Mel Gibson to write/direct Wild Bunch remake!

[ChuckS1]

You guys aren't the target audience, your grandkids (or maybe great grandkids) are. They're the ones who spend the money on movies.

Again, the two old guys from The Muppet Show are out in force.

 

[ChuckS1]

Rarely does remaking a classic turn out well. Great movies should be left alone for what they are. The Coen Brothers did a great job with True Grit, but it can be hard to come up with other examples of remakes doing a good if not better job.

"Scarface" with Al Pacino, for one.

 

[THE PILGRIM]

I do like Tombstone better than any of the other flicks about the gunfight in the vacant lot beside the C S Fly Photo Studio- Boardinghouse.
And it was just behind the OK Corral.
And since the Bunch isn't a historical re-enactment, the gang members don't have to be exactly the same as in the original.
I would prefer that somebody else not Mel write the story line and script.
He has certainly established himself as a top level director, probably not a writer.

 

[ColbyBruce]

Mel Gibson should leave well enough alone.

Next, he'll get the idea of re-making "1 Million Years BC" and try to stuff Kate Upton into Raquel's skimpy rabbit hide outfit.

 

[500SNW]

Just thinking about this made me vomit up a beer and a bag of Cheetos. Barely made it to the bathroom on time. This would be like trying to remake Shane. Or High Noon. Or Unforgiven. Or even A Fistful of Dollars.

Agree 100%. Reminds me of when they recently tried to remake "Magnificent Seven"...it sucked. Why can't Hollywood create something new...a new classic...instead of trying to cash in on historical works of art? Right now, there is a remake of Predator showing in the cinemas. What was wrong with the first one...that they had to redo it? And as for Mel Gibson...much like his fictional Riggs character...the real Mel Gibson lost his marbles many years ago.

 

[Rustyt1953]

I enjoyed the remakes of True Grit, The Thing, DOA, Cape Fear, The Day the Earth Stood Still, etc, etc.

Their job was to entertain me and they did.

 

[RobertJ.]

Again, the two old guys from The Muppet Show are out in force.

Statler and Waldorf were my favorite part of the show!

I thought some of this conversation sounded familiar...

 

[jag312]

The best re-make is The Maltese Falcon with Humphrey Bogart. How many here have ever seen the original with Ricardo Cortez?

But to get back to The Wild Bunch, can there be a replacement for Strother Martin and L.Q. Jones? Bo Hopkins played Crazy Lee in the original. How about bringing him back as Freddie Sykes? Can Alfonso Arau could come back playing the same part he played in the original?

No, a re-make just can't be as great as the original.

 

[woodsltc]

Gotta love these kind of threads....Gibson has done a good job of directing in the past & if it looks like a good movie I will see it.

But when it really gets right down to it....why should anyone "really care" if the movie is made or not. I sure don't.

Don

 

[ace22]

Mel Gibson should leave well enough alone.

Next, he'll get the idea of re-making "1 Million Years BC" and try to stuff Kate Upton into Raquel's skimpy rabbit hide outfit.

what's wrong with that?
i'd buy that for a dollar!

 

[Rustyt1953]

i'd buy that for a dollar!

Ya knew it was coming:


[ame]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=85cL1HisrNc[/ame]

 

[Watchdog]

Rarely does remaking a classic turn out well. Great movies should be left alone for what they are. The Coen Brothers did a great job with True Grit, but it can be hard to come up with other examples of remakes doing a good if not better job.

I don't trust Mel Gibson to do it right. This is the guy that made Braveheart which is completely inaccurate. Just one example is the Battle of Sterling...Bridge. The historical battle centered around the Scots bottlenecking the English on a bridge. Yet 'ole Mel filmed a battle scene with nary a bridge in sight.

I was wondering if anyone would come along and mention one of the more ridiculous inaccuracies Gibson threw into Braveheart. He must have relied on part-time research personnel for his Scottish history, or else he just enjoyed telling outright lies about it for reasons of his own. Maybe he just wanted to make the film be more of a popcorn-muncher than (yawn) historically accurate.

 

[ladder13]

I'm quite sure movies like The Ten Commandments, the Civil War and a whole host of others like Saving Private Ryan, etc are totally factual.
Some folks here might have even been there to help clear things up.

 

[woodsltc]

^^^^^ Exactly......it would be pretty hard, if not impossible to find any movie out of hollywood and directed by anyone, that did not have (as stated previously) "ridiculous inaccuracies".

If someone doesn't like Mel Gibson, so be it....I don't really care, but at least don't complain about something not being historically accurate in one of his films, because the same could be said about virtually all movies. BTW, didn't Braveheart win a bunch of awards, including best picture and best director !!!! Hhhmmmm imagine that.

 

[jimmyj]

I would be interested in a major part in the movie. I would want to be the guy that gets the girl and rides off into the sunset.

 

[ladder13]

Many "inaccuracies" in Saving Private Ryan.

Saving Private Ryan (1998) - Goofs - IMDb

Yet, it is considered by many to be a classic.

It's a movie.

Now back to regular programming.

 

[walkin jack]

Just thinking about this made me vomit up a beer and a bag of Cheetos. Barely made it to the bathroom on time.

This would be like trying to remake Shane. Or High Noon. Or Unforgiven. Or even A Fistful of Dollars.

Mel Gibson? Ol' Bravefart himself? No. Just no.

Surely no one will be stupid enough to bankroll such an abomination. Sam Peckinpah and Warren Oates will rise from their graves and kill everyone they even suspect of being associated with something like this.

I couldn't agree more. If it ain't broke don't fix it. But then again They did do a remake of True Grit. I didn't see it and don't want to but some people did like it.

Go figger.

 

[Kinman]

To be honest I've watched a few remakes that I thought were as entertaining as the original but not quite up to snuff in the believable area. Guys like Holden, Marvin, McQueen...the list goes on were the real deal kind of guys, they'd been there done that in their lives making them more believable than someone like Gibson.
I did like Tombstone but only because Kilmer carried the film, never was a Russel fan since his Disney days. Kilmer has had too much facial reconstruction and gotten puffy making him possibly eligible for Borgnine's character role.
It all comes down to opinions and that is what makes these threads interesting. Unlike some other sites that I have been a member of it has always been refreshing that this one entertains these threads and everybody walks away with their opinions safely and securely tucked away, no harm...no foul.
Maybe that's part of the mystique of "A well armed society is a polite society."

 

[jag312]

If there is a re-make of The Wild Bunch, please use a Maxim machinegun, rather than a Browning 1917.

 

[RobertJ.]

But when it really gets right down to it....why should anyone "really care" if the movie is made or not. I sure don't.

That was an excellent point. Who really cares? Nobody will be forced to watch it.

If I watch it at all it won't be until it's streaming, and I can watch it from my recliner. There aren't too many movies I will go out and see.

I do go out for movies, though. We have a brew pub that just turned our old un-used theater into a pub/theater, and the remodel turned out excellent. I saw "Jaws" there a couple weeks ago. First time I saw it there was in 1975.