And has been for at least a decade. But please no Ah-nold reprise, or more than a cameo. It was clever idea and super-campy, even for the 80s.
share[deleted]
My point was the premise was very clever and would be well-suited to a quality remake using modern production. Of course, any Hollywood remake is highly susceptible to sucking...
share[deleted]
I’ve always been wondering about the remake for years. And it’s very surprising that they haven’t jumped on the idea yet.
shareThe problem is every other Arnold remake/reboot is garbage. They would probably cast someone like Michael Cera to play the Arnie lead
shareYes, that’s true. It’s hard to find someone with as much charisma as Arnold. I can’t think of anyone really who could fill in his shoes. Maybe Dwayne Johnson could pull it off though. Usually the remake just becomes a generic garbage that is forgotten in a few years often times because of poor directing. This movie plays it actually pretty straightforward on the plot. And I think that’s why it works beautifully. There’s no unnecessary long dialogues or flashbacks of the characters, and backstories. The pace is great and the score is memorable.
shareIf they remade it, they'd have to go after social media and the internet mob. This film satirised the bloodthirsty, gladiatorial nature of game shows and the callous disinterest of the audiences glued to their TVs, but Reality TV, twitter, youtube, and streaming had yet to be invented, and if you remake this film, it's got to be as sharp a satire as the original.
It would also need the perfect "fun action star" like Schwarzenegger, who always artfully blended his personal charisma and his massive muscles with a wink and a grin that made these movies work, no matter how serious or corny they went.
Chris Hemsworth could probably do it. I could also see his Thor co-star Idris Elba being able to take it on.
Maybe Will Smith? That dude can get jacked (Ali) and is likeable as heck.
I agree that it would have to be re-imagined for the modern age. As it was a satire of the "boob-tube" generation, maybe it could be made to be a Netflix type streaming original, although it would lose it's real time game show feel. Maybe a live stream of sorts.
Also, I know it worked well with Arnold and his signature musculature, but in reality, it doesn't necessarily need to be someone "jacked." Any action star will work, in my opinion, jacked or not.
Livestream could work, but I'd say multiple social media videos per day ("Don't forget to smash that 'Like' button!") would work. I've seen people on social media post content, get a dozen or so "likes" and comments, and then remove the content and re-post it until it gets more attention - a hundred or more interactions. Apparently most of a video's lucrative views come in the first day or so of posting, so if the "Running Man" team were just making these live stalker-killer videos all the time... They could also get into how fast we burn through content these days.
I don't know what Ben Richards was like in the book, but if it were a true remake, the character is a soldier and would require a certain buffness to believably interact in the world of bloodlust as entertainment. I wouldn't say Hemsworth is as buff as Arnold was, but I'd believe him as a military guy. Plus, if they keep the satirical wink of the original, Hemsworth is a really funny guy, from what I've seen, and I think he could deliver there, too. Not saying he's the only option, of course.
In the novel, Ben is just a normal blue collared guy down on his luck in a dystopian totalitarian society. He went on the show to get money for meds for his wife.
And some people say it missed the target in depicting 2017...
That would be a good way to remake it; just stick closer to the novel and you'd get the same (rough) story, but with enough changes to justify the remake and keep the story fresh (and comparisons with the inimitable Arnold to a minimum).
How great would it be if they got Arnold to be "returning stalker" Captain Freedom?
The films strays hella much from the novel. It's almost completely different.
shareI'm pretty much just familiar with the film.
shareThe novel is much more grounded and takes place over a rather large piece of a state or perhaps even several, don't really remember. It wasn't so much an arena thing. And he was hunted for a really long time, longest in the shows history.
You should give it a read or listen, it's really good.
It's hella tricky. Not sure anyone would have the balls to adapt the book completely at this point given the legacy that this film has.
shareIt sounds like a remake could actually work, though, insofar as it wouldn't have to "challenge" the original. Fans of the Schwarzenegger film could watch a totally new story, or near enough, and fans of the book could (finally) get the text on screen.
That's the sort of remake that could actually work (I just had a discussion on the West Side Story board about remakes and what makes them work).
Looked up your post, and I definitely do agree. To clarify, I didn't mean to suggest that it's not possible to create a remake here. Like you, I do think that there's room for good remakes as long as you have a good reason for doing so. (E.g. I thought The Departed was an excellent movie, but unnecessary. Alternatively, I thought Vanilla Sky was a fascinating new take.) There's absolutely a niche for this remake to work.
I just don't think anyone would do it.
But yeah, it would be incredible if there was a remake that adapted the novel accurately, while also acknowledging the totally different Schwarzenegger story too! Hell of a challenge, but reminds me of how even though the Doctor Sleep film is a direct sequel to Kubrick's film, it was respectful of the original book too even if it had to change some things in the process.
I liked The Departed and Vanilla Sky both. I couldn't get into Infernal Affairs... don't know why. Just didn't click with me.
There is something about doing a foreign language remake. Often the original is still better, but it can make the story more accessible to people who might not even hear of the original work. I also think cultural exchange is a great thing and promotes creativity and artistic advancement.
Ah, I see; the story just would be hard to put on screen or difficult for audiences? Gotcha.
Oh, no, I didn't mean the plausibility of adapting the text (although actually...there could be some issues there too if I'm remembering right lol).
I meant that I find it unlikely that a studio or a director would risk adapting the book and disappointing the existing fanbase for this movie. And then in the process, might end up disappointing the novel's fanbase too, which would be a large part in making it.
Maybe I'm too cynical about the potential viewership.
re: The Departed,
Yeah I don't deny that it was a good movie, and it certainly does widen the accessibility of the story while providing its own unique thematic spins. This is a whole different topic, but my issue with the Departed is that I felt like it didn't go far enough. It took too many elements of the original, while going off and doing its own widely different thing. So it felt kinda lazy in that regard.
I'm clear now. Took me long enough.
I think studios just see "bankable name" and they don't even care if it resembles the original property. I don't know why they think that. They seem to make green light film decisions based on random guesswork. Like, "If we call it Bugs Bunny, they'll flock to it, even if it doesn't have the rabbit in it, right?" That's why they assume well-known properties like Ghostbusters will be beloved and make huge dollars. Or The Mummy. They remember the past success and assume that, I dunno, the name brand-recognition is what did it. No, it was Brendon Fraser and Rachel Weisz being a sweet, funny couple in a fun adventure movie.
So, 50/50 on The Running Man? If they think there's a fanbase, they might remake it, but who knows what they'd do to it? I don't think TRM is such a big property, though. They'll probably try Conan and (another) Terminator movie before they think of this one.
Maybe the reverse was what was happening to me with Infernal Affairs. Maybe I couldn't get into it because I saw the Departed first, and the, uh... departure from the original made the original feel weird to me.
Hmm, point taken. You're right. TRM isn't particularly something that comes up before Conan or whatever, but if they do do it, they might just do it based on whatever guesswork they're making off of what they think people will go for.
hahaha...I was like, hmm hope I'm not being annoying. Yeah...that's fair actually. And that's actually why even though I always recommended Infernal to people, I always will openly say that The Departed is an excellent film. And I encourage people to it as well. My issues with it exist outside the work, and yeah, the sequence of how I saw the films, and knowing that one preceded the other was probably part of it.
Btw, if you haven't, I would recommend checking out Vanilla Sky's inspiration, Abre los Ojos. No promises but I will say that the original director spoke well of Vanilla Sky, likening it to a song cover. And I agree, and honestly Vanilla Sky really changed how I've approached the concept of remakes in general. Cause it's pretty much the same story...but the differences in tone and presentation make them both worth watching in my opinion, like how some song covers can totally reinvite the emotions it generates in you.
Also Penelope Cruz plays the same character. And yet...it's not quite the same imo...
Producers have no idea what makes a great movie, or even a successful movie. They're okay at the latter, but clearly garbage at the former. It's almost comical, and might be funnier if it wasn't so tragic for great creatives who need to sit through focus groups so the producers can tell them, "No, audiences need things spelled out for them and they want happy endings, so Fargo won't work." (I have no idea if that happened to the Coens, I'm just throwing out a script that doesn't spoon-feed the audience and has a grim ending).
You're not annoying me yet! No worries, friend!
I feel like I should give IA another shot. Abre los Ojos is on my list, too.
I love when the original guys support the remakes. I got a big, stupid grin on my face when people asked the director of the Ghost in the Shell anime what he thought of Scarlett Johansson being Major Kusanagi, expecting some whitewashing quote, and he was like, "It's awesome, Scarlett's a great action star, I love it." I just like when they actually dig each other for once.
It would suck if Cruz played it the same. She's with different co-stars, so their reactions would naturally alter hers. If she changed nothing, that'd be terrible. I've seen theatre show remounts where they've clearly tried to do that - make an actor replicate his/her predecessor's style - and it never works.
I'm actually watching a BUNCH of Macbeth versions right now, gearing up for Joel Coen's adaptation, and the variances in tone and story are astounding. I highly recommend Throne of Blood (you've probably seen it) and this version:
Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OU0cuGuPSk
Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLc3w-yp3wk
If you dig Shakespeare, you'll dig that. Those aren't pirate links, either, those are right from the company for free.
Glad you brought up Ghost in the Shell. As a fan of the classic animated films, the first two television series, and the original manga that inspired them all...I absolutely adored the Scarlett Johansen adaptation. I think much of the criticism was of little substance and/or of little understanding of the source material. I do get bothered at times with racial castings, but this was not one of them. (Only issue was that they dumbed down the subject matter, which is understandable. Hard to push hard scifi concepts in a mainstream film.)
Oh, I meant to say, Penelope is playing effectively the same role in both movies...but she doesn't play it the same, which I find fascinating...because the subtle differences in her performances, in my opinion, reflect the different tone and presentation of the films as a whole. Won't say more than that.
I've actually never seen Macbeth; I wasn't a huge Shakespeare fan growing up, but I'll bookmark these links for later. Thanks! And lol appreciate the note about the legitimacy.
I liked Ghost in the Shell. I really like the original, I liked the remake. I haven't read all the mangas or anything, so you're deeper in than I am, but yeah, it was a solid action flick with enough depth to keep it fun. It caught flak for the racial casting thing, and for not being as good as the original. Which, okay, it's not. But that's a high bar. The remake was a good film.
Yeah, I was agreeing. An actor shouldn't be giving the same performance in a remake as they did in the original. They should be exploring and suiting the tone and playing off of their new co-stars. We are in 100% agreement here. I think I phrased my response strangely by comparing it to when they get a new actor and try to jam them into the original performer's idiom.
If you find yourself loving Macbeth, I will also HIGHLY recommend the 1979 version with Ian McKellen and Judi Dench as the leads. Ian McDiarmid's in it, too! It's like great thespian overdrive.
Yeah exactly. I'm like, for what it is, the remake is a good film, and it does its own thing, which frankly, makes it worth watching imo even if it pales to the movie it's adapting, just like the penelope cruz performance I mentioned. But yeah, we're agreed then!
As I recall, I think the director of the Psycho remake reported as much too. Quality of the remake aside, he'd observed that even though they tried to do a shot for shot remake, the reality is that the actors are all different, and as they play off each other, they naturally allow themselves to drift.
Cool thank you for the recommendation. lol it'd be neat too to see a younger McKellen and Dench. I'll add that one to the queue!
(lmao had to look up McDiarmid, hahaha, that's awesome that he's in there too).
100% in agreement there.
That's kinda what made the '98 Psycho worth watching to me, was those dynamic differences between the performers.
Last summer I watched Detour, the old 1945 noir film, and then the next day I watched the remake, which starred the original lead actor's son. The original is superior in every way, but it was fun watching different eras and casts take on a very similar script. It's not quite line-for-line ala the Psycho remake; they added in a (really terrible) subplot.
Yes, Van Sant did remark on how it was impossible to carbon copy the remake because of stuff like the performers. I think that was part of the exercise, though, was to see what happens when you shoot the "same" movie decades apart.
I recall reading that some of the actors tried to match their counterpart's performance and others ignored it, too.
As for Macbeth, I watch Joel Coen's version the other night, and it's great. I've got quibbles, but it's basically great.
And for McDiarmid there's an audio version of King Lear where he plays Lear. You can definitely hear the Emperor at times!
Ah, so you think the '98 Psycho was worth it then? Yeah, I was so dismissive of it in the past, and then recently I came on his remarks about it, so I was like oh. Huh, this sounds like an experiment worth checking out. (Also didn't know that they added in a subplot lol.)
Oh the new one with Denzel? It looks visually stunning to me. I vaguely was curious about it but alas, it's an Apple TV program I think. Hopefully I'll get access someday. There's been some programs that caught my eye...
I think it was worth it as a film experiment. It's pale in the shadow of Hitchcock's masterpiece, but it's okay. It's worth checking out as an artifact, and especially when viewed quickly with the original. I watched the first Psycho, then the remake, but it might be neat to try it the other way.
Yeah, the Detour remake has a subplot following the girlfriend in LA. It really doesn't work. Not only does it not compliment the main storyline (how could it? They're using the original dialogue, so that can't change, which means any addition is superfluous) but it actually undermines it. I think it weakens the main story. The Detour remake is almost like the proverbial train wreck: it's hard to look away, but it's just bad. The Psycho remake is at least well-done and has some good performances in it. It didn't hit Hitchcock's high bar, but it's still good.
The new Macbeth, yeah. It's visually fantastic. It's Apple TV, yes, so if it's not (still) playing near you (and you don't have Apple TV) you're up a creek. I have a friend who has ATV, so I lucked out. If they offer a free trial month or something you could always pop on, binge-watch the eye-catching stuff, and then kill the subscription.
Coen's Macbeth is the best shot Macbeth I've seen (to date). It's got some good-great performances, too. They don't touch the McKellen version, but they're well-done. It's good. If you get the chance, check it out.
I'll put it on my list. Thanks for the recommendation!
shareNever mind Arnold, who could replace Maria Conchita Alonso?
shareNo one.
shareI believe you are correct. How about a gender change, the running woman? If Sigourney Weaver was younger she would be great. I also love Halley Berry. Brie Larson was good as Capitan Marvel, I could see her playing lead.
And I saw in another post in place of the great performance by Richard Dawson - Steve Harvey. I could just see his tagline "we got us a good one" from Family Feud translating to this movie.
You know what is truly ripe for a remake?
Assholes that think perfectl good movies should be remade, like you.