[lwright84]

 http://www.filmjunk.com/2009/08/04/s...harvey-remake/


Interesting I guess, and I'm willing to best a lot of members here wont be too thrilled to read this. Admittedly I haven't seen the original, but I've always heard it was good and I have it on my list of 'classics' to watch (when you guys aren't busy berating me in my Shaky Cam thread you've mentioned a few others that I've queued as well).


Anyway, enjoy.

 

[DaveFi]

AFAIC this movie was already remade, it's called Donnie Darko.

 

[lwright84]



Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveFi /forum/post/16951383


AFAIC this movie was already remade, it's called Donnie Darko.

Lol 1 post in and it's already mentioned.

All kidding aside for future reference.. Donnie darko had nothing to do with Harvey, was not influenced by Harvey, and the two movies really share no commonalities other than a large bunny character.

 

[DaveFi]



Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 /forum/post/16951579


Lol 1 post in and it's already mentioned.

All kidding aside for future reference.. Donnie darko had nothing to do with Harvey, was not influenced by Harvey, and the two movies really share no commanilities other than a large bunny character.

I know that.

Of course the difference here is that in Spielberg's version we will see Harvey in CG for the whole movie (and I'm sorry that I'm probably right about that too).

 

[oink]

Why the HELL would S.S. spend the later part of his life re-making favorite movies of his childhood?

What is wrong with these people (I'm looking at your P. Jackson)?

How can defenders of your artistic "integrity" make a legitimate case when this kind of thing happens?

Are you people just a bunch of a greedy, ego-maniac hacks, worried about the last 4 cents on the planet?


This is just too fncking sad....and disgusting.

 

[petergaryr]

Has Hollywood really run out of original ideas?


What made Harvey memorable was the skill of James Stewart. If this remake actually shows the invisible bunny, it's going to look more like Who Framed Roger Rabbit.


I'll have to reserve final judgement until I find out who is tapped as the star. If it's Tom Cruise.....

 

[Airboss]



Quote:
Originally Posted by oink /forum/post/16952264


..... Are you people just a bunch of a greedy, ego-maniac hacks, worried about the last 4 cents on the planet?

Yes!

Quote:
Originally Posted by petergaryr /forum/post/16952747


has hollywood really run out of original ideas?

Yes! - See this recent post .

 

[Gary McCoy]

I love the Classics too, but I appear to be in the minority who think that the 2005 King Kong was even better than the 1933 original.


For the record, I also think the 1982 The Thing is better than the 1951 The Thing From Another World.


Having said that, most remakes are indeed not worth the time. The Day the Earth Stood Still comes to mind. Cat People comes to mind. The War of the Worlds comes to mind.

Harvey (1950) has a great performance from a great actor. Let me remind everybody that Harvey is not a rabbit, he is a Pooka. As such, he is real, but invisible to everyone except one person.


Will SS mess up the story? Probably not. He has a good track record, and Harvey had a very long successfull run on broadway before becoming a film, if we EVER see more of Harvey than his shadow, the impact would be lost.


Remakes should not ever happen because somebody believes that the present day technology of movie making allows you to tell the story more convincingly - down that path lies all the truly horrible SyFy channel low-budget films, lacking even the spirit of the 1950's "B" movies. Remakes should only happen when you have a cast that can match and surpass the original. I have a very short list of male actors who could equal or better James Stewart, and Tom Cruise is not on it.


As for the reason for remaking a film, that is because if a film made money once, it will do so again, meaning that in tough times, a remake is a better place to invest money. Because one thing in Hollywood has been true forever, and that is that there are few true artists and a lot of hacks in the place. I believe it is better to make a GOOD remake of a classic than to make a bad version of an original film, because "original" does NOT mean "entertaining".

 

[mproper]

^^ I haven't seen Harvey, but got nothing against remakes. Remakes can be good or bad, and it's really a movie-by-movie basis that I judge them on.


I am always surprised when things like this come up at AVS....people pre-judging a movie based on an announcement (I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but that kindof talk is better left to the morons who post over at IMDB, IMO). Shouldn't movies be judged by how good they are, not if they are based on something or a remake of another movie? There are plenty of good remakes. There are plenty of bad remakes. An announcement of a remake does not automatically mean the movie is going to be one or the other.

 

[petergaryr]

^ Hard to argue with the view that a movie should be judged on its own merits, whether or not it is a remake. I not saying I wouldn't go to see a new version of Harvey....it's just that the memory of James Stewart's performance is just so strong (and yes, I do have a copy of it and watch it from time to time).


It's just that, for me, I've found the track record pretty low on remakes. Rather than improving on the original, or putting at least somewhat of a different spin one the story, they often are just a pale memory of the original.


I'm just finding it hard to believe that film makers have to resort to remakes, rather than finding talented writers who can create the next generation of ideas.

 

[Airboss]



Quote:
Originally Posted by petergaryr /forum/post/16953267


^ Hard to argue with the view that a movie should be judged on its own merits, whether or not it is a remake. I not saying I wouldn't go to see a new version of Harvey....it's just that the memory of James Stewart's performance is just so strong (and yes, I do have a copy of it and watch it from time to time).


It's just that, for me, I've found the track record pretty low on remakes. Rather than improving on the original, or putting at least somewhat of a different spin one the story, they often are just a pale memory of the original.


I'm just finding it hard to believe that film makers have to resort to remakes, rather than finding talented writers who can create the next generation of ideas.

Agree 100%, especially your last statement.


While they're at it why stop with "Harvey", let's have a remake of "Citizen Kane", "Casablanca" and "Gone With the Wind" to name a few. After all I'm sure Tom Cruise would make a great Rhett Butler; Jack Black would be perfect in "Citizen Kane", and wouldn't Clive Owens just rule "Casablanca".

Wait a minute, "Citizen Kane" may have a remake in the works . Looks like Jennifer Love Hewitt is already signed on as Kane's tragic love interest and it is rumored that Justin Timberlake is slated for the role of Kane.

Oh no!! Madonna wants to star in a remake of " Casablanca "

Well at least "Gone With the Wind" is safe (for the time being anyway); although there are rumors......

 

[Rach]

Why a big name like SS would want to remake this is beyond me. I wouldn't see a remake. Jimmy Stewart is the reason the original is so good. I truly believe Hollywood is out of ideas. SS no less. Sad.

 

[Shaded Dogfood]

Tom Hanks could do Elwood quite nicely. But you need just the right person for the Josephine Hull role. Meryl Streep could do it, but for the right physical type, Judi Dench or Imelda Staunton (Dolores Umbridge in the Harry Potter films) would be better.

 

[Josh Z]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Airboss /forum/post/16953397


Oh no!! Madonna wants to star in a remake of " Casablanca "

Pamela Anderson already beat her to it .

 

[DaveFi]

Tom Hanks would be good, yes. But he's overused as the Jimmy Stewart, "everyman" role. Frankly I just find Spielberg's track record on these type of old-style "caper" movies to be mediocre at best. Catch Me if you Can? The Terminal?

 

[Shaded Dogfood]

Though it took me years to getting around to see it, I thought Catch Me If You Can was actually pretty good.

 

[lwright84]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaded Dogfood /forum/post/16954645


Though it took me years to getting around to see it, I thought Catch Me If You Can was actually pretty good.

Definitely it was.. 'The Terminal' was actually a fun, great watch as well. Warm-hearted and enjoyable. I do agree that Hanks is overused in this type of role though.

 

[petergaryr]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Airboss /forum/post/16953397


....Wait a minute, "Citizen Kane" may have a remake in the works . Looks like Jennifer Love Hewitt is already signed on as Kane's tragic love interest and it is rumored that Justin Timberlake is slated for the role of Kane.

The state of things is worse than I thought. I know I made a point of saying we should not pre-judge a film before it is made....but Justin Timberlake in the role of Charles Foster Kane????

Quote:
Oh no!! Madonna wants to star in a remake of " Casablanca "

...

Um...Madonna as Ilse...and set in Iraq...oh, the humanity!

Somehow, "We'll always have Bagdad" or "Play it Habib. You played it for her, you can play it for me. Play 'As Saddam Goes By'" just doesn't have the same emotional hook.

 

[Morpheo]



Quote:
Originally Posted by petergaryr /forum/post/16956845

The state of things is worse than I thought. I know I made a point of saying we should not pre-judge a film before it is made....but Justin Timberlake in the role of Charles Foster Kane????

Directed by Batman & Robin's Joel Schumacher! Which one will have the bigger nipples, Jennifer or Justin?

 

[rezzy]



Quote:
Originally Posted by petergaryr /forum/post/16956845


Um...Madonna as Ilse...and set in Iraq...oh, the humanity!

Somehow, "We'll always have Bagdad" or "Play it Habib. You played it for her, you can play it for me. Play 'As Saddam Goes By'" just doesn't have the same emotional hook.

LOL....stop it!