SACRED COWS OF HOLLYWOOD list main discussion

This should be interesting. A nice litmus test for the new Chud.

Interesting idea for a list. Haven't seen The Man Who Would Be King, so I can't really say if I agree or disagree, though.

A remake would probably take all of the Masonic references in the original and try to impose a NATIONAL TREASURE style adventure on it. Ugh.

The Platinum Dunes section should be a breeding ground for hilarity with these.

A great beginning to what will no doubt be another great list. I am growing quite fond of Steve Murphy's writing.

And The Who Would Be King is just hands down awesome.

Sounds interesting.

As much as I love the Caine/Connery pairing, it wouldn't get me too riled if this got remade, but man oh man would you have to put together the best casting of all time for it to work.

I got into a discussion with a couple of co-workers just yesterday about remaking Highlander. Co-worker asked how one could replace Connery in that flick.

Almost simultaneously, me and three other guys said "You don't."

That pretty much applies to most things that man's done.

I love this film without reservation. Belive it or not it used to get shown a lot on on a Sunday afternoon here in Blighty and it became a fast favorate. I agree with pretty much everything said in the article a remake would be a travesty.

And for the life of me I can't think of any British actors working today who could do this justice.

I should have mentioned something in the article that, if a remake ever did occur, it'd probably be with American actors. That's unfathomable.

One of my all time favorite films. I think this movie may have been where I learned about Alexander The Great (or else I learned about him shortly before having seen it for the first time), and Connery's journey as the 'Son of Sekander' remains one of my most powerful cinematic memories. My dad first showed this to me, so it very much holds a special place in my heart. I remember laughing along with him and snuggling up when things got scary (like when Roxanne scratched Danny and blew a fatal hole in his 'Connery Isotheos' image)

Nothing new can be said about the remarkable cast*, so let me just instead say that I loved how dark and nasty the film could be even though it's a fairly light hearted adventure tale. Peachy and Sekander II had great chemistry and charisma, but they were also pretty much racist assholes. I like how bleak the ending is, it freaked me out when I was little and the idea of Peachy bringing back Danny's head** over the Hindu Kush is still a bit uncomfortably mad when you think about it

*Actually I'll just say that for a number of years I thought that Plummer WAS Kipling in a cameo appearence
*#wearing the crown of Alexander III of Macedon!

EDIT: BTW, the only remake I'd ever accept would be one with Colin Farrell in the Danny role. That would be too awesome for words. I'd pair him with Christian Bale, and it could work

And horrible. All too imaginable, unfortunately. Ryan Phillipe in the Caine role! Shia Lebouf in the Connery role! Ugh!

Agreed on The Man Who Would Be King. Wonderful film and there's no way you'd improve on the original by remaking it.

This is a good idea for a list and I'm looking forward to seeing what other flicks pop up; heck, I'd love to write one of these.

You cannot find actors to replace Caine and Connery. Such an absurd notion. Therefore a remake of this is literally impossible.

Not replaced, no, but if you remade it as a period film and cast Farrell as Danny and Bale as Peachy (and paired them with a talented director), I think you could have something worth watching (even if it obviously couldn't match the original)

Russel Crowe and Paul Bettany for the recast of a movie that shouldn't be made, but, because some intern at a movie studio is reading this website, is now being reworked.

Great pair and a great film. This list looks like it has the makings. But I have a question. Has there ever been a remake that used the same, unaltered script? Or at least, unaltered dialogue?

Psycho comes to mind.

No you wouldn't. Stop it.

Farrell and Bale? Did you just draw these out of a hat?

A perfect film, and a perfect choice to kick off this list.

Regarding American actors, it's worth noting that all the previous potential castings were John Huston's picks, and it was only at the suggestion of Paul Newman (who was then being courted to play Peachy, with Redford as Danny) that he went to Connery and Caine.

And I just received a feverish vision of a remake with Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson. Never let it be.

I love the film, but I think there might be a tiny bit of hyperbole going on here on whether or not other actors could do the roles justice should there ever be a remake. Not that I think there ever should or will be. I think Brendan Gleeson would have made an interesting Dravot, for example. He might be a shade too old for the part these days, though.

See, I can think of people who could fill in the Peachy role-- Fassbender, Bettany, McGregor, but who can fill Connery's shoes? Who working today has that much manly bravado? Answer: no one. Even the manliest man's man man working today, Jason Statham, doesn't have 1/8th the charisma Connery does.

And I'll join Murphy in his statement that the climax, with Connery singing on the bridge, is one of those burn-into-your-memory moments.

Bale has that 'stiff upper lip' attitude that Caine brought to so many roles, but can subvert it with cheekiness and charm. Look at certain scenes in his various films for proof*

Farrell is Irish, Connery was Scottish. Farrell can be remarkably funny and charismatic in the right role, and..... he'd be playing the 'son' of Alexander III of Macedon. He'd have to sell the idea that's he's getting power crazy as people worship him as a living god. I wonder what hat I could have drawn that one out of? It's not like he has any experience in that kind of role previously

And lastly... I've long held that Bale and Farrell would have fantastic screen chemistry. I can easily see them looking like they've been friends all their lives. IMHO Bale and Farrell are the Pacino and DeNiro of the Aughts, because even though they are so perfectly suited to working with each other, they've only appeared in one film together (NEW WORLD) and comically they shared no screen time in it

* I know that's vague but just trust me

Not having seen the film, Liam Neeson wouldn't fit your bill of manly bravado and charisma?

I got this out of the library last week. Think it's time I actually watched it.

I've been meaning to get around to seeing this movie for years, but I'm going to put it right up there at the top of my to-do list now.

Shit yeah, just hearing the tune playing in my head makes the hair on my arms standup.

A fantastic idea for a list guys and what a perfect movie to kick it off with. My love for this flick is an absolute no-brainer, having grown up in a house that adored both Connery and Caine to the point they were two of my favourite actors as a child. As a consequence this movie was simply high adventure perfection for me. The idea of a remake is beyond the pale as there are no two actors working today that could match the chemistry that Peachy and Danny have.

Anyone who hasn't seen this needs to get on that shit, Steve was exactly right, it's like the last gasp of classic Hollywood, a film that simply couldn't exist like it does if it were made today.

Halfway through it. Movie's great, but the DVD is ass.

Nice idea, but please go easy with the Platinum Dunes zingers. You don't want Michal Bay to read a handful of those and go "You know what? Fuck those guys, I'm remaking them all!" out of spite, do you?

I'll add to the choir of praise for the film. The phrase "they don't make'em like this anymore" may be an overused clichè, but damn me if this is not the perfect occasion to use it. This film feels authentic, even out of time, if you told me this was magically made in 1888 I would believe it.

The Turin Film Festival is going to host a full retrospective on John Huston at the end of next month. The last ones they did - for JP Melville and Monte Hellman - were insanely thorough, so I certainly expect them to show The Man Who Would Be King even if Huston's oeuvre is exceptionally extensive, considering also that they plan to show some films he wrote and starred in as well. I'm afraid I'll end up camping outside the theatre for a week.

With a group including Connery, Caine, and Plummer it would be impossible to ever come up with replacements for those three, and thus impossible to remake this film.

Pfft you just Ashton Kutcher and Ice Cube, man! You think Caine and Connery can compare with that team up? No way, man.

I love how it's an article about how terrible it would be to remake these movies and the board response is to try to come up with remake casts. Which I agree with. Russell Crowe and Ewan Macgregor, with Bettany as Kipling. Nailed it.

Well played Rudd. I didn't take it far enough and thus failed. This is why I can't play the Recast your favorite Movies game, but love to read that thread.

My favorite movie of all time. Nicely done, David.

And yeah, I had no idea that Pat Roach played multiple roles in the first two films

AMEN RE: Raiders. I secretly suspect that not only SHOULDN'T it be remade, it literally COULDN'T--as in, the actual destroying angel will descend on Michael Bay's camera crew and melt their faces off should they gear up for a remake.

Great idea for a column BTW. I'll be following this one closely.

Man, I love Belloq. Seriously underrated villain. The scene with him and Indy at the table in Cairo is fantastic. I think the sequels are hurt by the fact that all of their villains are pretty generic and 'eeeeviiiill'. There's some interesting gray area with Belloq, with him being the flip side of Indy, and his genuine affection for Marion.

Just when I thought you couldn't top MWWBK (thanks Kate) you hit us with Raiders. Hell yeah, another classic that in no way could be improved with a remake.

Great stuff guys.

Actual remake of Raiders: no.

Raiders: The Adaptation: hell yes. Still the best remake I've ever seen.

The main reason? Eric Zala and company had the same filmmaking zeal and passion that Spielberg did. There's a ridiculous magic in waiting to see how they're going to redo whatever scene's coming up.

Pat Roach was also in Last Crusade - he was the big nazi dressed in a black uniform, running alongside the zepelin as Indy looked down from the window.

There's a cut scene where Indy has a fist fight with him on the zepelin beofre the "No ticket" scene...

One of the most glaring lessons learned from Crystal Skull is that the chemistry between Ford and Allen couldn't be replicated, either. They were simply two entirely different actors than they were 29 years ago, regardless of having much more inferior lines to say. They just didn't click anymore.

As someone who actually works on the Paramount lot, I will be the first person to burn the studio to the ground if I hear about a Raiders remake.

And I will provide you with an alibi.

Total agreement on this one. Anyone comes near this thing and I unleash the Hovitos.

It could be argued that Raiders is itself a remake of everything cool.

About the 'peak of their powers' thing: Spielberg was actually in the Director Doghouse at the time, having wasted enormous piles of money and talent on 1941. Raiders was his chance to prove he could bring a film in on time and under-budget, and I think it's that nervous energy (Truck flip didn't work? Fuck it, in our movie it'll just have to explode where it fell. Keep moving) that infuses the film with its unique vigor.

I love this. As the remake machine has cranked into overdrive in the past few years I found myself wishing we'd see all of Hollywood's most powerful filmmakers, guys like Spielberg, Scorsese, Tarantino, Cameron, Jackson, Guillermo Del Toro, George Lucas, etc, etc, all would get together and compile a list of films that the studios are NOT allowed to remake, and if a studio does decide to proceed on one of them the undersigned would henceforth boycott that company.

Exactly, Raiders itself is such a concentrated distillation of some of the greatest pulp pop fiction of the 20th century that to remake it would be essentially redundant.

That and I'd have to hunt down and murder whoever greenlit a redo.

Seriously tho, combined with Davids very well made point of so many incredible talents all working at the peak of their powers at the time and you really have yourself a perfect storm that creates what is, in my mind, a perfect film.

There's simply no point in remaking Raiders - hell re-release it by all means (no, not 3D George) because it's just as exciting and vibrant today as it was the day it was released.

I would pay to see Raiders on the big screen. I know home video and DVD sales have killed most films from coming back to theaters. I went to the Star Wars re-releases, just to see it in the theater. I would go back to see Fantasia in a theater. I went to one of the Metropolitan Opera performances and Wizard of Oz special performances. I would go to more if they did classic films like that.

Interesting choice, though I'm of two minds about the whole thing. On the one hand, I fully agree that a remake of Raiders would be asinine, period. That movie's fantastic, leave it alone. But...

At the risk of sounding blasphemous, I would sort of like to see the ongoing adventures of Indiana Jones with different faces in the role. Ford's work is iconic, and I don't know that anyone would ever top his performance, but I can see a potential for a sort of Bond-esque approach where different actors bring different strengths to the role. Or maybe I'm just desperate for some pulp, who knows, but an Indiana Jones sequel that wasn't the ongoing adventures of Mutt (and was in the hands of someone passionate), sounds like something I'd be interested in.

Am I going to be the first to say it? Kudos on Oliver's avatar.

If that was ever going to work, it should have been done decades ago. Someone creating a new property that carried on the spirit of the Indiana franchise, instead of just replicating it, would be a better idea.