Toshiro Mifune and Aikra Kurosawa 
1 Like
There have been rare few classics in which the remakes either lived up to - or succeeded - the original. The ones that do must bring something new to the table (for example, due to ingenuities in practical effects, there are several horror remakes from the late 70’s into the 80’s that re-energized classic horror films like The Thing, The Fly, The Blob, Invasion of the Body Snatchers). I struggle to think of any remakes of classics in the 2000’s that haven’t been hollow facsimiles at the expense of the franchise. If it’s just a straight up remake like Psycho, there’s really no point. I feel like the last quarter century of filmmakers have overwhelmingly struggled to forge a generational identity and we won’t really see another creative influx until producers run out of old franchises to beat to death.
3 Likes
In a perfect world there should be laws against re-makes of classic films - and on this site it should be a hanging offence at least to support such an idea.
PS: The article is about a remake of ‘Fistful’, not ‘Yojimbo’ or that Bruce Willis crap, ‘Last Man Standing’ … so, the proposal is not about the source material, it’s about having the audacity or brainlessness to attempt to outdo an all time classic.
2 Likes
I do wonder if they’ll have to find agreements with the Leone estate as well as the Kurosawa estate and possibly the Hammett estate to be on the safe side.
1 Like
Honestly, I always thought it was a stretch to call fistful of dollars a remake of yojimbo. Is it clearly heavily inspired by it? Yes, definitely. Is it a remake? No. It has too many unique and distinct elements to be considered a remake. You really can’t make the connection between the two films unless you know beforehand that its a supposed remake tbh.
In my opinion, you would have to be blind not to make the connection, at least the child to teenage me and the college me had no trouble making the connection in the days prior to the internet. And I am far and away from being a genius.
They literally have the exact same shots in places.
1 Like
They literally have the exact same shots in places.
Only a handful of times at most.
This demonstrates it best. The influence is clear, but i think it is a stretch to call it a remake. It’s a reimagining at best. Leone and Kurosawa’s styles are very different and the movies have a lot of different scenes and concepts.
How much closer to a remake can you get when the setting is in a different continent and the films were made in totally different cultures?
Remake doesn’t mean shot by shot by shot from the exact same script.
That is enough. 
I also made the connection when I saw Walter Hill’s abysmal Last Man Standing and would have no matter the setting of the movie. The plot is pretty easy to recognize regardless of where you set it.
i guess it comes down to what you consider a remake, but imo if you make its definition too broad it loses its meaning and purpose. Leone was not trying to recreate the film, he was doing his own thing and the end product has a completely different style and feel, even if it takes the general plot structure of yojimbo.
If you stretch the definition of remake even further you could also consider death rides a horse to be a remake of for a few dollars more… if you make a definition too broad it loses its meaning
To me, remakes are those movies that at the very least try to recreate the film they are remaking, with the same main character/s and general setting, like true grit or the texas chainsaw massacre, and not simply those taking heavy inspiration from another film. I can see why people consider FOD a remake of yojimbo, but I do think its a stretch.
I think Leone’s intention was never that Fistful was a remake of Yojimbo. He just found that the basic story lent itself to a western setting.
Wasn’t there something about not telling the producers of Yojimbo that Leone borrowed the story, but they found out and Fistful was delayed while they settled things?
Anyway, Frayling also thinks that Yojimbo and Fistful have a completely different feel to one another.
Although I would agree the word remake is being perhaps used loosely and the words reimagining or reboot might be better, it certainly had enough similarities to warrant a legal settlement with Kurosawa for a percentage of the proceeds.
Last Man Standing and the icelandic When the Raven Flies were obviously more deliberate remakes of Fistful though.
Honestly, legal cases are more about how well you can make an argument and how well you know the legal system more than anything else. I’m sure Kurosawa’s lawyers were simply better… calling it a scenes for scene remake is objectively false, and im sick of seeing people say that it is. Plenty of elements of the film could have been cited as massive stylistic differences. Kurosawa doesn’t have any copyright on women is distress or lone strangers walking into a town.
It’s just one big show of arrogance and ego from Kurosawa’s side, especially considering he did the same exact thing to Shakespeare’s work with throne of blood and ran. His movies are cool but he’s definitely a dick to sue a small time filmmaker on the other side of the world for recreating some elements of his story.
Tarantino steals even more, his movies are just the movies he likes mixed together with very little original ideas, just imagine if every one of the filmmakers he copied sued him.
What? How would you know or how could you say that? That is pure supposition on your part. And, it wasn’t like it went through the complete trial…it was settled out of court which means that if Leone truly believed he was innocent he could have fought it to the end but he himself acknowledged that he was at fault for not citing the film in the credits. Except, instead of taking responsibility himself for his own film, he tried to blame others for not including it. In a 1984 interview with American Film Magazine, Leone said “My producer wasn’t all that bright. He forgot to pay Kurosawa for the rights”.* A pretty lame excuse even if it happens to be true and would also mean that Leone wasn’t all that bright for not following up on it himself.
(*See what I did there? I cited the actual source and didn’t try to lead others to believe that Leone told me this personally. 
)
Which he readily acknowledged. He didn’t try to pass off that he wrote Macbeth and that it was an original idea from his mind.
It’s called plagiarism - “the practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own”. You are not being a “dick” to be pissed at someone else taking your ideas and passing them off as their own. They are yours…you made them and created them and for someone else to take credit is complete and utter bullshit. I make my living writing and while no one ever has or would ever want to steal my ideas , if they did so without acknowledgement or my approval, I would go after them in a heartbeat and be the exact same kind of “dick” that you claim Kurosawa was being. The only person being a “dick” was Leone for a) arrogantly believing he could get away with it or b) not keeping a close enough eye on his film to know that Kurosawa’s work was never acknowledged.
You know who Kurosawa didn’t sue? He didn’t sue the makers of The Magnificent Seven. Why? Because, whether intentionally or unintentionally, they didn’t try to pass if off as their original work. In other words, they readily acknowledged Seven Samurai.
1 Like
I’m sure they just thought nobody would notice, as they did not expect FoD to make much impact.
3 Likes
This is true, Fistful was a surprise success.
It premiered in some small theater on a backstreet in Naples (I think it was Naples).
But the theater became packed each evening and the Rome premiere followed after a while because of this.
Fistful was also shot back to back with Pistols Don’t Argue by Jolly Film, and Pistols had a higher budget, because they believed that film would be a greater success.
What? How would you know or how could you say that? That is pure supposition on your part.
It’s just basic common sense. Rich popular Japanese director vs poor unknown italian… you think they will have the same quality of lawyer?
And, it wasn’t like it went through the complete trial…it was settled out of court which means that if Leone truly believed he was innocent he could have fought it to the end but he himself acknowledged that he was at fault for not citing the film in the credits. Except, instead of taking responsibility himself for his own film, he tried to blame others for not including it. In a 1984 interview with American Film Magazine, Leone said “My producer wasn’t all that bright. He forgot to pay Kurosawa for the rights”.* A pretty lame excuse even if it happens to be true and would also mean that Leone wasn’t all that bright for not following up on it himself.
I see it as an abuse of the law. It is not plagarism. You must also think the john ford estate should sue george lucas and the sergio leone estate should sue quentin tarantino. Films take from other films, and kurosawa doesn’t have the rights to lone strangers characters and women in distress. He is just an arrogant egomaniac. There are objectively more differences than similarities between the films, even if it does take the general plot structure of yojimbo its executed in a completely different way.
Lanky
Kurosawa didn’t sue on The Magnifcent Seven because American producer Lou Morheim had bought the remake rights. Bought them very cheaply as well soon after it opened in America. They then got sold on at increased price each time before movie was made.
From Wikipedia:
Lou Morheim acquired rights to remake the film in the US for $2,500. He later signed a deal with Yul Brynner’s production company, who bought the rights from Morheim for $10,000 up front plus $1,000 a week as a producer and 5% of the net profits.
Rights subsequently acquired by UA who made the film.
1 Like