Mel Gibson to direct The Wild Bunch remake (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

I didn't mean financial returns. The Beatty remake isn't as good as the 1957 remake, which is not as good as the original 1939 version. Granted, the 1957 version is the most popular because it's been around with multiple exposures while we were growing up (I even saw it theatrically double-billed with Snow White and the Three Stooges!) on TV, then home video and the reference in Sleepless in Seattle, which helped bring it back into public consciousness.

That's why I asked for clarification. IMO, the 1939 film is superior, but it's only 87 minutes long while the 1957 film is almost 20 minutes longer and more sentimental which is probably why almost every woman I've dated in the last 30 years or so absolutely loves the 1957 film.

 

[bujaki]

That's why I asked for clarification. IMO, the 1939 film is superior, but it's only 87 minutes long while the 1957 film is almost 20 minutes longer and more sentimental which is probably why almost every woman I've dated in the last 30 years or so absolutely loves the 1957 film.

So we agree on this one: we both prefer the 1939 version. My wife does as well for the reasons you quote: brevity and less sentimental. She likes, but does not love, the 1957 version.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Great examples, but all with the exception of True Grit came before the current "remake factory" mindset in Hollywood. Also, we're talking about The Wild Bunch here; one of the most seminal westerns in film history. While it's a very good movie, I don't think the original True Grit quite makes it into that category. Let's just hope that Gibson's take on this won't turn out to be another teal and orange turd.

I don't think that there is any gauge of if remakes can or will be good based on looking at remakes made over the last 70 years. As Doug states above...remakes are a major thing now and they were not in the past. Sure, there have always been remakes but not to this degree and not strictly churned out as cash grabs.

Clearly, the only reason this is getting made now is due to the "remake frenzy" and the fact that financial backers are more comfortable taking a risk on something that has already been done. Number crunchers have numbers they can crunch on a remake...though I question what those may look like here on a Western that features a group of older men that know their time has come.

Truly there is no artistic reason to do this.

That said would I like to see this be a huge success and spawn a whole bunch of new Westerns? You know I would. Is that likely? You know it is not.

Probably the only remake it makes sense to discuss in relation to this remake would be The Magnificent Seven remake from 2016. This picture had a pretty big budget for a Western remake, had a cast that was full of recognizable faces, threw in a crap actor that was hot at the time in Chris Pratt, and had a solid action director at the helm. So, all the things in place that might give it a shot at success.

Did it succeed? Not really. On a $90 million budget it made $93 million domestically and $68 million in foreign. So, going by the old multiply the budget by 3 rule to determine financial success this picture lost money or maybe broke even...which in terms of a Western is actually not bad. It also managed to open open at number 1 in late September of 2016 and made about half of it's domestic take in the first week. Also pretty good for a Western.

Gibson's last time in the director's chair was also in 2016 with Hacksaw Ridge. A war movie which is sort of comparable to a Western in that it is an action based period film featuring, in most cases, a group of men in situations with heightened violence. So, typically appealing to the same audience that might pay to see a Western.

Hacksaw Ridge had I guess what you would call a "modest" budget of $40 million and pulled in $67 million in the US plus $108 million in foreign. Success, using the multiply by 3 method. It opened at number 3 in it's first week and sunk from there but due to the "modest" budget this film turned a profit. Interestingly, in comparison to The Magnificent Seven it also made about half the budget cost in the first week of domestic release. It did not have as "starry" a cast as Magnificent featuring Andrew Garfield who I don't think anybody would call a household name and was an "original" picture rather than a remake. So, good on Gibson for having a success with this type of picture.

What does this all mean? Well, basically I would say if they want a Wild Bunch remake to have a shot at financial success keep the budget down to $50 million or so and Mel based on his name alone being attached may turn you a profit on it. Blow that budget up to $90 million or more and you will need to add things to the film to make it more attractive to the 35 and under crowd. Generally this starts with casting because Westerns do not really attract that crowd.

Here's where I become concerned. I will say again that The Wild Bunch is a film about older men that know their time has come and gone and this drives everything in the story. You can't have Chris Pratt as Pike Bishop. You can't make it one old guy with a bunch of young guns. If you change the cast to younger people the entire point of the story goes out the window.

Here's one idea if he would want to do it or even be capable of doing the time on the horse at his age but Harrison Ford would be a good Pike Bishop. With Mel in the director's chair and Ford as Bishop that very well could be a BIG western.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Harrison Ford is too old at 76 years old.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Harrison Ford is too old at 76 years old.

The only issue I see with that is if the guy could physically do the picture. Time on a horse after his time crashing planes and getting hurt making Star Wars films might not work for the guy. Of course the guy is still lining up action pictures at his age doing another Indiana Jones picture. 70 something is the new 50 something?

Another casting choice, I'd like anyway, would be Brendan Gleeson in the Borgnine part.

Ed Harris in the Ben Johnson role as Tector Gorch (Ed can ride) and Joaquin Phoenix as Lyle Gorch (Warren Oates).

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Ford's schedule looks jammed anyway...Viggo Mortensen or Kurt Russell as Pike Bishop? They can ride too. Should have Tommy Lee Jones in there somewhere too another guy that's good on horse. Actually, Jones as Deke Thornton would be awesome.

 

[John Macri]

Oh gawd... I just finished reading the "The Wild Bunch: Sam Peckinpah, a Revolution in Hollywood, and the Making of a Legendary Film" book, and can't imagine how a remake could possibly be a good idea. The actors Peckinpah picked (both American & Mexican) were the "Wild Bunch". These kind of people/actors don't exist anymore.

https://www.amazon.com/Wild-Bunch-Peckinpah-Revolution-Hollywood/dp/1632862123

 

[Tino]

I really hope Mel Gibson makes this film. The Wild Bunch is right up his alley and I cant wait to see his take on it. He’s one of this generations very best directors imo.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I really hope Mel Gibson makes this film. The Wild Bunch is right up his alley and I cant wait to see his take on it. He’s one of this generations very best directors imo.

A lot will depend on who is hired to play the bunch.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

A lot will depend on who is hired to play the bunch.

I believe the current plans are Michael Fassbender, Jamie Foxx, and Peter Dinklage are three of them...and no I am not joking.

That certainly does not sound very appealing to me.

 

[Tino]

I really hope Mel Gibson makes this film. The Wild Bunch is right up his alley and I cant wait to see his take on it. He’s one of this generations very best directors

I believe the current plans are Michael Fassbender, Jamie Foxx, and Peter Dinklage are three of them...and no I am not joking.

That certainly does not sound very appealing to me.

Ooh. That does to me!

 

[John Macri]

I believe the current plans are Michael Fassbender, Jamie Foxx, and Peter Dinklage are three of them...and no I am not joking.

If Mel Gibson casts Peter Dinklage as Pike Bishop it would be worth watching...

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

If Mel Gibson casts Peter Dinklage as Pike Bishop it would be worth watching...

It is something Mel would do.