Not saying that I want them to, but it seems like one of those movies that would have a remake in development right now. You know the kind, the kind where they originally say it "isn't a remake, but a new adaptation of the original novel" but turns out to be neither. I'm neither in support of this nor am I against it, I'm just suprised it hasn't happened yet.
All the Young Dudes Carry the News
[deleted]
I'm surprised as well. Of course, I said that about The Great Gatsby and now they're remaking it, so I probably shouldn't muse about these things too loudly online.
Actually, I wouldn't object to a MASH remake. The 1970 movie is a product of its time and hasn't aged well, so MASH could use an revamp. It's not one of those timeless movies where studios have nothing to justify a remake besides a desire for more $$$.
The problem here is with the kind of people in charge of studios today and the type of low-brow audiences they appeal to (just look at this board where people are suggesting Will Ferrell for a "zany" remake), I'm afraid they'd screw it up. I really would like to see a new version of MASH that's closer to the original novel (focusing on the book characters, not ones created for the 1970 movie or 1980s TV show!), and depict a much more realistic 1950s setting of "the forgotten war", Korea, instead of a thinly-veiled attempt to make the war setting contemporary and comment on present-day events (like Afghanistan or Libya or whatever).
I think it's funny how studios get all anal and insist "this is NOT a remake, it's a reboot/reimagining/new adaptation of the book/etc., as if the previous film has no impact in what they do with the new movie. As I noted, I would clearly try to go in a direction closer to the book but I wouldn't pretend the existing MASH franchise doesn't exist. I'd be fine with a few subtle references to the 1970 movie and/or TV show, and maybe even cameos from Donald Sutherland, Alan Alda, and Gary Burghoff. I'd ever incorporate a new, darker version of the "Suicide is Painless" theme (maybe work it into the end credits instead of the intro), and probably use it in a different context during the film than the way the 1970 movie showed it.
And an R-rating and realistic violence is a must, mobile hospital units in the early 50s weren't a pretty picture. One thing it would have in common with the 1970 is the basic idea that while the film is a dark comedy, it also shows the horrors of war.
The 1970 movie is a product of its time and hasn't aged well, so MASH could use an revamp. It's not one of those timeless movies where studios have nothing to justify a remake besides a desire for more $$$.
-----------
Gulp.
Yikes, all I can say is that you are entitled to your opinion, but I hope you do realize that there are many out there who cannot imagine how you can possibly think that.
I think this is one of the best movies I've ever seen. I've probably seen it, in whole or in part, 20 or 30 times, and I think it holds up in every particular. I haven't watched it for a couple years, but I suspect current circumstances will only make it feel even more relevant.
There is not a chance in He// that a remake could even begin to approach the brilliance of the original.
You're entitled to your opinion as well, but I haven't met a lot of people who are huge fans of the 1970 film. The TV show it was based on tends to get aired a lot more and noticed, especially the 1983 final episode which took years to be topped on television for number of viewers. The 1970 film was a huge hit in its day but it’s kind of a cult classic now. It's not "timeless" like other films of the era, say The Godfather or 2001: A Space Odyssey.
M*A*S*H is supposed to be about the Korean War and take place about 1950, but the filmmakers obviously wanted it to be a commentary about Vietnam and went out their way to make it look like it was taking place in the year it was filmed, 1970. (did anyone have sideburns like that in 1950? I don't think so!) So now the movie looks dated anytime it’s viewed after 1970, just like “Dracula A.D. 1972” was already dated by 1975. For modern audiences, M*A*S*H looks like a Vietnam War period pierce.
I thought the film had a few funny scenes but overall it never connected with me. And what's with the ending of the film? They do a trailer for the movie M*A*S*H over the loudspeakers. What kind of ending was that? The only time I liked a film being self-referential was the gag in Spaceballs where Dark Helmet watches Spaceballs to figure out what he should do next.
OK, how is it supposed to work here - a 1970 movie reflecting the fashions & sensibilities of 1970 is "dated" while a 1970 movie depicting 1950 fashions and sensibilities, would not be "dated"? Could you define the difference here? But I agree that time has probably changed a lot the way we view the film now as it certainly doesn´t seem as fresh, original or shocking as it, by all accounts, did in 1970; it´s because of this matter of attitude that it may indeed come across as somewhat dated, not some guy having sideburns. Personally, I consider both MASH & Nashville, Altman´s 2 biggest successes in the 70´s, somewhat overrated. Prefer stuff like The Long Goodbye, Images, 3 Women.
And, of course, 2001 is "timeless" only because it invents an aesthetic of its own.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
"There is not a chance in He// that a remake could even begin to approach the brilliance of the original. "
So I'd say it'd pretty much be a waste of time/money to do a remake. The avid fans would never be satisfied. And folks like me that didn't like the first one very much would avoid a remake unless it was being watch on a tv where I was a captive audience.
It is fascinating how tastes can vary so much. Your take is this is the best movie you've seen. I liked it a little but have never had the desire to see it again...at all. It's not a bad movie, there are some well known stars in it. But for me, there are too many movies out there to waste my time on this one.
I suspect it's because the TV series was sort of a "remake" of the movie already.
I hope they don't remake the movie, because I don't like recycling of the classics. Just remake the bad movies, which can be improved upon. Movies like MASH, The Wild Bunch, Straw Dogs, The Bad News Bears, etc, should have been left alone. There's no point in remaking perfect works of art.
The Wild Bunch hasn't been remade yet, and hopefully, it never will. (I didn't care for the movie, but that was because I saw it on free late-night TV and it was badly edited.)
share