Needs to be Remade
I feel like this movie needs to be remade! I'd love to see someone like Christopher Nolan direct it, and I always thought that Christoph Waltz would be a great O'Brien. Kind of random I know, but what do you guys think?
shareI feel like this movie needs to be remade! I'd love to see someone like Christopher Nolan direct it, and I always thought that Christoph Waltz would be a great O'Brien. Kind of random I know, but what do you guys think?
shareI don't see why it needs to be remade,I think it is a great version of a great book.
Richard Burton and John Hurt are great in the parts they play and the film looks amazing.
I don't want to see this remade, but if it was I would love to see someone like Rian Johnson or Duncan Jones direct it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZEy_kJ8nJU
Agreed. The story is more relevant now than ever. Cameras everywhere, NSA spying etc.
shareBy the way of things now, we might get that, and it'll be directed by Michael Bay.
Julia will be played by Megan Fox, in a tank top and shorts, and every other woman in the film will look like she belongs to a porn studio. Bay will be sure to give us a big explosion here or there, cuz he likes 'splosions. Lots of military porn as they come to get Winston, who's played by Shia LaBeouf, with lots of zany antics. Can you imagine him in Room 101?
So sad and so true indeed WyldeGoose. Cheers!
I would also fancy a remake because I feel this film is more relevant now than ever and this latest version of the film is very hard to track down even in public libraries but I fear that in today's Hollywood movie culture exactly what you described would happen. Still the source material is there to make a clever and brilliant film in the hands of a capable director.
~What if this is as good as it gets?!~
To tell the truth I read that Ron Howard will remake 1984 for sure
I don't know any name of the cast it's still soon Undoubtedly it'll be hard for Ron Howard to match the movie with Richard Burton and John Hurt because it's flawless. Julia is a difficult character to be played in my opinion because she looks strong yet she hides her fears. So no kung fu babe, please.The actress who will play Julia must be both strong and weak mainly inside not only outside.I agree with all the aforesaid choices as far as the directors are concerned, perhaps Fincher'd be my n°1 choice because of his claustrophobic atmospheres.
Jennifer Lawrence might be able to pull off the Julia role. But I don't think the movie needs remaking.
shareI saw that I replied to this thread back in 2013 and I wrote that a remake should be made.
I have since changed my mind (no pun intended based on the film's content). It is just that I realized that there have suddenly appeared many films about some version of the dystopian future. Even since 2013 there have been released probably at least 4 or 5 movies about a future that one way or another resembles the plot of 1984. In fact I am not annoyed by such films because essentially the plot is always the same and focuses on societies where people in power abuse their power and the weaker people. The difference is mostly in style, CGI, methods. Some films depict traditional methods, other films , most films, focus on high tech methods of the future.
There is just no imaginable need to remake either the 1954 version of the film, or the 1984 version. I'd actually say the 1954 BBC film is better because it is more in accordance with the book.
Christopher Nolan? Uggh, no. Apart from anything else, nothing he's done suggests he has any affinity with layered dialogue.
And Christoph Waltz is brilliant, but he's not the right character type for O'Brien. O'Brien needs to be avuncular, not predatory.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
I agree that this needs to be remade - that is to say that the story needs to be re-filmed in a fresh way.
The 1984 adaptation is very faithful to the book, especially visually. The problem is that it feels too far removed from our 2015 reality to be relevant. When Orwell wrote the book, the world he described was recognisable to readers at the time - the bomb sites, rationing and inadequate living conditions were almost a pastiche of post-war London. That's why the book seemed so terrifying; the setting was very close to home.
I think a new, modernised adaptation would take nothing away from the 1984 film version and would make the story relevant to a new audience. The book itself is still fresh because the ideas are universal. However, for a film version to be a gripping dystopia, it needs to have clear links to the audience that are watching it. The rise of communism and Stalinism may have been hot on the agenda in 1948, but it ain't now. A 'remake' like this should address current concerns.
There's also the issue of the pacing of the 1984 adaptation. It's rather boring. Visually interesting, faithful to Orwell's vision, great acting, gorgeous cinematography, yes. But no narrative drive. The book is full of awesome ideas, but it hasn't exactly translated into a gripping cinematic experience so far.
That's why I hope this book is adapted again. Because you could really do something interesting with it without being too tied down to the minutiae of the source material. Orwell's book is amazing. But that doesn't mean that it is sacred and untouchable. Doesn't 'adapt' mean to change and adjust to new conditions?
I have lots of ideas and I'm a frustrated filmmaker trapped inside a primary school teacher. So if you're a Hollywood producer, Facebook me, yeah?
We need a more "gripping" adaptation with "better pacing"?
I couldn't disagree more vehemently: the pacing of the 1984 version was perfect, with its slowly controlled buildup towards the couple's inevitable exposure; the mournful Annie Lennox soundtrack is timeless, and every moment of the film held me spellbound - or gripped, if you prefer.
One of the marvellous thing about Michael Radford's film is the way the pace varies so greatly. Too many modern films are like the tedious view from a car doing 100mph down an Autobahn. They forget that 100mph is only exciting if you've spent most of your time viewing life at half or a quarter of that speed. Pacing is a very powerful tool in the hands of a good director, but "full throttle" pacing is invariably boring.
____
"If you ain't a marine then you ain't *beep* w
[deleted]
I would like to see a new adaptation of this. But I don't want Christopher Nolan directing it.
shareI would like to see a new adaptation as well. I think that this version is a very faithful adaptation of the original book. However, as one other poster pointed out, we're so far removed from the world George Orwell was writing in (post-World War II, beginning of the NATO-Warsaw Pact split) that the original message of the book is now somewhat dated.
I think an updated adaptation should focus on the world we live in now, specifically the information age. My idea is to use the actual year of 1984 as the point of historical divergence and have the movie be set more or less in the present day.
The only reason people post on these threads is for casting, so here are my choices:
Winston: Martin Freeman
Julia: Emily Blunt, Keira Knightley or Rose Byrne
O'Brien: Jeremy Irons, Daniel Day Lewis or Idris Elba
the original message of the book is now somewhat dated.
=====================================
What do you consider the original message?
we live in now, specifically the information age.
====================================================
What are you suggesting? Using computers and the internet to monitor people? Or faking computer records to support the government's current official storyline?
It seems to me that Orwell, with all the talk about surveillance, faked records, and Newspeak, understood the dark side of the Information Age quite well, at its very beginning.
Good point. I think that maybe now that a lot of his fears have been confirmed a new adaptation would be just as relevant as the original was to the Cold War era.
share[deleted]