|
|
Post by InvisibleWolfMan on Sept 14, 2008 23:18:23 GMT 2
 I decided to start a series of threads dedicated to discussing the issue of original films compared to their remake counterparts after viewing both versions of THE PRODUCERS. I'm not gonna bore you with plot details because most of you out there should have seen at least one of these during your lifetime, and if not...then skip out on this and find one to view and then come back to this. ORIGINAL: Mel Brooks actually hit on something with the basic premise of this film that I believe to be very true; under the right circumstances it is more profitable AND easier to produce a flop than to reap the rewards of a bonifide hit. Hell, look at the craptacular output of Hollywood these days. Zero Mostel IS Max Bialystock, a way-past-his-prime producer reduced to romancing elderly ladies to fund his failures. Although cartoonish to a degree he never dials past 11 and actually manages to make the character exist. If Zero is the heart (wild and unpredictable) then no doubt does Gene Wilder make worn-down account Leo Bloom the soul (the longing to break free). Max gives Leo back his long missing spine by refusing to let even the bleakest moments cast a dark cloud over their potential clear blue skies in the distance. Zero and Gene breathe such a life into this movie that would seem that without them it would seem like watching paint dry while listening to the sound of paint drying.  REMAKE: You might ask me "What the hell are you doing with a picture of The Hoff in the Las Vegas musical version of THE PRODUCERS when you are obviously talking about the remake?" Answer: It is much more interesting. Mel Brooks manages to take the basic premise of the first film and just make it seem like the duct tape to hold the scrap pieces of "a musical" together. Nathan Lane threatens at time to take Max and at least peak out from behind the dark shadow of Zero Mostel. Sadly, the cement shoes that eventually sends this movie to "sleep with da fishes" seem to be made out of Matthew Broderick's five-cent rendition of Leo Bloom. His rendition might have worked well on Broadway, but translated onto the big screen it comes off as being something a competent sixth grader could do. What blows the brains out of this film the most is that it is tame, sanitized, "reworked for a modern audience" and is a filmed version of a Broadway musical based on a film which made FUN of musicals. Plus, they turn Leo into someone who was ambitious but spineless and then later becomes a liar and a traitor until the "twist" at the end. What was a heart melting admission in the original NOW becomes a shallow, shit-drenched excuse to have the major players back for "one more round" before they are shown to succeed. Something the original never needed. View the trailers for yourself: ORIGINAL: REMAKE: |
|
|
|
Post by trashcanman on Sept 15, 2008 1:18:28 GMT 2
Ah, the Mel Brooks film I haven't seen. I wouldn't bother with the remake, but I'm on my way to Netflix now to put this in my queue. With such a forgettable title, I've probably skipped this over many times. My loss.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Curmudgeon on Sept 15, 2008 8:54:56 GMT 2
I'm pretty sure this thread should be numbered #2 because there's already been a Original vs Remake thread a long time ago. But, hey.
You want to know something embarrassing? I actually OWNED the original DVD of the Producers, got it free when I subscribed to a movie magazine.. and I never watched it. I think it was just after I had watched Blazing Saddles again for the first time in about 10 years and didn't even smile once. I promptly traded Saddles and I think the Producers followed. I always felt pretty bad for not even giving it a chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by trashcanman on Sept 15, 2008 10:00:44 GMT 2
No love for "Blazing Saddles"? Don't take your name so literally!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Curmudgeon on Sept 15, 2008 20:17:04 GMT 2
I just.. I dunno, I just didn't find it funny. I think its just school of humour that doesn't work with me anymore. A few of the gags were OK, but for the most part I was just "meh."
|
|
|
|
Post by InvisibleWolfMan on Sept 15, 2008 22:06:18 GMT 2
In the ORIGINALS VS REMAKES thread you refer to, it was basically designed to discuss them in general terms. I thought to actual go for a more direct approach and take a look at various originals and pit them against their remake counterparts giving more of an opinion why I prefer one over the other.
I think it was EMPIRE that was the magazine you subscribed to in order to receive the free copy of the 2 disc set of THE PRODUCERS from Momentum Pictures. I could be wrong, but it's the main movie magazine that I prefer...TOTAL FILM being a close second. The first time I attempted to view the original, I didn't get past the opening credits. My guess was that I wasn't in the mood. I find that if I don't take a few minutes and ask myself what sort of genre mood I'm in that day, I can't enjoy anything. Also, we can all readily admit that Mel Brooks' style of comedy hearkens back to "vaudeville" style entertainment that is more along the lines of The Marx Brothers mixed in with some pop culture references. Also, once you hit SPACEBALLS his films tend to get flimsy. DRACULA - DEAD AND LOVING IT was like visiting a dentist.
BLAZING SADDLES is best viewed after watching a few of those old time American westerns....anything starring John Wayne, for example. And who can't love these classic lines?
"Uh...Sir, he specifically requested two "nig-gers". Well, to tell a family secret, my grandmother was Dutch."
"Mongo only pawn... in game of life. "
"Goddarnit, Mr. Lamarr, you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore."
And...my favorite:
"Send wire, main office, tell them I said "ow," gotcha."
|
|
|
|
Post by trashcanman on Sept 16, 2008 10:54:04 GMT 2
As much as I hate to add to my lameness of never seeing either of the movies in discussion by continuing an off-topic tangent, I have to say it.  |
|
.jpeg)
