Remake it with George and Brad
Before they get too old.
shareWhy?
share
MovieChat Forums > The Sting (1973) Discussion > Remake it with George and Brad
Plenty of films out there need a remake and most remakes are horrible. They should leave this alone, it's perfect. No one could outdo that cast.
When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads.
-Ron Paul
I don't think there's anything wrong with remaking a film like this. Remakes often times opens the younger audience to explore the older versions (something that they would probably never do, unless it gets remade or if they're INTO films).
The Sting is a great film and anyone who has seen it would agree. But to me, it's not one of those films that you CAN'T touch. To me, examples of those "untouchable" films that you shouldn't remake are films like Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Bladerunner, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Psycho!, or even (for the future) The Big Lebowski. LOL! Now those films shouldn't be touched and I don't think it can be.
But, to each's own. That's just my opinion.
You're right about those films you listed that's for sure.
When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads.
-Ron Paul
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid? You think that's better than The Sting? Really? Also, The Godfather and The French Connection should go on that list, among others.
shareI agree, in point of fact, with kstrtroi. But, on that list of untouchable films, there is at least one that has been remade. Psycho. And I have not, nor will not, see it on principle.
A shot for shot remake? Really? Why?
[deleted]
Pitt's like in his 40's now isn't he? He's definitely not a kid. But yeah he looks just like Redford so it's hard to imagine anyone else for Hooker. Clooney doesn't have the chops to fill Newman's shoes. He would look silly in comparison. Let me guess, Don Cheadle as Luther?
shareHaha, funny. Don Cheadle?! Why not. Implying that I'm simply taking the Ocean's Eleven cast and rehashing it. Nah, it was always about the chemistry of the actors.
I agree, Clooney doesn't not LOOK like Newman. Nobody can replace anybody, certainly not Newman that's for sure.
It's the essence of the character that Newman gave to Henry Gondorff. I think there are many aspects of Gondorff's character that Clooney can achieve. Again, doesn't LOOK like him, but I think he can act like him.
Oh! and Doyle Lonnegan played by Jared Harris. hehe.
Of course this is just a fantasy, so I'll leave it at that.
Remakes are a good idea in one sense, in that it opens ti up to a new contemporary audience. And in any case it is not as though remakes are a new concept: it's been going on for decades.
The purists will of course moan (myself included), but then again we do have the option of not watching the remake. So even if they did remake The Sting, Blade Runner, Jaws, The Godfather et al, I still have the option of refusing to watch them: preferring instead to sticking with the original (even if the remake should actually be better!)
Sometimes, living in denial is a good thing :)
And I looked & I beheld a pale horse & the name that sat on him was Death & Hell followed with him.
Yeah...I've seen enough of those two.
I don't really agree with this concept that remakes "open up" the story to younger audiences. That might have been true when there was no such thing as VHS, DVDs, Netflix, streaming movies, etc. and the only way they could see the story was if it was remade or they caught it in TV. But the original movies are readily available to anyone, of any age, in a wide variety of formats. Anyone so closed minded that they won't watch a movie made before 1990 deserves to miss out.
Besides, I'd rather chew tin foil than watch George Clooney mug and smirk his way through The Sting. Anyway, they tried to "squeal" The Sting, and it bombed.
I don't really agree with this concept that remakes "open up" the story to younger audiences being rubbish. That might have been true when there was no such thing as VHS, DVDs, Netflix, streaming movies, etc. and the only way they could see the story was if it was remade or they caught it in TV. But the original movies are readily available to anyone, of any age, in a wide variety of formats. Anyone so closed minded that they won't watch a movie made before 1990 deserves to miss out.
Besides, I'd rather chew tin foil than watch George Clooney mug and smirk his way through The Sting. Anyway, they tried to "squeal" The Sting, and it bombed.
Sorry to reply to a post which is about 2 years old, but I absolutely agree with you about the whole concept of remakes opening up the story to younger audiences. In my experience remakes do more damage than good as I know many people who don't want to see the original after having seen the remake, because the original is "old" and hasn't got e.g. George Clooney or some other current popular actors/actresses, over the top GCI effects, a modern soundtrack, etc. No matter how great (and usually much better than the remake) the original is, they refuse to watch it or are so biased they complain about the most ridiculous things (especially the movie looking old, or the "unknown" old actor not looking as good as some current Hollywood heartthrob) or start laughing because of the old-fashioned haircuts, clothes, etc., which IMHO isn't just incredibly annoying but also very childish.
And of course there are many people who don't even know that a film they like is a remake. E.g., I know several people who love "The Wicker Man" with Nicholas Cage and never have heard about the original and will most likely never see it, as it's only available on DVD with German subtitles (which puts many people off).
I don't know whether it's the same in other countries, but I've noticed in German TV that remakes often start replace the originals, which either vanish completely, only are on TV once in a blue moon or/and late at night or in the early morning hours, when most people are asleep.
E.g. you can watch "The Jackal" with Bruce Willis several times a year and usually between prime time and midnight, while "The Day of The Jackal" with Edward Fox is only on once in a blue moon and usually after 3a.m.
Somebody has posted on another message board something like "This film needs a remake like the works of Shakespeare need re-writing". And I think it's true that there is no need to remake a good or great film!
I most definitely wouldn't want to watch a remake of "The Sting" and George Clooney and Brad Pitt are definitely no substitute for Newman and Redford. I think Clooney and Pitt are overrated (IMHO they are only mediocre actors) and over-exposed. Some people just seem to adore them because they are supposedly good-looking (I don't agree). share
This is my favorite film of all time so I would be vehemently opposed to a remake. That being said, the ONLY choice to play Luther should be James Earl Jones. Be interesting (to me) to see if he plays it the way his father did or changes it up.
shareHaving Clooney's name mentioned with Paul Newman's turns my stomach a bit.
Brad Pitt is an actor who seems to choose good projects and doesn't need to be a glamour boy.
But, please, no remake!
Yes, sir, I'm going to do nothing like she's never been done before!
Problem being that no one in Hollywood is good enough to play Doyle Lonnegan. The one I can see in that role is Tim Roth but his physique is all wrong. Ya folla?
My "3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.
They were in Ocean's Eleven - a good movie based on a similar idea.
It is often good if the idea behind a movie is developed in a different direction; - that often makes for a better film than a remake.
Too many pointless remakes out there already, and as John Huston once said (and I'm paraphrasing), if you're going to insist on remaking something, pick a movie that was bad the first time around. It's not even like anyone can whine about the original looking "dated"....it was SUPPOSED to look dated.
shareWhy must so many people expect every film to get a remake!? When a film is close to being perfect, leave it alone. Just remake maligned films.
Plus, the film has Newman & Redford...that alone should make it off limits.
George & Brad? Really? Not even close.
Yeah! - I see where you're coming from!
1. A remake should have a more successful director than George Roy Hill. He only achieved a pathetic 13 Academy Awards, 4 Golden Globes & 9 BAFTAs during his career.
2. There are better actors around than Robert Redford & the late Paul Newman. What a pair of B-grade actors they were. I can't see any reason why either of them should have won so many awards.
3. The music soundtrack should be either rap or hip-hop music. Who needs composers like Scott Joplin who wrote music rag-time from the period. Perhaps Eminem could do a better arrangement than Marvin Hamlish.
4. Any remake should do better than the original which only won a measely 7 Academy awards from 10 nominations at the 1973 Academy Awards.
5. Like all remakes, it will become the most successful film Hollywood had ever produced. Nothing pleases the bankers of the Hollywood studios than all the excessive profits that the studios generate from remakes.
Should I go on or may I switch off the imdb cynical response generator now :)
What I originally wanted to ask was "whÿ?", but others have posted the same question.
Locked my wire coat-hanger in the car - good thing that I always carry spare keys in my pocket :)