would you remake this type of movie. There is nothing that you could possibly improve in it. The special effects of the time were up to the task, the acting was phenomenal, any other potential faults of the original would just carry over into a remake. The Sand Pebbles could definitely use a re-release, but absolutely not a remake.

[–] carol-dunning 19 years ago

I so agree with you: why fix it if it ain't broke? How could you possibly improve on this brilliant movie? I mean...we are talking Steve McQueen here...

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hawks-bill 19 years ago

Emphatically agree with all those opposing the idea of a "remake". The very thought of it makes me sick to my stomach. No one, absolutely no one else, can ever play Jake Holman again. EVER! (Believe it or not, I'm getting a lump in my throat as I write this). And I'm very nearly as protective of Maku's Pohan. Put the two of them together and you get one of the great screen couples of all time (albeit not of the romantic kind).

As for this comment: "I'm not sure that, at the moment, the American public would accept a movie where the US is represented as a small impotent group of people overwhelmed by the convulsions of an emerging nation."

mpofarrell is right: the film is both timeless AND timely. Personally, I'd make a few leaders I shall leave nameless watch the film with their eyes taped open.

Jake Holman is an American (anti)hero for all time.

[–] jastanga 19 years ago

I agree.

Incidentally, he is the only 'actor' I EVER saw that looked like he owned and fired a BAR regularly.

If you are a Browning Automatic Rifle fan, the last 10 minutes of that movie is pricless, and is almost a hands-on 'How-To' training film on how to use that fine weapon for maximum effect.

Jim

[–] dddmi7-1 19 years ago

Can anyone possibly provide an example where the remake of a classic movie has ever bested its original version? I second the motion that a re-release would be deserved. I also submit that this original post is irrelevant and not worthy of debate in the realm of film.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jkholman 19 years ago

Having read the book on audio cassette more than a couple of times and watched the film at least a half a dozen times, and mused over the main character for quite a bit, you get some idea about my call sign.

[–] rkroningi 18 years ago

A very interesting question, worthy of it's own post, and a lot of reaction. I know a better remake of a great film would, almost by definition, be rare, but I'm going to study my library.

[–] rrclimber 16 years ago

the maltese falcon 1941 is way better then the 1931 film.
the man who knew too much 1956 is better then the 1934 version
that's all I can think of on the spot. If you want a newer film I enjoyed the remake of 3:10 to Yuma although it being a better film then the original is definitley arguable.

"I am seriously beginning to doubt your commitment to sparkle motion."

[–] lvrepoman 19 years ago

I've seen this movie several times over the years, but when I saw it a few weeks ago (I think on AMC) it really occurred to me that they got the BAR action right.

I'm not a huge fan of the BAR as a squad automatic (the British Bren was far superior in my opinion), but all the veterans I've ever talked to who used the BAR in action have a sort of reverance about it.

Whomever the technical advisor was for this movie, he made sure that they got it all right. You can even see that the bolt holds open between bursts, as this weapon fired from an open bolt.

Given that this movie was produced in an era where most guns fired from endless magazines and virtually no attempt was made to recreate the realities of shooting a weapon, these sorts of details are truly appreciated.

[–] cplprice 16 years ago

he is the only 'actor' I EVER saw that looked like he owned and fired a BAR regularly.
Probably, because McQueen was in the Marine Corps from 1947 to 1950 and was trained in it's proper use and employment.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tristan_erwin 11 years ago

The only reason I would want a remake is because there are way to few naval war films out there.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fictionalman 19 years ago

I don't agree that this film is another example of uncontrolled American imperialism and war mongering.

I come away from watching this film asking why the United Stated did not take a more active role supporting the pro democracy movement of Chiang Kai-Shek?

The reaction of the two American missionaries towards the end of the film, Jameson and Shirley Eckert (played by Candice Bergen, a devout lefty in real life) to the captain of this ship sent to rescue them is the most disturbing. They refused to be rescued and even denounced their citizenship. (Jameson is later shot by Chinese Militiamen. Serves him right for being so naive.)

What I found chilling was their reactions were eerily similar to those of the real life Canadian Christian missionaries recently rescued by American soldiers in Iraq. The actual Christian missionaries did not appreciate being rescued and even accused their American rescuers for their kidnapping. Talk about art imitating life.

[–] kenrock 18 years ago

My take on this is that its an anti-war film in the finest tradition of that genre, e.g. Paths of Glory. Yes, the missionaries are naive, and Jameson is killed for it. But the captain, with his visions of glory, dies an equally futile death, as does almost ever character of note, including Holman. The point is, war is stupid and wasteful, and no one really benefits from it. This film makes that point par excellence.

[–] MAC-16 9 years ago

IMO you are overlooking that the ships captain was using the "rescuing" of the missionaries to save face, which is something the missionaries suspected in his motives.

[–] uushtupsiik 19 years ago

ohmigod no no no no no no.

There are ,obviously, few enough actual real ideas in Hollywood now. The remakes, and the screen versions are killing movie enjoyment because they never (repeat and underline) never live up to the original ideas / actors / plot, etc.

Remakes being made two or three years after the original came out (Japanese horror flicks, Insomnia, etc), and old tv shows are mostly terrible and can never live up to the original.

To remake a classic. Please. It just taints the original. What are we gonna do...start colourizing old black and white films that should remain in their film noir state?

Oh yeah. They already did that one. And I won't own one.

Remakes. Phooey. Lets get a brain and start to have an original idea or two come out in theatres.

Sorry gotta go. Time to check out that new film out called the Omen. Wow! I can hardly wait. We never get enough new ideas out in the theatres. (And if you can;t tell the sarcasm from the tone of the comments....wellllllll)

[–] PathofdestructionWE 19 years ago

As for the idea of the American Public being accepting,

I came away from this movie hating the Chinese Nationalist movement (on top of already hating the PRC). Watch closely during the scene where Pohan is sliced up by those little pirates.

It depends on your mindset, you know? My favorite character of the movie was the Captain, he had the toughest job in the world.

[–] Memories-Of-Murder 16 years ago

Then you misunderstood the movie, because in truth, the movie doesn't judge them. It doesn't judge anybody. The movie is far mora fatalsit then that. What the movie says is that there's movements in history to which people are too small and meaningless to face them and win out. Hell, the movie even shows that good intentions can have far worst results.

"This are Nice shoes! Couldn't you afford some real Nike?"

[–] tigersbb 19 years ago

Sure you can remake any movie but the question is why?Our current relations with China have no bearing on this movie and would change everything about it.It's an absolutely beautiful and in my opinion flawless movie that needs no discussion of remake just admiration.

[–] copfl 19 years ago

what is up with this re-make nonsense , stop....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[–] sawyertom 19 years ago

This is a great classic. Leave it alone. We don't need remakes of our greatests films.

[–] jericoglobal 19 years ago

Set fire to the theaters that ever show this films remakes

[–] sawyertom 18 years ago

No and hell no!!!

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 18 years ago

The movie could theoretically be reworked into another setting; I'm working on an idea (one of about a million) involving a similar story set during the US occupation of Vera Cruz, Mexico in 1914. But a direct remake? Hell no!

"We're all made of the same CLAY, you know!? Clay! CLAY!"

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]