Three Stooges movie coming soon

[Bromptonboy]

Better watch it...L&H remake may be forthcoming...

[Jobydrone]

One of the few memories I have of my paternal grandfather is watching the Three Stooges with him.  He was a very stoic, serious man, but the Stooges, oddly enough, made him crack up like nothing else.  He died when I was very young, but the image of him sitting on his bed next to me hysterical over the Stooges is one that will stay with me forever.

[ChrisMC]

Yes why do a new Stoogies film at all? I mean they are not the three stoogies are they? The way I see it is what if they started a film using a tall thin actor and a small large actor and they did a new Laurel and hardy film. I think i need to read up on the three stoogies so i know more about them and their characterisations.

Stoogies? Stoogies???? How dare you... ;)

[Feathers]

I'm with Meds (I think) in that the concept of rebooting a story strikes me as different from that of rebooting some people.

I realise there's a fine line in that analysis (is Superman a story or a person?) but this feels like it's crossed it for me. I also understand that these three were more characters than actual people, so maybe the example of a Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyd or Laurel & Hardy 'reboot' would highlight my point better (in which case, I'm in the wrong thread and talking rubbish!).

As Meds said, I might have a better feeling over it all if they were more familiar to us foreigners :)

(I'm not saying it's bad or that I don't like it, I'm simply trying to get my head around the concept).

[DrKankles]

I think you might need to fall in the love with the stooges as a kid.  It's also usaully a very male thing to like the stooges.  But it's very much get it or don't get it.  Not unlike how some people could watch Trek or Dr. Who and wonder what all the fuss is about and we wonder why those people aren't getting MRI's.

[Rico]

It certainly doesn't hurt to bond with something when you are young.  Most of my strongest ties are to things I fell in love with early on in life.  As far as the whole "remake" thing, you guys know this is Hollywood.  It's just the way things are.  No real use in fighting it.

[X]

I'm with Meds (I think) in that the concept of rebooting a story strikes me as different from that of rebooting some people.

I realise there's a fine line in that analysis (is Superman a story or a person?) but this feels like it's crossed it for me. I also understand that these three were more characters than actual people, so maybe the example of a Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyd or Laurel & Hardy 'reboot' would highlight my point better (in which case, I'm in the wrong thread and talking rubbish!).

As Meds said, I might have a better feeling over it all if they were more familiar to us foreigners :)

(I'm not saying it's bad or that I don't like it, I'm simply trying to get my head around the concept).

I get what you're saying, but I disagree. The Stooges were pretty much like Doctor Who in some regards. People changed, but the show went on. This is pretty much the same thing. According to the actors, they were playing characters and that pretty much clears the way for others to play the characters later.

I know some people like to throw fits about remakes, but humor me for a moment. What exactly is a remake? I mean for centuries, until the creation of film, every play that was seen was essentially a remake or re-imagining of some story. This has nothing to do with Hollywood, but more to do with the growth of human storytelling. Just because we are able to record performances now does not mean that they should be the end all of a story. We retell stories every day on broadway and other theaters. Is it some how more accepted or right because they aren't filming each run of the play?

That makes little sense to me. It also makes little sense that Billy Shakespeare and other old writers can have their work shown through the years and not have a backlash, but the moment you try to do that with a recent storyteller, you get comments on how Hollywood isn't original and keep going back to the well.

I'm sure that I'm not the only one who's thought that it should be okay to go back to the well for more than the stories written centuries ago. Stories that stand the test of time do so because other people are allowed to tell those stories. As a fan of plays, I can see the same respect needing to be applied to stuff that just so happens to be filmed.

[Jobydrone]

I think with the Stooges, there's a certain age you have to be for this movie to resonate as real nostalgia.  Rico and myself I know are close to the same age, both grew up in the age before cable television and literally hundreds of channels of programming.  So with there being maybe six channels of programming and very little for a kid to choose from, the one to two hour blocks of Three Stooges shorts that were on seven days a week were very appealing.  Nowadays, and even fifteen-twenty years ago, with exponentially more options, kids wouldn't choose to watch 60-70 year old short films no matter HOW funny they are.

Man I feel old...

[X]

I think with the Stooges, there's a certain age you have to be for this movie to resonate as real nostalgia.  Rico and myself I know are close to the same age, both grew up in the age before cable television and literally hundreds of channels of programming.  So with there being maybe six channels of programming and very little for a kid to choose from, the one to two hour blocks of Three Stooges shorts that were on seven days a week were very appealing.  Nowadays, and even fifteen-twenty years ago, with exponentially more options, kids wouldn't choose to watch 60-70 year old short films no matter HOW funny they are.

Man I feel old...

My 7 year old loves the old shorts and will actively seek out older stuff from hulu and netflix to see if she likes it. I think it's all a matter of taste. If you find certain things funny, the age of the source material seems to matter very little.

[Jobydrone]

I get what you're saying, but I disagree. The Stooges were pretty much like Doctor Who in some regards. People changed, but the show went on. This is pretty much the same thing. According to the actors, they were playing characters and that pretty much clears the way for others to play the characters later.

I know some people like to throw fits about remakes, but humor me for a moment. What exactly is a remake? I mean for centuries, until the creation of film, every play that was seen was essentially a remake or re-imagining of some story. This has nothing to do with Hollywood, but more to do with the growth of human storytelling. Just because we are able to record performances now does not mean that they should be the end all of a story. We retell stories every day on broadway and other theaters. Is it some how more accepted or right because they aren't filming each run of the play?

That makes little sense to me. It also makes little sense that Billy Shakespeare and other old writers can have their work shown through the years and not have a backlash, but the moment you try to do that with a recent storyteller, you get comments on how Hollywood isn't original and keep going back to the well.

I'm sure that I'm not the only one who's thought that it should be okay to go back to the well for more than the stories written centuries ago. Stories that stand the test of time do so because other people are allowed to tell those stories. As a fan of plays, I can see the same respect needing to be applied to stuff that just so happens to be filmed.

There's room for all of it I think.  Obviously when there's so much money to be made, anything that even offers the slightest bit of a nostalgia factor or appeal is going to have the numbers crunched and be eventually greenlit. 

Different kinds of stories appeal to different kinds of people, and Hollywood is going to cast its net as wide as possible.  My personal tastes vary, and while I really enjoy seeing truly original stories (the work of Darren Aronofsky comes to mind as one of the most truly original film makers/story tellers currently working successfully) I also really enjoy a fresh take on a tried and true concept.   

Backlash occurs from remakes when the feeling is that there's no other reason to make it except for a cash grab.  The reaction to the Gus Van Sant remake of Psycho is one example.  He couldn't have possibly been more faithful to the original, his version was a shot-by-shot remake of the Hitchcock film.  The reaction was basically, why do this?  What does it add?  Why would anyone choose to see this over the original?  I think there's also the element of how much love is there for the original.  There's was a huge outcry over leaked plans to possibly reboot the Back to the Future franchise, and the reaction was so powerful that I think plans to make it were shelved, probably in the "too soon" file.

Maybe it boils down to how much you feel for the source material.  If you're not a Stooges fan, nothing about this remake is going to make you want to see it or change your mind, no matter how good it is.

[davekill]

Birds have to fly and people need to laugh.
Laughing makes you feel great without being illegal or fattening.
Hope this is a big success!

[Bromptonboy]

Dewey, Fleecem, and Howe will be the legal firm representing the producers of this film......

[Rico]

Another pic from this movie...

[ChrisMC]

Doctor Howard, Doctor Howard, Doctor Fine....

[Bromptonboy]

Niagara Falls.......!