oh good the director will be Pablo Larrain, a known chilean director.
He made like 1 good movie and lots of meh ones.
WHY
They better load up the big guns for the soundtrack. They got a lot to live up to in the audio department.
[editline]25th March 2014[/editline]
I mean, fuck. The Scarface soundtrack was THE amalgamation of the eighties.
[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;44345288]The basic plot of both Scarface movies are the same.[/QUOTE]
the keyword there is 'basic'. It pretty much stops being the same movie after the outline of the film was done.
$50 on a cringey "Say hello to my little friend" reference cameo line that comes out stupid but the crowd [I]loves[/I] it like Rise of the Apes did.
I dunno, Pablo Larraín is alright. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
[QUOTE=Viva;44346092]the keyword there is 'basic'. It pretty much stops being the same movie after the outline of the film was done.[/QUOTE]
That's why it's a good remake, it takes things from the original and does it's own thing with them.
[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;44347034]That's why it's a good remake, it takes things from the original and does it's own thing with them.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, what point are you trying to make because you just agreed with my counter argument there.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;44345848]They better load up the big guns for the soundtrack. They got a lot to live up to in the audio department.
[editline]25th March 2014[/editline]
I mean, fuck. The Scarface soundtrack was THE amalgamation of the eighties.[/QUOTE]
Rush, rush, get de yayo!
A good way to make this film seem more palatable is to watch the Scarface scene from Master of Disguise right before you go see this.
What's the bet they'll replace character development with gun fights, and story arcs with explosions and topless women doing drugs?
[QUOTE=darcy010;44347288]What's the bet they'll replace character development with gun fights, and story arcs with explosions and topless women doing drugs?[/QUOTE]
They did the first two with the RoboCop remake, and it turned out great!
-sarcasm-
God, hollywood only does remakes now, or adaptions. There's so little original movies these days, unlike the past.
I recently thought I'm missing out on Scarface.
Which version should I watch, I had no idea the Al Pacino version is a Remake
[QUOTE=proch;44349191]I recently thought I'm missing out on Scarface.
Which version should I watch, I had no idea the Al Pacino version is a Remake[/QUOTE]
Watch the al pacino version, there's a reason that's the famous one.
[QUOTE=proch;44349191]I recently thought I'm missing out on Scarface.
Which version should I watch, I had no idea the Al Pacino version is a Remake[/QUOTE]
Its a remake in the same way Hamlet is a remake. It took an idea and expanded upon and improved it. Watch the Pacino version
I don't see why everyone is worrying, scarface has been remade numerous times to be relevant to the times. The first was in the prohibition era with alcohol, the second with cocaine. I wonder what this one will be.
[QUOTE=zin908;44350099]I don't see why everyone is worrying, scarface has been remade numerous times to be relevant to the times. The first was in the prohibition era with alcohol, the second with cocaine. I wonder what this one will be.[/QUOTE]
I imagine that given the popularity of the Al Pacino version it'll still be cocaine. I was gonna say they don't wanna fuck around with the source material too much, cos they'll alienate the fans of the original, but uh... Robocop lol
[QUOTE=zin908;44350099]I don't see why everyone is worrying, scarface has been remade numerous times to be relevant to the times. The first was in the prohibition era with alcohol, the second with cocaine. I wonder what this one will be.[/QUOTE]
I wonder how it would be if they did it with meth
In the original film Scarface's relationship with his sister started fairly strained and in a strange kind of way resolved itself (all be it short-lived) in the end.
In the 80's version the relationship goes from loving to fucking snapped.
In this new version she will just cry the entire time, whilst melodramatic music plays in the background.
[QUOTE=darcy010;44347288]What's the bet they'll replace character development with gun fights, and story arcs with explosions and topless women doing drugs?[/QUOTE]
About as likely as making it PG-13.
[QUOTE=gary spivey;44350194]I wonder how it would be if they did it with meth[/QUOTE]
No it could still be cocaine. Meth has been around for a long time but it's not really an international cartel thing.
I'm assuming they'll want to keep that angle, the main boss being outside the US. For one thing, the more international the movie feels the bigger the box office in non US markets.
[QUOTE=Omali;44347178]A good way to make this film seem more palatable is to watch the Scarface scene from Master of Disguise right before you go see this.[/QUOTE]
Please don't remind me of that disgustingly shit piece of celluloid rape.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;44345317]Let's be honest, as far as visuals went Scarface has not aged well at all.
Besides it's already a remake so might as well continue the tradition.[/QUOTE]
visuals, what?? do you think it's supposed to be like a videogame?
[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;44351274]visuals, what?? do you think it's supposed to be like a videogame?[/QUOTE]
im pretty sure cinema is a visual medium ?????
[QUOTE=mikeyt493;44351307]im pretty sure cinema is a visual medium ?????[/QUOTE]
visually speaking it looks fine, it's in color and it gives off a sweet 80s vibe. I see literally nothing wrong with it
[editline]d[/editline]
movies "aging" isn't a bad thing, that's stupid.
is black and white bad lol? I guess Psycho looks shit cos it was in black and white during a time where colour cinema existed :~) (hint it is a beautiful film)
Anyway I've not seen Scarface so can't comment on the film specifically but cinema goes beyond just... Framing the action. You have to think of production design, blocking, mise-en-scene, cinematography and the rules that follow them (so you can follow or break them)... There's so much. You're probably a bad director if you just go "um yea thats fine" at any image that basically just shows what's going on. It will make a bad looking film. In terms your point I think of the first 3 Harry Potter films. The first 2 were directed by Chris Columbus who despite being fairly young is a very classic Hollywood director in his style. I won't bother going into detail but they look like old films (even if they do have cgi etc... I mean the cinematography) but then comes along Alfonso Cuaron for Prisoner Of Azkaban. Probably one of the best directors of the past decade, with films like Children of Men and Gravity coming out after PoA garnering massive praise for his technical ability and visual style. Tbh given the classic and very safe style of the first 2 films Cuaron was a strange choice as his previous films show a clearly young director pushing boundaries in many ways, and they brought him on to do this film.. And it is absolutely fresh as hell visually. Shots going into mirrors, through clock towers, 4 minute takes, long steadicam shots... It's all very modern, as opposed to Colmbus' setting up a tripod and taking in the action, shot-reverse-shot editing, etc. I can't remember much beyond the actual design of the films eg mise en scene and set but the cinematography went from old fashioned to brand new and it really made a difference in the enjoyment of the films (I definitely think PoA is the best in the franchise)
Like do you think you'd get visually striking films such as 2001: A Space Oddysey, Gravity, The Passion of Joan of Arc, Breathless if they just thought "that looks fine yea"? hells no bro. I pick those films are they're all visually unique and beautiful, and were all pioneering in their own ways. Cinema grows and the new takes over the old. The old becomes noticeably older as new things come out advancing the technology, rules and style created by films as the years go on (not to say the old becomes worse. If you look at most "all time best" lists the majority of the films are pre-1970 for various reasons)
My point is films age and can look old or new depending on lots of things... Visuals are integral to cinema and a good film often relies heavily on brilliant visuals even if you don't notice it.
I can only imagine if we had Facepunch back in the 80s
"wtf hollywood get some original ideas..."
"he's Italian not Cuban wtf????"
"gonna be awful"
I never said black and white was bad? I'm trying to figure out a way to explain myself better.. I think visually speaking, especially for it's time, Scarface works and looks just fine. It doesn't have what we have today but it's "aged" well
[editline]d[/editline]
I'm not really sure what my point is honestly, I just don't see how this guy says Scarface somehow doesn't hold up visually anymore. I agree with you.
I personally love the way a lot of these older movies look, look at Taxi Driver. A movie's visuals are like a reflection of the time, and a lot of them are straight up art.
Well it sounded like you said b&w was bad cos you said "its in colour" as a backup to it looking good. Yea I get what you mean, as I said I've not seen the film so couldn't agree or disagree with you. But Brian DePalma is a good director (although he's not made a good movie since Mission Impossible), Carrie is a really cool looking film so I imagine yea Scarface looks pretty stylish and nice.
[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;44347034]That's why it's a good remake, it takes things from the original and does it's own thing with them.[/QUOTE]
and we're just already assuming this won't.
last time I checked a lot of you guys loved Django Unchained, which is an even looser "remake" than Scarface
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.