Pink Poogle Toy Forum

There have been so many remakes lately and it's gotten me wondering about what those movies would be like if they were originally made today.

(60 year-old spoiler warning!)

Take Casablanca, for instance. If it were just some WWII movie that they thought of today, I think it would be very different. I don’t think that Humphrey Bogart would be able to make it as a lead actor today, sadly enough. He was not conventionally attractive, he lisped, and he was short. He would probably wind up in character parts instead of being a romantic lead. A lot of people in my old Film Club used to insist that if they made it today, she would have gone with Rick. That would take away all the power and meaning from the film, though.

Or Gone with the Wind. I think this could conceivably be a better film if it were originally made now. *dodges rotten tomatoes* Okay, it wouldn’t have Clark Gable, and that would be a huge loss to the American film canon. However, the film and the book it was based on had a decidedly racist mindset. Also, there are a lot of scenes that would be more realistic with modern effects and budgets. And it would definitely be much shorter. On the other hand, they wouldn’t have time to fully explore the interrelationships between the characters, which is where Gone with the Wind really excels.

(Of course, the biggest difference would be that they’d never get made. Hollywood hasn’t made a non-remake in years! )

So, how do you think the classics would be different if they were just now being made?

Tara's (I think that's her character's name) dress would barely cover her thighs.
Enough said.

DM.... Tara was the name of the plantation Scarlett's family owned, and I don't think it wore a dress.

As for your comment, maybe you're just trying to be cute/funny, I dunno, but are you suggesting that if the movie were made today, it would be significantly more risque?

Well, yeah...
America of that era had a decidedly racist mindset. You couldn't set a book in that period and have black people and white people in equal roles in society if you wanted it to be accurate. The racism of the book is in context with the setting. If you took that out it wouldn't be the same story.

That's like saying there should be a remake of The Colour Purple* because it's too racist. Well, yeah!

*There should be a remake of The Colour Purple, as the film is fairly crap, but not because of that.

Yeah, the film would probably be more risque. Anyone remember Scarlett? (If you don't, you don't want to know. It's an awful book.)



Yes, but you can portray characters as racists without affirming that mindset. You can even make the racist characters sympathetic. But the film/book perpetuated a lie about the way the South was at that point. It showed slavery as a positive thing; while the characters would certainly feel that way, there was no authorial condemnation. </annoying literary analysis>

Ahhh, but you're not completely getting me here, my dear.

Don't worry, I'm not being dumb. The book wouldn't be the same thing. And you wouldn't be able to criticise it in the same way if it weren't written from such a viewpoint. It wouldalso make a completely different film, and I don't actually think better.

They don't make many docmentary style movies anymore, these days. Although I tend to dislike most war movies since they're mostly just propaganda put to explosions, I really enjoyed Tora! Tora! Tora!

'They' make loads, it's just that they're a lot harder to get hold of, unfortunately, as mainstream cinema is eating itself.

Duh, that's right! That's why there's a road in Georgia named Tara!
Durr. Sorry 'bout that.

Awww. But I like "boring" things.