Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

"PAPILLON" REMAKE?


Zea
 Share

Recommended Posts

I guess this is old news, but it's news to me. Didn't know they remade "Papillon". It supposedly premiered last fall in Toronto.  Anyone know how this did at the box office?

Nowadays, no remake comes as a total surprise to me. After yet another incarnation of "A Star Is Born" w/Lady Gaga, no less and the slated remake of "West Side Story", not to mention the ever-talked about remake of (wait for it) "Casablanca", I give up.

Truly, everything old is new again.  But that doesn't mean "great again". (Sorry, guess that partial phrase is copyrighted, so I hope my security clearance won't be revoked.)

?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zea said:

I guess this is old news, but it's news to me. Didn't know they remade "Papillon". It supposedly premiered last fall in Toronto.  Anyone know how this did at the box office?

Nowadays, no remake comes as a total surprise to me. After yet another incarnation of "A Star Is Born" w/Lady Gaga, no less and the slated remake of "West Side Story", not to mention the ever-talked about remake of (wait for it) "Casablanca", I give up.

Truly, everything old is new again.  But that doesn't mean "great again". (Sorry, guess that partial phrase is copyrighted, so I hope my security clearance won't be revoked.)

?

With regards to "Truly, everything old is new again";   my guess is that there was a lot less originally in American 30s films than there is today;   E.g.  in the 30s studios would re-hash a script by getting an under contract screenwriter to take an old script,  make a few changes and call it 'new'.    Of course over 5 times more films were released per year in the 30s than today,  and there was the concept of the 'B' film which lead to a lot of  made-on the-cheap films.   

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gershwin fan said:

I'm not inherently against the idea of remaking the film but I don't recognize many of the actors in it. :unsure: 

Charlie Hunnam, who has the starring role, had his biggest success with the biker TV series Sons of Anarchy. He's appeared in several films, but I haven't been that impressed with him, with the exception of The Lost City of Z

Rami Malek has the Dustin Hoffman role. Again, his biggest success has been on television, in the computer hacker series Mr.Robot. And again, I've see him in a few other things, but nothing exceptional. I have not watched either Mr. Robot or Sons of Anarchy.

Eve Hewson is the daughter of U2 singer Bono.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remakes have always existed and will continue to existed.  My only problem is pointless remakes.  It is pointless to remake a classic.  It wreaks of being a sad attempt to capitalize on someone else's past glory.  It is also pointless to remake a film that never had a following in the first place.  If no one saw the original then a remake wreaks of a sad attempt to capitalize on something that you just happen to own the rights to.  At least the latter can give the excuse of trying to make a better version, but just because people never saw the original it doesn't mean it was bad.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Zea said:

I guess this is old news, but it's news to me. Didn't know they remade "Papillon". It supposedly premiered last fall in Toronto.  Anyone know how this did at the box office?

Nowadays, no remake comes as a total surprise to me. After yet another incarnation of "A Star Is Born" w/Lady Gaga, no less and the slated remake of "West Side Story", not to mention the ever-talked about remake of (wait for it) "Casablanca", I give up.

Truly, everything old is new again.  But that doesn't mean "great again". (Sorry, guess that partial phrase is copyrighted, so I hope my security clearance won't be revoked.)

?

 

Everything is right! Remakes / reboots never ends.:wacko:

DdWrofTVAAAkG3w.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Zea said:

I guess this is old news, but it's news to me. Didn't know they remade "Papillon". It supposedly premiered last fall in Toronto.  Anyone know how this did at the box office?

Nowadays, no remake comes as a total surprise to me. After yet another incarnation of "A Star Is Born" w/Lady Gaga, no less and the slated remake of "West Side Story", not to mention the ever-talked about remake of (wait for it) "Casablanca", I give up.

Truly, everything old is new again.  But that doesn't mean "great again". (Sorry, guess that partial phrase is copyrighted, so I hope my security clearance won't be revoked.)

?

Sooo typical of cinema today, huh    Who in the heck can ever replace McQueen as THE COOLOR KING   About 10yrs ago I woulda' cast *Clooney though, but now???

 

When is it slated to open

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Looney said:

Remakes have always existed and will continue to existed.  My only problem is pointless remakes.  It is pointless to remake a classic.  It wreaks of being a sad attempt to capitalize on someone else's past glory.  It is also pointless to remake a film that never had a following in the first place.  If no one saw the original then a remake wreaks of a sad attempt to capitalize on something that you just happen to own the rights to.  At least the latter can give the excuse of trying to make a better version, but just because people never saw the original it doesn't mean it was bad.

I mostly agree, however there are cases in which a much younger audience sees first the remake, THEN comes to realize it IS a remake, sometimes hunts down the original and then makes a comparison and might then come away a "new" fan of the original.  

Sepiatone

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

I mostly agree, however there are cases in which a much younger audience sees first the remake, THEN comes to realize it IS a remake, sometimes hunts down the original and then makes a comparison and might then come away a "new" fan of the original.  

Sepiatone

I DEFINITELY agree with that.  The only problem is that I don't think the percentage is very high.  Even after they learn it is a remake they have to have enjoyed it to hunt down the original.  Or they have to have hated it so much they hunt down the original to see if it is as bad.  :lol:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw my first t.v. commercial for the new "Papillon" last night. So I guess its release here is imminent.

I'm not against remakes per se.  It's the remaking of what I consider a classic that bothers me. I don't just think it's a film fan's sentiment, I'm thinking it may also be a generational thing, too.

Which means that in 25 years or so, this current generation can look forward to bemoaning the remake of such classics (to them) as "Dude, Where's My Car?"

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Looney said:

Remakes have always existed and will continue to existed.  My only problem is pointless remakes.  It is pointless to remake a classic.  It wreaks of being a sad attempt to capitalize on someone else's past glory.  It is also pointless to remake a film that never had a following in the first place.  If no one saw the original then a remake wreaks of a sad attempt to capitalize on something that you just happen to own the rights to.  At least the latter can give the excuse of trying to make a better version, but just because people never saw the original it doesn't mean it was bad.

With regards to "It wreaks of being a sad attempt to capitalize on someone else's past glory".  NOT.

Instead it is an attempt to capitalize on high quality source material.   Are you saying that you believe that once a generations takes a high quality book or play and makes a movie from that source material,  NO future generation should do the same?         

Note that most of the films you define as 'remakes' are NOT 'remakes' in the minds of those creating them.   I.e. the inspiration for the producers, screenwriter,  director is the original source material and NOT movie versions of said source material.     For actors,  the good ones get their inspiration from reading the original source material to get at the 'soul' of the character they will be playing and NOT by watching how other actors previously played the character. 

Your entire POV comes from that of a viewer  \ consumer and NOT that of a creator or artist.   

From the POV of the creator \ artist,   there is nothing 'pointless' about taking a high quality book or play, and making one's own adaptation of said work.     In fact that is the very essence of being a creator \ artist.

(Note:   the Psycho shot-for-shot remake is folly and pointless from every and all angles.   I only mention this because often it is the example one uses to counter the points above.   But as we all know that is a remake and NOT an adaptation).

 

    

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another way to look at it( sorta)....

How many times has the play "The Taming Of The Shrew" been filmed, as opposed to how many times over the last few hundred years has it been performed on stage somewhere?  And why is THAT okay, and NOT a movie REMAKE( or remakes?) of a well loved and "classic" movie story? 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎8‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 8:25 AM, Sepiatone said:

I mostly agree, however there are cases in which a much younger audience sees first the remake, THEN comes to realize it IS a remake, sometimes hunts down the original and then makes a comparison and might then come away a "new" fan of the original.  

Sepiatone

I always have hated that, when younger audiences don't bother to first see what all the fuss was about  Been dealing with that since around 1979/80 when I was only about 14 to 15  Back when I first fell in love with THE MOVIES & 1stly always wanted to know what the likes of tv's Mike Douglas, Carson, Merv Griffin & even Dinah shore were always talking about   Actually it was M. Douglas-(l925-2006) that really 1st put the hook in me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHATS NEXT A CGI REHASH OF THE TOWERING INFERNO?

 

I always ponder why it's taklen this long for that remake?

 

CASE IN POINT 2006

s flat ()**-=out of 4 stars) remake of THE POSEIDON (**) Only made $60m. too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2018 at 2:13 PM, jamesjazzguitar said:

With regards to "It wreaks of being a sad attempt to capitalize on someone else's past glory".  NOT.

Instead it is an attempt to capitalize on high quality source material.   Are you saying that you believe that once a generations takes a high quality book or play and makes a movie from that source material,  NO future generation should do the same?         

Note that most of the films you define as 'remakes' are NOT 'remakes' in the minds of those creating them.   I.e. the inspiration for the producers, screenwriter,  director is the original source material and NOT movie versions of said source material.     For actors,  the good ones get their inspiration from reading the original source material to get at the 'soul' of the character they will be playing and NOT by watching how other actors previously played the character. 

Your entire POV comes from that of a viewer  \ consumer and NOT that of a creator or artist.   

From the POV of the creator \ artist,   there is nothing 'pointless' about taking a high quality book or play, and making one's own adaptation of said work.     In fact that is the very essence of being a creator \ artist.

(Note:   the Psycho shot-for-shot remake is folly and pointless from every and all angles.   I only mention this because often it is the example one uses to counter the points above.   But as we all know that is a remake and NOT an adaptation).

 

    

  

No that was not exactly what I was saying.  I meant it is pointless to try to remake something like PSYCHO (1960), CITIZEN KANE (1941), GONE WITH THE WIND (1939), 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968), BACK TO THE FUTURE (1985) and so on and so on.  These are films that are so ingrained in our cultural knowledge that any attempt to remake them would be pointless.  One could make a line for line scripted version of the original 1936 novel that might capture something the original GONE WITH THE WIND (1939) failed to present, but it will still be buried in the shadow of the original movie.  I have no problem with updated attempts to capture a classic story, but any attempt to redo a tale that already has a highly vaulted original had better have its own unique turn on the tale. 

An example of an attempted re-imagining I enjoy is THE WIZ (1978).  Now I am not saying THE WIZ (1978) is by any means in the same category as THE WIZARD OF OZ (1939) or that it is a great film, but it does presented a very different interpretation of the story that is pretty unique.  Sure THE WIZ (1978) was an attempt to capitalize on someone's past glory, but it is also highly entertaining for some reasons I'm sure the original filmmakers wish it was not.  I mean I REALLY applaud the creativity behind certain aspects of THE WIZ (1978) and I find it to be a very entertaining movie, but I would never say this was a remake people need to see.  I would also say that despite the fact that it was very creative and I personally find it to be entertaining there really isn't much reason it ever needed to be made; especially given that many of the reasons I find it to be entertaining are not reasons the filmmakers likely wanted it to be known for.  But if you are going to try to remake a classic like THE WIZARD OF OZ (1939) it better have some sort of entertainment value like THE WIZ (1978).

Having said all of this I don't think the original PAPILLON (1973) is in the same category as the above listed classics.  It is a great film, but that is not the reason I would say a remake is pointless. The reason I would say a remake is pointless is based on the source material.  This prison drama can only be told so many ways.  It lends itself more to the psychological.  I highly doubt PAPILLON (2017) has any quality that would make it rise above what Hoffman, McQueen, and Schaffner presented in a more entertaining or intellectual capacity.  Unless someone wants to tell me they made it a musical and set it in an fairy tale urban landscape? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the PSYCHO remake may have been pointless, I would love to see another Hitchcock film be remade: SUSPICION (but only if they include the ending that Hitch originally wanted).  At the end of the day, I think remakes are worthwhile if they bring something interesting to the table.  After all, it took Hollywood three tries to perfect THE MALTESE FALCON ?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Looney said:

These are films that are so ingrained in our cultural knowledge that any attempt to remake them would be pointless. 

Like I said you're defining 'pointless' from point of view of the viewers and NOT that of the creators.

E.g. I play jazz standards;   for many 'classic' songs (E.g. Take Five),  there is a recognized definitive version,  but all other versions are not 'pointless'.   That is an insult to all those that created their own interpretation.

So I'm fine with calling some films the 'definitive version' but not that all other versions are pointless AND the initial version is NOT always the definitive version.   E.g. The 41 Maltese Falcon.  Huston had to convince Warner Bros suits to make yet another version and made his case by say that he believe they missed the mark and that he would write a screenplay that was faithful to the original story.     Good thing Jack Warner didn't tell him doing so was pointless.   Same with A Star is Born etc....

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Looney said:

The reason I would say a remake is pointless is based on the source material.  This prison drama can only be told so many ways.  It lends itself more to the psychological.  I highly doubt PAPILLON (2017) has any quality that would make it rise above what Hoffman, McQueen, and Schaffner presented in a more entertaining or intellectual capacity.  Unless someone wants to tell me they made it a musical and set it in an fairy tale urban landscape? 

Exactly. While the originial was undoubtedly (and necessarily) brutal, my sense is that a modern-day redo will not only focus on the brutality, but add additional and even more intense depictions/images, etc. of cruelty. I may be wrong about this "Papillon".  I haven't seen it, nor will I.

Focusing on the primary psychological essence of the original film would be lost on the majority of the under-30 & teen crowd which comprises most of today's movie-going, ticket-buying audiences. That may be an unfair generalization.  I'm fully aware there are exceptions.

Sadly, however, too many of them must be fed a steady film diet of gore, inhumanity, savagery and merciless, callous, indifferent sadism or its not worth the price of their ticket. In general, it's not these types of films that go straight to dvd.  Usually it's the more psychological movies which require an audience to invest not only the time it takes to see the film, but the time it takes to ingest it, think it through, question it.  And that's too much time for those waiting to get back on social media to tell everyone they've just seen a movie that's "uh, really boring."

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zea said:

Exactly. While the originial was undoubtedly (and necessarily) brutal, my sense is that a modern-day redo will not only focus on the brutality, but add additional and even more intense depictions/images, etc. of cruelty. I may be wrong about this "Papillon".  I haven't seen it, nor will I.

Focusing on the primary psychological essence of the original film would be lost on the majority of the under-30 & teen crowd which comprises most of today's movie-going, ticket-buying audiences. That may be an unfair generalization.  I'm fully aware there are exceptions.

Sadly, however, too many of them must be fed a steady film diet of gore, inhumanity, savagery and merciless, callous, indifferent sadism or its not worth the price of their ticket. In general, it's not these types of films that go straight to dvd.  Usually it's the more psychological movies which require an audience to invest not only the time it takes to see the film, but the time it takes to ingest it, think it through, question it.  And that's too much time for those waiting to get back on social media to tell everyone they've just seen a movie that's "uh, really boring."

 

You make a solid case of why a new adaptation of Papillon may not offer anything 'new' (fresh).   As Looney and you point out the original film's focus on the psychological aspect of those placed on Devil's Island is what I find interesting especially the difference between how each of the two main characters deal with their fate.  

I also agree with the assumption that current movie goers would likely find this psychological theme boring and therefore the producers would have to up the brutality factor.      But there are other options;   E.g. change the focus to be mainly about how the two ended up at Devil's Island in the first place and limit the psychological aspect and focus more on the mechanics of how they try to get off the island part of the story.     YES,  such a take makes one say 'then why call the film Papillon!!!,   because now the film is more of a crime caper and escape tale and not a psychological prison drama.     Of course the producers could make other radical changes;  they escape Devil's Island only to land on Gilligan's Island.    

Bottom line;  I clearly understand that if one is going to make a 'remake' of Papillon and the film doesn't focus on the psychological aspect the effort can be viewed as rather pointless.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Like I said you're defining 'pointless' from point of view of the viewers and NOT that of the creators.

E.g. I play jazz standards;   for many 'classic' songs (E.g. Take Five),  there is a recognized definitive version,  but all other versions are not 'pointless'.   That is an insult to all those that created their own interpretation.

So I'm fine with calling some films the 'definitive version' but not that all other versions are pointless AND the initial version is NOT always the definitive version.   E.g. The 41 Maltese Falcon.  Huston had to convince Warner Bros suits to make yet another version and made his case by say that he believe they missed the mark and that he would write a screenplay that was faithful to the original story.     Good thing Jack Warner didn't tell him doing so was pointless.   Same with A Star is Born etc....

 

 

Oh okay I can totally see your point.  You are absolutely correct.  If I were the creative force who wanted to remake a classic tale and I had the audacity to think I could bring something fresh to it then I totally see your point.  But I can't remake a classic film on my own without millions of dollars that would be better spent on other things in this world.  Don't get me wrong, I am all for spending millions on making movies that entertain me, but something like this just seems "pointless" when the original is so good.  Or perhaps seems more like someone trying to cash in on a classic.  Because of this point I can not see the comparison working.  When you play music that has been done a different way in times past it does not cost millions of dollars.  You are the artist bringing something new to something classic.  You alone are a creative force that can breath new life into a classic.  If I want to remake BACK TO THE FUTURE (1985) I couldn't do it on my own.  It would be thousands of hours and lives affected on top of millions of dollars.  Yes there might be the creative drive in an individual or group to think they can create something new out of something old, but as I said we are talking millions of dollars that could be spent on something original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Looney said:

Oh okay I can totally see your point.  You are absolutely correct.  If I were the creative force who wanted to remake a classic tale and I had the audacity to think I could bring something fresh to it then I totally see your point.  But I can't remake a classic film on my own without millions of dollars that would be better spent on other things in this world.  Don't get me wrong, I am all for spending millions on making movies that entertain me, but something like this just seems "pointless" when the original is so good.  Or perhaps seems more like someone trying to cash in on a classic.  Because of this point I can not see the comparison working.  When you play music that has been done a different way in times past it does not cost millions of dollars.  You are the artist bringing something new to something classic.  You alone are a creative force that can breath new life into a classic.  If I want to remake BACK TO THE FUTURE (1985) I couldn't do it on my own.  It would be thousands of hours and lives affected on top of millions of dollars.  Yes there might be the creative drive in an individual or group to think they can create something new out of something old, but as I said we are talking millions of dollars that could be spent on something original.

We have a common understanding.    Related to why spend money (millions), on something 'old' verses something original; 

When the original source material for a film is a book:   Depending on the length of the book a book covers many, many hours of content.    Much, much more than can ever be put into a film.    The first step in the creative process is to take the book,  make an outline of all of the scenes (e.g. locations), and characters,  and determine what will be dropped (discarded),  to 'fit' the plot and theme of the book into a few hours of film.      This is a highly creative and subjective process, which can create a lot of reasons why one would wish to make another film from a book.

E.g.  Yesterday I was watched the 1995 version of Sabrina.    I admit I had seen parts of it before but because it wasn't close to being a good as the the 1954 version (mainly because no one could bring what Audrey Hepburn brings to the title character),   I turned it off.

Well this time,  because of our prior conversation,  I decided to watch the entire film and jotted down some of the main differences.    E.g. The brothers' mother being part of the business and central to the "scam" being played,   the father of David's fiance being more developed as it relates to the merger,  Sabrina fathers making millions and also falling in love etc.......    

Since I have never read the novel Sabrina Fair,  I don't know which plot differences are more faithful or not to the book,  but I hope you can see how much there is to 'mine' in a book,  that may not have been 'mined' before,  for future generations.      

In addition movies are visual;  the director of a prior version may decide to use mostly dialog to communicate how a character feels \ thinks while a new director decides to just use mostly visuals.    I.e. so much room for one to be creative and to me that answers your WHY question.   

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...