Sign in to follow this  
TopBilled

HE WALKED BY NIGHT (1948)

35 posts in this topic

7 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

Yes, it helps when something has been remade. There were remakes of D.O.A. and CAPE FEAR, so that increases the likelihood a modern viewer might be familiar with the story, even if they haven't seen the original.

Out of the Past was remade with Jeff Bridges but it was called Against All Odds making it harder to associate with the original.    (but it did have Jane Greer playing the mother of the leading female character).

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Out of the Past was remade with Jeff Bridges but it was called Against All Odds making it harder to associate with the original.    (but it did have Jane Greer playing the mother of the leading female character).

That's right. As we have discussed in another thread, not all remakes are embraced by audiences. Not all remakes are very good. But they do help publicize the earlier works, causing people to seek out the originals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 2:12 PM, TopBilled said:

That's right. As we have discussed in another thread, not all remakes are embraced by audiences. Not all remakes are very good. But they do help publicize the earlier works, causing people to seek out the originals.

True. I don't believe I know of any movie remake that was just as good as the original. Like John Lennon used to say about the Beatles getting back together - "You can't reheat a soufflé".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, decojoe67 said:

True. I don't believe I know of any movie remake that was just as good as the original. Like John Lennon used to say about the Beatles getting back together - "You can't reheat a soufflé".

Most people think the 1941 version of THE MALTESE FALCON is superior to the precode 1931 version. I happen to like both. (There is also a 1936 version with Bette Davis which isn't quite as good as the other two.) But yes, typically Hollywood remakes don't quite recapture the flavor of the originals. Unless it's an English language remake of a foreign film, but those are a mixed bag. For every DOWN AND OUT IN BEVERLY HILLS which was a success, there's DIABOLIQUE which was not a success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, decojoe67 said:

True. I don't believe I know of any movie remake that was just as good as the original. Like John Lennon used to say about the Beatles getting back together - "You can't reheat a soufflé".

So you like the original Maltese Falcon over the Bogie \ Huston 'remake'?

Now about Gaslight;  which version of that do you prefer?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

So you like the original Maltese Falcon over the Bogie \ Huston 'remake'?

Now about Gaslight;  which version of that do you prefer?   

Those are good points, and of course I like the well-known later versions best. I think those are exceptions though. If you look back you often find classic movie titles that were put on film in say 1918, but for all intents and purposes, they were flash in the pan forgotten movies. As with The Maltese Falcon, honestly, the old movie buff that I am, I've never even heard of that early version. It's the 1941 version that became the classic. That's the one that set the standard and that's the one that can never be duplicated.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, decojoe67 said:

Those are good points, and of course I like the well-known later versions best. I think those are exceptions though. If you look back you often find classic movie titles that were put on film in say 1918, but for all intents and purposes, they were flash in the pan forgotten movies. As with The Maltese Falcon, honestly, the old movie buff that I am, I've never even heard of that early version. It's the 1941 version that became the classic. That's the one that set the standard and that's the one that can never be duplicated.  

I prefer the 1940 British version of GASLIGHT, as I feel Anton Walbrook's performance is top-notch. Plus Robert Newton and Diana Wynyard also do strong work in the film. The cinematography gives it more of a film noir look, and it doesn't seem like a glossy soap opera the way the MGM production does.

Most people know the second version because it's the one that has been seen more. And that was by design, because MGM tried to destroy the original (fortunately the studio did not succeed) So we have a case where the 1944 film is considered more classic because of its visibility, though the 1940 version is in every way just as much a classic. And probably if you asked British film buffs they'd agree.

So none of this is an exact science. It's possible for the original AND the remake to be lauded. For instance both versions of TRUE GRIT are esteemed and have lots of fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, decojoe67 said:

Those are good points, and of course I like the well-known later versions best. I think those are exceptions though. If you look back you often find classic movie titles that were put on film in say 1918, but for all intents and purposes, they were flash in the pan forgotten movies. As with The Maltese Falcon, honestly, the old movie buff that I am, I've never even heard of that early version. It's the 1941 version that became the classic. That's the one that set the standard and that's the one that can never be duplicated.  

To me there is also a difference between a silent film and any subsequent 'remake' that is a talkie. E.g. Ben Hur.

Hey, generally I agree that in most cases the original is best version,  but that isn't always the case and I have nothing against studios and \ or producers dusting off previously filmed source material and making a version that is 'their own' using actors and directors of their generation.

This has been done with plays for centuries and for movies a 'remake' shouldn't be viewed as some type of 'bad' thing that harms the original.  E.g. some here will say 'they should never make a remake of XYZ, since that film was perfect or my favorite'.   To me that POV is silly nonsense. 

In addition as TB has said,  remakes being attention to the original.   E.g. The Women was remade about a decade ago.     I talked to some of my wife friends who say that film and the first thing I ask is 'have you seen the Crawford \ Shearer version'.     While their initial answer is 'NO' a few did go out and rent the original and that exposed these women to a black and white studio-era film.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

To me there is also a difference between a silent film and any subsequent 'remake' that is a talkie. E.g. Ben Hur.

Hey, generally I agree that in most cases the original is best version,  but that isn't always the case and I have nothing against studios and \ or producers dusting off previously filmed source material and making a version that is 'their own' using actors and directors of their generation.

This has been done with plays for centuries and for movies a 'remake' shouldn't be viewed as some type of 'bad' thing that harms the original.  E.g. some here will say 'they should never make a remake of XYZ, since that film was perfect or my favorite'.   To me that POV is silly nonsense. 

In addition as TB has said,  remakes being attention to the original.   E.g. The Women was remade about a decade ago.     I talked to some of my wife friends who say that film and the first thing I ask is 'have you seen the Crawford \ Shearer version'.     While their initial answer is 'NO' a few did go out and rent the original and that exposed these women to a black and white studio-era film.

I notice you didn't refer them to the 1956 Technicolor musical remake THE OPPOSITE SEX. 

LOL. Though I do think it has its merits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2018 at 9:51 PM, TopBilled said:

Most people think the 1941 version of THE MALTESE FALCON is superior to the precode 1931 version. I happen to like both. (There is also a 1936 version with Bette Davis which isn't quite as good as the other two.) But yes, typically Hollywood remakes don't quite recapture the flavor of the originals. Unless it's an English language remake of a foreign film, but those are a mixed bag. For every DOWN AND OUT IN BEVERLY HILLS which was a success, there's DIABOLIQUE which was not a success.

I still can't follow the script of the 1941 Maltese Falcon.  The Big Sleep might be even worse, lol.?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us