Scarface (reboot)

[Talleyrand]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

But why should [the Scarface remake] be like [the 1983 version]? That film was really over the top and it used the historic event of Castro emptying his jails as the back story for the film. But that wouldn't be relatable today and we already have that version anyway. And I think in the minds of most people, that film is almost considered to be a joke today. Pacino's character has certainly been heavily satirized.

Yes, this is an argument against remaking the film at all.

If people want to consider on the the greatest films ever made a "joke," that's their loss. But they really should just move on with their lives and watch Miller's Crossing instead, rather than f**king around with something they don't even like or understand.

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

The Coen Brothers are much more sophisticated and would probably take a much more quirky and subtle approach. Frankly, I don't see why we need a new version at all, but if the Coen Brothers can do something really interesting with it, so be it.

There is nothing worse than a "quirky and subtle approach" to Scarface. The story is not meant to be quirky or subtle, that's why Brian De Palma directed the film and not the Coens.

They have their place; that place is far removed from having anything to do Scarface.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Talleyrand

There is nothing worse than a "quirky and subtle approach" to Scarface. The story is not meant to be quirky or subtle,...

What exactly is 'the story' of Scarface and what about it precludes either quirkiness or subtlety?

Tony (Comonte, Montoya, Tomayto, Tomahto) is a pretty standard tragic hero who's story has been told many different ways by many different people in many different places for at least 2,500 years.

'The story' of Scarface doesn't begin and end with Brian de Palma and Al Pacino.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by Talleyrand

Yes, this is an argument against remaking the film at all.

If people want to consider on the the greatest films ever made a "joke," that's their loss. But they really should just move on with their lives and watch Miller's Crossing instead, rather than f**king around with something they don't even like or understand.

There is nothing worse than a "quirky and subtle approach" to Scarface. The story is not meant to be quirky or subtle, that's why Brian De Palma directed the film and not the Coens.

They have their place; that place is far removed from having anything to do Scarface.

Was the Tony Montana character not quirky himself? All that talk of eating octopus and being 40 with hair on your breasts? You think that's mature writing?

I just don't get these criticisms of the Coens. Miller's Crossing didn't work for me, but that was more than 20 years ago. Since then, they've matured and learned how to create characters that build into a plot like a fine-tuned machine.

If you can name better screenwriters than the Coens I'd love to hear it.

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by Gremal

If you can name better screenwriters than the Coens I'd love to hear it.

Everybody.

[jetthead]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

Everybody.

Everybody?

[Talleyrand]

Originally Posted by octagon

What exactly is 'the story' of Scarface and what about it precludes either quirkiness or subtlety?

It's the story of someone working their way up through the mafia in a violent and over-the-top fashion and their subsequent downfall. It's as blunt as a sack of bricks.

Originally Posted by octagon

Tony (Comonte, Montoya, Tomayto, Tomahto) is a pretty standard tragic hero who's story has been told many different ways by many different people in many different places for at least 2,500 years.

He's not a "tragic hero" and I would see he's not even really an antihero, but a full on villain protagonist, I'd argue.

Actually the story has been told twice, in 1932 and 1983. I don't buy into the line that there's only [insert small finite number here] different plots.

Originally Posted by octagon

'The story' of Scarface doesn't begin and end with Brian de Palma and Al Pacino.

Well, it begins with Howard Hawks and Paul Muni, and in fact does end with Brian de Palma and Al Pacino. I'd argue it should stay ended there but, you're right, it may well not end there. I just wish that, if it must continue, it was continued by someone who respects what they are continuing. And, preferably, someone who's style is in some way similar to it.

Originally Posted by Gremal

If you can name better screenwriters than the Coens I'd love to hear it.

This is a purely a matter of opinion, but as far as big names go, Tarantino, Coppola, Stone, Mamet, Shrader, Anderson, and many, many more.

Honestly, I don't really care for their style at all; they are at their best, imo, when adapting work of others. But movies like The Hudsucker Proxy and O Brother Where Art Thou and Hail, Caesar are nearly unwatchable, due in large part to the awkward scripts, imo.

[TheLaughingMann]

Originally Posted by Talleyrand

It's the story of someone working their way up through the mafia in a violent and over-the-top fashion and their subsequent downfall. It's as blunt as a sack of bricks.


He's not a "tragic hero" and I would see he's not even really an antihero, but a full on villain protagonist, I'd argue.

Actually the story has been told twice, in 1932 and 1983. I don't buy into the line that there's only [insert small finite number here] different plots.


Well, it begins with Howard Hawks and Paul Muni, and in fact does end with Brian de Palma and Al Pacino. I'd argue it should stay ended there but, you're right, it may well not end there. I just wish that, if it must continue, it was continued by someone who respects what they are continuing. And, preferably, someone who's style is in some way similar to it.


This is a purely a matter of opinion, but as far as big names go, Tarantino, Coppola, Stone, Mamet, Shrader, Anderson, and many, many more.

Honestly, I don't really care for their style at all; they are at their best, imo, when adapting work of others. But movies like The Hudsucker Proxy and O Brother Where Art Thou and Hail, Caesar are nearly unwatchable, due in large part to the awkward scripts, imo.

Fargo, Raising Arizona, Big Lebowski, Miller's Crossing, Barton Fink, Blood Simple?

And technically, O Brother, Where Art Thou? and Hail, Caesar! ARE adaptations. The first is based on the Odyssey, the second is based on Jesus Christ's story. And I find Hudsucker Proxy a guilty pleasure flick among the Coen Catalog.

[klauswhereareyou]

Too bad they aren't directing.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by Talleyrand

This is a purely a matter of opinion, but as far as big names go, Tarantino, Coppola, Stone, Mamet, Shrader, Anderson, and many, many more.

Yes, it is purely opinion but there are ways to try to quantify it, such as putting Woody Allen in the top spot with 15 Oscar nominations for best screenplay. I think the only reason Coppola appears in your list is because of Puzo.

Honestly, I don't really care for their style at all; they are at their best, imo, when adapting work of others. But movies like The Hudsucker Proxy and O Brother Where Art Thou and Hail, Caesar are nearly unwatchable, due in large part to the awkward scripts, imo.

I'm not a fan of Hudsucker but it seems like your complaints are more with the genre. O Brother and Hail Caesar may not be your cup of tea but along with No Country, Barton Fink, Fargo and Lebowski, the diversity and original themes show an inspired craftsmanship in generating scripts that go beyond anyone else working today.