# Red Dawn... a remake!



## MA-Caver (Jun 17, 2009)

Found this little thing while reading about a possible 5th Indiana Jones film and all I could do was shake my head


> &#8226; Wolverines! The onetime battle cry of Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen will soon be echoed by Josh Peck and Adrianne Palicki, according to the Hollywood Reporter. The pair have been enlisted in the remake of Red Dawn, the 1984 film about a Communist invasion of the U.S.
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/eonline/20090617/en_movies_eo/129660


I guess 25 years is enough time passed to do a re-make that really isn't necessary. Of course the explosions and graphic violence wasn't made up to par to today's standards. 
Wonder who the antagonists will be... North Koreans? Oh yeah that'll help things along... it worked in WWII demonizing the Nazi's and Japanese. Sort of getting Americans prepared to hate a whole new demographic. :idunno: sure, why not? 
:disgust:

Oh and "Fame!" is getting a remake too while they're at it. http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/need-to-know-fame-cast.html


----------



## jarrod (Jun 17, 2009)

i wish there was some originality left in hollywood.

jf


----------



## Nolerama (Jun 17, 2009)

That's messed up. I watched the original as a kid and got severely depressed about World War 3.

See, as a military brat, living in European theater, we could sense a bit of hostility towards the Soviets... The Reds blitzing the US seemed like a very real danger.

It also didn't help to have a grandfather (who survived WW2 in the Philippines as a kid) tell you that the military base that I lived in was a very ideal target, and that if WW3 was going to happen, I didn't have to worry. We'd already be dead.

I remember visiting Niagara Falls and figured I'd run there if the Russians ever invaded.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 17, 2009)

What's next, _"The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming!"_


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 17, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> Found this little thing while reading about a possible 5th Indiana Jones film and all I could do was shake my head
> I guess 25 years is enough time passed to do a re-make that really isn't necessary. Of course the explosions and graphic violence wasn't made up to par to today's standards.
> Wonder who the antagonists will be... North Koreans? Oh yeah that'll help things along... it worked in WWII demonizing the Nazi's and Japanese. Sort of getting Americans prepared to hate a whole new demographic. :idunno: sure, why not?
> :disgust:
> ...


 

Why?


----------



## jarrod (Jun 17, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Why?



because the current generation of movie goers can't keep up on the growing list of "classics", so by constantly remaking movies is an easy way to turn a quick profit.  critics & older movie goers will ***** & moan, but in the end it will make money & ensure future needless remakes.

jf


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 17, 2009)

jarrod said:


> because the current generation of movie goers can't keep up on the growing list of "classics", so by constantly remaking movies is an easy way to turn a quick profit.  critics & older movie goers will ***** & moan, but in the end it will make money & *ensure future needless remakes*.
> 
> jf


You wanna bet?


----------



## jarrod (Jun 17, 2009)

you don't think they'll keep doing remakes as long as they make money?

jf


----------



## arnisador (Jun 17, 2009)

_Josh Peck???_


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 17, 2009)

Nolerama said:


> That's messed up. I watched the original as a kid and got severely depressed about World War 3.
> 
> See, as a military brat, living in European theater, we could sense a bit of hostility towards the Soviets... The Reds blitzing the US seemed like a very real danger.
> 
> ...


In the late 70s and 80s -- it was a real danger.  It wasn't at all hard to imagine a puppet Soviet regime in South or Central America being the staging ground for a Soviet invasion of the US.


----------



## ShelleyK (Jun 17, 2009)

Nolerama said:


> That's messed up. I watched the original as a kid and got severely depressed about World War 3.
> 
> See, as a military brat, living in European theater, we could sense a bit of hostility towards the Soviets... The Reds blitzing the US seemed like a very real danger.
> 
> ...



Dont bother it wont help...Niagara Falls powers 1/2 the eastern seaboard with electricity...we are high on the list of "oh **** there is a missile headed for us"  When 9/11 happened all the borders were closed for days...people were trapped on either side....sucked big time


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 18, 2009)

jarrod said:


> you don't think they'll keep doing remakes as long as they make money?
> 
> jf


My bad, misread that line was thinking you said it won't ensure needless future remakes. You're right in the first place. Hollywood tends to stick to a formula that works. Years ago sex was almost never mentioned or if so it was in VERY LIGHT reference or light innuendo that was cleverly written in the dialogue. Somewhere down the line it changed to where now there is an obligatory nude or sex scene. 
Violence was shown as a shadow on the wall (or sometimes none at all) or if a person was shot they grasped their stomach (Edward G Robertson in Little Caesar) or their chest and there was little or no blood. Now we'll see heads getting literally blown off (Pulp Fiction), dismemberment, etc. etc. 
Granted, in RARE cases graphic violence was needed to hammer home the intensity of the situation (Opening battle scene in Saving Private Ryan) to help give an appreciation of the event portrayed. But most of the time it's been very gratuitous, or exaggerated.
Language was practically non-existent and fines had to be pre-paid to get past censors (Gone With The Wind), where as now some films seem to try and break the record for the most usage of certain swear words (Scarface, Goodfellas and South Park). 

Seems that remakes are a way to make money or a means for directors to do a one-upmanship on previous great film makers or films. 
Sometimes it works very well; Ocean's 11 with Pitt and Clooney was a MUCH better re-telling than the  1960 "Brat Pack" version. Having seen both I'll stick with the 2001 version. 
Yet much of the time these re-makes have failed miserably i.e. The Day The Earth Stood Still http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=daytheearthstoodstill08.htm  and the list is endless... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_remakes_A-M (continued) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_remakes_N-Z

Yet of course we the public keep viewing them. It's a wonder to shake your head at alright. 

Makes me think of an impromptu experiment I did with some kids of a friend of mine. They had just finished seeing Peter Jackson's 2005 version of King Kong and thought the movie was the best EVER! I happened to own the original full length 1933 original version and asked the kids to watch it. I asked them to just bear with the hokey (primitive) special effects (which ironically was the best of the day... just like it's newest clone) and watch the whole movie and tell me what they thought. 
At "The End" I asked them what they thought... they were very impressed and said that they liked the STORY better in the original version but hands down the 2005 version's special effects won out. On that I agreed but still found the original's version's f/x to be impressive considering what Willis H. O'Brien had to work with he did a pretty darn good job. 
My father tells me that my mom screamed during the film when they watched it together for the first time in the theater. :lol: 

Anyway, I think the point is that Hollywood needs to find better screenwriters so that remakes aren't going to be necessary. We want to be continuously entertained so coming up with something original gets harder.


----------

