Director found for Scarface reboot

News Simon Brew 25 Mar 2014 - 06:17

Chilean director Pablo Larrain will be tackling the new, modern day take on Scarface...

See that? Right at the top of the article? it's one of those headlines that does not make people very happy. Scarface, after all, is another entry on the 'films that do not need to be remade' list. Although, of course, Brian De Palma's 1983 Scarface was in itself a remake of Howard Hawks' 1932 original. Let's call this one a reboot of a remake then. That'll cheer people up.

Anyway, Universal is pressing ahead with a new Scarface, engaging producers Martin Bregman and Marc Shmuger (and Bregman also produced De Palma's take on the material) to oversee the project. Furthermore, a director has been appointed too, with Pablo Larrain, who made the film No, signing up.

The new Scarface will be set in present day Los Angeles, and Paul Attanasio has reportedly provided the most recent draft of the script. We've not idea who will be taking the title role on this time. Nothing could make people warm to the project faster than if Shia got the nod though, surely?

Er, we'll get our own coat...

The Wrap.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

please don't be rated pg-13

Is anyone capable of having an original thought anymore?

If this is - or better: would be - a reboot, a series of films will follow?! Scarface 2 - Back from the Dead? Scarface 3 - With a Vengeance? Scarface 17 - Back to High School?

They already rebooted Scarface, it was called The Devil's Double

Remakes and reimaging's have always happened, what has changed is that most of them used to be a remake of lesser performing films but now it's just a case of buying a brand as people like what they the UK it all started with Mars Bar Ice Creams!

"Nothing could make people warm to the project faster than if Shia got the nod though, surely?

Er, we'll get our own coat.."

No, please don't, that was hilarious, haha.

Not in Hollywood, no!

Why would you do this. Just make a modern film and call it what you want. but this is trading on Scarface's popularity, Rather than it's own merits.

Haven't seen it or the original about Capone, but I still agree. The first was Chicago mob, Scarface Cuban drug trade, and Double Arabic corruption, I think. All similar somehow, yet very different. But if this one is all Cuban and stuff, then it's just another cash grab. I say this as the son of a Marielito (my dad came to the U.S. On the Mariel boatlift) The Cuban drug trade are so 80's. If I wanna watch Scarface, it's in my closet. But since they're doing it anyway, please, PLEASE no talentless male model and or rappers. I'm talking to you, Diddy, not you, Diddy Kong, you're a good boy. P. Diddy. And Rza.

I find it hilarious that people seem so up in arms about remaking it when Scarface itself was a remake. I bet the comments pages were moaning about ruining a classic when the De Palma version was announced.

Is anyone capable of having an original thought anymore?

I think you missed out an Electric Boogaloo somewhere.

This is just as crazy as the Annie and Point Break remakes.

Not to mention Rumble in the Jungle. (That's the alternative Hunger Games 2 title, just like Harry Potter and Inception is for Order of the Phoenix.)

TV, that's where it happens these days. However adaptions and remakes are there too.

And Scarface X, in which his deep-frozen body gets re-animated in the future and augmented by nanotechnology.

That's a pretty good point, but I still find it depressing. It's lazy and unimaginative. More than that there is no reason to remake it - it's not as if it had loads of special effects in De Palma's version had special effects that can be improved on - pointless. It will be another lame, anemic remake.

Also, what does this say about the supposed market for this? Is there a common thought that younger adults today wouldn't watch Scarface? It's just like the rubbish remake of the Thing - utterly pointless remakes aimed at younger clientele - presumably the film industry thinks they won't watch anything that's not in 3D, doesn't have a marketable star, and is undemanding enough to be able to tweet through.

Some of these executives need shaking like a rag doll.


But couldn't you say the exact same things about the 1980s version? It seems strange how people are decrying the evils of remakes while extolling the values of a film which is in itself a remake.

The Thing 2011 was NOT a remake. It was a pre-quel to a reboot of an adaptation
(of a short story). I thought it was really good and lined up nicely with the '82 version. Maybe it didn't add anything new, but it was entertaining and, for me, has re-watch value.

True, and I have to concede that a modern story of a small-time criminal becoming a Kingpin-of-sorts might have something to offer.
It's worth noting that the original Scarface was Black and white, and made in 1932 - a 50 year gap between that and the remake - time enough for the previous film's society and setting to have become somewhat outdated, or at least less-than-relevant. I would argue that society/fashion, America as a whole in 1980 had changed radically from 1930s, therefore a remake had so much more to offer...but in smaller timeframe of 30 years we haven't seen nearly so much as a seismic shift.

Also, how many people in the 80s would have seen the original? There would have been plenty of people who hadn't seen/didn't know about the original, and as VHS was reasonably new/taking off, there wouldn't have been the same availability that the current Scarface has now.

OK. I have a confession: I haven't seen the most recent film. There. You can decry my points to your heart's content, and I fully admit that it massively lessens the impact of my points.


I am a MASSIVE fan of the Kurt Russell film, and despite being sceptical, was interested in the new film...then saw the bad reviews and decided I just didn't want to see it.

Yes, I know that the 2011 film is technically a prequel - I would argue that it's a remake by the back-door. From what I can see from the trailer it doesn't seem to do anything other than re-hash the 1982 film - if they'd wanted to be totally original they should have shifted the location. But again, having not seen it it may offer something - the reviews at the time didn't seem to indicate otherwise, and as far as I know it's not been re-classified as an unfairly maligned classic (was it in DoG's 'Unappreciated films of 2011', or whatever it was called?)

A prequel to that story is *TOTALLY* un-necessary. The viewer of the 1982 films knows full well what happened at the Norwegians' base. They unearthed the creature and it disposed of them in exactly the same way as McCready's colleagues - it just doesn't need to be told, unless they're going to do something different with it. They could keep the same creature, make it a sequel...just have a different dynamic.

X-Men 3 and Spider-man 3 are entertaining in bursts, but both cheapen the preceding films - anemic additions to franchises shouldn't just be made because they inoffensively muddle along and give someone a distinctly mediocre 2 hours.

What about 'Son of Scarface' or 'Scarface: The next generation'?

Lil' Scarfaces

Scarface: Legacy

Haha Wow! Okay then. One 'thing' though (har har) you haven't seen it, so your opinion doesn't matter.

Hmm...not the erudite reply I was expecting.

I might ot have seen it, but having seen it you're in a good position to respond to points in my reply. Just saying 'your opinion doesn't matter' is almost like admitting defeat.

*sigh* - you just can't get a good debate going these days...

Sorry I didn't mean to be rude, but I don't have alot of spare time to debate something so trivial. I will say that for me, personally, when I love a movie/universe, as you do with the '82 version of The Thing, I want as much of it as I can get. So I don't see why you wouldn't want to see what happened at the Norwegian camp. I would understand if it was some "utterly pointless remake aimed at a younger clientele", but it wasn't. No big actors, not all hip-hopped out (take to long to explain if you dont know what I mean there) and was a fairly serious film. It's not like they cast Kristen Stewart as the lead. Mary Elizabeth Winstead has geek cred and was very good in it.
I get your point about those type of Hollywood cash grabs, but I just don't think it applies here.

Sponsored Links