Mola Ram wrote:
first - let’s stop calling 'sholay' a classic… it was nothing more than a tacky b-grade rehash
all of those curry westerns from the 70s were ridiculous
like I said in the other thread - ‘sholay’ was nothing more than a formulaic curry western - a mix and match of classic westerns plus the usual masala ingredients - song/dance, melodrama, overacting…
calling ‘sholay’ a classic is an insult to all the real hindi classics of that time
and second - of course there will be a new audience for ‘sholay’ - bollywood has a huge market today, bollywood films are seen all over the world
you think the majority of nri kids/teens in uk/us/europe have seen sholay - definitely not, they have not seen anything outside of their chopra/khan/preity bollywood world
and no matter how popular a film is - there is always a new audience to be found, especially if it is shown in another country
mag 7, butch and sundance and once upon a time in the west are among the most popular films ever made…. but do you think some guy in india watching ‘sholay’ has ever seen those films?? - not likely
Commando303 wrote:
That said, it seems, more often than not, that re-makes mess things up. They bring an arguably inferior version to new generations, and most new-gen. members just don't care to watch the originals. An example thatsomes immediately to mind is Gus Van Sant's atrociously "ripped-off" Psycho
like anything else, you have good and bad examples
in the last couple of years I have had the misfortune to see some of my fav films get butchered w/ absolutely horrible remakes - manchurian candidate, red dragon, texas chainsaw massacre and yes psycho
but we have also had some good examples of remakes -
lets take soderbergh, who is btw my absolute fav director, has made 3 remakes in last few years(5 if you count the ones he has produced)
all 3 of them - traffic, ocean's 11 and solaris - were not only as good as the originals, but better…. hell, traffic is easily one of the greatest films ever made
and not to mention, I only watched the 3 originals after I watched the soderbergh remakes
and it is the same in most cases, you can tell how the remake will be depending on who is making it
you know if a director like ramu is doing the remake, then he definitely has something new and interesting to bring to the film, and not just a senseless remake
and ramu is easily the greatest director in bollywood today
plus, like yuvan said, this will be a modern update set in mumbai
and we all know, when it comes to mumbai noirs and crime/dramas - not only has ramu mastered the genre, he invented the genre!!
OK,
Sholay is a classic. It is by
no means "B-grade" ("B" films almost always refer to budget, and
Sholay had anything but a "modest" budget. Second,
Sholay is one of those films that has left an indelible mark on the industry; it is one of the most successful Indian films ever, and it is likely the most-watched (i.e., most number of persons have seen it) movie on earth (I'll try to document this, if I can). It's fine of you don't see anything "special" there, but
Sholay is, by
all means, a "classic."
Really, "Bollywood" is still very much a mystery to the world. Yes, Indian films run overseas (they almost always have), and yes, the market is expanding. That said, most Westerners (Americans) know about as much about the industry as its "name" ("Bollywood"), and that "that 'Ash' girl was on "Oprah"...and, oh, she's in those L'oreal commercials." I think it's a far cry to say that Indian films are finally breaking the barrier and becoming globally (beyond South Asia) significant (financially). It's a pleasant thought, but it's more wishful thinking than reality. (Even "mega-hits," such as most Shah-Rukh-Khan films, don't open to "full-houses," in the States.)
I would certainly wager that very many 2nd-generation Indians, who watch Indian films,
have seen
Sholay; if for no other reason, then that their parents probably showed it to them at one time or another.
I honestly don't think that a new version of
Sholay will lead to many people's watching the original, and I maintain that it is
much more one-sided, in this particular case.
Psycho (1960) is my favorite Hitchcock film. Van Sant's "tribute" was atrocious in that most people who ventured into theaters to see it, had already seen the
very-popular original, and were shocked to see that they were basically watching the same thing...in color. The original
Manchurian Candidate is an excellent film, but I am quite able to "like" (not "love," but "like") the re-make. Here, I don't think that Denzel Washington's film re-kindled any interest in Frank Sinatra, though a few older people I know did
re-watch the original. Sorry, but I think all the
Texas Chainsaw Massacre films suck; the "original" (cult-classic) is no exception.
I love
Traffic (I've never seen the "original"), I've seen
Solaris (I could barely sit through it the first time; I saw it again at a friend's house, and found it — at best — "OK), and I somewhat liked
Ocean's 11, but I still prefer the original (though even it is far from one of my "all-time favorites").
I don't think that Ram Gopal Varma has done anything "new" or "original" in a very long time. It seems to me that the once "cutting-edge" filmmaker, has lost all creativity, and is now simply in a rut wherein he imitates himself and his style, again and again...and again. Admitted, most filmmakers have a "niche"; something they're particularly good at (Hitchcock=suspense, Karan Johar=big-budget "family" romance). However, Varma churns out
very many films, and at his rate of production, he needs to adopt some variety. The last truly commendable effort I can recall of his, is
Company. That might be fine (as the film is not yet "too" old), had he made it, then but a few films. But, no: he's made myriad since then. Even the much-acclaimed
Sarkar (which starred my favorite actor ever: Abhishek Bachchan...j/k: Amitabh), I found little more than "OK." The film was totally predictable. It was not necessarily predictable if you'd seen
The Godfather (though the opening, and the "brother-killer" parts were straight lifts), but it was more than that if you'd watched any of Varma's prior work. Furthermore, as was the case with
James, the film had no problem sacrificing substance and subtlety, in the name style.
I get what you're saying, but I disagree (and forever shall); of course, that's not to say that you should feel differently.
I guess I'll conclude by quoting (and responding to) your closing statement:
"when it comes to mumbai noirs and crime/dramas - not only has ramu mastered the genre, he invented the genre!!"
It seems that he invented it, he perfected it, and now he's stuck on it, wearing it into trite, unappealing cinema.
*Actually, I'd be interested to re-visit this topic in a decade or so, to see what hindsight has to say. Even those who absolutely adored
Rocky IV when it came out (I recall its having been one of my favorite films when I was a child), often now condemn it as trash.