The Hot Blog

Why am I hearing rumors of a remake of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid?

Starring Matt Damon and Ben Affleck?

Redford even had to answer that question. Can you possibly believe it?

Why is Butch Cassidy an untouchable? It's based on a true story...it should be remade at will.

Some movies are sacred. I wouldn't want to see Ben Affleck try to be Charles Foster Kane and I wouldn't want to see Jennifer Aniston play Scarlett O'Hara. Some things should just not be done. Butch and Sundance are sacred to me.

What?? You don't want to see Pauly Shore in "Lawrence of Arabia"???

Now that would be comedy. I always thought they shouldn't do pure remakes. But do remakes with bizarre casts and make them totally off the wall. New concepts and takes on originals.

You better get used to the idea of them remaking everything. Because there is only one thing that motivates studios and execs. And that's money. And remakes of classics are huge moneymakers. Built in buzz. Great stories. Good parts for A list talent. The only question is why haven't they done more.

I get the whole thing with money. But what happend to artistic integrity? We throwing that out the window now?

Butch and Sundance are Ass and Ass. The most overrated movie of all time. A remake is needed.

I'm an artist. Therefore, I'm anti remakes anyway. Mostly hack jobs.

I know the business and I know they're coming and have already happend but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

There's no such thing as artistic integrity once millions of dollars start getting thrown around. It's a myth. Like "dry land".

I hope Hollywood doesn't steal my Pauly Shore "Lawrence of Arabia" idea.

"What?? You don't want to see Pauly Shore in "Lawrence of Arabia"???"

Sanchez, remind me to restrain myself from pushing you off a tall building.

and JoeFItz, i don't buy that reasoning for remakes--it's lazy and it's paint by the numbers, so some executives think it costs less. Plenty of remakes have lost money when you calculate P&A. And some of the goofy "reintepretations" and based on TV show movies have been dreadful moneylosers too (considered remakes by some) like Bewitched abd the Honeymooners.

What I would like to see remade are more mediocre-the-first-time-around movies. Thomas Crown affair was a good remake for example. I liked the latter better than the first by far, except the ending was slightly saccharine.

Butch and Sundance could use a remake=without all the cutesy annoying humor. So could a lot of 1950s and 1970s Sci fi except it would be ruined by CGI...and this sad lack of will to keep the "menace" in these 1970s horror-sci fi stories (like that Stepford Wives disaster).

I heard there's remake going for Don't be afraid fo the dark, and they better not CGI those scary little cocoanut raisin-headed ghouls.

Hey Lota don't get me wrong. I agree with you 110%. It is lazy and uninspired and paint by numbers. But these are Hollywood execs and studios we're talking about here. Doesn't that describe them to a T? They'd rather lose on a Stepford Wives with Nicole Kidman than something original. They're also chickens.

I want to see movies redone. Especially the B type films. Where you can improve on them so much with the new technology and talent. You can see where a movie went wrong and fix it.

Do we really need Butch and Sundance having sex in a tent? Come on people! The guy's name is BUTCH ferchristsakes.

Now a Smokey and The Bandit remake... I think we're on to something there.

Obviously, Burt Reynolds is playing Bandit. Even him in his old age could play that part in his sleep.

If Butch and Sundance go the route of Brokeback, that'd be really hot.

Gotta go take cold shower now.

In the future CGI will be advanced enough for CGI avatar versions of Redford and Newman to be placed into any compromising situation you could imagine.

Oh my freaking god, Oprah just gave her blessing to Brokeback by planning to have Jake, Heath, and Michelle together on one of her upcoming shows.

Say what you want about Oprah, but that just means a couple more million dollars for Brokeback.

not sure about sundance, but i'm glad to hear that BM will be #2 this weekend. Oh, wait.

Brokeback will probably also cross the $40m mark this weekend. And that's still before any Oscar nominations have been announced.

Is Oprah going to include Larry McMurtry books too? He could triple his already high number of sales.

No, I don't know about Larry McMurtry books but I highly doubt it. I'd imagine she has the cast of Brokeback on for the first 30 minutes of the hour. The second half of the hour would be about real-life stories of men having homosexual affairs behind their wives' backs. Typical Oprah style, you know.

It's every writers dream to be an Oprah book club selection. It increases sales like you wouldn't believe. It's like a Call from God being on there.
Everything she touches turns to gold. An amazing woman.

Ya, any author who says they DON'T want to be on Oprah's book club is a fool and big fat dirty liar. Say what you want about Oprah but she has quite possibly the biggest "pull" of any tv personality. Sure, a few might see a movie if Katie Curic says it's good. A few more might watch a certain program if some well-known critic says it's good. But if Oprah reads your book and she likes it... wowee.

And, the BBM team being on Oprah is only good news for the film. However, where's Ann Hathaway?!? She's getting royally gipped.

"Excrement + Fan = Tomorrow."

Could that be a teaser for a discussion about Brokeback Mountain reaching #1 at the box-office?? Or something else Sundance related?

No, no, Poland's excrement reference just means that the Festival proper starts tomorrow and he'll be trying to go to five movies a day and three parties a night for the next two weeks.

Sure, remakes are needless and often a waste of time and celluloid, but must we forget that this is been happening in the film industry since it first began? It's not a new concept by any means, which means the studio system isn't any less original than it was to begin with.

I think the remake situation is worse now than it was in years past. I can't recall a time when so many old properties were being strip-mined for 'reinventions'. Mostly it's being done purely for marketing tools, as with the "remake" of The Wild Bunch that's in the work that isn't even set in the old west. That's a remake in name only, to get the benefit of the marketing hook.

there will continue to be remakes because they're devoid of ideas. thinking of affleck in any paul newman role gives me the shakes.

Millions of readers do there reading by what Oprah recommends. She has the ability to make a writer.

The Poop hitting the fan has to be related to Aniston and all the baggage she brings.

I don't think I want to deal with remakes in the future. Eventually they're going to stop remaking crap and start remaking classics. Do I really want to see Colin Farrell in "Taxi Driver"? I don't. I may be naive but there are some things I just do not want to be a part of.

even don johnson is rolling over in his grave thinking about farrel taking over his signature role.

Give me remakes as long as they're good.

I can live with them. Even updating old tv shows into movies is fine with me as long as they're enjoyable and well done.

Don Johnson. Starring in CSI:MINNEAPOLIS. Catch it on CBS next fall.

Wasn't Don Johnson at the Golden Globes last week? Surely he can't be rolling in his grave this quickly after Monday night!

Remakes really do bother me on occasions, but other times not at all. It all depends on the property, the people involved. Sometimes they can make it better.

But it's not like Hollywood hasn't been remaking movies, deemed as classics, for decades. Hell, King Kong was remade in the 70s, as we all know!

The Anti remake chorus will get louder and stronger when they finally see their real favorites get remade. I don't think anyone was shedding tears about the remake of "Can't Buy Me Love" or "The Getaway" or "Thomas Crown Affair".

But "Psycho" really started this. First off, it brought nothing new to the table except novelty.

I've always wondered why the studios don't just take 1/4 of the money they spend on remakes, and create an audience for the original movie. Is it that hard to imagine a few marketing $$ leading to people going to see re-releases of older, well-loved movies? Didn't the money the Star Wars re-release made give anyone the idea to do this (on more than 3 screens at a time, i mean...)?

I can see the BC&SK marketing campaign now:
"See the original Brokeback! With no making out! Safe for heterosexuals!"

Some people just don't care for old movies or seeing stars that they don't know. They'd rather see Affleck and Damon than Redford and Newman.

Not a bad suggestion Kambei. Makes a ton of sense.

They won't do that because it's not in their economic plans. It doesn't make them enough money for them. They're better off recasting and shooting a new movie than selling both of them. For example, "The Manchurian Candidate".

The thing is, Kambei, that by making and marketing remakes, the effort _does_ publicize the old material as well. Not to as big of an extent, obviously. Besides, a current producer or studio head will be able to reap more income from something new than for something old, where all the residuals go to somebody's estate instead of into a new business relationship.

I have fallen for that kind of marketing. I bought "Alfie" and "Manchurian" when they both came out with their new versions. In essence I was supporting the old movies too. Which I thought were ten times better than both, by the way.

See a movie like Alfie was prime for a modern day take. If you watch the original now it is so freakin hilarious (in a bad way).

And also The Manchurian Candidate (of which I have seen neither version unfortunately) was redone to suit the current times and it proved equally relevant today as it did then (as I've read in reviews) so remakes like those I think aren't as bad. Hell, I even found novelty in the Pyscho remake. But I just hope it doesn't get too out of hand. 2007 apparently has remakes of two of my all-time favourite films to be released - "East of Eden" and Hitchcock's "The 39 Steps". The former to be directed by Ron Howard of all people.

I liked the Denzel version better than the Sinatra version. It just moved a little faster and was more off the wall. But Angela Lansbury was creepy as hell in the Sinatra one.

"Millions of readers do there reading by what Oprah recommends. She has the ability to make a writer."

I have one phrase for you: "A Million Little Pieces" -- exposed by The Smoking Gun as full of "A Million Little Lies".

Chucky, what's that meant to mean?

Still doesn't mean the book hasn't been a hit because of Oprah, which I believe was the point of the original quote you mentioned.

Besides, wasn't the book actually said to be fictionalised version of non-fiction events? Like most "based on true events" movies.

"Ya, any author who says they DON'T want to be on Oprah's book club is a fool and big fat dirty liar."

Tell that to Jonathan Franzen.

That Smoking Gun article about Frey and "A Million Little Pieces" was hilarious. What a fraud. And there's a big difference between minor embellishment in nonfiction and fullout bullshit artistry, i.e. Frey. Plus the guy wrote Kissing a Fool. Ha.

Oh god, he deserves everything he gets if he wrote Kissing a Fool. That movie was horrible. How many bad movies did David Schwimmer make during Friends.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: