"HARVEY" remake is in the works

[LizzieMaine]

I think the real reason for remakes is to simply squeeze more mileage out of a property a studio happens to own -- and the best way to do that is to remake it using stars who are relevant to the current filmgoing/DVD buying public. I think it's safe to say 90 percent of the kids who frequent the multiplexes today have no idea who James Stewart is, and wouldn't be interested in paying to see him. But they do know Will Smith -- oh neat, that guy from Men in Black! -- and might be inclined to watch his version. Creatively bankrupt, but ever so profitable.

For what it's worth, though, there were people in 1950 who said it was ridiculous to film "Harvey" without Frank Fay in the lead.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

I would go see Will Smith in Harvey!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The other guy was ok, but, a bit of a milquetoast for my liking. Yes I think I will see that new movie .

Creativity zero same as the music industry. However, if the material is worth remaking there is nothing wrong with that.

Introducing a new generation, whether it be due to age or a new wave of immigrants, it is the original story those folks are being exposed to as well as a new cast.

Without being disrespectful, if James Stewart were able to be cast in the lead today I am sure he would be.

 

[Naphtali]

How about comparing Robert Wise's 1961 "The Haunting" with the newer version?

Cheers

Jamie

In the universe of appalling remakes, I'm confident the worst to date have been: "Cape Fear" (1991) with Nick Nolte and Robert De Niro, out of Martin Scorsese; and "The Lady Killers (2004) with Tom Hanks, out of the Coen brothers. These, each in its special way, are so bad as to defy description. The only possible way to appreciate them is to view them a week or so after viewing the original.

 

[C-dot]

Oh dear... I thought I was upset by The Women being remade.

I just don't see how a film that is so indicative of the Golden Era can work in today's age. Would The Matrix have worked in postwar times?

To me these remakes are an insult - The only good one I've seen is The Bachelor, and that's because it was reworked almost completely.

 

[Feraud]

Yes, i know what you are saying, but at least in the Golden Age remakes were made with some honesty and dignity. Nowadays remakes are frankly grotesque.... i mean ... hundreds of examples can be given but just one: "The Women" remake, mention above .... Feraud please!!!! lol lol

I wonder why they dont just go ahead in Hollywood and say that what they are doing are caricatures of the originals????

With that, I dont have a problem! [huh]

"some honesty and dignity" is the key phase here.
There is too much evidence to show Hollywood was as much a business back then as it is now to assume otherwise.

 

[HadleyH]

"some honesty and dignity" is the key phase here.
There is too much evidence to show Hollywood was as much a business back then as it is now to assume otherwise.

Yes, but I wasn't talking about the business aspect (sorry if I wasn't clear) as much as about honesty in remaking the movie, being faithful to the script,etc ... basically not making a caricature out the the old film, like they did with "The Women" for example.

Of course Hollywood is all about money, omg, money and Hollywood are synonyms ! lol

 

[Feraud]

Ah I see.
On the flip side of that coin, some directors are faithful in adapting the material and we end up with Gus Van Sant's Psycho. We cannot win! lol

 

[Feathers]

Don't even get me started...how 'bout the Honeymooners 'remake'? Or Miracle on 34th Street? Or the Parent Trap? How insulting!!!!! :rage:

 

[J.L. Picard]

Of course Hollywood is all about money, omg, money and Hollywood are synonyms ! lol

Lady H!

O M G!​

You are detracting a Noble Philanthropic Institution !!! lol lol

 

[Andykev]

A remake might be fun, Marc, in BLACK or WHITE

Jimmy Stewart was white, and Harvey was a white rabbit.

Will Smith is black.

Does this mean...? lol

Actually, Will Smith is too young to play it. I'd choose Eddie Murphy.


.

The color of the actor has nothing to do with the story. Will Smith is great, but I think a Tom Hanks character would master the goofiness of Elwood P. Dowd.

The movie would be fun. A lot of vintage films have been remade. I love the original, but a remake might introduce many new film goers to this timeless classic.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

The color of the actor has nothing to do with the story.

Agreed. I think that Eddie Murphy would do a fine enough job. But (IMO) in the best of all possible scenarios, the remake wouldn't be made.


Here's an alternative: rerelease the original Jimmy Stewart film in theaters nationwide, and support it with a big advertising campaign. (It's thanks to rereleases that I was able, as a little kid, to see The Wizard of Oz and Song of the South in movie theaters.)


.

 

[Charlie Noodles]

Oh... Darn. Darn this remake and this respectable place to heck! I want to say ungentlemanly things.

 

[Lorena B]

Harvey to be remade?? Ok..... I know who WONT go to see it.
Along the years i have learned something, the second parts or remakes from today's era are generallyNOT GOOD than the golden era originals.

The actors are not even close to the magnificence of the originals, and the story always ends up changing something so they can show sex scenes or special effects.:rage:

Will Smith as Harvey....!!!???? yeah right for me that sounds as Halley Berry or Sharon Stone as Scarlett O'Hara in Gone with the wind

The Women remake... I wont see it.
The day the Earth stood still... didnt go to see it.
Made a mistake and I saw in video the War of the words... Man, I still have nightmares.

For this cinema companies looking for a fast way to make lots of money i will tell them: LEAVE ART IN PEACE!!!

 

[Carlisle Blues]

The movie would be fun. A lot of vintage films have been remade. I love the original, but a remake might introduce many new film goers to this timeless classic.

However, if the material is worth remaking there is nothing wrong with that.

Introducing a new generation, to the original story

honesty in remaking the movie, being faithful to the script,etc ... basically not making a caricature out the the old film,

Exactly............

 

[GoldenEraFan]

Originality has become too financially risky.

.

What a shame. Bussinessmen have taken control of everything. It was better when bussinessmen took care of the finiance and left creativity to the creative people who loved what they did. Harley Earl loved designing cars and Tex Avery loved making cartoons. Buisnessmen love making money. There should be a balance between creativity and money.

 

[Creeping Past]

Personally, I'm looking forward to interactive DIY movies in a couple of years' time, when I'll be able to create my own remakes, but with classic screen stars doing their reanimated thing.

My first attempt will be Paul Blart: Mall Cop, starring William Powell.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

What a shame. Bussinessmen have taken control of everything. It was better when bussinessmen took care of the finiance and left creativity to the creative people who loved what they did. Harley Earl loved designing cars and Tex Avery loved making cartoons. Buisnessmen love making money. There should be a balance between creativity and money.

Here is a different perspective:

The Big Picture (Random House 2005), which examines the fascinating and ever-changing economics of moviemaking. To give you an idea of what's going on in Hollywood economics, consider this:

In 1947, Hollywood sold 4.7 billion movie tickets. The studios were hugely profitable movie factories.

Times have changed. . . Television came to compete with the movies, as did home video. And despite a population boom, movie-going fell out of favor. In 2003, only 1.57 billion tickets were sold, a third the number 56 years earlier, while the real cost of making movies increased some 1,600 percent.

It wasn't just production costs that exploded. Today the average movie costs $4.2 million to distribute and nearly $35 million just to advertise. (The comparable 1947 figures, adjusted for inflation, were $550,000 and $300,000.) Such peripheral costs, Epstein explains, have grown so large that "even if the studios had somehow managed to obtain all their movies for free, they would still have lost money on their American releases."

How did Hollywood respond? Hollywood transformed itself from a factory for making movies into a clearinghouse for intellectual property, which is at least as profitable as making movies used to be. The result?

The truth is that, even with terrible movies, the studios have to try hard not to make money. In this way, today's Hollywood is very much like the studio system of old. The two business models are so favorable that the quality of the product is beside the point. The difference, of course, is that the movies from the studio era were often quite good

 

[Heather]

I like Will Smith but oh my god NO!!! :eusa_doh: They are going to butcher it!

 

[C-dot]

Don't even get me started...how 'bout the Honeymooners 'remake'?

HOW can you remake the Honeymooners?! Nobody can replace Sandy Dennis! That makes me mad! :rage:

 

[Carlisle Blues]

HOW can you remake the Honeymooners?! Nobody can replace Sandy Dennis! That makes me mad! :rage:

I think you mean "Out Of Towners"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066193/