WWTBAM Bored

A production company that includes Christopher Mitchum, son of Robert Mitchum, has bought the rights to High Noon from Stanley Kramer's widow and plans to film a fairly low budget remake next year.

http://tinyurl.com/2gz4n6

I can't begin to describe how bad an idea this was. I'm guessing that the success of 3:10 to Yuma is causing people to take another look at old Westerns. Of course, the original Yuma, while a taut well-acted Western, was no classic and lent itself naturally to a remake. By the way, there was very little violence in the original Yuma and only a couple of killings, while the sequel had a body count in the dozens.

High Noon was already remade badly once already as a Turner TV movie with Tom Skerritt. That film changed the setting to a rainy, mountainous Canadian locale, and at least had Michael Madsen as the villain.

For $20 million, you won't get a Russell Crowe to take on this one. The original was a perfect Western, and a perfect black & white film, with one of the great all time title songs. Christopher Mitchum grew up making films with his dad, John Wayne and others. He should know better.

Seems to me you think it's a bad idea, not a bad film. Since the film hasn't been made yet, it's impossible to say it's a bad film.

I vehemently disagree that someone has to spend huge wads of money to make a good movie.

With a strike on, remaking existing stories is an obvious move.

Ritterskoop wrote:Seems to me you think it's a bad idea, not a bad film. Since the film hasn't been made yet, it's impossible to say it's a bad film.

I vehemently disagree that someone has to spend huge wads of money to make a good movie.

With a strike on, remaking existing stories is an obvious move.

Does vehemently disagree is skoopspeak translate into "You are full of crap when you say" in otherpeople's speak?

Ritterskoop wrote:Seems to me you think it's a bad idea, not a bad film. Since the film hasn't been made yet, it's impossible to say it's a bad film.

It may or may not be a bad film. It is certainly an unnecessary film. A low budget doesn't mean you can't have a good movie, but it will mean that high profile talent will avoid it.

Plus, since John Wayne died, Christopher Mitchum has been associated with a number of cheap, bad movies, which doesn't bode well for this.

Ritterskoop wrote:Seems to me you think it's a bad idea, not a bad film. Since the film hasn't been made yet, it's impossible to say it's a bad film.

I vehemently disagree that someone has to spend huge wads of money to make a good movie.

With a strike on, remaking existing stories is an obvious move.

Nothing's going to be made until the strike is over, remake or not.

peacock2121 wrote:

Ritterskoop wrote:Seems to me you think it's a bad idea, not a bad film. Since the film hasn't been made yet, it's impossible to say it's a bad film.

I vehemently disagree that someone has to spend huge wads of money to make a good movie.

With a strike on, remaking existing stories is an obvious move.

Does vehemently disagree is skoopspeak translate into "You are full of crap when you say" in otherpeople's speak?

Maybe. But I bet not. To be vehement is to feel strongly. I stood up when I read the original post, is how I knew I felt strongly.

SSS is welcome to hold his opinion. I would never hold that opinion. But since it is a matter of subjectivity, I can't say he is wrong or I am right.

I love many movies with small budgets, and actors who did not charge millions for their work. I bet SSS does too, if he thinks about it.

I know it's harder to sell movies without expensive big stars, but that's not a component of a good movie, only a successful one.

Ritterskoop wrote:

peacock2121 wrote:

Ritterskoop wrote:Seems to me you think it's a bad idea, not a bad film. Since the film hasn't been made yet, it's impossible to say it's a bad film.

I vehemently disagree that someone has to spend huge wads of money to make a good movie.

With a strike on, remaking existing stories is an obvious move.

Does vehemently disagree is skoopspeak translate into "You are full of crap when you say" in otherpeople's speak?

Maybe. But I bet not. To be vehement is to feel strongly. I stood up when I read the original post, is how I knew I felt strongly.

SSS is welcome to hold his opinion. I would never hold that opinion. But since it is a matter of subjectivity, I can't say he is wrong or I am right.

I love many movies with small budgets, and actors who did not charge millions for their work. I bet SSS does too, if he thinks about it.

I know it's harder to sell movies without expensive big stars, but that's not a component of a good movie, only a successful one.

I will mull this over - I do not have an opinion about the subject - that is not what I will mull over.

I am wondering what it would be like to vehemently disagree - so much so that I am called to stand up - and not make the other person's point of view wrong.

Not sure I have ever done that.

Ritterskoop wrote:

peacock2121 wrote: SSS is welcome to hold his opinion. I would never hold that opinion. But since it is a matter of subjectivity, I can't say he is wrong or I am right.

I love many movies with small budgets, and actors who did not charge millions for their work. I bet SSS does too, if he thinks about it.

I know it's harder to sell movies without expensive big stars, but that's not a component of a good movie, only a successful one.

The problem I have with this project is not the small budget; it's the entire concept. I like a lot of independent and low budget films.

$20 million is very low for a quality action film, and if they go in the direction of the original film and downplay the action elements, it's still low to get top level talent in the lead roles. Name stars can and do work on quality projects for low prices, but usually if there is something about it that appeals to him. Knowing the quality of what Mitchcum has been associated with the last twenty years, I have my doubts.

I fear that this will be another attempt to cash in on the name value of a classic film with some TV actor in the lead role. But even if it is a quality production, it still is unnecessary.

I don't doubt that Gone with the Wind might look "better" with state-of-the-art special effects work for the burning of Atlanta, but that is no reason to remake the movie. It might be an interesting idea to cast Al Pacino in the Marlon Brando role with some up-and-comers as the sons in a remake of The Godfather but that's no reason to remake it.

Some films can't be improved upon and remakes of these films are a cheap attempt to cash in on true art.

The original is over-rated.