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 . . .

[–] olihist 17 years ago

Having just watched "Sand Pebbles" a minute ago on AMC, I don't think you need to do a remake of a movie simply to bring it to a "modern" audience. I think great movies, like great books or great art, resonate with people regardless of time or place. "Sand Pebbles" is one of those movies, and any effort to "remake" it would be an injustice.

[–] rwsmith29456 17 years ago

I'd love a remake, but only if they can do at least as good a job as the '66 version. If not, don't touch it.

[–] Polaris01313-1 16 years ago

ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?!!!!! Let's not give Hollywood anymore fodder for the remake machine, shall we?

The 1966 classic is just fine the way it is!

Honest to God, there have been enough remakes as it is! How many more classics need to be ruined by the no-brained, unoriginal talent that calls itself Hollywood?

Just look at the remake of Battlestar Galactica! Unoriginality at its most worst!

[–] rwsmith29456 16 years ago

I would LOVE to see a remake, IF, IF, IF they could top the original. But I'm afraid it would be a flop today because so few people are interested in that place and time. CGI would NOT make this a better movie. So this one falls in the 'don't try to top a classic' department.

[–] ahrenbej 16 years ago

No way. Matt Damon isn't man enough to hold Steve McQueen's jock.

Leave this movie the *beep* alone.

Good ol' Coney Island College. Go WhiteFish! -- Philip J. Fry

[–] Memories-Of-Murder 16 years ago

A remake of this movie is as needed as a bullet in the head.

The movie is fine as it is, and any moderaly intelligent person can see that.

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

[–] kkhsiivonen 16 years ago

"Remake needed?"

Remake is NEVER needed!

[–] FloridaBoy24 16 years ago

There is absolutely no reason to remake this movie, the performances in it were incredible.

[–] racroen 16 years ago

FloridaBoy24: "There is absolutely no reason to remake this movie, the performances in it were incredible."

But... think how much better it could be if Michael Bay directed it!

[–] bradford-1 13 years ago

Er, there were some remakes that DID work:
THE MALTESE FALCON (1941) Had actually been filmed twice, in 1931 and '36.
THE WIZARD OF OZ (1939) Several Oz-based silent films had been done, the most prominent (1926) featured Oliver Hardy as the Tin Woodsman!
OCEAN'S ELEVEN (2001)The original Rat Pack and very little else, going for it. It was molasses-paced, and IMHO, threw away the casino robberies. I found the Soderbergh version to be exciting and humorous.
"We're fighting for this woman's honor, which is more than she ever did."

[–] EastCoastMariner 13 years ago

The acting, special effects and general mood of the 1966 version could never be recaptured, and today's actors don't possess the same class or realism as the men in this film.

While I understand the question and don't criticize it, I think it'd be best to just leave this film as it is instead of potentially ruining it with a remake.

[–] dalldorfw 13 years ago

Instead of bringing the story to a modern audience by a remaking it? Why not just let them rent the original or read the novel?