McQueen Sequel
While looking up iconic movie watches for my recent polls, I heard that the iconic 1968 Steve McQueen movie, Bullitt is getting a sequel. From what I've heard it's going to have Spielberg at the helm and Bradley Cooper taking over the role.
McQueen was a style icon in his movies, even down to his watches. In Bullitt, he wore a Benrus Heritage Field Watch.
Doing a sequel to such an iconic film makes me think they're going to do some work to the little things in the film.
Do you think Benrus is going to make another appearance? Or do you think another company is going to vie for a spot on Cooper's wrist?
I'd say it'll make a return, and they'll want to recreate the character as accurately as possible, but wouldn't be surprised if Hamilton or Omega were subbed in.
Submitted for your approval, a man and the watches he wears in... the twilight zone.
I REALLY hope Benrus.
Maybe Weiss, Sangin, Sēl, Resco?
In reality it'll prolly be a swiss big name tho sadly. 😭
Doomed to fail.
Benrus often attends WindUp, Watches and Wonders, etc. I'll have to ask them about what's in the pipeline.
In the meantime here's some other McQueen wrist shots.
Benrus often attends WindUp, Watches and Wonders, etc. I'll have to ask them about what's in the pipeline.
In the meantime here's some other McQueen wrist shots.
Oh, I'd love to hear what you learn.
My thoughts on if the sequel is going to be worth anything aside, I do hope Benrus gets to supply a watch for it.
Doomed to fail.
I think some classic icons should be left alone, because they are too legendary to be followed up.
Bad idea…Bradley Cooper playing the King of Cool???
Bad idea…Bradley Cooper playing the King of Cool???
Yeah... 🤣
I think some classic icons should be left alone, because they are too legendary to be followed up.
Agreed!!!
Benrus yes! Cooper filling in McQueen shoes???
No opinion on the watch, lots on the movies:
Remakes are great for movies with a good idea made imprerfectly. Thomas Crown Affair with McQueen and Dunaway was good and fashion-forward, TCA with Brosnan and Russo was polished and confident. Magnificent Seven was a polished remake of Seven Samurai. It lost some depth for better watchability. Remake of the Magnificent Seven was just uninspired.
And Bullitt? To me, it felt like a proto-Dirty Harry. A realistic tough cop - maybe too realistic. I like atmosphere, but it did feel draggy in places. Dirty Harry heightened the archetype, streamlined the script and started a franchise. So, Bullitt has some points it can improve, but the remake would have to be a damn good movie to succeed and not be just another generic action movie. Which it likely will be. How many classic movies had good remakes after 2000? Ocean's 11, True Grit, and that's about it.
Bad idea…Bradley Cooper playing the King of Cool???
King of Cool can only be played by the King of Cool!
No opinion on the watch, lots on the movies:
Remakes are great for movies with a good idea made imprerfectly. Thomas Crown Affair with McQueen and Dunaway was good and fashion-forward, TCA with Brosnan and Russo was polished and confident. Magnificent Seven was a polished remake of Seven Samurai. It lost some depth for better watchability. Remake of the Magnificent Seven was just uninspired.
And Bullitt? To me, it felt like a proto-Dirty Harry. A realistic tough cop - maybe too realistic. I like atmosphere, but it did feel draggy in places. Dirty Harry heightened the archetype, streamlined the script and started a franchise. So, Bullitt has some points it can improve, but the remake would have to be a damn good movie to succeed and not be just another generic action movie. Which it likely will be. How many classic movies had good remakes after 2000? Ocean's 11, True Grit, and that's about it.
Italian Job, was a good remake, wouldn't say it's a classic.
My only comment to the film makers is don’t do it!
Italian Job, was a good remake, wouldn't say it's a classic.
Eh, it was enjoyable (and indeed polished and easier to watch), but it lacked the charm of the original. They straightened Crocker and Bridger into cookie-cutter characters, just like the whole plot. Without the villain and the comic relief characters, there would have been nothing. Yes, the original is rough around the edges, but it wasn't afraid to experiment.
If Charlie was played by somebody with better comedic skills, John Bridger had a bigger role and was as excentric as Noël Coward, AND the plot would take a twist or two (e. g. make Charlize Theron a last-moment villain), then it would have been a remake surpassing the original. I do like the remake, but it could have been so much more...
King of Cool can only be played by the King of Cool!
Exactly...I just watched Road House this weekend (another example of what not to do) why was Connor McGregor the best actor in the movie??? 😂
No opinion on the watch, lots on the movies:
Remakes are great for movies with a good idea made imprerfectly. Thomas Crown Affair with McQueen and Dunaway was good and fashion-forward, TCA with Brosnan and Russo was polished and confident. Magnificent Seven was a polished remake of Seven Samurai. It lost some depth for better watchability. Remake of the Magnificent Seven was just uninspired.
And Bullitt? To me, it felt like a proto-Dirty Harry. A realistic tough cop - maybe too realistic. I like atmosphere, but it did feel draggy in places. Dirty Harry heightened the archetype, streamlined the script and started a franchise. So, Bullitt has some points it can improve, but the remake would have to be a damn good movie to succeed and not be just another generic action movie. Which it likely will be. How many classic movies had good remakes after 2000? Ocean's 11, True Grit, and that's about it.
That's a bit of a myth declaring any movie to be perfect. And when you make art by committee or with constraints, there will be compromise that affects the final result. There was a good half hour of a documentary on Jaws I saw in film school where it was Speilberg going on about arguing over when the cuts happened with the film editor that often boiled down to over a single frame or maybe three frames in time. At the time, he said 1/32 of a second ruined the entire film. Yet, it was one of two movies that created the term blockbuster.
As far as something like Magnificent Seven, that was an adaptation and not a remake. Much like McClintock! being an adaptation of Taming of the Shrew. Even then, Magnificent Seven got mixed reviews and most people involved with the film claimed it was a failure because it was two hours of seven actors trying to one-up each other. It's remembered fondly because Kurosawa enjoyed it. Hitchcock was seen as kind of like the M. Night Shamalan of his time, akin to gimmick director William Castle, with his movies only getting a better reputation from the Cahiers du Cinéma praising his work.
There are exceptional remakes, but for each there are even more failures. I agree with you that this one will be another generic action remake. I am surprised they didn't cast the Rock in the lead and go all Fast and Furious with it. 🤣
For the past several years any time I hear remake/reboot, or continuation of some established or cult title; I think, "alright, how are they going to ruin this one." At least when they announce they're not making it for fans they cut down on the wait time of disappointment. 🤣
Should be ashamed of themselves, it's lazy just trotting out shite cash grab remakes.
Watched Roadhouse last night, it was cringe inducing - & I wasn't a fan of the original.
And don't get me started on how Woke Hollywood has destroyed Star Trek 🤬🤬
Should be ashamed of themselves, it's lazy just trotting out shite cash grab remakes.
Watched Roadhouse last night, it was cringe inducing - & I wasn't a fan of the original.
And don't get me started on how Woke Hollywood has destroyed Star Trek 🤬🤬
I have some campy memories of Road House and will watch it once in a blue moon when there's nothing on and I want to turn my mind off. That's about it. The remake makes no sense. I can see if a movie had a good script, but was botched into a B-movie, and a director wanted to do it justice. However, I can't think of an instance where that's happened.
Agreed! That's been a detrement to producing good movies, shows, and comedy.
That's a bit of a myth declaring any movie to be perfect. And when you make art by committee or with constraints, there will be compromise that affects the final result. There was a good half hour of a documentary on Jaws I saw in film school where it was Speilberg going on about arguing over when the cuts happened with the film editor that often boiled down to over a single frame or maybe three frames in time. At the time, he said 1/32 of a second ruined the entire film. Yet, it was one of two movies that created the term blockbuster.
As far as something like Magnificent Seven, that was an adaptation and not a remake. Much like McClintock! being an adaptation of Taming of the Shrew. Even then, Magnificent Seven got mixed reviews and most people involved with the film claimed it was a failure because it was two hours of seven actors trying to one-up each other. It's remembered fondly because Kurosawa enjoyed it. Hitchcock was seen as kind of like the M. Night Shamalan of his time, akin to gimmick director William Castle, with his movies only getting a better reputation from the Cahiers du Cinéma praising his work.
There are exceptional remakes, but for each there are even more failures. I agree with you that this one will be another generic action remake. I am surprised they didn't cast the Rock in the lead and go all Fast and Furious with it. 🤣
For the past several years any time I hear remake/reboot, or continuation of some established or cult title; I think, "alright, how are they going to ruin this one." At least when they announce they're not making it for fans they cut down on the wait time of disappointment. 🤣
Yes, my use of "imperfect" was imperfect here, I should have used "underutilised potential" or "room for improvement". Because then it's easier to make a better movie with the same idea.
Yes, strictly speaking, it's not a remake, but I guess my requirement for remakes should extend to adaptations as well, don't you think?
Yes, my use of "imperfect" was imperfect here, I should have used "underutilised potential" or "room for improvement". Because then it's easier to make a better movie with the same idea.
Yes, strictly speaking, it's not a remake, but I guess my requirement for remakes should extend to adaptations as well, don't you think?
You could make the argument for underutilized or could be improved, which can be applied to any movie. And certainly valid in many cases.
It has been tried to cover adaptations to be considered remakes in film academia, but not successfully. The first thing that's usually pointed out is how there are only a handful of story plots and everything reuses them. If adaptations were remakes then all the actions movies would be a remake of Beowulf.
The second point would be media conversation aka media adaptations. Movies have been made off of books and songs have been made about movies and books have been based off movies. We don't consider Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings to be remakes of the books. They're based off original stories, changed a bit, and told in a different format. Under a remake umbrella, despite there being no HP films before, those would instantly be remakes. If they made another movies series that were based on the books directly, then it would be another adaptation. If they based those movies on the original 8 films, then they'd be remakes. This is why you can say the Boris Karloff Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein are adaptations, while almost all Frankenstein movies after are remakes, since a majority of those movies copy the Karloff movies and not the book. We also see the same case in slasher movies being seen as kind of original but more accurately adaptations of a Mario Brava film that spawned the entire genre.
It's fun to say that 10 Things I Hate About You and McLintock! are essentially the same film, which is what I kind of got from you saying wouldn't adaptations be remakes. In one way you'd be right, but in many ways not. When film theorists debate things in their papers, it has to be as precise as possible and broad categories are ripe for being torn apart. Even the idea of movie genres. There are more subgenres than than flavors of ice cream.
Very well put!
However, my "requirement for remakes" doesn't deal with classifying art, but evaluating it. I'm saying now: A remake should be better than the original movie, an adaptation should be at least comparatively good, considering the general difficulty in making a good film and a loyal adaptation in one (due to them being differing art forms with different tools).