Warner is Wild About Ayer's BUNCH

When is Hollywood going to get past its "remake madness" and realize than nothing worthwhile has ever come from it? The original Wild Bunch was set during the Mexican Revolution (not "right before the start of WWI") and it was about the collision of worlds: the Old West versus the new, Euro proprieties versus the struggle of lawless individuals, technology and organization versus hardened skill, and above all, about the end of an era, the last of a certain breed of man, and the diminishing of frontiers. There is no way they are going to depict all that in a "complicated tapestry involving drug cartels, the CIA and a heist". This is going to be just another uninspired action flick. Why even bother calling it "The Wild Bunch"?

...oh man... this is another classic... why god... why...

They should re-name it, but I have no problem with them doing it. This is no different than The Magnificent Seven vs The Seven Samurai. Same or similar story set in a different time & place. So what?

Balkaster, I don't know if you've realized this but Hollywood has been remaking movies since the 70's and turning books into movies since the 50's. Nothing is going to change. Even when the movie sucks and appears to do bad in the theatres they still make money, hence the redicilous sequels and the unecessary trilogies. This is why we haven't seen a Waterworld 2 or Cutthroat Island 2. Many movies have done good as remakes, spin-offs, and adaptions from other media.

Jeezus! This remake madness stinks. Why not Jeopardy: The Movie? How about converting Dateline into a movie? Why not Family Feud: The Legacy continues? This is the reason that Scary Movie keeps going and going...Talk about an easy movie to write. I'll say it in advance...They will parody Saw, SW:ROTS, Shrek, The Incredibles, Harry Potter, Doom, Flightplan, 40 yr old virgin, charlie and the chocloate factory, war of the worlds, mr & mrs smith and fantastic four.

There is no such thing as original in Hollywood anymore. There are about TWO filmakers in Hollywood that are original and they are Shymalayan, nd Aronofsky. And Fincher is a close third.

Hell, remakes have been a staple of Hollywood since the beginning. "The Maltese Falcon" with Humphrey Bogart is actually the third adaptation of that novel--that's three versions of the same story in a decade's time. "The Wizard of Oz" had been adapted as a silent movie before the 1939 musical version. Laurel and Hardy remade several of their own silent movies when talkies became the thing. Think of how many movies have been made about Dracula, for God's sake. I don't have any problem with a remake that's well made, but if you do that's fine with me--only don't act like this is anything new.

O.K. While I agree that Seven Samurai and the Magnificent Seven work very well, I'm not so sure about this one (actually I love The Wild Bunch, so I don't think there's anything they could do but ruin it). The Wild Bunch is about a group of aging men set in their ways, unwilling and unable to adapt to the changing times and who are ultimately doomed to be left behind by that new, modernised world. I agree with joeyp. they should change the name. If the main idea is left intact I'd go see it, I think it's a fantastic storyline, but it needs to be an R-rated movie to really do it justice. If it's PG-13 and full of pretty young actors forget it.

Don't necessarily change the name, just make sure not to give ANY of the characters any redeeming characteristics. This is not a film about sympathetic outlaws like some of the characters in RONIN. It is about unchanging men, as fishpoop states, but they are unrepentant, evil men whose code of ethics is like a notch above child molesters. They may care for their own, but they would gun any of their compatriots down in order to further their own gain if the opportunity presented itself. As long as they don't lose sight of that, then it still has a chance. PS... give this to a director like Soderburgh who can really assemble a top-notch ensemble cast.
Also, as I stated before here, don't frety constantly about the remakes. Some can be better than their predecessors. It's not very often, but it does happen.

Hey waht movie doesn't involve the CIA nowadays. On another note, maybe what HollyWood (which you constantly crucify, but they make money somewhere) is remaking these movies as a cry for help, like a suicidal person does. What they need is some sort of intervention: som GOOD writers. Think of it: If every one of us (on movie news sites across the world) established some solid ideas, beat them into solid feature-length scripts and hounded HollyWood they would have no choice but to produce better or at least more orignal movies than they have been. Imagine the POSSIBILITIES: we'd enter a new age of cinema, a renaissance if you will. It is all within our grasp. Let us seize this opprotunity, not complain.

You know.. I really don't have a problem with Hollywood remaking a movie for the most part, but remaking the Wild Bunch in the modern day is taking it to far for me. What makes the Wild Bunch great was the the fact that Peckinpah was a master at pushing the envelope for for cinema and the statements on violence the Wild Bunch represented to modern television and cinema at the time. Setting it the modern era cuts free this statement. Besides if you are going to remake a classic, stick to what made that a success.