What about a remake? Starring Will Ferrel (as tony) and kate hudson (as gloria)
Great movie!!
Well your casting choice is good (especially Kate Hudson :>)
But they do NOT need a remake of this. The original should be seen.
I Totally aggree with you! Remake's? Why bother it probably would be Crap!
this is a Classic,
I agree no remake is necessary. And I don't agree with casting Will Farrell or Kate Hudson!
shareI can't imagine this one being remade. This is such a "70's" movie with the dialogue and characters, but it's one of my favorites. A great flashback film that would not have the same charm if it were redone.
shareI really don't want to see a remake of this film...and btw, why is it everytime someone suggests remaking a Goldie Hawn film, they always think her daughter should play her role?
shareThey just did a remake of a movie where a cop and an academic are involved in foiling a Catholic conspiracy while being chased by a killer albino. It's called The DaVinci Code.
Dan Brown did more than plagiarize Holy Blood Holy Grail.
My thoughts exactly.
shareBForeman, that was awesome...no wonder I hated the davinci code...REMAKE!
saucybetty.blogspot.com
This is a movie that could never be made better...Classic Chevy and Goldie...it doesn't get any better than this. Shame on you for even suggesting it...
shareLeave this one alone. It's my all time favorite. That's why Chevy Chase is Chevy Chase and whoever tries to impersonate him isn't. And there can be only one Goldie Hawn. Yes, she has been imitated, but never duplicated.
shareKate Hudson and Will Ferrell would be good choices, although Will Ferrell would have to tone down his comic ability to make himself have more dry humor. Also, who would be able to pull off the role of STANLEY TIBBITS???
share[deleted]
Exactly! That role couldn't be played by anyone other than a "young" Dudley Moore. In fact, his whole character would have to be re-written as it's so based in the late 70's "swinger scene"...a man from over the pond looking for that California swinger hot tubbin' experience. It wouldn't make sense in todays world.
This is my favorite movie...it has comedy, suspense and such odd but grand characters. I hope this is one movie they leave alone and don't try and re-make.
Will Ferrel? PUHLEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZ It should be somebody FUNNY.
"Funny how your feet, in dreams, never touch the Earth" -Nancy Wilson
[deleted]
Maybe Jack Black as Stanley?
This is merely a hypothetical btw. If there was ever a remake done of this great film, I would immediately organise a boycott.
And how could we ever replace Burgess Meredith's Mr. Hennesy? "She was one tough mamma"; LOL best scene and best line in the movie!
Although I *could* see Sarah Silverman taking a crack at Stella...
No forget it. Besides Chevy, Goldie and Dudley, Who would play the Burgess Meredith role. "She was one though old mama", great line. There are no men of a certain age like that left in hollywood to play that role. Hate to admit it but great Barry Manilow song ("Ready to take a chance again"). And by the way "Seems like old times" is another great Chevy and Goldie movie. There are no comedic pairs like this left either.
shareI have a better idea; how about they just re-release the original to theatres so these Hollywood hacks can see what a real funny movie looks like.
Amen to that.
saucybetty.blogspot.com
I know I'd pay to go and see FOUL PLAY in theaters. I was only 5 in 1978. I'd bet a lot of people would go and see it, even if they'd seen it before.
Then SEEMS LIKE OLD TIMES ought to be released shortly thereafter.
Could be fun times at the theaters.
You sir, if you are not already working for a movie production house (perhaps specializing in remakes of already good movies for quick cash), should avoid seeking a career in the movie production business. Seeing as it is already full of talentless, money worshipping, lazy, soul destroying, shameless hacks. Your particular ideas, while still offending the public at large who like old movies the way they are and don't want their memory tarnished by shoddy remakes, would also be looked down upon by the other no good talentless hacks out there.
If on the other hand you do already work for one of those production houses and are perhaps vetting your ideas with the public before recommending your production house buy up the rights to this film, then I dutifully suggest that you seek redemption by removing yourself from polite society by placing yourself in solitary confinement on a deserted island. Take some of your producer friends with you. Please, do everyone a favor.
For everyone else reading this poor, pathetic thread, do any of you notice that whenever you visit the page for a really good movie from a few decades ago, there is sure to be someone there asking everyone what they would think of a remake of this and who would you like to see cast in it and here is what I would change about it? Is IMDB being used by producers to vet ideas about easy to make remakes? Are we in fact helping them to put out substandard product based on well made movies, whose only crime was to have been made before the 14 to 25 year old crowd had a chance to see them? Will using the same script and adding todays special effects make up for the substandard acting that inevitably infests these remakes? I say that if these parasites who have taken over Hollywood cannot come up with ideas of their own then they should step down and hand the reigns of power in Hollywood to a new generation of film makers who are willing to take a chance instead of retreading older movies into mediocrity.
Anyone else who agrees deserves a swift, solid kick in the posterior. Enough with remakes, and cease the idiocy of making a remake thread for every classic film.
Remakes: for the greedy and ignorant. I am neither.
exactly my thought but who should direct it?
shareHow about I direct you into oncoming traffic?
Remakes: for the greedy and ignorant. I am neither.
No your wrong, remakes are not for the greedy and ignorant.
Remakes are done for the younger generation with the "hip" actors of this year. You see, most of the younger audience don`t care to watch old(er) movies they most of the time only wants to watch the latest movies with their favorite actors so to make them more interested in old(er) films the best way to do that is to make it into a remake with the "hip" actors of this year. You may think that rereleasing the oldies is the way, perhaps it is but i highly doubt it so there you go with my theory.
Btw. Michael Caine (after appearing in several remakes of his older movies) said that you should only remake bad movies but that is only half right because that opinion is only for those who actually have seen the original but those who havent (yet). I watched Soderbergh`s Oceans Eleven first and then the original, then original was sooo terrible but if I had seen the original first I probably would not had the same thought. Another example: I watched Mel Gibson in Payback first and then I watched the original: Point Blank with Lee Marvin and I have to admit that if I hadn`t seen the remake I would not had understand the original because the original was sooo boring.
No, I'm quite right. If today's stupid kids want to see remade movies with their favorite actors replacing the classic actors than they are most certainly ignorant. But that isn't the case for the most part. Many are ignorant to begin with - and think the remakes are the originals! How exceedingly ignorant!
The movies you brought up are valid bores, but to remake something that didn't need it - like Michael Caine mentioned - is asinine....... and greedy. Most of the remade movies today do not need the overhaul, and they are a lot worse than the originals. Planet of the Apes, War of the Worlds, Longest Yard, Willy Wonka, The Omen, The Wicker Man, Halloween (even rock stars are jumping on the remake bandwagon for greed), King Kong, The In-Laws, are all examples of sh!tty remakes. There are lots more, and Foul Play would be another example. And by the way, to disagree that most of these are worse than the originals is absolutely, truly ignorant. Nothing you continue to say will convince me otherwise. This argument is over.
Remakes: for the greedy and ignorant. I am neither.
No, I'm quite right. If today's stupid kids want to see remade movies with their favorite actors replacing the classic actors than they are most certainly ignorant. But that isn't the case for the most part. Many are ignorant to begin with - and think the remakes are the originals! How exceedingly ignorant!
The movies you brought up are valid bores, but to remake something that didn't need it - like Michael Caine mentioned - is asinine....... and greedy. Most of the remade movies today do not need the overhaul, and they are a lot worse than the originals. Planet of the Apes, War of the Worlds, Longest Yard, Willy Wonka, The Omen, The Wicker Man, Halloween (even rock stars are jumping on the remake bandwagon for greed), King Kong, The In-Laws, are all examples of sh!tty remakes. There are lots more, and Foul Play would be another example. And by the way, to disagree that most of these are worse than the originals is absolutely, truly ignorant. Nothing you continue to say will convince me otherwise. This argument is over.
while the 1972 Wilder version was great fun, Wilder wasn't quite on the money when envisioning the seriously strange Wonka
You're kidding right? Wilder's wild, eccentric, poetic, unpredictable style was superior to Depp's reclusive, socially-moronic, mumbling, flashbacking attempt. The remake was not needed.
That may be how you see it, but if you had read Roald Dahl's books you'd know that Johnny Depp was far, far truer to the original character, and Burton's film (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was also the actual name of the book) was a much truer adaptation overall.
shareDear rams lakers if you really hate remakes do you also hate Michael Mann`s HEAT? So if you say that Heat was an unnecessary film to do I can guarantee you that you will be alone on that but on the other hand if you do like it and think that it was a superior movie to it`s predecessor L.A. Takedown your whole theory about remakes is nothing but wrong
shareNever saw HEAT. Probably never will. And if you don't agree with my theory on remakes than you are ignorant just like the rest of the 15-25 year old crowd and I really have nothing further to discuss with you. Feel free to be one of the sheep who adore Zombie's crap fest Halloween remake.
Remakes: for the greedy and ignorant. I am neither.
I think you're exactly right! I don't recall EVER seeing a remake that was half as good as the original! I just turned 21, and I think some of the very best movies ever made were made before I was born. OMG, no one could EVER do as good as Dudley did with his role as Stanley. I've seen the original "Bedazzled" from 1967, and I absolutely refuse to watch the one from 2000. Peter Cook and Dudley Moore were geniuses, and I can't believe some stupid idiot in Hollywood would even dare to attempt to remake it.
"Pardon me. Oh, you're a hedge!"
~Dudley Moore as Arthur Bach
[deleted]
So you agree that "Sleuth" should've been remade? I completely disagree - "Sleuth" was a great film and Michael Caine and Olivier made a fantastic pair. You can't beat it, yet they are trying with Jude Law and Caine.
Original "Ocean's 11" is far better than that dull remake.
Jerry at the Movies
http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html
Films are not reality. Reality is not film. Film is only an approximation of reality.