The Latest in a Series of Craptastic Ideas: The Warriors to be Remade

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I know there's a video game for it coming out next year, that actually sounds cool. But to remake the movie? When will the remakes trend END!?!!!?

― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 23 August 2004 14:20 (twenty-one years ago)

happy Monday.

― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 23 August 2004 14:21 (twenty-one years ago)

until all the 'mistakes' of the past are 'corrected'

casting?

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Monday, 23 August 2004 14:22 (twenty-one years ago)

The Warriors was OK but it's no 'Class of 1984'
http://www.moviegoods.com/Assets/product_images/1010/191792.1010.A.jpg
I mean, it has Roddy McDowall and Michael J. Fox!

― Rob Bolton (Rob Bolton), Monday, 23 August 2004 14:30 (twenty-one years ago)

The guy who's writing this wrote my favorite Soprano's episode, but I can't imagine how this could be good (esp. with Tony Scott directing.)

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 23 August 2004 14:32 (twenty-one years ago)

all movie-licensed video games suck the dilznick

― Lt. Kingfish Del Pickles (Kingfish), Monday, 23 August 2004 14:34 (twenty-one years ago)

they're not as bad as movie remakes!

Perhaps these up-to-date Warriors will have to make it past such treacherous gangs as the Chelsea Boy Metrosexuals and the Park Slope Pram-Pushers.

― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 23 August 2004 14:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Del Pickles you are allmost so right! shall we take Goldeneye on the N64 as the exception that proves the rule?

― lukey (Lukey G), Monday, 23 August 2004 14:54 (twenty-one years ago)

sure

― Lt. Kingfish Del Pickles (Kingfish), Monday, 23 August 2004 14:55 (twenty-one years ago)

"When will the remakes trend END!?!!!?"

i dunno, it's been with us from the beginning of cinema. it comes and goes. doesn't bother me a bit. if it's a bad movie, then so what, people will keep renting the old one.

― amateur!!st, Monday, 23 August 2004 15:33 (twenty-one years ago)

it just seems a huge waste, whether or not I see 'em.

― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 23 August 2004 15:34 (twenty-one years ago)

I sorta like the idea the neo-Warriors will have to face the Strokes walking around somewhere and will then whomp the poo out of them.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 23 August 2004 15:36 (twenty-one years ago)

how do you know it's a huge waste until you've seen it?

― amateur!!st, Monday, 23 August 2004 15:40 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm looking forward to this

― jones (actual), Monday, 23 August 2004 15:41 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost - not thinking of new ideas for films seems a huge waste to me to begin with. Spending millions of dollars on remakes of films that people already enjoy, that are already perfect, seems a huge waste to me. So yes, I'm biased. But I think my biases are pretty rational. And it may be a part of cinema history to have remakes, but it seems more than obvious to me that the current period of say the last ten years (maybe twenty) is far less about new ideas than recycling old ones. I could be wrong, but I think it's just that no one is willing to take hardly any risk anymore, and this new Warriors project is just illustrative of that. Is it so wrong to think that?

― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 23 August 2004 15:43 (twenty-one years ago)

how do you know it's a huge waste until you've seen it?

Well I have to say that the words 'Tony Scott' don't fill me with confidence.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 23 August 2004 15:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Rob Bolton OTM re: "Class Of 1984." I really have to wonder if Warriors love has a lot to do with NYC fetishism, cuz there are some seriously better movies out there.

hstencil OTM re: remakes, though. I almost feel like I should see any movie that's not either a remake or an obvious rip on a tired theme.

― CeCe Peniston (Anthony Miccio), Monday, 23 August 2004 15:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Just to support the effort.

― CeCe Peniston (Anthony Miccio), Monday, 23 August 2004 15:45 (twenty-one years ago)

apparently the "Chronicles of Riddick" xbox tie-in game is great; FAR better than the flick attached to it.

― Lt. Kingfish Del Pickles (Kingfish), Monday, 23 August 2004 15:45 (twenty-one years ago)

I hope it's still retro. I don't think Tony Scott has done outright fantasy before so that could be interesting.
The original is referenced a lot in hip hop so the studio is probably thinking of casting rappers and play up that aspect of the origial's appeal. But Walter Hill's movie is perfect and my favorite action film ever so this saddens me.

― herbert hebert (herbert hebert), Monday, 23 August 2004 15:48 (twenty-one years ago)

You know, this could actually be a great anime effort.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 23 August 2004 15:49 (twenty-one years ago)

dude, herbert, e-mail me with an explanation of why Warriors is better than Class Of 1984, etc. I'll rent it again cuz I feel like I must have missed something.

― CeCe Peniston (Anthony Miccio), Monday, 23 August 2004 15:51 (twenty-one years ago)

no, you're right that hollywood is recycling itself a lot lately. but--and this may be another way of agreeing with you--"new ideas" are about more than just coming up with a "new" story and characters, and plenty of recent non-remakes are just as stale, or much more so, than any given official remake. the remakes thing just seems one facet of a broader phenomenon, and in at of itself it's not worthy of so much automatic opprobrium. does that make sense? anyway yeah tony scott = notsogreat. but the original doesn't seem some deathless classic to me, and even if it were--well, i can think of really good remakes of really good movies.

― amateur!!st, Monday, 23 August 2004 15:51 (twenty-one years ago)

in and of itself

― amateur!!st, Monday, 23 August 2004 15:51 (twenty-one years ago)

in the new warriors they have to escape from rival gangs of republicans during convention week. the republican gang wears klan uniforms and wields military recruitment brochures. the warriors try to get home to brooklyn, but they get arrested on the 14th street platform for taking photos in the subway station.

― stockholm cindy (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 23 August 2004 15:54 (twenty-one years ago)

I agree with you that a lot of "original" ideas are bad too. I just don't understand the impulse to think, as a director or screenwriter or whatever, that one can "improve" on anything without tainting it. I'm thinking of The Manchurian Candidate now too - I have no doubt that, if the original didn't exist, I'd probably enjoy the new one. But the original does exist, and it's one of my favorite movies, and it just seems the height of arrogance for Jonathan Demme to try "his take" on it.

― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 23 August 2004 15:54 (twenty-one years ago)

while Tony Scott normally means Total Complete Shit, I'm wondering if him doing something so obviously trashy might pay off, in the sense that Bad Boys II is the most entertaining Michael Bay film since his crazy-ass exploitive style is detached from Americana, things we hold dear, etc and allowed to go pure Bollywood (actually, Bad Boys II would have been pure Bollywood if they added a half hour of Will Smith rapping).

― CeCe Peniston (Anthony Miccio), Monday, 23 August 2004 15:55 (twenty-one years ago)

the reluctant warriors

― amateur!!st, Monday, 23 August 2004 15:55 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost - esp. after Frankhenheimer died. Jeez.

― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 23 August 2004 15:55 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the main question is: does the shitty remake harm or help the classic original? Does it sully the reputation of the original and make it unwatchable, or does it cause people to seek out a classic film that they otherwise might have never seen?
multiple xposts

― n.a. (Nick A.), Monday, 23 August 2004 15:56 (twenty-one years ago)

hstencil: perhaps, in the minds of certain producers, directors, or screenwriters, there is a hope of "improving" on an original. but more likely it's like anything else: the desire to balance something artisically interesting and profitable. i bet scott doesn't really care if he's "bettering" the original. he's just making a different movie on familiar materials. demme certainly does not pretend to be "bettering" the original manchurian candidate--it's an updating and recombining of familiar materials for a different era. as such i liked it.

― amateur!!st, Monday, 23 August 2004 15:57 (twenty-one years ago)

why does our era deserve "updates" of everything, then? I think that's a valid question to ask.

― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 23 August 2004 15:58 (twenty-one years ago)

i really doubt any remake could "sully" the rep. of the original. if anything it'll make more people aware of it (not that the warriors is exactly obscure).

― amateur!!st, Monday, 23 August 2004 15:58 (twenty-one years ago)

i dunno, people have been doing "updates" of familiar material since time immemorial. the results deserve to be judged on their own merits.

crazy xposts

that was to hstencil

― amateur!!st, Monday, 23 August 2004 15:59 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think the reputation is that sullied. After watching the original The Haunting which is a TERRIFIC movie, me and my then-girlfriend rented the Hollywood remake and laughed our asses off. If anything the remake reaffirmed just how impressive the old film was (ironically I think the cast was perfect for the remake, they just had a shit script and direction).

― CeCe Peniston (Anthony Miccio), Monday, 23 August 2004 15:59 (twenty-one years ago)

demme certainly does not pretend to be "bettering" the original manchurian candidate--it's an updating and recombining of familiar materials for a different era.

So why not just take those concepts and materials and actually, you know, make a new movie out of them? Why is the remake necessary in this situation? It seems like he's just using the name to draw press and audiences.

― n.a. (Nick A.), Monday, 23 August 2004 15:59 (twenty-one years ago)

well that the originals usually end up being enhanced by remakes only kinda reinforces my point, in that remakes are a poor idea to begin with.

― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 23 August 2004 16:00 (twenty-one years ago)

well n.a., the new manchurian candidate *is* a new film. it's a discrete film unto itself, with a plot/feel that's different from the original. i don't see how that's really that different from making a "new" movie. if the original plot materials, such as they are recycled in the new one, proved to be pathetic anachronisms, then you could call their judgement into question. maybe some people do feel this is case. i don't.

― amateur!!st, Monday, 23 August 2004 16:01 (twenty-one years ago)

well n.a., the new manchurian candidate *is* a new film. it's a discrete film unto itself, with a plot/feel that's different from the original.

Then why is it called "The Manchurian Candidate"?
(note: I haven't seen the new MC)

― n.a. (Nick A.), Monday, 23 August 2004 16:03 (twenty-one years ago)

I dunno, I haven't seen the new MC but the reviews I've read - even the positive ones - gave me the impression that it wasn't much more than an exercise in using find+replace.

― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 23 August 2004 16:04 (twenty-one years ago)

hstencil: you owe it to yourself to see it before you use it as an example of how lamentable is the remake phenomenon.

― amateur!!st, Monday, 23 August 2004 16:04 (twenty-one years ago)

(maybe on video if you don't want to spend 10 bucks.)

― amateur!!st, Monday, 23 August 2004 16:05 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, that's the thing too, I rarely go see movies anymore.

― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 23 August 2004 16:06 (twenty-one years ago)

well n.a., the new manchurian candidate *is* a new film. it's a discrete film unto itself, with a plot/feel that's different from the original.
Then why is it called "The Manchurian Candidate"?
(note: I haven't seen the new MC)

-- n.a. (nu...), August 23rd, 2004.

i don't see how that matters. some remakes keep the same title, others change it. just a marketing decision. it's not like calling it the manchurian candidate will immediately erase everyone's memory of the original film, or remove the dvd of same from every video store shelf.

― amateur!!st, Monday, 23 August 2004 16:07 (twenty-one years ago)

i mean i like michael mann's last of the mohicans a lot, doesn't mean i don't remember the book or other movie versions fondly.

― amateur!!st, Monday, 23 August 2004 16:08 (twenty-one years ago)

well books are another issue entirely. I see nothing wrong, in concept, with taking a 19th Century novel and trying to make a film version of it.

― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 23 August 2004 16:10 (twenty-one years ago)

If Demme's idea is just that the original Manchurian Candidate had ideas and concepts that could reflect on current events but that they needed to be clarified or made more obvious by his remaking the movie, than that seems kind of condescending to modern audiences. What, we can't draw the parallels ourselves? But if he's adding totally new ideas to draw these parallels to our era, then he's not really remaking the movie, he's making a new movie that should be called something else.

xpost, I understand how marketing works. That's where my problem is. Demme seems to be saying that he's remaking TMC for artistic reasons or for social commentary or something, but really he seems to be using it as a conveniently marketable capsule for something he wants to say.

― n.a. (Nick A.), Monday, 23 August 2004 16:11 (twenty-one years ago)

movie studios only want to do what's been proven successful already. Remakes, adaptations, franchises.

― CeCe Peniston (Anthony Miccio), Monday, 23 August 2004 16:14 (twenty-one years ago)

and i see no problem with packaging what you want to say in such a way that it will grab attention. the question is whether the result is interesting in itself.

― amateur!!st, Monday, 23 August 2004 16:15 (twenty-one years ago)

i mean, there are really two questions here

(1) possible problems w/trends in contemporary hollywood in general and their implications (sequelitis, remake-itis, etc.)

(2) the merits of an individual film that partakes in that trend (as: all hollywood films with a big budget need some kind of catch to just get made. i believe demme has other projects he can't get greenlit for this reason)

― amateur!!st, Monday, 23 August 2004 16:16 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, those tie back in to what I said about risk, and how nobody takes any anymore.

― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 23 August 2004 16:17 (twenty-one years ago)

remakes are neat

also the abuse being aimed at tony scott here is pretty weird considering he practically IS walter hill

― jones (actual), Monday, 23 August 2004 16:18 (twenty-one years ago)

example:

(part 1) socialist realism = problematic trend in general. remaking of historical figurs to suit contemporary (stalinist) purpose, calcified "epic" aesthetics.

(part 2) ivan the terrible. largely meets demands of socialist realism, partakes of general trend. also manages to comment on trend, be an extraordinary and powerful film in itself.

that's the most flagrant example.

not saying demme's new film is equal to ivan the terrible, but just trying to show how trends and individual films are to be conflated at yr own risk.

― amateur!!st, Monday, 23 August 2004 16:21 (twenty-one years ago)

...

hallo

― amateur!!st, Monday, 23 August 2004 17:07 (twenty-one years ago)

???

― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 23 August 2004 17:11 (twenty-one years ago)

you all right?

― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 23 August 2004 17:17 (twenty-one years ago)

ÿ îòëè÷íî, âû.

― amateur!!st, Monday, 23 August 2004 17:39 (twenty-one years ago)

hmmm. ÿ îòëè÷íî, âû.

― amateur!!st, Monday, 23 August 2004 17:39 (twenty-one years ago)

hmmm

― amateur!!st, Monday, 23 August 2004 17:40 (twenty-one years ago)

also the abuse being aimed at tony scott here is pretty weird considering he practically IS walter hill

Arguably, Tony Scott >> Walter Hill anyway. Hill had a pretty good run before power diving into complete garbage from Crossroads onward.

As for The Warriors I predict that it'll dump the original's absurdity for something "grittier' and "gangsta hip" that'll sell to movie execs and suburbanoids who fear big cities. It'll open wide to decent numbers and then fade out. Soundtrack album will be largely forgettable, but Metallica's cover of "In The City" will crack the Top 40 for a bit.

Why can't Tony Scott remake Streets Of Fire instead? There's a Walter Hill movie that can use some help.

― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 00:25 (twenty-one years ago)

At least this will mean a special edition dvd of the original film.

Also, as fun as the original is, it's not strictly speaking a "great" movie. It's oddly paced, sometimes poorly acted and pretty cheesy. A remake has maybe a chance at being better - especially if it consciously plays on a retro urban fear. (I'm not holding my breath though, haha).

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 00:30 (twenty-one years ago)

"better"

― stockholm cindy (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 00:30 (twenty-one years ago)

The remake won't have the "train to the plane" subway, therefore DUD

― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 00:32 (twenty-one years ago)

it could have the howard beach connection to the airtrain!

― stockholm cindy (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 00:32 (twenty-one years ago)

omg amateurist lost his mind

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 00:32 (twenty-one years ago)

my thing with demme's weirdo remakes lately is not that i have a particular problem with them as an idea, but i can't figure out why you'd remake a movie that would pretty much do nothing but draw unflattering comparisons to the original

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 00:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Elvis, have you seen Hill's Trespass with Bill Paxton and Ice's Cube and T? It's pretty great! Way better than most Tony "Make It Glow" Scott (Pauline Kael gave him that nickname way back around Top Gun and it's only more apt now except when he's "Make It Absurdly Grimy").

― CeCe Peniston (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 00:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Elvis, have you seen Hill's Trespass with Bill Paxton and Ice's Cube and T? It's pretty great!

Never saw it. I'll give it a look.

― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 01:04 (twenty-one years ago)

No classic, but a solid heist-gone-wrong b-picture

― CeCe Peniston (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 01:08 (twenty-one years ago)

five months pass...

I just read about this tonight and am summarily appalled. It's going to be like Tim Burton's butchering of "Planet of the Apes" all over again.

WHY GOD, WHY??

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 11 February 2005 04:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Ja Rule, 50 Cent or some other cheesy hip-pop star will be innit...I'm sure of it. This is gonna suck major balls.

― kevin says relax (daddy warbuxx), Friday, 11 February 2005 06:24 (twenty-one years ago)

oh, it'll be 'hip-hop,' alright, you can bet your life on that.

"Waaaaaaarriors come out to plizzaaaaaaaay..."

― Roger Fidelity (Roger Fidelity), Friday, 11 February 2005 07:09 (twenty-one years ago)

There will be much weeping and gnashing of teeth.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 11 February 2005 07:18 (twenty-one years ago)

I wonder if my dream of remaking Kindergarten Cop with Vin Diesel in the lead will FINALLY come to pass...

― polyphonic (polyphonic), Friday, 11 February 2005 07:31 (twenty-one years ago)

I know! A remake of Skiddoo, starring Adam Sandler, Cedric the Entertainer, and one or two of the Baldwins!

― Roger Fidelity (Roger Fidelity), Friday, 11 February 2005 07:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Bullitt, starring Mark Wahlberg; the pivotal San Fran chase scene will be between an Escalade and an H2

― Stupornaut (natepatrin), Friday, 11 February 2005 07:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Anybody see Hill's Mike-Tyson-in-prison movie? Undisputed? It's pretty good.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 11 February 2005 08:01 (twenty-one years ago)

licensed movie games still suck the dilznick

― Kingfish MuffMiner 2049er (Kingfish), Friday, 11 February 2005 08:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Three words: Chronicles of Riddick

― Stupornaut (natepatrin), Friday, 11 February 2005 08:17 (twenty-one years ago)

It's surprisingly good. Even if Vin's voiceovers are kind of... unsettling. He sounds like he's trying to seduce everyone with his loverman buttery voice.

You know what's a batshit loony idea? The Godfather video game. THE GODFATHER. Oh hey, how about Chinatown as a side-scrolling beat-em-up? That would ROCK BALLS, MAN.

― Stupornaut (natepatrin), Friday, 11 February 2005 08:20 (twenty-one years ago)

wanna know what's even loonier? they actually recorded some dialogue from Marlon Brando before he kicked it, too.

― Kingfish MuffMiner 2049er (Kingfish), Friday, 11 February 2005 08:33 (twenty-one years ago)

word has it than Vin also wrote the intro for the 30th anniversary D&D books

― Kingfish MuffMiner 2049er (Kingfish), Friday, 11 February 2005 08:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Rockst*r (GTA bods) are behind the Warriors videogame, out on PS2 in the next couple of months.

Tony Scott is alleged to have said he will minimise gun use in the Warriors remake and concentrate on hand to hand combat in the fight scenes. So expect lots of Matrix style Kung Fu slo-mo.

Next remake to bring on apoplexy: A Clockwork Orange

(I made that up but you can almost guarantee some twat director will think he can pull it off)

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Friday, 11 February 2005 09:11 (twenty-one years ago)

the remake trend will be over when culture itself is wound up

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 11 February 2005 11:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Tony Scott is alleged to have said he will minimise gun use in the Warriors remake and concentrate on hand to hand combat in the fight scenes.

The original didn't have a lot of guns in it to begin with, so this not exactly a creative move. Actually, one of the amazing things about the Warriors is how much tension it generates with surprisingly little actual on-screen violence.

I don't mind people remaking classic movies - I just usually don't bother to go see them.

― o. nate (onate), Friday, 11 February 2005 11:14 (twenty-one years ago)

i like it bcz then i can say the remake is better

i usually don't bother to see the make OR the remake as that makes my comments funnier

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 11 February 2005 11:18 (twenty-one years ago)

If the whole thing was animated, that would be great.

― 57 7th (calstars), Friday, 11 February 2005 16:51 (twenty-one years ago)

is The Warriors really based on Xenophon's "Anabasis" & "Katabasis", or was my friend who told me this on crack?

― DV (dirtyvicar), Saturday, 12 February 2005 01:04 (twenty-one years ago)

This would be awesome if it followed the same characters today in their middle-aged, beer-bellied incarnations. It should definitely feature the guy who said "Warriors come out and playyayy" who I believe was in Twin Peaks right?

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Saturday, 12 February 2005 01:27 (twenty-one years ago)

uh, that guy gets killed at the end.

― hstencil (hstencil), Saturday, 12 February 2005 01:31 (twenty-one years ago)

is The Warriors really based on Xenophon's "Anabasis" & "Katabasis", or was my friend who told me this on crack?

I just read the same thing in the latest issue of Uncut (wherein they interview the director, so I'm guessing they didn't make it up).

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Saturday, 12 February 2005 01:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, that's pretty standard info.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Saturday, 12 February 2005 01:50 (twenty-one years ago)

uh, that guy gets killed at the end.

Even better!

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Saturday, 12 February 2005 01:57 (twenty-one years ago)

eight months pass...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080120/board/nest/26531387
WESTWOOD, California — "Domino," Tony Scott's upcoming Keira Knightley-starring action flick about a lethal bounty hunter, will give fans of the director the chance to cozy up with some familiar offerings: hyper-violence, rapid editing
and a plethora of severed limbs and drug hallucinations. While sitting down for an interview to promote the film, the 61-year-old English auteur brandished a heartwarming smile, peering out from beneath a faded red baseball cap that could brag of more years in Hollywood than his current leading lady.
Scott is a man who no doubt appreciates the virtues of familiarity. As the discussion turned to his upcoming high-profile remake of the 1979 cult classic "The Warriors," however, Scott made it clear that his ball cap might be the only recognizable thing on the set.
"The opening of 'The Warriors' now begins on the Long Beach Bridge, and it's going to look like the L.A. marathon," Scott said of the script, which relocates the story of the titular gang attempting to get home to its turf after being mistakenly accused of murdering a rival gang leader. "You'll still get the same story, but we're reconstructing the family, reconstructing the characters, and I'm doing it in L.A. The original was in New York and everything went upwards; L.A. goes [length-wise]. And instead of 30 gang members, there's going to be 3,000 or 5,000."
Scott revealed that he intends to do away with such warring factions as the Baseball Furies (a bat-wielding group of thugs dressed in makeup and MLB-worthy uniforms), the Punks (chain-wielders in hillbilly overalls) and the Hi Hats (bad-ass mimes wearing top hats). The decision, which will no doubt stir up controversy among die-hard fans currently snatching up newly released "Warriors" action figures at mall stores nationwide, is largely due to the director's recent meetings with actual L.A. gang members, whom he employed onscreen in "Domino" and intends to use again for "Warriors."
"I sat with all the gang members and they said, 'If you can get this movie on, we'll do a treaty between all the warriors, all the different gangs,' " Scott said proudly. "It's very different from what the original is like. I love the original, but this is a very different tone and a very different feel. The encounters will be more like 'Kingdom of Heaven.' It will be the Warriors stacking up against 3,000 gang members.
"The story is so generic, it's like these guys are at point B and they need to get back to point A," Scott said of the similarities between the two films, which will virtually end after the title, concept and name of at least one major character. "It's contemporary; it's going to look like the L.A. riots, with fires burning after Cyrus gets shot at the beginning.
"Everything else that we're doing, what I'm bringing to it, it's a different movie," he added, saying that authentic tattoo-sporting gangbangers will replace fictional organizations like the Savage Huns and the pimpish Boppers. "It will be the Bloods, the Crips, the Vietnamese, the 18th Street [Gang], all the boys. It will be all the major gangs in Los Angeles, and we're going to try to get them to stand on the Long Beach Bridge."
The comments by the "Man on Fire" director also put to rest Internet rumors that the remake would be largely martial-arts oriented, implying instead that the action will be of the bare-knuckles and drive-by-shootings variety.
When "Domino" lands in theaters October 14, Scott said that "Warriors" fans should pay close attention to one particular scene if they want a taste of the tone of his remake. "You had [one of the real-life gangs] in 'Domino,' the 18th Street Gang. When [Keira Knightley's character] does the lap dance [to convince some street thugs to drop their weapons], they're all the boys, they're all the real thing, and they were fantastic."
Saying that he's "still a little ways off with this one," Scott insisted that no name actors had been cast. He added, however, that he is on track to roll cameras "next year."
Adding that he's got "enough outrageousness in the real people," Scott admitted that although he enjoys the flamboyant gangs in Walter Hill's original film, the Baseball Furies will be permanently stranded in the on-deck circle. So, when ill-tempered gang member Luther recites his famously taunting quote, "Warriors ... come out to play," he'll likely be confronted by a very different group.
That is if Luther — or even that line of dialogue — survive the remaking process.

― kingfish superman ice cream (kingfish 2.0), Wednesday, 12 October 2005 04:09 (twenty years ago)

But will it feature dancing clowns?

― I was CRYING when Magin Johnson did donuts in a magical AIDS thrfit store (dr g), Wednesday, 12 October 2005 04:30 (twenty years ago)

one month passes...

huh mookbook Majik Jhonson hast AIDS?http://www.jazztimes.com/reviews/concert_reviews/grphx/leroyjenkins.jpg . . .

― ddasd, Wednesday, 7 December 2005 03:34 (twenty years ago)

Wow. Gangs in Los Angeles. I bet that Rockstar will do a great adaptation of this!

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Saturday, 10 December 2005 07:28 (twenty years ago)

three years pass...

Finally picked up the game for like five bucks. Really entertaining!

― kingfish, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 06:05 (sixteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.