The Magnificent Seven was released in 1960.
What is more, the shooting began in March 1960. 
1 Like
Yes, of course. But in order to make money with Seven Samurai in Europe and America, it had to be adapted to the cultural background and the sensibilities of western movie audiences. And adaptation here means remake.
I know that, but thatâs not far away from the 50s, isnât it.
And if there is a western from between 1955 and 1965 of which a remake could make sense, it is Mag 7
Better?
Which kind of logic? I see no problem in remaking Mag 7, while Remaking e.g. The Wild Bunch is a stupid idea
Just like I the posts before, why you are saying that to me?
I have no problem with remakes of Kurosawa films.
I donât hĂĄve any problema with remakes at all, itâs a normal fact of life. Itâs like making another version of the same song, some like the original version of Leonard Cohen Hallellujah, other prefer Jeff Buckey version.
Another exemple itâs True Grit, I do prefer the first half of the first one, and the second half from the Cohenâs film
Me neither. But wasnât your initial question or argument:
I tried to answer to that â twice:
Your reply:
Hm. Whatâs wrong, stanton?
Interesting - I would take Seven Samurai over The Magnificent Seven any day. However, Fistful of Dollars and Yojimbo is a much closer call for me, although Fistful of Dollars wins out for there me. I think for me , the reason is that Leone was hugely influenced by Kurosawa so a lot of Kurosawaâs style is carried over into A Fistful of Dollars which makes it very comparable with Yojimbo. I donât think that is the case for The Magnificent Seven which has a very different style (albeit preferable for some people) from Seven Samurai in spite of a similar plot.
[quote=âCompanero_M, post:48, topic:3007, full:trueâ]
Me neither. But wasnât your initial question or argument:
[quote=âstanton, post:34, topic:3007â]
Btw what was the point of remaking The 7 Samurai?
[/quote] [/quote]
That was a rhetoric question as answer to the above questioning of the Mag 7 remake.
It probably all went a little confuse here âŚ
1 Like
Iâm going to go see this either way because weâre lucky to get 1 theatrically released western a year nowadays, and I donât want to go back to getting none.
I agree. Although I think there are probably better candidates than M7 for a remake. Although it is not artistic statement like WB, M7 is one of the most well-known westerns from the period that people still watch. But I doubt they will add any new twist to it. Fuqua will probably just pump up the action and violence for the modern audience. It would be more interesting to rework something that was little bit more forgotten and dated, like Cohenâs did.
Remaking an unknown or failed film would be of course the best idea, but that rarely happens. Mostly remakes want to cash in on the reputation of a classic.
But Mag 7 is a story you can remake and vary without necessarily be compared with the original. And it is a less personal stuff, and not linked to an individual director.
That a remake of Mag 7 will add a new idea or perspective to the story, something that would give the remake another value than making money with it, is possible but not likely.
And I doubt that True Grit was less well known than Mag 7 when the Coens remade it, or better made a new film after the novel. And it is also still not a realy dated film, not more or less than Mag 7.
Actually for me Hathawayâs True Grit (8,5/10) is much better than the one by the Coens (only 6/10 at the moment), and also much better than Mag 7 (6,5/10).
And I was disappointed by Mag 7 when I watched it for the first time. But I see it more positive now, still all earlier westerns by Sturges are better.
I think the original True Grit got a lot of attention after success of a remake. Still, True Grit (1969) has around 33k votes on imdb (usually very good indicator of popularity), while M7 has 63,5k, itâs twice as popular. Rio Bravo for example has 41k, while Winchester '73 has only 12k.
Indeed. FWIW, I only looked at True Grit (1969) after Iâd seen and enjoyed True Grit (2010), not being a John Wayne fan. I liked it though (I didnât rate it as highly as the Coenâs effort, however), and Iâve got a couple of John Wayne movies tucked into the collection now.
Of course, but that does of mean it had become obscure before the remake.
A remake of GBU with e.g. Di Caprio and Brad Pitt would get GBU also a lot of extra attention from people who never watched it before.
I am horrified just thinking about that ! 
1 Like
AAARGHHHHHHHHHHH
1 Like
Wasnât John Wayneâs performance in True Grit outstanding? Won him his only Oscar. I prefer the 1969 film to the 2010 version, not least because Wayneâs Rooster Cogburn speaks a language Iâm somewhat familiar with, whereas Jeff Bridgesâs Cogburn employs a verbal mode of expression approximating unintelligible mumbling and grunting. Nah, just kidding, both are fine movies in their own right. Moreover, I wouldnât necessarily label the Ethan and Joel Coen version a remake of Henry Hathawayâs film since both are based on Charles Portisâs novel and therefore, as filmic adaptations, offer two different interpretations of a literary source. No one would call Peter Jacksonâs The Lord of the Rings a remake of Ralph Bakshiâs animated film from 1978.
Hope GBU gets remade in someones dream and stays there 
2 Likes