Hollywood Remakes; or, The Worst Idea Ever

[RTGoodman]

I just happened across this (http://www.variety.com/VR1118001643.html), and I thought I'd share.


MGM gets its 'Stooges'
Penn, Carrey, Del Toro part of studio's plan

MGM and the Farrelly brothers are closing in on their cast for "The Three Stooges."

Studio has set Sean Penn to play Larry, and negotiations are underway with Jim Carrey to play Curly, with the actor already making plans to gain 40 pounds to approximate the physical dimensions of Jerome "Curly" Howard.

The studio is zeroing in on Benicio Del Toro to play Moe.

The film is not a biopic, but rather a comedy built around the antics of the three characters that Moe Howard, Larry Fine and Howard played in the Columbia Pictures shorts.

The quest by the Peter and Bobby Farrelly to harness the project spans more than a decade and three studios. They first tried at Columbia, again at Warner Bros., and finally at MGM, where Worldwide Motion Picture Group chairman Mary Parent championed the cause and bought the WB-owned scripts and made a deal with Stooges rights holders C3.

Production will begin in early fall for a release sometime in 2010. The Farrellys, who wrote the script, are producing with their Conundrum partner Bradley Thomas, and Charlie Wessler.

C3 Entertainment principals Earl and Robert Benjamin will be executive producers.

Project will get underway after Penn completes the Asger Leth-directed Universal/Imagine Entertainment drama "Cartel." He hasn't done a comedy since the 1989 laffer "We're No Angels."

The Farrellys have long had their eyes on Del Toro to play Moe. Del Toro, who's coming off "Che," showed comic chops in the Guy Ritchie-directed "Snatch."

The surprise is the emergence of Carrey to play Curly. Howard established the character as a seminal physical comedian, from the first time he appeared in the first Stooges short in 1934 until he suffered a stroke on the set in 1946.

Seriously. I don't know who in Hollywood decides to keep making this sort of remake, but really... remaking the "Stooges?" With Sean Penn? And Benecio del Toro? And Jim Carrey? (Okay, that last one wouldn't be AS bad, but I think the entire idea is stupid.) I see Razzys in the future for this.

Anyway, other thoughts on this (and the rest of the bad re-makes Hollywood's kept throwing at us)?

[SurlySeraph]

Has... has Sean Penn ever been in a comedy? Ever?
Also... why? The comedy market is already crowded, and modern comedies are always going to be better received than a remake like this.
Why?

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Has... has Sean Penn ever been in a comedy? Ever?
Also... why? The comedy market is already crowded, and modern comedies are always going to be better received than a remake like this.
Why?

Does Fast Times at Ridgemont High count as a comedy? Lots of funny bits, more than a few serious bits. But Jeff Spicoli was all about having fun and getting high.

The story sounds like nonsense to me. But IMDb.com has it listed as a rumored project, so maybe there's something to it.

[The Blackbird]

Has... has Sean Penn ever been in a comedy? Ever?
Also... why? The comedy market is already crowded, and modern comedies are always going to be better received than a remake like this.
Why?

I agree with this, there are way too many comedies nowadays, I have not seen a good movie since Dark Knight really.
Hollywood remakes are usually okay, but the Stooges?:smallsigh: No

[kpenguin]

I agree with this, there are way too many comedies nowadays, I have not seen a good movie since Dark Knight really.


Are you implying that comedies are bad movies or that movies released the Dark Knight are bad in general?

Because I disagree with both.

[Cristo Meyers]

Like Surfing Half-Orc pointed out, Sean Penn got his start doing comedy (I don't really think you can classify Fast Times as anything else).

Question: Has there actually been a remake that was generally accepted as being good since Ocean's 11?

[Rutskarn]

To the owners of the SyFy Channel:

I apologize profusely for an outburst made earlier. In the heat of the moment, I insinuated that the news of your name-change was the dumbest entertainment news I could possibly hear that month.

In light of recent events, I've realized the folly of such words. Please, accept my apologies and my retraction.

Sincerely,

Rutskarn

PS: Your name still sucks.

[Trizap]

........................................... I can't believe it. It is as if Hollywood is sitting down, grabbing all the drugs and alcohol they can find, binging it, then saying
"How can we make our reputation EVEN WORSE!?" then going into a one-up war where one guy goes "My Film is worse!" then another guy goes "My film is worse than THAT!" all the while snickering about how everyone are idiots, competing in this contest to see how bad they can make films and still profit before people start grabbing pitchforks and torches and rioting in the streets.

What.

The.

Hell.

[FoE]

The story sounds like nonsense to me.

My sentiments as well. I call shenanigans.

[doliest]

It could be worse, they could be ruining abbot and costello, I'm actually a fan of those guys....but seriously it's like they're begging me to role up into a corner and cry myself to sleep until hollywood collapses in on itself.

[Turcano]

The story sounds like nonsense to me. But IMDb.com has it listed as a rumored project, so maybe there's something to it.

From what I know, it's been in pre-development since last year. It also lends credence that the unimaginativeness virus that has infected Hollywood is beginning to reach its terminal phase if it hasn't done so already (see the video game industry for what the virus looks like in a full-blown pandemic).

Additionally, if this film is a commercial success, it will prove that Idiocracy's depiction of an asstard-infested nightmare world was off by 500 years or so (cf. the popularity of the Twilight series).

[Emperor Ing]

The only reason Remakes are so unpopular is because we've seen it before. Sure, it may have better CGI that makes it a thousand times more realistic, but if we already know what's going to happen in the storyline, it kind of beats the purpose.
I imagine the remakes aren't so bad to the people who haven't seen the original before.

[Turcano]

The only reason Remakes are so unpopular is because we've seen it before. Sure, it may have better CGI that makes it a thousand times more realistic, but if we already know what's going to happen in the storyline, it kind of beats the purpose.
I imagine the remakes aren't so bad to the people who haven't seen the original before.

That's really only true if the original was itself an adaptation from another medium (and even then it's a huge gamble). This, however, is like trying to remake a Charlie Chaplin movie; the draw is not the story but the actors themselves, and you're not going to get them back without some onyx gems on hand. So there is really only one possible outcome of a remake of such a film (that is, unbelievably embarrassing).

[H. Zee]

The 2 Rules of Remakes:

1) People who liked the original will feel insulted.

2) People who didn't like the original won't want to watch this either.

Hollywood should really stop doing this. The top brass are just all too spineless to actually allow anything original (and therefore risky) to become a film.

[Yulian]

But everyone also needs to remember what has been passing for "comedy" in movies lately.

I actually caught the tail end of Epic Movie on cable when I was taping something else (that came on after it).

It was actually, somehow worse than I had imagined it would be.

And yet, those films make money because apparently, enough people will go see anything, I mean, anything.

There is no way a current Hollywood pic could conceivably catch the lightning in a bottle that was the Stooges. Even they couldn't do it after Curly Howard passed away.

- Yulian

[Rutskarn]

Two things:

1.) Okay, I see where you're coming from, Yulian, but I gotta say that the Three Stooges are kind of lame by today's standards of comedy. Not Disaster Movie lame, because that's a physical impossibility, but still pretty damn lame.

2.) @The Randomizer: I think you might be overthinking things.

We hate remakes because they're the creatively bankrupt flounderings of a bloated industry.

[snoopy13a]

Question: Has there actually been a remake that was generally accepted as being good since Ocean's 11?

I suppose one could argue that the recent Batman movies are remakes of the ones from 10-20 years ago.

[thegurullamen]

People will watch this because it represents a facet of American culture.

Remakes, parodies, "parodies" and really, anything else that throws us redone bits of American culture make money. The weird thing is that they make a lot of it overseas. Check the box office for the Blank Movie franchise: they made twice as much in other countries than they did domestically.

Remakes and rehashes really only suffer with audiences familiar with the material. To the rest of the population, they're better fleshed out than a lot of movies of similar calibers.

That said, I like the Stooges and look forward to seeing how this movie comes together.

[chiasaur11]

People will watch this because it represents a facet of American culture.

Remakes, parodies, "parodies" and really, anything else that throws us redone bits of American culture make money. The weird thing is that they make a lot of it overseas. Check the box office for the Blank Movie franchise: they made twice as much in other countries than they did domestically.

Remakes and rehashes really only suffer with audiences familiar with the material. To the rest of the population, they're better fleshed out than a lot of movies of similar calibers.

That said, I like the Stooges and look forward to seeing how this movie comes together.


While I like the stooges, and fear.

I mean, Shemp was bad enough.

[xPANCAKEx]

aparently they're remaking Oldboy with will smith

oldboy

with will smith.


OLDBOY..... with WILL f@*king SMITH

there should be a geneva convention against such attrocities surely

[thegurullamen]

aparently they're remaking Oldboy with will smith

oldboy

with will smith.

Not all remakes are created equal.

And I thought Shemp was decent. He was no Curly, but he was an original Stooge. I think you meant "at least there's no Curly Joe." Seriously, that guy had a clause in his contract saying Moe couldn't hit him.

What. The. Eff.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

While I've never even seen the Three Stooges (I've been a devotee of the Marx Brothers all my life), this has got to be one of the most bizzare bits of news I've ever heard.

[chiasaur11]

Not all remakes are created equal.

And I thought Shemp was decent. He was no Curly, but he was an original Stooge. I think you meant "at least there's no Curly Joe." Seriously, that guy had a clause in his contract saying Moe couldn't hit him.

What. The. Eff.

Fair enough.

Still, Shemp is uglier than anything, ever.

[Turcano]

And I thought Shemp was decent. He was no Curly, but he was an original Stooge. I think you meant "at least there's no Curly Joe." Seriously, that guy had a clause in his contract saying Moe couldn't hit him.

What. The. Eff.

I have no idea why Shemp is treated as the worst Stooge, when he clearly wasn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Besser).

[BRC]

The Three Stooges used to be funny on it's own merit. Now, societies standards of humor have changed, and alot of it's quality comes from it begin a classic. But really, it's three guys hurting themselves, that's not great cinema, that's simple Slapstick.

[tape_measure]

Wow. I never would have thought that this would get such an ignorant response.

Re: The movie
I think a lot of you do not realize that this is not another "Three Stooges" movie. It's (like it reads above) is a sort of funny biography of the gentlemen who played the Stooges. While it probably won't grab Best Picture in '10, it'll still be a decent film well worth the rental fee.

Re: Comedies (or the lack there of)
You shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you. If you look back in history of films, compare that with economy standings, and then also with ticket sales, you'll find it's we -the people- who are calling for more comedies. I work at a movie store, and I rent out the Epic, Extreme, etc. movies all the frikkin' time, but I have not rented "Burn After Reading"(which I find to be a damned funny movie) or "Tropic Thunder" in over a week. I had become accustomed to dwelling on the fact that so many people watch terrible films, but I realized that they are watching what we -the people- asked Hollywood to produce.

There was a very prolific line I grabbed from a not-so prolific source: "You can't fix stupid."

[chiasaur11]

The Three Stooges used to be funny on it's own merit. Now, societies standards of humor have changed, and alot of it's quality comes from it begin a classic. But really, it's three guys hurting themselves, that's not great cinema, that's simple Slapstick.

Which is the best thing about it.

Simple, stupid slapstick.

[Sholos]

Wow. I never would have thought that this would get such an ignorant response.

Re: The movie
I think a lot of you do not realize that this is not another "Three Stooges" movie. It's (like it reads above) is a sort of funny biography of the gentlemen who played the Stooges. While it probably won't grab Best Picture in '10, it'll still be a decent film well worth the rental fee.

Re: Comedies (or the lack there of)
You shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you. If you look back in history of films, compare that with economy standings, and then also with ticket sales, you'll find it's we -the people- who are calling for more comedies. I work at a movie store, and I rent out the Epic, Extreme, etc. movies all the frikkin' time, but I have not rented "Burn After Reading"(which I find to be a damned funny movie) or "Tropic Thunder" in over a week. I had become accustomed to dwelling on the fact that so many people watch terrible films, but I realized that they are watching what we -the people- asked Hollywood to produce.

There was a very prolific line I grabbed from a not-so prolific source: "You can't fix stupid."

Maybe you include yourself in the public that demands stupid comedies, but I don't. I'll agree that the majority of America enjoys and supports idiotic comedies, just like there's a lot of Eragon and Twilight fans. Doesn't mean the people who can appreciate good comedy shouldn't complain.

[Executor]

Dear Lord... this HAS to be an April Fool's Joke

[The Blackbird]

Are you implying that comedies are bad movies or that movies released the Dark Knight are bad in general?

Because I disagree with both.

I'm saying that we have enough comedies, time to vear off to something else. Also I was saying that I have not seen a "great" movie since Dark Knight. I'm sorry for saying "good" because I have seen "good" movies since but not "great".

[chiasaur11]

I'm saying that we have enough comedies, time to vear off to something else. Also I was saying that I have not seen a "great" movie since Dark Knight. I'm sorry for saying "good" because I have seen "good" movies since but not "great".

Fair.

Assuming you saw WALL_E before the Dark Knight, that is.

Otherwise, you are wrong.

[thegurullamen]

I'm saying that we have enough comedies, time to vear off to something else. Also I was saying that I have not seen a "great" movie since Dark Knight. I'm sorry for saying "good" because I have seen "good" movies since but not "great".

This is a flawed notion. Just because we have a lot of something does not mean that we have (or ever will have) "enough".

I used to think this same thing. Too many comedies, not enough of them intelligent enough to warrant messing with the genre. After a month, I noticed something. Comedies have been improving lately. Shane Black's directorial debut, Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang is a comedy that is nothing short of brilliant. The masterful team-up of Pegg and Frost has produced the only decent film spoofs in the past two decades. What's better is that not only are they hilarious, they are insanely clever on multiple levels. (I cannot wait for their third which starts production on some level this fall.)

While it's true that the comedic genre is filled with more than its fair share of utter, contemptible crap, that does not mean that it cannot produce a gem every so often nor that it is incapable of redefining itself in the wake of a few good filmmakers and storytellers such as those who have just recently emerged. Give it time and have faith that quality will make a comeback.

(As a side note, I found 2008 to be one of the greatest years for film in recent memory. Good films include Iron Man and Quantum of Solace while great films include The Dark Knight, WALL-E and Kung-Fu Panda {it works on a lot of levels and it's the best C-animated film from Dreamworks and yes, I am including Shrek.})