MovieChat Forums > Wait Until Dark (1967) Discussion > They should re-make this!

They should re-make this!

posted 20 years ago by captshorts
40 replies | jump to latest

I absolutely LOVED this movie, but I really think if they get the right people, keep all the same stuff, and things like that, it might turn out to be better! Especially if they add new twists and more "jump"/thrilling moments! Now, I saw the play first, and when I saw the movie I knew that Roat was going to jump out and grab Audrey, but I jumped nevertheless. It is one terrifing moment! They would DEFINATELY have to keep that. Overall, I think this movie is a 4-star gem (a definate classic), but there are some ways to improve it.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Pamsanalyst 19 years ago

There are probably better villains around today than those in 1967, though what was admirable about Arkin, Weston and company was their avoidance of playing their roles over the top, but no matter what, there is no Audrey in today's world.

Remakes must bring out something new, but sometimes in doing that, they fail. Scorcese's Cape Fear does not work because the story is purely good versus evil, but in his version he casts subtle doubts about whether Nolte played fair when he sent deNiro away. Nolte can never have the driven purity of Peck. We can argue all we want over DeNiro versus Mitchum, but when you put both actors next to the 12 year old girl, I know which one scares me more.

Wait until Dark was a stage play and Young for the most part kept it one, using basically one set. For a remake of a play that is far better than the original, A Perfect Murder trumps Hitchcock's filming of Dial M for Murder hands down. Part of it is a better cast, but part is the result of opening up the film and making the three characters more than cardboard.

It is hard to see how Wait until Dark will ever be anything but a filmed play, so let's leave it be.

[–] blizzardo62 19 years ago

I say they re release it into theaters, as to wash the stink out of the eyes of todays viewers. I would love to see this in theaters.

[–] BlazenItaliano 19 years ago

they did remake it....the remake was never popular, and i dont no if it was even released but its called "nowhere in sight". if you want to see the trailer for it, here is the link:

http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/trailer.html?v_id=244448

[–] tvashtar2919 19 years ago

Every time a studio thinks about remaking a classic, they should just stop. A better plan would be to reissue the original and show it at the theater again. They could clean it up a little digitally, to justify the new release, but do not damage the original. Most remakes are poor imitations of the real thing.

[–] kirilov74 19 years ago

False, a far more accurate statement would be that they should not remake this film under any circumstances. To hell with all remakes! Get your own goddamned movie!

[–] krajackex 19 years ago

NO. NO. NO. NO. They absolutely NO WAY should make a remake. When you have something amazing, you keep it that way. Or are you the type who thinks Gone with the Wind and Citizen Kane and the Godfather should be remade? You do not ever remake classics like that.

[–] ThePJN 19 years ago

I consider Escape From LA a semi-remake like Evil Dead 2 is to The Evil Dead.

:)

[–] hucklecat03 19 years ago

Good God NO! Hollywood and mindless directors need to STOP remaking great films and try to come up with new ones. Remakes show no creativity or intelligence and 99.9% of them destroy the original. Leave a good thing alone.

[–] usersince03 18 years ago

If they ever did remake Wait Until Dark I'd like to see Johnny Depp as Roat

[–] rsimard 18 years ago

No way! It would be like repainting the Mona Lisa.

There are some updates that could be done with the play, though, perhaps keeping it in the period but adding a few bits to cover things that younger viewers might miss, for example, explicitly establishing the sense of an apartment with one wired telephone to help them not only know, but feel, the isolation in a time when cell and wireless phones, and even the expectation of an extension in every room, was in the future; also, in a similar fashion, to emphasize for dramatic purposes the nature of fuses in the fuse panel which cannot be simply flipped back like circuit breakers.

I don't think trying to update it to take place in modern times would work well, but who knows? Perhaps in the hands of the right adaptation it would.

But as for the movie: a thousand times, no!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ReasonlsOutToLunch 16 years ago

I agree with everyone that said they should rerelease it to theatres. That should be the new trend instead of issuing botched remakes.

[–] SavageBeauty 16 years ago

ben152 said :"Well the show most recently had Marissa Tomei and Quintin Tatantino as the principal characters."

Yes, this was back ten years ago in 1998. I actually tried to see this on the stage on Braodway in New York City that summer - in fact, I bought tickets and everything. Can't remember exactly what happened, but the show was totally cancelled.

[–] caprice1221 14 years ago

Only way this movie could remade, is Johnny Depp played Mr. Roat, even with his talent could not be as believable grim, nasty Alan Arkin.
Susie no one could played her, better or equal to Audry Hepburn.

If they did do a remake, they would have to figure out why Susie would send Gloria to a Bus Terminal late at night, today this would not be done, or they have to keep it in this time setting 1967, where trust still existed for thirteen year old girls could be selling club scout cookies early part of evening in New York.