Red Dawn Remake

[El Hombre Gato]

Here is something to remember:

At the time it was released, Red Dawn was considered the most violent film by the Guinness Book of Records and The National Coalition on Television Violence, with a rate of 134 acts of violence per hour, or 2.23 per minute.[7] The DVD Special Edition (2007) includes an on-screen "Carnage Counter" in a nod to this.[8]

In an era of slasher films, Scarface, and Robocop, I don't think Red Dawn really stood-out as a violent movie. People may have complained because it was "targeted at kids" but it was pretty tame compared to many others.

 

[charl_huntress]

If they would have kept China as the villian I would agree with you, but North Korea just doesn't cut it.

Also, slasher films of that age had more breasts not more killing. Red Dawn was killing and blowing up lots of people. Not just 7 teens in the woods.

 

[Ultimatehero]

As I said the only thing one can say "oh, but, well, the invading force this this and that..." when the reactions are for more real in the remake.

Remake Wolverines - presented as more of a terrorist faction by the invading force, they have to kneel, duck, and hide in order to move around the town, they have to remain in the shadows because if they don't they'd get captured. They are trained by an ex-marine, thus showing how they can come to fight back. Not to mention the second military guy. They acquired some major help along the way.

Original Wolverines - they're not really seen as much of a threat by the invading force rather just a nuisance (not as big of a deal was made), they can seemingly walk around the town in clear broad daylight without getting caught, a guard can see them in clear broad daylight without raising any alarms even if things look suspicious, apparently one of the enemy soldiers can flirt with one of the wolverine girls, the enemy in the end lets the brothers go free (this one SERIOUSLY irked me), they're just kids without any proper form of training or being properly trained by someone who knows what they're doing, apparently if you're in a concentration camp run by the enemy you can yell to your sons "avenge me!" without alerting any of the guards. Somehow the kids seem to be equally as trained as the military guy, he is impressed by their plans - which if it's this trial and error they would be dead a long time ago, and he doesn't really seem to train them just play football with them.

While the original was fun and had the more realistic invading force, the remake had the more realistic everything else. I'm not saying the original was a bad film, I enjoyed it - just so many things stuck out like a sore thumb.

I mean, how could the Wolverines so easily walk around the town in broad daylight in front of the soldiers? Wouldn't an invading force become suspicious about freely walking around Americans who they supposedly have a close eye on??? And yet they walked around like nothing happened.

So fans of the original are over-looking all of this just to say "we'd never be invaded by North Korea - therefore bad!"? If it's as simple as the enemy, what enemy who's made it his mission to capturing this group lets two of them freely go with no guarantee that they'll die soon anyways and after they've killed countless of his men? Which would you say is least realistic of an invader a "you can go free" or what faction they're from?

 

[charl_huntress]

Rewatch the original Red Dawn and some of your irks should become abundantly clear.

In the original, they were guerilla figthers. They lived in the woods and were trained by someone who was well versed to survive in the woods (Jeb who was named after Jebadiah Smith). They were also trained by a military personnel who was shot down behind enemy lines and became more organized, but they were still guerilla fighers.

In the original, they were able to walk around town because the invading force was trying to keep things functional. Meaning they still needed people to work and pump gas and what not. They could not confine an entire town to a concentration camp. It was logistically impossible.

Again, they weren't terrorist in the original because they weren't....they were guerilla fighters who acted like guerilla fighers. In fact, Milius said, he took most of how the Wolverines responded and fought from guerilla fighers in Vietnam fighting Americans (who were the invading force).

Again, my point is comparing what is in the remake to what was in the original is like comparing apples and oranges. Aside from the name and the premise, there are no other similarities.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Shooting a deer is nowhere near the same as shooting a HANDFUL of soldiers all of whom are trained. Not to mention they all came in close combat situations A LOT of the time. There are only a couple of sequences where it wasn't like that and they were in hiding or farther back.

So... the soldier keeping an eye on them in the store seeing the girl quieting them down and acting suspicious of everyone around them wouldn't set off red flags?

In terms of realism, yeah - I'd say the remake was a lot more real in terms of both the reactions from the kids and from the invaders. As said, in the remake the guy would NOT have let them go - he would have shot them. And in real life, that's how it would have played out as well. So while the invading force may not be as realistic, everything else is - more so. And I'd say the actions of the invading force means a lot more than where they come from in terms of making something seem real. And "I just shot a handful of your guys, we're weak from the fight - please show mercy" "you may pass" as more of a slight than North Korea.

So I can list COUNTLESS ways in which the original wasn't realistic. Can anyone list the ways in which the remake wasn't other than "oh, North Korea!" ?

 

[charl_huntress]

Again, rewatch the movie. There were very few Hand to Hand combat situations. The only one I can really recall is the one on the hill where they give themselves away by nearly sliding off the rocks.

Most of the scenes that involved them doing anything special, the Wolverines were hiding in holes and popping out of the ground or hiding and popping out behind rocks. They took rocket launchers and other weapons to become more effective.

As for them shooting trained soldiers....lol...it's a movie and it notably takes place in the Heartland where it was "generally" assumed everyone grew up hunting and shooting deer...lol

I have no idea what scene you are talking about with the girl quieting people down unless you are talking about the scene where the girl is talking to Jeb and Matt in the store. I thought it was pretty obvious that since they were kids they they were overlooked and not generally regarded as a threat. Notably, they had already took everyone in the town who owned a gun and put them in the camp. The kids weren't seen as a threat, which again was why they were effective guerilla fighers. Also, add in that the military didn't really see them as a threat until it became too late.

We are talking about a movie here...some stuff is not realistic as is the case with the remake too.

Again, we are talking apples and oranges. You saying the remake is more realistic (while still being unrealistic) doesn't mean for it's time that the original wasn't also the same. It's not a big deal if you see the remake as better.

 

[El Hombre Gato]

the Wolverines responded and fought from guerilla fighers in Vietnam fighting Americans (who were the invading force).

That's how it is in the remake. Chris Hemsworth makes an entire speech about it. And in the remake, they also walk around town without any problems. They even have people to help them out with clothing, food, and supplies. Also, Hemsworth's character is an Iraq veteran so he serves the role of the military experienced trainee and leader.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I watched the original fairly recently. Again, hunting deer isn't the same as hunting people. I never said the remake was perfectly realistic, just more realistic.

Then I'm unsure where this whole thing is going lol.

Because all I've said:

1) the original could have been better, with some adjustments and a darker setting I might say it is the better since it would be made with today's standards.

2) gave the original a 7/10 still compared to a remake 8/10, that's really basically just a 2 1/2 vs 3... nothing to get up in arms about.

3) pointing out "but it's North Korea!" Isn't that strong a claim when the original wasn't realistic in other ways.

Basically, unsure what this roundabout is even about.

As to the above, I'd say - it's a city rather than open town square. If I recall correctly the resources attained were collected in an alleyway or secluded street - not the ones with guards everywhere and you're walking (not sneaking) past them all and having invader soldiers flirting with the wolverine girls. Basically those scenes in the remake, for those who didn't see it, came back to my head while watching TDKR due to similar operations and tactics.

 

[charl_huntress]

My point is you keep saying the original could have been better if it was darker and I keep reiterating it was as dark as it could be for the time. It could not have been any darker. It was already the most violent movie of its time. I get that you would have liked it better if it were darker, but you saying it could have been darker when it couldn't have been makes no sense to me. Yet, I get you think the remake is more violent and more realistic. Perhaps it is....and that's fine. I just take issue with your "it could have been darker setting." That makes no sense. In comparing the two movies I am SURE the remake is more violent and more realistic, but considering both of these movies are considered PG-13 I think it's fair to say that some standards have changed over the time.

That's what I have an issue with.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Then it doesn't seem you're reading everything I write. I'm not looking at this as firmly stuck to the 80s. I think I stated that three times now. If I was, I don't think I would have named a MODERN director who WASN'T around back then. Even still wasn't there APOCALYPSE NOW and PLATOON (albeit I haven't seen Platoon yet, it just seemed to have a darker atmosphere) in the 80s?

 

[charl_huntress]

So you want the same script and action, but more darker?

You keep going back on what you are saying.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Same script, with some adjustments, and same actions- just better actors and director and TODAY I'd be willing to be it would probably truly be a classic because some of the themes they did dive into more- just the over acting of the times skewed those scenes in modern times (didn't mean to rhyme). As I said it was the tone that really got to me. The themes were there, but the tone for whatever reason didn't match it. For example if the scenes of the children getting killed got more focus rather than seemingly skimmed over, then them not being trained would fit in.

 

[charl_huntress]

Does the remake do any of those things you want?

Also, the original movie is ALREADY a classic.

 

[Ultimatehero]

It's darker, more realistic, to get around town they sneak around, the weight of the situation is felt more due to the elevated acting, the "avenge me" is more in spirit and fits in as real in how it plays out, when gathering supplies it's more of a military operation - only way I can describe this is it sort of reminded me of the Gotham operations in TDKR. So, yes, it did.

I wouldn't exactly define cult classic as classic. With some adjustments and tone change, due to the themes it had to the potential to be more than a cult classic.

 

[charl_huntress]

Then there you go...you got the movie you feel is a classic and the movie the original Red Dawn should have been.

I'm not arguing that point. You like it. That's fine. I just think the original surpasses anything the remake has going for it....even if it doesn't have the darker setting. As it is the original film has the 80s tone and there is no way to get around that, but for me it's still going to be the better film...even with that tone.

 

[Ultimatehero]

They're actually two separate movies. One takes place in the city. The other takes place in the mountains. One is kids with training. The other is kids without training (which given right emphasis can work). One is more city action. The other is more in the woods meditative. One is more modern day. The other is more American revolution. So, I'd still say the original could have been better whatever way you want to put it different director, different time, etc than it was. It is really like comparing Iraq to Vietnam.

Which is just "the times" - to me a film has to be more than "the times" to have something going for it, IMO, because otherwise you would need to be from "the times" to have felt the impact of "the times."

 

[charl_huntress]

So we agree the two films are apples and oranges...finally...lol

As I said before, anything could be better, but the original is still a classic and very good for it's time. I remember reading an article that said that particular movie could never be remade but of course that article was written at least 15 years ago and lookee here...it's been remade. However the person who wrote this said that the for that time it was an era of cold war feelings when people were scared and afraid. Today people are still scared and afraid, but for a different reason...so the tone could never really be the same. The original Red Dawn was a product of its age...just as the remake is a product of this age.

Personally, I think the original tone doesn't click with you because....you aren't a product of that age. I get you feel it could have been different, but there are some movies that just are product of the era they were made. I know eventually we'll get a another Sixteen Candles/Breakfast Club, but the movies won't have the same resonance as those movies did because (you got it)...it's a different TIME.

Agaiin, Ultimate...we are talking apples and oranges, but I do get your point.

 

[Matt]

Is UltimateHero seriously arguing that the original is bad because it "isn't gritty," and is "cheesier than the remake,"? Really? The original is actually a pretty good metaphor for the Afghan-Soviet war, with the Wolverines serving as guerrillas. It represents almost every American's fear at the time and the entire point of the movie is how hopelessly futile these kids efforts are. It ends with all but two of the Wolverines dying as in the end, they were nothing but a thorn in the side of the mighty Soviet army. This, on the other hand, is an over-the-top action movie where almost everyone lives happily ever after. And UltimateHero is saying that the REMAKE is "grittier,"?

 

[Matt]

LOL...find me an 80s movie that doesn't have over acting? Again, that was the acting of the time. Also, you can compare acting from any different period and see changes in the acting and actors themselves. It's called changes in society. The 80s was a lot of over-acting in comparison to today, but for the AGE it was the ACTING of that time. You don't see it as over-acting unless you are looking at from a different premise. That's my point. For the time, every movie was like that.

Sure...anything could be better, but the original Red Dawn is not a cult classic for nothing. It was a movie of the time that resonanted with a lot of the audience of that time. You saying, well in hindsight it could have been better when you weren't even alive to enjoy most of the movies of that period is like....just not right.

Bingo. That was the craft at the time. This is from Citizen Kane, widely considered the best movie of all time:



The acting in Citizen Kane was completely over the top. The acting in Casablanca was over the top. The craft evolves. You can't judge acting of a past era by modern standards. You have to judge it for what it is.

 

[Matt]

As I said the only thing one can say "oh, but, well, the invading force this this and that..." when the reactions are for more real in the remake.

Remake Wolverines - presented as more of a terrorist faction by the invading force, they have to kneel, duck, and hide in order to move around the town, they have to remain in the shadows because if they don't they'd get captured. They are trained by an ex-marine, thus showing how they can come to fight back. Not to mention the second military guy. They acquired some major help along the way.

Original Wolverines - they're not really seen as much of a threat by the invading force rather just a nuisance (not as big of a deal was made), they can seemingly walk around the town in clear broad daylight without getting caught, a guard can see them in clear broad daylight without raising any alarms even if things look suspicious, apparently one of the enemy soldiers can flirt with one of the wolverine girls, the enemy in the end lets the brothers go free (this one SERIOUSLY irked me), they're just kids without any proper form of training or being properly trained by someone who knows what they're doing, apparently if you're in a concentration camp run by the enemy you can yell to your sons "avenge me!" without alerting any of the guards. Somehow the kids seem to be equally as trained as the military guy, he is impressed by their plans - which if it's this trial and error they would be dead a long time ago, and he doesn't really seem to train them just play football with them.

While the original was fun and had the more realistic invading force, the remake had the more realistic everything else. I'm not saying the original was a bad film, I enjoyed it - just so many things stuck out like a sore thumb.

I mean, how could the Wolverines so easily walk around the town in broad daylight in front of the soldiers? Wouldn't an invading force become suspicious about freely walking around Americans who they supposedly have a close eye on??? And yet they walked around like nothing happened.

So fans of the original are over-looking all of this just to say "we'd never be invaded by North Korea - therefore bad!"? If it's as simple as the enemy, what enemy who's made it his mission to capturing this group lets two of them freely go with no guarantee that they'll die soon anyways and after they've killed countless of his men? Which would you say is least realistic of an invader a "you can go free" or what faction they're from?

The Wolverines of the original walk around the town once or twice and it is before the Soviet Army is really aware of their presence. The objective of the Soviet Army wasn't to put everyone in concentration camps (just those that they saw as a threat like the adult males who were noncompliant). Other than that, the people of the town of the original were allowed to go about their daily business (because that is what the Soviet Union did....they invaded, they didn't just round everyone up....that defeats the purpose of invasion). So of course random teenagers were allowed to walk around the town freely before they realized that teenagers were killing their men.

Also, are you seriously complaining about Colonel Bella choosing to let Jed and Matt go at the end? Are you complaining that the villain actually had motivations other than "kill everyone!"? Throughout the movie Bella expresses his reservations about his orders and the idea of killing teenagers. So when he sees Jed and Matt for what they are, two wounded and scared children, he lets them go. That isn't bad writing. It is perfectly consistent with his character throughout the film and it is consistent with the themes of the film. War is hell. Good people do bad things. The Wolverines do terrible things to protect their home and Bella does terrible things for the country he loves....but ultimately cannot kill two unarmed and wounded children, despite his orders, because he is a good man. I seriously do not get your argument. In one breath you complaint about how corny the original is, in the next breath you complain because the villain had depth, character development and was not one dimensional. Make up your mind.

Finally, you're right that the Soviets did not initially consider them a threat but rather a nuisance. Much like the Soviets did not initially consider the Afghani guerrillas to be a threat in the Afghan-Soviet war (which was also the only war that the Soviet Union lost). You're also right The Wolverines weren't trained (aside from a few weeks with Tanner before his death). That is why most of them die. The Wolverines are not action heroes (something that the remake has completely forgotten). They are scared teenagers with hunting rifles trying to stand up to the powerful Soviet Army. They never had a real chance. That is the whole damn point of the movie.

I agree with Charl, I think you just don't get the original.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I never said they were the same. You seem to just like thinking I've said things I haven't Char. Such as how I've always stated remake it with a modern director with a more realistic approach - and you've suddenly turn this into a "but, but, but in the 80s!" So the tone of the original would still be light if the EXACT same script was remade with a darker eye? The exact same script would be remade and as badly acted? I highly doubt that. I'm pretty sure it was the CONTEXT of the film that would remain the same and not the mis-en-sen... one thing that I've been wondering... do you get what mis-en-sen means? Or is that a gibberish word I'm throwing out there? You're arguing CONTEXT - which I've never said anything about - yet keep passing over the mis-en-sen...

----------

Once again, I've never said anything about the context of the film. And I've always said it was a good script and perhaps the better script which was only poorly directed in comparison. And I'd think a movie with all that wouldn't feel like a family friendly film due to the way it was shot and how light everything is. The material in the script isn't - and I've never said it was. The way it was filmed - is.

Few films have taken me out of it due to it's over-acting. And one thing that will surprise a lot of people - I consider the 80s to have been one of the best decades of blockbuster films especially for their ingenuity. Here? The main thing was their crying did seem over the top and forced when it shouldn't have come off that way. People complain about they way Tobey cried in Spider-Man 3 yet are giving Red Dawn a free pass? Really? Here those scenes should have felt raw and real, yet they seemed forced.

I don't really recall Colonel Bella complaining or showing too much reserves that would enable the ending to not feel out of place. He always seemed like the type following orders leading the charge after them. And if he did show reserve, it didn't seem like to the point where he wouldn't have at least brought them in. It just seemed - off and too Hollywood to me of something an invader would do. Unless there were things he was saying that I'm not aware of (they rarely spoke in english, there were no subtitles - so all one has to go off of really is their body language and what they continue to do).

The Wolverines weren't trained yet were able to do a lot. The big thing that really sticks out in my mind is the hill sequence where they're caught. Here we have three Wolverines and four trained soldiers. The soldiers spot them and somehow aren't able to kill or wound them when it's out in the open. Hell two of them are fumbling with their guns yet somehow still manage to kill four soldiers unwounded.

In my eye, they would have had no chance - at all really.

In the remake, the part that did make it more believable was that from the very beginning they were military trained and led. In reality every soldier is young, and most likely scared - but soldiers have training. Soldiers in the way way past WERE teenagers. They (in the film) were led by someone who once fought in extremely similar battlegrounds.

Also as per your first sentence - how could I be arguing that it's bad when I'm giving the original a 7/10 and the remake an 8/10? All I'm doing is stating the more minor things that - in my eye - has the remake stand out as slightly stronger.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

I'm sorry, but the acting in the remake pales in comparison to the original (even if it was over the top). You can claim that it's because the film is a remake that it's receiving such a negative reaction all around but this movie had so many issues.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I really don't see how the acting in the remake was bad. The emotional scenes always felt raw and never took me out of it.

 

[charl_huntress]

lol...you really do kind of keep going back on things, Ultimate. You say you like the the remake and got all the things you wanted that the original should have been, but it also seeems you want to convince those who like the original that it could have been better. As I have said, anything could be better. I do know what mis-en-scene means and it's a very general term to basically say you don't like Miliius' style. I get that...emphatically. Again, I just don't agree. I think the direction was fine and the style, tone, context...it all worked for a movie of that period. I personally think you don't like the style because it's a movie that's not of your era and those things stand out to you like a sore thumb. You're probably not a big fan of Rambo, Commando, or a lot of the action movies of that period.

I really do think you need to rewatch the movie again. I don't know why the scene on the hill stands out so much to you. The soldiers were sightseeing and goofing off...while on patrol...so they probably weren't a crack team to begin with. The kids surprised them and they initially tried to take them captive, but they had guns and a shoot out began. The kids who were already aware of them got the jump on them and c'est la vie.

Bella was from Cuba. It was shown very early on in the movie that once he was on the side of the rebels in his own country, so he had some empathy for the rebels to begin with. He also had issues with the way the Soviets were running things. There is a very poignant moment right before the big climax at the end where he's writing his wife and he clearly states he's really tired of war and wants to be home with this family. After he sees Jeb carrying Matt, he cannot shoot two wounded teenagers and decides to let them go. He then looks at his hands. I think that means he feels he has blood on on them and is disgusted he's been apart of killing children.

Again, I think because you had so many issues with the style, direction, etc...you overlooked many of the subtlies.

 

[Ultimatehero]

The funny thing is I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, to me that's what you seem to be doing. All I ever do is personally state my own beliefs and why I think them. I don't want you to agree. I never asked you to agree. I'm just saying what I believe. This is the reason why I commented on how round-about things were the other night. It stands out to me more because I saw the script as being something larger than what it became. Also I wasn't really aware if you knew it because you kept on bringing up the "context" of the film and how powerful the Russians were as enemies whereas I was saying the script itself, with some improvements, would have made it a classic instead of cult classic and with the direction that suited that. Basically, it could have been an adolescent Blade Runner in terms of quality (yeah, somewhat of an exagerration) but showing things were diverse even back then.

I really don't understand/see how the teens had the one up on them. They were all taken by surprise since the attack wasn't in any way planned. A character missed a step and caught their attention - the soldiers chased after them. You're open to believe what you want, I just don't personally think that situation would have given the teens the upper hand (I think I have to state you're free to believe and I believe now with everything I type - because you think I'm trying to sway you and obviously "in my opinion" and "in my eyes" doesn't work evidently...)

I'm really unsure how any of that passed right over my head since I was trying to get what they were saying due to having to pay attention to body language since very very little english was ever spoken and there were no subtitles to get that information from. It almost seems like subtitles may have been in there at one point and then were taken out or something.