StarDestroyer.Net BBS

If there's a movie I'd love to see remade it would be All Quiet on the Western Front. Can you imagine the possibilities if maybe Spielberg could direct it? I can just imagine the horrifics of trench warfare brought into full gory detail, or the days Paul spent in a hole with the man he had killed.

Naa, he would just "Americalaise" it.

IE loads of gore, no charater development. Kat would not die and Paul would get through the war unhurt.

The absolute last thing we need is another remake of All Quiet on the Western Front. The only room for "improvement" would be to add 25 million dollars worth of CGI and horrible looking gasoline explosions to replace one million dollars worth of landscaping and realistic explosions from 1979.

The book was contrived enough already. A remake will make it worse.
*SHIELDS UP*

Anyone else see the remake with John Boy... I mean Richard Thomas?

That was the last version I saw. I don't think I ever saw the original.

WWI movies in general are sort of static affairs much like most of the war. Trench warfare is a ghastly thing to portray and I don't think audiences would want to sit through two hours of men in muddy trenches punctuated by some intense battles that go nowhere. Most WWII battles are much more kinetic and things are actually accomplished, towns seized and tanks destroyed.

WWI is all about mass infantry charges into the teeth of the enemy guns and then the ineveitable counter attcak that pushes you out of the trenches you just took. All in all very depressing.

I have the remake on DVD. I thought it was fantastic, for a remake of a 1930s (IIRC) film that originally came from a book who's ending was so unpopular there was a movement for it to be changed.

Vympel wrote:I have the remake on DVD. I thought it was fantastic, for a remake of a 1930s (IIRC) film that originally came from a book who's ending was so unpopular there was a movement for it to be changed.

REALLY?!! I thought the ending was dead on fro the whole theme and feel of teh book. Shame on the readers, that's like asking for Greedo to shoot first.

Sea Skimmer wrote:horrible looking gasoline explosions

I'm having a sudden flashback to Windtalkers..... guy shoots bazooka, big gas fireball takes out half the japanese army.... make it stop!

There are stories to be told about WWI with a great deal more audience appeal than this one.
And the original is a classic.

Frank Hipper wrote:There are stories to be told about WWI with a great deal more audience appeal than this one.
And the original is a classic.

I don't suppose you're talking about a Jutland-themed movie?

Cpt_Frank wrote:

Frank Hipper wrote:There are stories to be told about WWI with a great deal more audience appeal than this one.
And the original is a classic.

I don't suppose you're talking about a Jutland-themed movie?

Admiral von Spee's odyssey across the Pacific, actually.

Not much happened at first, but seeing those awesome coal fired ships in settings like Easter Island, the Galapagos, and 1914 Pearl Harbor would be nice eye candy.
Then there's the Battle of Coronel, if done correctly it would be SO amazing.
The climactic battle of the Falklands would be stuning, as well. Did you know a sailing ship appeared in the midst of that battle, doing it's best to get clear.

Knowing my luck, Jerry Brukheimer would make it, starring Ben Affleck and Wil Smith.

Can you imagine all the Happy Meals toys and all the crap they'd try to milk from the movie?.

Vympel wrote:I have the remake on DVD. I thought it was fantastic, for a remake of a 1930s (IIRC) film that originally came from a book who's ending was so unpopular there was a movement for it to be changed.

The original was 1930

Frank Hipper wrote:Admiral von Spee's odyssey across the Pacific, actually.

Not much happened at first, but seeing those awesome coal fired ships in settings like Easter Island, the Galapagos, and 1914 Pearl Harbor would be nice eye candy.
Then there's the Battle of Coronel, if done correctly it would be SO amazing.

That’s a big if, I don’t really want to risk a 5/54 mount on a Burke being passed off as Good Hopes forward turret. Anyway models and CGI could do a fairly good job, but nothings going to match The Battle of the River Plate.

I liked the remake a lot. I haven't seen the original, though. The book was awesome as hell also. Very engaging.

Tsyroc wrote:Anyone else see the remake with John Boy... I mean Richard Thomas?

That was the last version I saw. I don't think I ever saw the original.

I dont think Ive seen the original either. I dont think I even knew there was an original. All I can recall is the one with "john boy"

I saw one, a while ago, it had Ian Holm in it. I'm not sure if it was a remake, though I don't think a movie about it os possible nowadays as there are no real heroic actions on a big scale.

Stravo wrote:WWI movies in general are sort of static affairs much like most of the war. Trench warfare is a ghastly thing to portray and I don't think audiences would want to sit through two hours of men in muddy trenches punctuated by some intense battles that go nowhere. Most WWII battles are much more kinetic and things are actually accomplished, towns seized and tanks destroyed.

WWI is all about mass infantry charges into the teeth of the enemy guns and then the ineveitable counter attcak that pushes you out of the trenches you just took. All in all very depressing.

Have you seen the A&E movie "The Lost Battalion?" Great stuff about WWI, I love A&E movies.

Trytostaydead wrote:

Stravo wrote:WWI movies in general are sort of static affairs much like most of the war. Trench warfare is a ghastly thing to portray and I don't think audiences would want to sit through two hours of men in muddy trenches punctuated by some intense battles that go nowhere. Most WWII battles are much more kinetic and things are actually accomplished, towns seized and tanks destroyed.

WWI is all about mass infantry charges into the teeth of the enemy guns and then the ineveitable counter attcak that pushes you out of the trenches you just took. All in all very depressing.

Have you seen the A&E movie "The Lost Battalion?" Great stuff about WWI, I love A&E movies.

The Lost Battalion was a great movie. My only complant was how fake looking the sturmtruppen's flamethrowers were (of course, production value couldn't have been that high for an A&E movie)

Balrog wrote:

Trytostaydead wrote:

Stravo wrote:WWI movies in general are sort of static affairs much like most of the war. Trench warfare is a ghastly thing to portray and I don't think audiences would want to sit through two hours of men in muddy trenches punctuated by some intense battles that go nowhere. Most WWII battles are much more kinetic and things are actually accomplished, towns seized and tanks destroyed.

WWI is all about mass infantry charges into the teeth of the enemy guns and then the ineveitable counter attcak that pushes you out of the trenches you just took. All in all very depressing.

Have you seen the A&E movie "The Lost Battalion?" Great stuff about WWI, I love A&E movies.

The Lost Battalion was a great movie. My only complant was how fake looking the sturmtruppen's flamethrowers were (of course, production value couldn't have been that high for an A&E movie)

I DID see that movie and thought it was great, but I wonder how many WWI battles were as frantic and mobile as that one. And even then you essentially had these guys siutting in a forest holding their positions against the hun hordes. WWII battles are all about movement and running street to street, firing from the hip, etc.

One of my favorite lines from that movie is when the German officer is told that the Battallion is made up of Gangsters from NY and because of that they will never surrender.

Very well done.