Are You Serious, Hollywood? You're Remaking Scarface?

Welcome to a new feature here at Better With Popcorn, called, "Are You Serious, Hollywood?"

The concept is simple. We take a ridiculous concept / decision made by network and studio executives, and we write a scathing, hateful, sometimes derogatory article about it. If you need examples of what to expect, just take a look at previous looks at, for example, the trailer for the Battleship movie or my review of "Ringer".

In this week's edition, we look at the ridiculous decision made by Universal Pictures this week to remake the 1983 classic "Scarface". I don't think I need to tell you anything about the film, but for the sake of padding this article, Scarface is a classic mob tale about a Latin-American drug cartel kingpin's rise to glory, and his eventual fall from grace. The film was directed by Brian De Palma and written by Oliver Stone.

While Scarface opened to mixed critical response back in the 80s, it has since gained an extremely large cult following, to the point where many consider it one of the best genre films of its kind. Needless to say, despite it nearing its 30 year anniversary, it's hardly a movie that needs updating or remaking. It's a classic, it has aged well and people love it.

So, tell me, Hollywood, why are you doing this to us?

We already have to deal with the ridiculous Footloose remake this year, a film which was already pretty ridiculous in the 80s (IN THE EIGHTIES).

The ironic part is that the Scarface that we all know and love is actually a remake itself of a film from the 1930s, about Irish and Italian mobsters. In a way, the Al Pacino version of the film was sort of justified by the simple fact that times had changed since the original was made. And that's usually when I'm okay with Hollywood remakes, when the originals are dated and could use updates. But like I said, the 80s version of Scarface has aged well and still speaks to the people who watch it, so what's the point?

What makes me even angrier is that according to THR, the "remake" won't even have anything to do with either of the first two films.

While the Pacino remake changed the Italian / Irish mobsters to Latin American mobsters, the criminal acts of bootlegging to those of drugs, it at least kept the same themes, the rise and fall of a lone gangster. The new version will "offer a dark look at the American Dream", and will be set in today's world.

Okay? Because, you know, mobsters and drugs aren't problems anymore in "today's world"?

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Scarface is outdated. Maybe they can still make a compelling tale of a story that was well-told, even if controversial, twice before. But I'm probably right. When a studio has to commission writers to make a film, you know it's likely going to be a canned piece of crap, especially when its sole purpose is to monetize a previous work of art.

This is a bad idea, and an annoying idea. Therefore, I ask:

Are you serious, Hollywood?

Comments 2
Phil T's picture

Ludacris for Tony Montana, Mark Walhberg as Manny, Rihanna as Elvira

George Prax's picture

Phil T wrote:
Ludacris for Tony Montana, Mark Walhberg as Manny, Rihanna as Elvira


For the sake of playing Devil's Advocate (I was mean enough in the blog), the 1983 version had latinos instead of italians, so making it blacks instead could be an interesting upgrade and I'd imagine they'd have different names. The problem is, why call it Scarface then if it has nothing to do with the (second) original?