A remake of Scarface? WTF?

wiredraven82 said:I mean, sure, but when you make a remake that's basically un-remakable...🙂 you kind of have to earn that respect once you actually hit cult status...

Oh, look at that. You know what Carpenter went through when he did his take on The Thing? People hated him more than they hated osama bin Laden 😁 And now? It’s a total classic that everyone swears by. It was pretty much the same deal for Michael Bay when he stepped up to produce the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake—everyone thought it was a disaster until it actually turned out great. Or look at Snyder with Dawn of the Dead; the guy was practically lynched for touching a masterpiece, yet he ended up making something that’s arguably better than the original. Who knows, really... maybe we shouldn't judge things before they even happen.

cosmiclynx57 said:They say there are exceptions—so, are you an exception? 😛

Once again—twenty or thirty years from now, maybe in the 2030s or 2040s—someone else is going to look back and say the exact same thing: "Modern movies are just garbage on every conceivable level; credit where it's due to the occasional standout, but the films of the 2010s were simply higher quality."

I don't particularly enjoy labeling myself an "exception" to any rule, but there are certain people capable of rationally assessing the era they inhabit. For them, it’s a certainty—and while a touch of nostalgia for the "good old days" is inevitable, it doesn't cloud my judgment enough to claim that our current era, and indeed the last fifteen years or so, can be measured against what came before in terms of artistry—or even the state of society, if you want to take it that far.

Maybe there was something special in the air back then—something in the water, who knows? 🤣 But when I look back at the entire stretch from 2000 to 2010 and see nothing but pure mediocrity compared to the 80s and 90s, my perspective isn't being warped by the present—because, let's face it, this period is already becoming the past. We've merely entered a new millennium that serves as a direct continuation of that decadence.

This whole discussion has drifted into sociology and philosophy; it'll likely be closed soon, which might actually be for the better. 🙂

briskhound2 said:Well, look at that. You finally see what Carpenter was going through when he made his version of The Thing. People hated him more than they hated osama bin Laden 😁 yet today, it’s an absolute classic that everyone swears by. It’s a similar story to when Michael Bay mentioned producing a remake of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre—in the end, people were actually thrilled. It's just like Snyder with Dawn of the Dead; the guy was practically lynched for touching a sacred cow, only to turn out with something that's arguably better than the original. Who knows? You really shouldn't judge a book by its cover before it's even printed.

The points about Dawn of the Dead and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre are debatable—I already mentioned that exceptions exist—but regarding Carpenter's The Thing, that movie came out in the 80s. I said there was just something in the air back then, some kind of vibe, or whatever 😁... you simply can't draw a direct comparison to the way things work in the industry today.

briskhound2 said:Oh, look at that. You know, you can really see what Carpenter was going through when he made his version of The Thing. People absolutely hated him more than they hated osama bin Laden 😁 And now? It’s a total classic that everyone swears by. It’s the same thing that happened with Michael Bay when he mentioned producing a remake of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. In the end, everyone ended up loving it. Just like with Snyder and Dawn of the Dead; the guy was practically lynched for touching a sacred masterpiece, yet he turned out to make a movie that’s almost better than the original. Who knows, right? You really shouldn't judge a book by its cover before it's even printed.

That pretty much sums up the whole post.

wiredraven82 said:But if I'm looking back from this vantage point at the entire millennium between 2000 and 2010, all I see is a complete and utter void... especially compared to how things were in the 80s and 90s.

It's like they say—if you spend all your time thinking about a tooth that doesn't even hurt, eventually it's gonna start aching, right? Or to put it another way, you just have such a negative bias against the 2000s that you can't see anything but that massive gap... you can't even see a damn thing through that lens! 😂

The 2000s definitely had their fair share of high-quality films, so the question of whether they were "weaker" than the 90s, or if the 50s were "stronger" than the 80s, or if the 60s were "weaker" than the 70s... honestly, that’s all just a matter of personal taste, perspective, and how you choose to view history. It's subjective, man.

By the way—filler, fluff, whatever you want to call it 😂 wtf man, are you seriously watching The X-Files? 😉

cosmiclynx57 said:Sign off on the entire post.

They say that if you focus on a tooth that isn't even aching, eventually it’ll start to throb—it's like you're inviting the pain. It's the same thing here—you clearly have such a deep-seated bias against the 2000s that you refuse to see anything beyond the absolute wreckage. You're so fixated on the flaws that you can't even see the basic fundamentals, let alone anything remotely positive. 😂

Look, there’s no denying that the 2000s delivered some absolute gems—it wasn't exactly a wasteland. But whether they actually hold up against the heavy hitters of the '90s? Whether the '50s carry more weight than the '80s, or if the '60s somehow pale in comparison to the '70s? Honestly, we’re just chasing ghosts at that point. It all boils down to personal taste, your own perspective, and how you choose to interpret cinematic history—it's entirely subjective.

Basically—it’s water, air, or whatever else you want to call it. 😂 What on earth are you doing—are you seriously sitting there watching The X-Files? 😉

If we’re talking all-time greats, nothing touches The X-Files for me—it's easily my favorite series ever made, though I'll grant The Sopranos a special exception, given its status as one of the absolute pillars of the 2000s. 🙂

Furthermore, I wouldn't agree with that assessment regarding the 2000s—not by a long shot. If we are going to claim we’re looking at "everything" when comparing this era to the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, or even the 90s, then we have to be consistent. It doesn't matter if we're discussing a film released on a digital format or a physical print—the standard remains the same. If our criteria for comparison are shifting depending on how the medium is delivered, then honestly, there's no point in even having this conversation. We might as well stop writing altogether if we aren't going to stick to a single, objective metric.

It feels like we’ve hit a massive drought lately—there simply aren't any directors or actors coming out of certain genres today who can even stand in the same shadow as the greats from before the year 2000. It’s the same story across the board: there isn't a soccer player since the turn of the millennium who can touch the legacy of Maradona, nor is there a basketball player who could ever hope to eclipse Jordan or Petrović. Even in music, you won't find anyone reaching that level of pure, untouchable icon status held by Elvis, Jackson, Iron Maiden, Guns N' Roses, or The Beatles—regardless of what your specific taste might be. And honestly? Let's not even get started on the local music scene here in the States—I'd rather not go there, because I'm pretty sure some of you forum regulars would need a Xanax prescription just to handle the conversation.

There’s absolutely no way to sit here and start playing the relativity game—you know, that tired excuse where people claim "everyone views those eras through a different lens"—because, frankly, that's nonsense. It isn't about perspective; it is quite simply an objective fact, at least from where I'm standing.

We are living in an era where, by every measurable metric—be it art or the fabric of our society—we have fallen significantly below the standards set before the turn of the millennium. Is technology the culprit? Is it the digital age eroding our attention spans and our soul? That isn’t what this thread is about, but there is no denying that something has effectively "stagnated." Everything feels frozen in a state of mediocrity. That is my position, plain and simple. And look—I am an optimist by nature. I tend to look for the silver lining in almost everything—so when an optimist tells you that things have died out, you can be reasonably certain that they actually have. I suspect many of you will agree with me once you find your voices, even if you're staying quiet for now. 😁

wiredraven82 said:The thing is, Tony Montana never actually existed. If I recall correctly from some old book I read ages ago, there was this woman—maybe Cuban, maybe Colombian, I can't quite place it—who was just as "crazy" as he was in De Palma's film.

You probably mean... Griselda Blanco also known as Black Widow

It’s much the same situation with that character from the 1932 version of Scarface. Sure, Tony Camonte wasn't a real person, but the film captured the essence of the Prohibition era perfectly. It’s reminiscent of how De Palma took his version of Tony, dropped him right into the middle of Miami, and absolutely fueled him with cocaine. 😁

How much can I actually gather about this potential remake? If they even go through with it, I doubt we’re looking at a strict, frame-for-frame recreation. Word is the protagonist might be a Mexican immigrant this time around. That changes the math entirely. It means that instead of following the tracks through Chicago and Miami, the whole story will likely shift to Los Angeles. A new setting, a different backdrop, and a whole new set of possibilities—perhaps involving the most brutal Mexican cartel we've ever seen on screen. Could it be a disaster? Sure. Could it actually work? Maybe. They might just completely blow it from start to finish. But honestly, who cares? It's their money they're throwing at the screen, and we have the luxury of choosing whether or not to watch.

wiredraven82 said:Ha! It’s like walking up to an art historian and saying, "Hey, someone just sculpted a new David—forget 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, what kind of logic is that? What kind of philosophy can you possibly justify? Some things simply shouldn't be tampered with. They should be left alone.

David Reamke David For just $45.95? Is that really all it takes? 😁

Kevin Stewart84 said:you're likely thinking of Griselda Blanco—the so-called Black Widow

Yeah, exactly... that's the one. 👍

Kevin Stewart84 said:Get David Reamke's work for just $45.95 😁

Now, this is getting unfair. 🙂

wiredraven82 said:I wouldn't go along with that. I’d argue the decadence really kicked in around 2000—let's use that year as a symbolic marker. There was garbage before and there's been garbage after, but the point is that nowadays, even things that aren't explicitly "trash" often turn out to be, and we're seeing plenty of remakes of stuff that should have just been left alone.

At this point, I’m starting to wonder what they won't try to remake next. Maybe they haven't thought about doing a version of the Godfather yet...

Fair enough, you’ve picked 2000 as your turning point for whatever reason, but I’ll tell you this: the foundations Hollywood operates on haven't changed much since the beginning. Things aren't fundamentally different today than they were decades ago. If we're talking about remakes, The Maltese Falcon from 1941 is essentially a remake, as is Leone's A Fistful of Dollars, and so on. Those are examples of good, memorable remakes, but how many bad ones have been dragged through the entire century? Ultimately, sequels, adaptations, and remakes exist because Hollywood is an industry, and it always will be. Occasionally, true art happens, or you get a strong wave of auteur filmmaking like in the '70s, but the core business model remains the same.

wiredraven82 said:Some things just shouldn't be touched; they ought to be left alone.

No one. Nothing. Is. Being. Erased. A remake doesn't invalidate the original; that version still exists and we can always go back and watch it. You talk as if the old Scarface (though I'm not sure which one—the '32 version or the '83 one?) is going to vanish from the face of the earth. It won't. They'll film a new version, likely an inferior one, and you'll be perfectly free to ignore it.

neonsurfer6 said:Look, you’ve clearly made up your mind about the 2000s, but I’ve gotta tell you, the fundamental logic that keeps Hollywood running hasn't changed an inch since the beginning. It’s not any different today than it was back in the day. If we’re talking remakes, think about how The Maltese Falcon from '41 is essentially a reimagining, or look at Leone's stuff—it's all part of the same cycle. Those are the good, legendary examples, sure, but how many terrible, stretched-out versions have been dragged out over the last century? At the end of the day, sequels, adaptations, and remakes get greenlit because Hollywood is an industry, period. Sometimes you get pure art, sometimes you get a powerhouse generation of auteurs like back in the 70s, but the core business model stays exactly the same.

Nobody. Nothing. No. One. Is. Replacing. Anything. A remake doesn't erase the original; it’s still right there for us to watch whenever we want. You’re acting like the old Scarface—I don't even know which one you mean, the '32 version or the '83 one?—is just going to vanish from existence. It won't. They’ll film a new version, which might be totally inferior if you ask me, and you are more than welcome to just ignore it.

I honestly don't think I'll ever wrap my head around this constant frustration and the way people trash the 2000s or anything "new."

It’s just like when my grandparents start rambling about how the '50s were the absolute peak and everything made in the '80s was complete garbage.

cosmiclynx57 said:I will never understand that frustration—that constant bashing of the 2000s and everything released after.

It’s exactly like my grandparents claiming the '50s were the golden age while insisting the '80s were absolute garbage.

Look, I wasn't trashing everything... we had some legendary trilogies emerge during that era... Lord of the Rings, Nolan's Batman... then you've got Bourne and plenty of others—it would take forever to list them all.

So, I'm not saying they were all bad; I'm simply pointing out that there used to be a higher density of high-caliber films across various genres. But fine, let's move on from this. 🙂

I didn't mean to be dismissive. I simply meant we used to see more films of this caliber across various genres in the past. Regardless, let's move on from 🙂.

I suspect people in the 80s were saying the exact same thing about the 90s. Everyone tends to romanticize their own era, convinced that the music, movies, and games were peak perfection back then..

David Price5 said:I used to think people in the '80s were saying the exact same thing about the '90s—everyone tends to romanticize their own era, convinced that the music, the movies, the games... that everything peaked back then.

Look, I was just a middle schooler through the '90s and spent my high school and college years in the 2000s—so naturally, I find myself bashing the 2000s too. 😁

It was a great time for me personally, but again, if we’re talking... globally... well, I’m just not going to go there.🙂

wiredraven82 said:Look, I wasn't saying everything sucked... there were some absolutely legendary trilogies back then... I'm talking Lord of the Rings, Nolan's Batman... and then you've got Jason Bourne and stuff like that... there are way too many movies to even list them all out right now...

So, I didn't just spit on everything, I was just pointing out that we used to have more heavy hitters across different genres, but hey, let's move on from this 🙂

Hmm... I think you forgot about Bare Essentials, if you know what I mean:

wiredraven82 said:I'm looking at that whole decade from 2000 to 2010 and all I see is total crap.

Bold—see, there you go, actually noticing something other than pure garbage.😉

What kind of trash is this?
So we're supposed to believe there weren't any decent movies during the 2000s😁—way better than, say, the 80s
.
Personally, I’d much rather sit through a remake of Carlito's Way😍

Casey Cox2 said:Honestly, I think the Carlito remake would probably hit me a lot harder...😍

Man, that’s just how it goes... old school... I'm just kidding... 😁 Technically speaking, it’s not even a remake—it’s more like a prequel... though honestly, once you see how similar the whole setup is, the distinction feels pretty thin. It follows basically the same hook, just with a happy ending instead...

The true successor to Tony Montana's masterpiece is actually the game Scarface: The World is Yours

Hollywood: "They're going to remake Tony Montana's Scarface 🙂!"

Fans: "Say hello to my little friend!"

amberwalker4 said:Hollywood: "We're going to remake Tony Montana's Scarface 🙂!"

Fans: "Say hello to my little friend!"

👍 And it doesn't even stop there—they'll probably throw in, "you wanna play rough, OK, say hello to my little friend, you want more"? 🤣

Personally, I can't stand remakes of great films. Sometimes it's interesting to see a story retold with different actors or a different director, sure. I actually would have loved a new Scarface—not some carbon copy of the original (which won't happen), but a modern, extreme version of Scarface. Maybe just some crazy guy in the US today? That’s all I’m asking for.

In my opinion, the worst remake ever is The Departed. It's a fine movie, but it simply doesn't hold a candle to the brilliance of the Infernal Affairs trilogy. They just handed it Oscars, but seriously, watch Infernal Affairs and then watch The Departed; there is no way The Departed is better. From the atmosphere to the acting, everything about IA is miles ahead. And remember, IA came out around 2002/03 while The Departed 2006.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to motivation. If the whole drive behind this is just "let's churn out a remake to squeeze some quick cash off a legacy brand," then the movie is doomed to be trash. You’ll probably get someone following a cookie-cutter template—maybe they nail one decent scene here or there—but overall? It’s gonna be hollow. But look, if you hand the reins to someone who actually has a vision and gives a damn, I don't see how a story like this could fail. Personally, I'd love to see how Mann would tackle a project like this...