There was recent news of director Farhan Akthar remaking the classic AB starrer 'Don' with SRK in the title role. I want to know peoples' opinions on this decision.

some points:
-SRK re-enacting Devdas from Dilip Kumar
-Farhan Akthar son of Javed Akthar (of 70's Don writers Salim-Javed)
-Bollywood following hollywood by remaking classics aiming for old and new audiences?
-should AB have a cameo?
-If SRK's Don is a success, what next? Naseeb, Amar Akbar Anthony remakes!?

I don't know what's worse - Bollywood remaking Hollywood, or now Bollywood remaking Bollywood? Either way it goes, we're the ones who suffer.

first look...



I liked farhan akhtar’s 'lakshya', I have a feeling this cld turn out to be pretty good also… though I still think that hrithik wld make a much better 'don'

Don goes Matrix?

The original was such a fun masala film - I hope they don't try and take themselves seriously with this remake.

Does anyone know where I can see a full size version of the poster, cant make out much from the ones above

So Duggu vs Sarook..to win the matrix game

AAA already seems to be hitting re-make land ... David Dhawan announced this with the Khan brothers (Salman et al) taking the 3 lead roles. Hopefully now due to Salman's situation this project will be shelved and never re-materialise again!

Amar Akbar Anthony is indeed inimtable, but, if anyone should try to re-make it, it's David Dhawan. Why? David Dhawan is Manmohan Desai. What I mean by this, is that neither is, by any means, a "great" movie-maker. Sure, both have had their successes, but both have had more on the side of failures. In fact, barring a few of the "better successes," none of the two directors' movies really stands out as that good, at all. When I think "Desai," Amar Akbar Anthony is really the only "great" that comes to mind; with "Dhawan," it's Mr. & Mrs. Khiladi and Bade Miyan Chote Miyan.

I think people loosely use the term classic..

films like don, aaa, sholay were nothing more than 70s masala camp… and they themselves were heavily hollywood inspired. the only real classics to actually be remade in the last few yrs, and poorly remade I shld add, were parineeta and devdas

though on the subject of remaking classics, I am all for it provided that they are in the hands of capable of filmmakers (which seems to not have been the case so far). I wld love to see to some of my fav hindi classics be remade by capable directors/actors

Kareena doing Helen's role

The unit of Farhan Akhtar's Don is currently shooting round the clock in Malaysia. On May 13th, the classic number 'Khai Ke Paan Banaras Wala' will be shot. The song features Shah Rukh Khan and Priyanka Chopra and will be choreographer by Saroj Khan. It must be a feeling of deja vu for Saroj Khan. Twenty-six years ago her mentor, P.L Raj had choreographed the original with Amitabh Bachchan and Zeenat Aman.

Saroj Khan is taking care to ensure that the sensibilities of the new version appeal to the people of today's times. She believes that Priyanka has a lot of grace and potential as a dancer. Priyanka too is ecstatic about working with Saroj Khan and Shah Rukh Khan. Both of them being legends, it is a great opportunity for the young actress. The other classic song from Don, Yeh Mera Dil was choreographed by Farah Khan for Farhan's version. Yeh Mera Dil features SRK with Kareena Kapoor.

Currently in Kuala Lumpur, the unit will spend around 70 days at 42 locations, including the Penchala Link, Kampung Baru and the Petronas Twin Towers. Eighty per cent of the movie will be shot in Langkawi and Kuala Lumpur. There is also news that a few portions might be shot in Singapore.

This version of Don will have Shahrukh Khan playing a techno-savvy gentleman having knowledge of all modern accessories and gadgets. Even Priyanka Chopra is expected to indulge in some daredevil stunts and display her martial arts skills for the movie all by herself.

"This version of Don will have Shahrukh Khan playing a techno-savvy gentleman having knowledge of all modern accessories and gadgets. Even Priyanka Chopra is expected to indulge in some daredevil stunts and display her martial arts skills for the movie all by herself."

Upon reading this statement, it seemed to me that maybe this new Don wouldn't be so much a remake of the older one but a newer film maybe loosely "inspired" (got to be careful when using that word) by the James Bond flicks perhaps. Just an observation. I mean, even the poster (if it is infact genuine) by no means gives any indication of it being remotely close to the original. ANyone care to comment? Thanks.

I think we need to get straight that "classic" is an at least somewhat-subjective term. Most peoole — most people — would instantly admit that Sholay is a "classic"; I am certainly one of these people. Some, however, would apparently disagree. I guess it really depends on what the term "classic" means to people. From a somewhat objective viewpoint, trying to be based on the "common definition" of "classic," I think there'd definitely be an argument to be made for what should and shouldn't "make the cut." Some factors might be box-office earnings, general public reaction, effect on later cinema, and frequency of citation in other works (of course, there may be several others). Other people might relegrate a "classic" only a work that has meaning to them (which I believe is what Mola Ram is doing when he claims that Sholay is not a classic). I feel that Sholay is most certainly a "classic" in the Indian film industry, and that this is evinced not only by my personal view of the film, but by the idea's coroborration by the examples I just gave (it was very financially successful, it's very frequently referred to by other films, and it clearly has great mass appeal). As for Don and Amar Akbar Anothony, I'd classify them either as "classic" or as "cult classics." They're not "classics" the way that Sholay, Mughal-E-Azam, and Awara are (even those three are "different types" of classics from one another, in one way or more), but both these films have certainly made their mark in the history of India's cinema. I think the term "classic" is much broader than its relation to films such as The Godfather and Casablanca: Rocky, too, may be considered a "classic" movie (at this point), as may be "Goldfinger." "Black-and-white" classics, generally, I understand as different from later, "color classics." After these two, I'd acknowledge the "neo-classic" that is, the fairly recent film that is well on its way to becoming a part of a film industry's important history (e.g., Titanic, The Matrix, The Terminator). As for the "cult classic," I think it's a term wrongly thrown around altogether too often: I frequently hear people speak of the original Star Wars trilogy as being a "cult classic"; I find this assertion wrong. To me, a "cult classic" is a film with a huge following, generally away from the "mainstream." The Matrix might have started out as a "cult classic," but, at this stage, it is simply not applicable to that category. I'd say that Donnie Darko is an excellent example of the "cult-classic film."

Dilip Kumar's Devdas would probably be considered a "classic" — though it has had little importance to me — but Sanjay Leela Bhansali's re-make probably will never be. Parineeta I watched and found exceptionally good, but I don't think that it's originator would be considered, by most, a "classic." A film's simply being old (or, for that matter, even "old and good") doesn't really make it a "classic" movie, at least not in my mind.

despite how much you loved the film personally, ‘sholay’ is by no means a classic… it was one of many big budget masala multistarers of the 70s. though I agree, it is probably one of the most beloved masala multistater of the 70s, but the film regardless is undistinguishable from the rest. to break ‘sholay’ down, in terms of script/plot, characterization etc… it completely lacked any creativity.

furthermore, nothing about the film was “outstanding”, a characteristic I think we can both agree on is crucial in determining whether a film is a classic. the film featured a formulaic plot, standard curry western setting, loud performances…the 4 central characters(amit/dharm/hema/amjad) are/were afterall notoriously bad actors, lets face it, none of the 4 were particularly known for their acting skills. while the 2 real actors in the film(sanj,jaya) were regulated to useless supporting roles. basically, not one single aspect of the film stood out as exceptional. did the film even win/get nominated for any awards??

nonetheless, a film completely lacking in originality and/or excellence cannot be called a true classic

Hey Mola Ram and Command303...i seem to remember this is a Don discussion. So i request you guys not to bring your Sholay war into this. There is already a war going on in another post. Thanks.

Mola Ram, I'm not getting into this with you. You're wrong, and no matter how loudly and powerfully wou may wish it weren't so, it is. Don't make any assertions as to what we may "both agree on"; I have been careful not to make any broad claims about you, and you ought to return the gesture in kind. It seems that all you require to respect a film, is your personally liking it; you appear to have no regard for others' (not just my) view of it, and as that's the case, we're not going to agree about what is a "classic" and what is not, as I believe that part of what makes a "classic," is what other people think of it. Thai said, it's fone if you don't like Sholay or don't consider it a "classic": I don't care whether you agree or not — you don't have to, as, luckily, you, in and of yourself, are not representative of the masses (maybe you are a small part of it, but you're not significant enough to change the value of a film). I'm not going to list myriad films that might be considered by some "classics," only to have you either claim that they are not "classics," or that they are altogether "original" (or that they don't need to be "original," as they "pay tribute," or whatever). You claim that "a film lacking in originality and excellence cannot be a 'classic'," and you take for granted that this is fact; that (that "taking for fact"), itself, is a mistake. Then, you accuse a particular film of condemnable on these counts, and you have no regard for an opposing view as to the film's worth. Again, it's fine if you feel this way, but it's not going to do anything. You sure as hell aren't going to convince me that I'm wrong, and you sure as hell aren't going to sway the myriad who might agree with me; as for people who might agree with you, why even try to persuade those who concur with your viewpoint? Feel free to write some sort of comment in response to what I've said, but don't expect some careful reply. I've heard what you have to say, and I find it rigid, arrogant, and wrong.

Concerning this thread, I henceforth take a cue from Bollywood_Bhai, and shall speak now only of Don itself (even then, I'll try to focus on the upcoming Shah Rukh Khan version, though — its being a re-make — the conversation's veering at least somewhat to the original, I think is inevitable). So, from me, no more Sholay or Citizen Kane or James or any other film not directly relating to the Don topic.