Every hollywood remake of brillant british films ends up being <crap>!!!!!
Heres what happens.
Bad director can't think of a film to make so he goes and finds a good british film and thinks "i'll put more guns and explosions in it and change the script enough that it makes no sence and the get some crappy actors, oh yeah and set it in the USA. That'll make a good film that millions of tastless people will go and see."
[deleted]
hailiamdigby,
I would agree with you. Let me say this first: almost all remakes tend to stink like hell. I've seen some of the movies in your list:
Ocean's Eleven, I agree the remake beat it.
The Ring, It wasn't better but the remake and original are equally good.
Get Carter, the remake stank because of Sly Stallone's boorish acting.
However, despite having a long experience with British films (and by that, I don't mean anything with James Bond), I found the 1969 version odd and choppy. The ending was also bad. When Michael Caine finally said his last line, I went "Huh? That's it?" The new one is barely related. The only thing similar was the use of Mini Coopers to haul the gold. What made it better was the scene cutting and F. Gary Gray's decision to NOT use special effects. What you see is real! He even sent Charlize Theron to locksmith school so I don't think she was totally faking it when she broke into the Worthington safe at the end. You should see a documentary on the F. Gary Gray remake. It's fascinating to watch. I cringe whenever someone announces a remake being released but The Italian Job was one of the better ones. The only thing that worries me is that they're making a sequel. I definitely will NOT be going to see that!
[deleted]
No the original rocks and the 2003 remake is Hollywood humdrum and even the Mini Coopers are BMW's too.
As for the cliff hanger ending to the original, well the director Peter Collinson liked his cliff hangers, well have you seen one of the other movies he did called "Straight On Till Morning" (1972)? Did he kill her or not? Well I think he did anyway!
"You're Only Supposed To Blow The Bloody Doors Off!"
[deleted]
Well "Straight On Till Morning" generally left you wondering what had happened next, because the main character was begging for her life and then the end titles came up and all you saw was the psychological killer sitting in his empty house.
So yes I guess it was a "cliff hanger" ending metaphorically speaking and nobody was hanging off a cliff.
Great classic film, but very cruel too and they definitly don't make them like that anymore.
"You're Only Supposed To Blow The Bloody Doors Off!"
Hey, taffy_turner, just wanted to say thanks for calling us "stupid Yanks" so many times. That's helpful, and it has a lot of credibility coming from a faceless message board poster. So, really, thanks. I'm turning over a whole new leaf now--no more stupidity for me! Also, it was great of you to make a joke about the Challenger explosion. That wasn't at all inappropriate.
By the way, I scanned through the rest of this thread, and I want to congratulate you on finally figuring out the difference between "Your" and "You're" in your signature line. It took you a little while, but the fact that you finally worked it out is really a testament to your superior intelligence. Let me know who pointed it out to you, and I'll congratulate them, as well. And don't let that pesky "two," "too," and "to" thing get you down--I know you'll get it eventually!
Again, thanks.
[deleted]
Goal: "pointing out the fact that the USA isn't perfect and has made many mistakes."
Let's consider our options.
Option 1: You say, "The USA isn't perfect and has made many mistakes." We say, "We know."
Option 2: Make an insensitive comment (I believe it was "Challenger Shuttle Firework") about a tragedy that deeply affected millions of people.
Good call.
I don't know what comments in particular have "got up your nose," but I don't really see how what you said balances against someone maligning a British movie. That could be just me, though.
Anyway firstly "to" is generally used "too" means many or also etc and "two" means the number 2!
Oh and someone from the USA did slag off the UK unnecessarily (I can't be bothered to go looking for the post), so I was just being abusive back that's really all.
At least we're united in the fight against terrorism eh?
"You're Only Supposed To Blow The Bloody Doors Off!"
I declare this topic Flamebait.
share[deleted]
Well i'm truly shocked, what a comeback, but hang on Alens and Terminator 2 weren't remakes, they were follow up's or whatever.
Anyway not all Americans are dum yanks as I have family across the pond and their very nice too, but unfortunatly or fortunatly depends how you look at it really, "The Italian Job" (1969) is my favourite movie, so that's why i'm bleating on like a 4 year old I guess.
Oh and I could mention "The Wicker Man" (1973) being remade badly too, but i'm not! ;O)
"You're Only Supposed To Blow The Bloody Doors Off!"
From a British view, I think that they really should have changed the name.
It's got nothing to with Italy. Nothing happens in between to countries and it all happens within the US.
I would be happy if they left the Italian Job alone as a Brtish film and make a new movie for americans.
I feel the name is causing a lot of trouble. Don't think of the movie, think of the name.
I still am looking forward to the movie because it's nice to see some comparison from British 1969 to America 2003.
No comparison, but I'd have prefered it if they'd carried on where the original left off and given us the answer many have been asking for the past 37 years.
i.e. "What sort of bloody ending is that!" and "What happened afterwards????"
So I think Hollywood missed a golden opportunity to answer many questions and come up with an all new storyline to suit too.
"You're Only Supposed To Blow The Bloody Doors Off!"
[deleted]
No worries Winston and I appologize too for getting into a flame war and saying things that I really didn't mean.
"You're Only Supposed To Blow The Bloody Doors Off!"
Throughout history films, plays and literature have always taken ideas from earlier material. What matters is whether remade films are any good in their own right, not how they compare to the original. Most of the stories in Shakespeares plays are taken from earlier sources such as Ovid, but nobody complains about that.
shareI haven't read through all of the posts but there have been quite a few american remakes of british films. Three of which star michael cain, the italien job of course (which we are talking about) which destroys the original of being a more cat burgular esque film rather than an all action 'cough' thriller. Then there was Alfie yet again this is set in the states yet oh my gosh they have a brit as the lead odd, with michael cain appearing as a cameo i believe. then the worst remake in history ( i read that somewhere) a classic tough cockney brit film Get carter and now theres sylvester salone again with cain in cameo. Other ones include Tom hanks and co ruining the wit of the ladkillers, H.G well's classic story ripped of its roots and plonked into new york with yet again an american lead and now the beloved wicker man jealous of its errie horror which has inspired many horror movies with folowed the 'yanks' have to set it once again in america and to further annoy the lead character's surname is the same as the actor who played the original policeman, Edward Woodward.
Foreign films aren't safe such as the russian film solyaris rewored and re-made into solaris and Purple noon is now the talented mr ripley. And the thing i really hate is when there is a new brit film there always has to be an american starring in it as one of the lead characters just so it will appeal to them e.g four wedding and a funeral and notting hill. Just imagine if we took singin in the rain gave them some cockney accents and have the actors dance around trafalgar square, maybe recreate the godfather down the east end with a charlie boy gang, dances with wolves set on dartmoor and maybe we should change citizen kanes chracter into a bumbling oxford professor. there would be such uproar among the american public and government and they'd probably get the fbi involved to shut down production, don't like it when it happens to you eh??
i will grant that a few of shakespeares plays had characters etc taken from myths and legends of english, scottish, dannish and greek mythology and history but it was his work as a playwright which created some of the finest literature the world has known. It was his dialogue and character interaction, how he portrayed human nature and emotion which is so evident, the stories which may have been used were expanded and given depth and feeling rather than copied and slightly tweaked. I am only 18, i'm into video games, biking, bowling going out drinking etc but i have to say i love hamlet and midsommers nights dream.
Sorry to change the subject of re-made british films but if you look at the bible tales were taken from local sources and expaned into biblical disaster etc and god, jesus and other holy mythical or non-mythical were shoved in. E.g. noah ark and the flood was based on a farmer, his family and his cattle having a small flood i think because of irrigation on ther land.
As to your first post, charliee-2, asking how Americans would feel if you remade Singing in the Rain or other American movies...um, we wouldn't care. If British moviemakers think they can do a better job, I'm sure we'd invite them to be our guests. If it were lame, we'd make fun of it, of course, but we wouldn't say that they shouldn't be allowed to do it. Likewise, if it was great, I'm sure we'd say so.
As for the second post --"i [sic] will grant that a few of shakespeares [sic] plays had characters etc [sic] taken from myths and legends of english [sic], scottish [sic], dannish [sic] and greek mythology and history"--actually, most of Shakespeare's work (including not just characters but entire storylines) was taken from other sources, including his prose and poetry work. I'm not saying that he wasn't a great artist, or that his work should be held in lower esteem because of it, I'm just wanting all of the facts to be straight here.
If Shakespeare can be allowed to take already-existing stories, and work them into his own wonderful dialogue and character interaction, and be called a genius for it (and rightly so), then filmmakers, of whatever nationality, should be allowed the same freedom. It may not always work out like Shakespeare's Henry V did, but I don't see why y'all are getting so bent out of shape when they take a shot at it.
My point exactly.
shareI would like to say i'm sorry execudiva5, sometimes i can go over the top about things (its the scottish, irish, french and italian blod mixing you see) Its just with all remakes really it seems like people are running out of ideas for new innovative movies, i'll grant there have been a few that have shone out of the mist but it seems that all there is to come back to is sequels or remakes. But still the work he produced was not directly copied but researched bringing stories from other countries to the stage in britain so that we could hear about them, hamlet isn't set in lancashire is it now? Thomas Nashe supposedly wrote Ur-Hamlet about the historical figure before shakespeare, it was never published, shakespeare did his own version on the dannish king, there is also comparisons that nashe made to 'the spanish tragedy by kyd' but at this time nashe is quite bitter about Shakespeares version on the historical figure and since there is no evidence to support nashe with no published ur-hamlet or surviving spanish tragedy i believe nashe to be Jealous and thinks William stole his idea.
And with remade british films i can see they are not copied but are brought up to date which to me with the change of directing doesn't do the originals justice. Also the fact that shakespeare had a multitiude of friends from sailor explores to royalty in which many tales and characters may have been used to develop his work, as many writers now a days base their characters on people they have met and situations they had seen or been in, I still stand that his works are his and on the BBC there were modernised versions of his classic plays which were actually rather entertaining.
Sorry to go on here but king lear is based on the Pre-Roman british King Leir (no copying there just using a character), macbeth the story is worked around real life King James VI of Scotland, A Midsummer Night's Dream has references of Pyramus and Thisbe and Apuleius' The Golden Ass; e.g. character bottom in which shakepeare studied in school and Henry V is based on the real life king befoer and after the Battle of Agincourt which he had known from school. Sorry to bore you but needed to get my sources across.
I'm not arguing with you that Shakespeare's works were based on other sources--I already knew that, and you're just making my point. When Shakespeare "remakes" older stories, his work is still his, but when an American filmmaker remakes a British film, all of a sudden they've committed some huge crime? What's up with that?
You said yourself that "with remade british films i can see they are not copied but are brought up to date" just like you say Shakespeare's work wasn't directly copied. Would you rather they were just copied word for word and scene for scene? If they were going to do that, then why would they bother doing the remake?
And as for doing the originals justice...you know, what does that even mean? If the original British versions of these movies are so good, how does doing a remake diminish that? If the remake is bad, you should be glad that it makes the British version look even better and you can assert your filmmaking superiority over the Americans. I have a feeling many of the people posting on this board (and I'm not in any way indicting the whole of the British people) would say they were bad just because they have some unreasonable bias against American films.
I agree that there are a lot of remakes and sequels, and I find it annoying, too, but just because I'd rather filmmakers tried to think of something new and original. But, seriously, if British filmmakers and French filmmakers or Tunisian filmmakers went on a tear of remaking American films, I really wouldn't care a bit. If that's just me, someone can feel free to let me know. I'm just not getting all of this nationalist animosity that seems to be going around over just movies. Very strange to me.
In any event, you don't have to apologize to me. I don't think you said anything that I found offensive.
Its just the fact with films i feel differently, with plays to me they are works of art that are mean't to be reproduced and played around the world. A film is something that is done once and captured on film, video, dvd etc and then it goes into cinema history to be viewed my many audiences over again and again. With a novel it would be seen a plaugerism e.g. the fiasco with Dan browns Da Vinci Code against the holy grail holy blood (or whatever it is called)
With my blood made up of seven countries (all of which in the past 150years, hope this sounds right) irish, french, italien, english, spanish, welsh, nordic, scottish I am nowhere near a nationalist. Don't really give a hoot (i'm quite lucky rooting for the teams in the six nations rugby championships, anyway thats besides the point)
I don't like any remake of any film from any era or country, to me its set in stone and with new directors wanting to try adding extra scenes to build the story of the original further, it just doesn't need tampering with. I'm not saying that british films are better (sorry if i put that across), i love a lot of american films godfather trilogy, taxi driver, aliens, eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, being john malkovich there are so many great titles. Its just quite a few brit films have been remade and i think why? (and since I am a citizen of the u.k born here instantly you think they don't like the original since its not american made etc) whats the point all that money and creative genious could be spent on producing yet another blockbuster e.g. interesting one i've heard about 'little miss sunshine'
With remakes you always get this 'its not going to be as good as the original' and they can it before its released its because reviewers will always compare to the original because thats the original source. Plays on the whole are mean't to be reproduced with its original text and passion, exceptions with modernised versions to me this is different. To me remade films have the great story already there, less money spent to create a new plot its easy with material there to work from.
I'm really enjoying this healthy debate with you (although many of my words may be flawed since my mate thinks people who did not take philosophy at A- level cannot argue and have not been trainned, boo sucks to him)
Looking forward to your reply :)
I can just see some U.S. movie executives at a meeting and one of them says: "You know, we could make a lot of money if we remake this British film." And another one of them says: "No, that wouldn't be artistically pure, and some Brits might not like it. We better not." And then they decide not to.
Is that your hope?
I didn't read the whole thing, but I'm seeing a lot of: my country is better than your country! nyah nyah nyah!
How immature, are we back in the first grade?
Guaranteed to blow your mind
R.I.P. Steve Irwin
Well if you read the more recent posts you'll see everything becomes sorted.
Anyway it's 5 years to the day today of 911 and whilst the UK and the USA continue to fight Terrorism together, let's hope we never get complacant like before and allow such an attrocity to ever occure again.
Take care & keep safe everyone!
"You're Only Supposed To Blow The Bloody Doors Off!"
[deleted]
Ok this is how I see the name justified. (I am also going to concede that I a. have never seen the original, sorry; and b. I actually did love the remake, sorry.)
The gold bars which were the McGuffin running the plotline were stolen in a memorable heist in Venice, Italy. The original heist then was the "Italian Job" which all of them were supposed to benefit from. Seeing that Steve had other plans, the consumation of the heist was not complete until the gold was distributed more-or-less in the originally agreed-upon fashion (unfortunately minus two). The gold bars themselves were also "The Italian Job."
I'm not going to get into the whole "you stole our film" argument.
[deleted]
"... let's hope we never get complacant like before and allow such an attrocity to ever occure again."
Are you kidding? Everybody's complacent. Likewise, complacency is only part of the problem. But, I'm not going to get into that because this post will end up looking like a fifth grade history lesson than anything...
"It is such a mystery why you don't have a girlfriend, Lyle."
[deleted]
Hear, hear to ignatiogran - especially the comment about the French!!
shareHOW ABOUT EVERYONE STOP WITH ALL THE BRITISH FILS ARE BETTER AMERICAN FILMS ARE BETTER BULLSHI* AND ENJOY THE DAMN MOVIE GOD GROW UP!!
shareYea leave British film alone(I'm an Aussie)This was nothing like the original & why was that bimbo(springbok)in it! What legendary actor was in this film(none)only a dumb Yank would not agree with the topic of this post!
shareI can't wait to see the Sense & Sensibility remake starring Lindsey Lohan and Ashton Kutcher.
shareAt least they're only stealing everyone's films, and not everyone's country. Bloody poms.
When the *beep* did we get ice-cream?
At least they're only stealing everyone's films, and not everyone's country. Bloody poms.
"True and I was forgetting the fact America doesn't get involved with the affairs of other countries and tends to keep itself to itself!"
I do hope you're being sarcastic. I am what y'all would call a Yank, but even I hate that aspect of our foreign policy. Take it from one American: America should stay at home! We cause more trouble by ambling through other people's backyards with our tanks and guns and our so-called Democracy (which in itself is not even correct because we're a Republic, not a Democracy). It has been said that we brought 911 on ourselves, that our government's foreing policy was the reason that got all those people killed, and you know something? It's true! Exactly how long have we been bombing and harassing those people over there? Please understand, I don't exactly agree with their way of promoting their faith, but give me a break! People can only take so many bombs chunked into their faces before they're gonna do something about it.
Right. Now. Where were we? I believe there was something of a discussion about a movie going on...? :)
waaahhhh, waaaahhhhhh, waaaaahhhhhhh.
all of you continental types are a bunch of sissies. we're bigger, louder, rasher, ruder, but stronger, more resilient, quicker and feistier than you.
we have good qualities and bad. but while you're still discussing this - we're off exploring Mars or invading another country or something.
so nuts to you. pansies.
A continental is an inhabitant of a continent i believe that america is a contenent, france is exploring mars, Italians are louder, Worlds strongest men tends to be polish, the worlds fastest man is said to be 'Jamaican sprinter Asafa Powell: the world's fastest man.'. For resilient,do some reserch on the last 2500 years of the differant countries in europe. i'd say they are much more resilient. But yes you get the prize for bigger,rasher and ruder. so waaahhhh, waaaahhhhhh, waaaaahhhhhhh.
A continental is an inhabitant of a continent i believe that america is a contenent, france is exploring mars, Italians are louder, Worlds strongest men tends to be polish, the worlds fastest man is said to be 'Jamaican sprinter Asafa Powell: the world's fastest man.'. For resilient,do some reserch on the last 2500 years of the differant countries in europe. i'd say they are much more resilient. But yes you get the prize for bigger,rasher and ruder. so waaahhhh, waaaahhhhhh, waaaaahhhhhhh.
This film isn't really a remake. The only things that are the same as the original are the title and the minis. I prefer the original but for a heist film, this is not that bad. Very slick!
shareYea ur not wrong there about the cook guy, he was annoying!
"I'm equal to Superman"
this film is an outrage. it should never have been called the american job, it has no reference to the original film and that includes the cars (another outrage, for another time). why where minis in the original again, for the incocievibly small spaces in which they had to drive through during the chase and to fit all three cars in the back of a coach. why were they needed in the remake, they weren't. a ford transit probably would of done the job nicley or maybe even a flatbed or failing either of thoose two probably an 18 wheeler would of worked, in fact probally leaving well alone would just of been better. theres a valuable lesson to be learnt from this somewhere, i like to think of it as the american touch bit like the midas touch, except instead of gold everything they touch turns to sh*t.
share[deleted]
It wasn't that bad of a movie. What is up with the direct attack of america, I take it there was already some hatred there and this was just a reason to go off. If our movies are so bad then why to they tend to do better world wide then most movies from other countires. Note that I say they "tend to" and not always. Stop hating over a movie man.
shareguns and explosives? this movie had... what..? one gun scene it. And yes i do agree that this movie was pretty boring, however dont bash the actors alot of them are great.
share"If our movies are so bad then why do they tend to do better world wide than most movies from other countries"
Erm, because many producers, screenwriters, and directors from all over the world are working in Hollywood, and have done for years which is why many Hollywood films have something for everyone. Or used to anyway. Most of what's made now is crap. That's why most people refer to them as Hollywood movies and not American ones.
"...a ford transit probably would of done the job nicley or maybe even a flatbed..." etc. etc.
How 'bout a Hummer? That would have been fun.