Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Tweeter:

Yon mean like the ever popular "Plan 9 from Outer Space".  

OK, that one is probably the exception to the rule.  Surely even Madonna could make a better version.  Better...not good.

Quote:
Quoting yvonne_:

Quote:

And if it is so: then what's the point of even making it? That's basically my point. I don't see any reasons for even making a new version, unless someone comes up with something totally new. And I doubt Madonna is the person to come up with such an idea. Sorry, but I don't believe in her.

Oh, I agree that this new version will most likely not surpass its predecessor. I just don't think it can do any harm, and as such I don't see the point in not making it. As the saying goes: no harm, no foul.

KM

Quote:
My main objection to the re-make of 'classic' films is exploitation of the title. I see this as nothing more than cheap exploitation of proven success by the producers of the new unproven product. If the story and the telling is good enough, it will stand on its own, but it should be called something else and not associated with an original.

By way of example, Akira Kurosawa's 'Seven Samurai' (1954) was converted to John Sturges' western 'The Magificent Seven' (1960). When the latter film was released it's a fair bet that most people outside the art-house circuit had never heard of 'Seven Samurai' or Kurosawa, yet 'The Magificent Seven' was a success in its own right, mainly due to its showcasing some interesting new talent (Steve McQueen, James Coburn). It did not need to bask in any reflected glory, yet the story is the same.

Conversely we can also enjoy 'Rashomon' (1951) without being distracted by the inferior U.S. 're-make' 'The Outrage' (1964). There are many other examples you can think of.

Returning to 'Casablanca.' Films become classics for a variety of reasons, which are explained in detail in any good film studies text book ('Casablanca' is a case study in 'The Oxford Guide to Film Studies' for example). I think that having earned that status they should be left alone and not exploited by the excuse of the need to update the same to the tastes of a modern audience. ‘Casablanca’ is notable for the actor performances, amongst other things. Bogart and Bergman were an inspirational pairing.

By all means go to Iraq, Madonna, with Leonard de whats-‘is-name or whoever and remake a similar story but please, please don’t call it ‘Casablanca’ or try to convince us that it is related in any way to the original, or that the acting talent should be regarded as comparable.

Quote:
Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
A remake, IMHO, is based on the basically same screenplay as an earlier film.

Well, this would automatically disqualify a huge number of remakes from being considered remakes... I don't think I can agree with this definition. If they're not remakes, what are they? I suppose the newfangled Hollywoodism "re-imagining" could apply, but that's just semantics in my opinion.

By that definition not even The Man Who Knew Too Much, one of the most classic examples of a remake, is actually a remake. The plot is very similar, but the script itself is quite different with many locations, characters and dialogue not matching between the two. The newer version is even 40+ minutes longer than the original. Yet Hitchcock considered it a remake.

Quote:
(English)
Madonna wants to remake Casablanca - and of all the places in all the world, she plans to set it in war-torn Iraq
By CAROLINE GRAHAM - 29th March 2008
(Dutch)
Madonna plant remake van Casablanca
Madonna heeft de smaak van het regisseren te pakken, na haar debuut Filth and wisdom. Nu wil de queen of pop zich wagen aan een nieuwe versie van de romantische überklassieker Casablanca uit 1942.