I have always wondered who on earth can stand to watch Antra Malli, other than Ram Gopal Verma of course, I guess I know now.

Come on, Anatara Mali is OK. She was really good in Main Madhuri Dixit Banna Chahti Hoon.

Barring the opening sequence, I feel that, with Sarkar, Varma did try to make The Godfather "his own." That said, it was just an "OK" movie. Furthermore, "maine bhaiya ko mar diya"? Yeah, that was original. At least he let his "godfather" live. This talk of Varma's "Sholay" being set in the Mumbai underworld, too, largely turns me off to the film. I admit that most director's have a "niche"; they have a certain "trademark" style. Varma, however, seems utterly fixated on the Mumbai underworld...or on ghosts.

James "2" (well, not "2"; it's also a "re-make)? What: was the "original" not horrible enough? I hear he's re-making Shiva, as well. And Don.

You've not yet, once, "entertained" me.

Of course I am defending Sholay because of my love for it. You are contradicting yourself by saying that you are defending what you love because you love it, but implying that I ought not to do the same.

Her face "physically matured"? Is there any other way for a face to mature? I don't think that this is a point of argument. I think she looks better now than she did before. Perhaps you know the woman, but I do not, and thus I can make no judgement as to her "personality." I think she has an "all right" screen presence, but I do find her over-rated. The media have a way of choosing one person or one topic, and sticking to him or her, or to it. Aishwarya has been blown into something she never was. She's a good actress who looks good, and she is very little more.

If the only thing that sparks your interest in Sholay, is some predictably hackneyed version that will be made by Ram Gopal Varma's pretentious and predictable factory, then, again, that's fine for you. I don't think you can have a coherent understanding of an industry (not that you ever claimed to have one) without watching at least some of its "staple" films. When talking of the Indian film industry, Sholay is about as "staple" as it gets. I suppose you haven't seen Don, either; well, at least Varma might get you to watch two great films (not speaking of his own).

It is really not a "two-way street" in the case of Sholay. Being the most-watched film on earth, it is dubious that Varma's version will get any new people (barring, perhaps, Yuvan) to watch the classic. Rather, it will by the original that gets non-factory fans to sit through Varma's version. Yes, I agree that The Grudge is the only reason that many people know of its Japanese source. That said, not nearly all those who have seen The Grudge are aware of Ringu, and even fewer seem to have ventured out to see it.

Again, I don't feel that a re-make considerably adds to the appeal (or knowledge of the existence of) a "classic," thought I do agree that it can often successfully bring a great story to new generations. 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 (though, given, that is a peculiar case, as it was more a "re-shoot" than a "re-make). Another example is Mr. Deeds (original: Mr. Deeds Goes To Town) and another, Main Prem Ki Diwani Hoon (original: Chitchor). The old films were barely re-popularized by their re-made counterparts, and each of these re-makes was just bad.

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



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!!

Sholay, in any form will never be the same without "SANJEEV KUMAR"

sanjeev definitely was the only good point in sholay imo, even though he had small part

and now his part will be played by lal

That might very well be the case in your opinion - but there is no denying the FACT that SHOLAY is a classic. That prompts me to ask you - how do you define a classic ??

There is a good book on sholay written by the ever dependable Anupama Chopra ( of India Today) - i recommend you read the book



https://www.vedamsbooks.com/no21555.htm

In the book there is an interview with RGV and he acknowledges how much he loves the film, infact he had used his knowledge on SHOLAY to get his first film SHIVA

From - http://www.rediff.com/chat/trans/0215anu.htm

Hari : How come you had Ramgopal Varma talk about the film and what was his reaction like? any anecdote to relate in your meetings with him?
Ms Anupama Chopra : hi hari,ramgopal verma has always talked about how much sholay meant to him, which is why he was one of the people interviewd. It was fascinating because he actually got his first film thanks to sholay. He explained sound cuts from sholay so well that the producers decided to give him his debut movie shiva.





I like Soderbergh and get a kick every time i see Schizopolis ( i like traffic also , but would not go as far as calling it the "greatest" film ever made ) . That said -- i am curios how you think Solaris ( 2002) is better than the Tarkovsky's Solaris ??? . i dont think sodenberg ever claimed it to be a remake in fact he "officially" credits it being a literary adaptation of the original novel only – so in my eyes to compare them would be a “waste of time” , but still when someone comes along and snubs the work of my Fav director ( Tarkovsky ) I got to wake up and ask him WHY ? - is this another of your "snub one guy inorder to exemplfy your stance" rule ?



I think before RGV there "was" Govind Nihalani - his influence on RGV cannot be ignored

Please name few Hindi classics of that time (mid 70s).

Pakeezah maybe?

As far as playing, a very average looking girl, with little talent who aspires to be Madhuri, I agree with you, she was quite perfect for that particualr role. But why would I want to see her in 'Item numbers'? Personally I think she was fine for roles, like the one she played in Mast, a small sidey role. I even thought she was quite good in it, but she is definately not 'Star' material or for that matter good enough for leading roles.

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.

What's your favorite S-K film? I just loved his work in Aandhi, Angoor, and Khilona. I think the three films do a good job of exemplifying his immense talent.

Do you guys suppose that Sanjeev Kumar would be altogether loved and praised were he alive (and acting) to-day? It seems that adoration just ceases when an actor out-lives his glory days (Amitabh Bachchan seems to be battling this phenomenon best, but even he is under constant fire by some party or another)? Rishi Kapoor: Pyaar Mein Twist; Dev Anand: Love At Time Square; Rajesh Khanna: Aa Ab Laut Chalen; Shammi Kapoor: Janam Samjha Karo. The types of roles each of these actors have in these films, are the ones that seem to be their image now. I wonder is Sanjeev Kumar, to-day, would be at the level of playing "Amrish-Puri" roles (the bad ones).