A remake of Scarface? WTF?

Look, I couldn't just sit here and let this slide without starting a thread. I caught wind of this rumor and I honestly couldn't believe my ears—does anyone actually have any solid info on this? If there's even a grain of truth to it, I’m ready to grab some dynamite and level the whole damn Hollywood studio system.

A remake of Scarface? 😲 Seriously, is there anyone left in Hollywood who hasn't completely lost their mind? It sounds absolutely surreal to hear they're planning a remake of a legendary masterpiece, but this... this is just... I don't even have the words. If this is true, it’s pure insanity.

How do you even attempt a remake of the Bible? Scarface is cinematic scripture—it's a cult classic. Is it even possible to conceive of such a thing, let alone actually try to produce it?

And now I'm hearing the director might be David Yates—the guy behind Harry Potter. What’s next on the agenda? Are we getting a remake of The Godfather directed by the person behind Sleeping Beauty or Snow White?

I mean, even if God and Jesus themselves showed up to direct, they couldn't pull off a remake of Scarface, The Godfather, or any other film that qualifies as a cinematic Bible. There isn't a deity—ancient, Old Testament, or New Testament—who could replicate a film like Scarface. I don't know how much truth there is to this blasphemous nonsense, but once I heard it, I had to open this thread...

Screw all of them. At this point, it isn't even Hollywood anymore; it's just Jewllywood. Go ahead, give me a ban.

You realize that Scarface is actually just a remake, right?

Did people also question whether anyone would dare attempt a remake of such a masterpiece by De Palma? At least thirty years have passed since the last version hit theaters. That’s much better than those remakes released just a year or two after the original... [Rec] (2007) and Quarantine (2008)
.

Don't believe everything you read on these forums😁

briskhound2 said:You realize Scarface is a remake too, right?

Maybe he was thinking about the 1932 version of Scarface—it’s easy to forget that De Palma already did the remake 😁

Lately, it feels like it's nothing but remakes and sequels to movies everyone forgot decades ago. So, honestly? This doesn't surprise me one bit.🤷

They're just too scared to take risks on original stories. Instead, they play it safe with this formula: "Hey, this already made us a ton of money and people liked it, so let's just reboot it or slap a sequel on it."

Another remake of a remake. Honestly, we've seen this all before, haven't we? It’s becoming nothing new at all. 🙂

Yes, quite frankly. I happened upon a list somewhere of relatively fresh and intriguing scripts currently sitting gathering dust in studio drawers... however, it is far more efficient to simply produce a remake, a sequel, a prequel, or perhaps an adaptation of a comic book or some gritty pulp literature. They come with a pre-established fan base already intact.

I’m not sure how many people actually know this, but after the remake of Scarface, De Palma was actually nominated for a Golden Raspberry as the worst director. 😁
It seems there were plenty of critics who couldn't stomach this more violent iteration of the character—especially Al Pacino’s Cuban accent, which became such a massive target for ridicule. For us over here in the States, it wasn't much of an issue, but for people constantly rubbing shoulders with the Cuban community, it hit differently.

Personally, I think De Palma's Scarface is a brilliant film and a total cult classic, but the remake itself isn't flawless, nor is it some untouchable "sacred cow." So, why should anyone see a problem with reimagining the character in a modern setting?

Back in 1932, during the era of Al Capone, Scarface was portrayed as an Italian immigrant settling into Chicago.
Fast forward to 1983, during the cocaine explosion in Miami, where it makes much more sense to depict him as a Cuban immigrant making his way along the Florida coast.
I recall reading somewhere that in a new version, the character might have Mexican heritage instead, which would once again reflect the current reality and the dominance of Mexican cartels in the drug trade.

Honestly, as much as I love Scarface, every time I sit down to watch it, I get this feeling that it’s aged way worse than most other classics from the 70s and 80s. Maybe it’s the soundtrack, maybe it’s the cinematography, who knows. It might just be me, but there’s something about it that feels off when I’m watching it, and I can't quite put my finger on what exactly...

My God, why...

I honestly can't wait thirty years for some ridiculous remake of this remake of a remake...

briskhound2 said:You realize that Scarface is actually a remake, right?

Sure, but we're talking about a remake that simply can't be remade. 🙂 Sometimes you just have to speak up when something truly iconic happens—and let’s be real, this movie is a cult classic, and I don't think anyone in this thread can honestly argue otherwise. Now, look, it might not be my absolute favorite Al Pacino performance, but it easily ranks among the greatest films of all time. So, when I hear people suggesting that someone actually *could* pull off a remake of a masterpiece like this... well, fine. Is it just me, or is everyone else here also losing their minds at the sheer audacity of it?

If they’re clearly enough of an idiot to go down this road, then fine—let them. Let them just remake everything that’s ever been made. Why stop there? They might as well go ahead and produce a remake of 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Godfather, The Shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction, or Goodfellas. Hell, let’s have them remake Carlito's Way too. They should probably just remake all of Hitchcock's greatest hits and every single one of Kubrick's masterpieces—not just the Odyssey—while they're at it.

It’s becoming painfully obvious that Hollywood has completely abandoned any sense of moral boundaries—there's no ethical compass left, no common sense regarding this kind of stuff... honestly, it's a joke. If they actually go through with this, I sincerely hope Alkaid just blasts the whole lot of them into oblivion.

One more thing—as much as people argue about whether De Palma's Scarface is actually a remake of the original, they’re missing the forest for the trees. De Palma’s version is loosely based on real events that unfolded in Miami decades after the original story ever took place. To be clear, the character of Tony Montana never actually existed—if I recall correctly from some old reading, it was actually a woman, maybe a Cuban or Colombian immigrant, who possessed that same level of sheer madness seen in the film. The movie is really just a reflection of those wild, chaotic years in Miami. Anyone who thinks they can simply "remake" an era like that is delusional. Honestly, all I can say to them is this—just watch the scene at the 03:29 mark: I’ve been sitting here staring at this clip, trying to wrap my head around the sheer audacity of what we're seeing on screen—and I don't just mean the technical execution, though that's certainly part of the equation. It’s more about the fundamental shift in how stories are being told today versus how they used to be handled back in the day. When you look at the way modern directors approach high-stakes drama, there seems to be this constant push toward spectacle over substance—a sort of hollowed-out version of what made the classics actually stick. We used to have filmmakers who understood the weight of silence, the tension in a single glance, or the slow, agonizing build of a character's descent. Now? Everything feels like it's being shouted at you through a megaphone. It lacks that quiet, simmering intensity that defined the great American crime epics. Think about it—if you compare the raw, visceral energy of something like *Goodfellas* to the polished, almost sterile perfectionism of contemporary blockbusters, the difference isn't just stylistic; it's philosophical. One feels lived-in, gritty, and dangerously real, while the other feels like it was assembled in a boardroom to satisfy an algorithm. It's the difference between art and product. There’s a certain laziness creeping into the industry—a reliance on nostalgia or "vibes" because they're too afraid to take a genuine creative risk. They'd rather give us a safe, predictable beat than something that actually challenges the viewer or leaves them feeling unsettled. It’s frustrating to watch. We’re being fed a diet of highly processed cinematic junk when we used to have access to the real thing. You can see the fingerprints of committee-driven decision-making all over these modern productions, and frankly, it's killing the soul of American filmmaking. "Listen here, buddy... it's your move." — BANG.

wiredraven82 said:Look, I get it, but when you're talking about a remake that feels impossible to touch, 🙂you really have to give credit where it's due once something hits legendary status, and let’s be real, that movie is an absolute icon—I don't think anyone in this thread would even try to deny that.

WOW, easy there, dude! 😁

The original Scarface from 1932 is such a massive cult classic that nobody can argue with it, and I bet plenty of people were saying the exact same thing back when they were getting the remake Scarface 1983 ready to go.

Personally, I'm actually pretty stoked for this remake because they've got some seriously talented actors and a killer director lined up, so who knows? It could honestly turn out to be amazing.

cosmiclynx57 said:Whoa, take it easy, man. 😁

The 1932 version of Scarface is a cult classic—that's an undeniable fact—and I’m sure plenty of people were making the exact same arguments you are back when they were prepping the remake Scarface (1983).

Personally, I’m actually looking forward to this remake; with a cast and director of this caliber, there’s a legitimate chance it could turn out exceptionally well.

Well, we'll just have to wait and see what the director of Harry Potter brings to the table for Scarface (I mean, seriously, look at the state of cinema when you consider movies like Harry Potter)—his only hope of even touching Scarface 1983 would be if Potter lent him a magic wand, and even then, it’s a long shot.

But no matter how you slice it, the bottom line is that this is pathetic. It’s painfully obvious that Hollywood has run dry of original ideas, which is why we see these projects being churned out. There’s no vision, no elegance, no artistry—none of the qualities that used to define these kinds of films and their narratives.

Call me nostalgic if you want, but the caliber of acting and everything else regarding crime dramas and thrillers from those eras is incomparably better than what we see today—exceptions exist, sure, but the era we live in is so artificial that the movies have become artificial too. Most of them are soulless, which is why... naturally, they resort to these types of moves. They’re like necrophiliacs fumbling with something sacred—idea-less, ultra-capitalist vultures... I don't even know what else to call them. 🙂

wiredraven82 said:But honestly, no matter how you slice it, the bottom line is that it’s just sad. It’s painfully obvious that Hollywood has completely run out of original ideas, which is why they keep churning out this kind of stuff. There's zero creativity left, none of that elegance or true artistry that used to make movies like this actually feel special, you know? Everything that once gave these kinds of plots soul is just... gone.

And hey, isn't that exactly what everyone was complaining about back when they were making the remake Scarface?

cosmiclynx57 said:Again—someone said the exact same thing back when they were working on the remake of Scarface 1983.

Fine, whatever you say. 🤣 But I’m telling you—if we look at this through an analogical lens—the current state of artistry in our era is genuinely pathetic compared to when Scarface 1983 was being filmed. Back then, people thought nothing could ever surpass the original because when you're living through a specific moment, it's hard to truly gauge just how good it actually is. If it was great, it was great. Well, I *can* gauge the era we're living in now versus everything from the year 2000 to the present... and in a word? It's garbage across the board, barring a few rare exceptions in film and other forms of art.

For instance, you love the horror genre (as do I, along with pretty much everything else except comedies)—you should know better than anyone what I mean by "across the board."

Remember how before the turn of the millennium, everyone was predicting some sort of apocalypse for the year 2000? Of course, that was all nonsense. But when you really sit back and look at the world—specifically regarding art since 2000, and generally society, sports, everything (again, allowing for exceptions)—maybe it actually *was* the end of the world in that sense, we just didn't realize it yet. 😁

Take Sci-Fi, for example. What has been the pinnacle of Sci-Fi in recent years? Avatar? Prometheus? What are those even compared to T1, T2, or Alien? And consider the technology they used back then versus what we have today. Honestly, man, I am embarrassed to live in this era—and then you have these vultures coming along trying to pull a remake of something like Scarface... so... I really don't know what else to add besides walking away from this topic.

All those dark sides of Hollywood you think define our modern era have actually been a constant fixture there for over a century.

Besides, if someone is bothered by a remake, does it really stop them from ever watching it? Why does it even matter? There will always be bad movies, good movies, and remakes, just as there will always be masterpieces.

wiredraven82 said:When you’re actually living through an era, it’s kind of impossible to step back and judge how great it really is, right? Like, if things were awesome, they were awesome... but hey, I can tell you when I can

People always say there's a rule for everything, but exceptions exist too—so what, are you claiming to be one of those rare outliers? 😛

And honestly, think about this: twenty or thirty years from now, maybe sometime in the 2030s or 2040s, someone is going to look back at us and say the exact same thing, right? They'll probably claim that "movies today are just straight-up garbage on every single level, though I guess there are a few gems here and there—the 2010s definitely had much better quality filmmaking."

neonsurfer6 said:All the dark sides of Hollywood that people point to as uniquely defining our modern era—well, they’ve actually been a constant fixture there for over a century now.

I have to disagree—if you want my take, the decadence really started around 2000. Let’s just use that year as a symbolic turning point. Sure, movies were garbage both before and after that era, but the real issue is that today’s "non-garbage" films often turn out to be total trash—and now we're seeing a trend where even the remakes of things that should have been left alone are absolute garbage too.

I honestly don’t even know what they’re planning to remake next at this point—maybe they just haven't laid their greedy eyes on The Godfather yet.

neonsurfer6 said:At the end of the day—if someone is genuinely bothered by the existence of a remake, does that actually stop them from just ignoring it? Why does it even matter? Whether it’s a poorly executed cash grab, a solid flick, or an absolute masterpiece, remakes have always been around and they aren't going anywhere.

Ha! That’s like walking up to an art historian and saying, "Hey, someone just carved a new David—forget about Michelangelo's version; just put them both in the same room and if you don't like looking at the new one, just look away." I mean, seriously, what kind of logic is that? Some things simply shouldn't be messed with—they deserve to be left exactly as they are.

Cinema through the ages—the absolute masterpieces, the heavy hitters—they serve as the cornerstone of our collective human artistry, much like Michelangelo's David does for fine art. Now, please, don't go thinking I’m making a direct, literal comparison between *Scarface* and *David*—I'm simply drawing an analogy to touch upon a larger point here. When we see these monumental works being constantly rebooted or remade, it forces us to ask a difficult question: what does that constant cycle of recycling actually say about the current state of cinematic art?

Take a look at one of Hollywood's big horror hits from last year—*The Conjuring*. Honestly? It’s nothing more than a mutant, a sort of symbiote composed of all the great horror classics from back in the day. It scavenged everything it could possibly find, copied it, and presented it back to us as if it were something new—but that's really it. There isn't a single original idea left in the tank. And don't even get me started on the cast—it’s the same group of actors over and over again.