» News
Farrelly Brothers to Remake the Three Stooges
Apparently they have been trying to do this for a while now and I really don’t know why they would try. But today Mary Parent, chairman of Worldwide Motion Picture Group announced that they are moving forward with a modern retelling of the Three Stooges with Bobby and Peter Farrelly’s screenplay which the Farrelly brothers will also direct.
“The Three Stooges are a timeless staple of comedy and when we heard what the Farrellys had in mind we knew it was time for Larry, Moe and Curly to return to the big screen,” Parent commented.There have been numerous manifestations of The Three Stooges but their relationship with MGM dates back to 1933 when the trio appeared in a series of shorts and features for the Lion. The Farrelly Brothers have been working on a modernization of the Stooges, ’slapstick with heart’ concept since the mid-90s. But it was their decision to focus on an origin story for Larry, Moe and Curly and thus introduce the three to a new generation that pushed the picture onto the fast track.
I think this fails under TMB’s 4 Rules of a Remake.
1) The original has to have a good story
Story? There is no story to the Three Stooges. They get thrown into ordinary or silly situations and then smack each other around. There is a little more to it than that, but in the big picture, there is no actual story to be told here. This is not a biopic, it is Stooges return to the big screen. No story.
2) Majority of current audience hasn’t seen the original
Yes, this show was in black and white in syndication when I was a kid. The majority of the moving going audience hasn’t seen this.
3) Original has to be at least 20 years old
See above.
4) The story would benefit from a modern telling
Benefit? No. This does not need to be retold or made modern. The slapstick genre that this comedy embodies is fine in its original form. We don’t need this to be “updated” as it does date itself but the core of it, the slapstick, is not affected by any of it.
I imagine this is going to be horrible. I see no need to “revive” the slapstick genre, as I don’t think it has a place in modern cinema at all, and I honestly dont think there is a market for a pure slapstick movie that isnt called “Jackasss” and thats already scraping the bottom of the intellectual barrel.
Haven’t the Farrelly Brothers done enough?
I am not excited about this either, and I grew up watching them all the time on TV. On the other hand it would be easy to make a 3 Stooges movie. Do a search and you should find they have done several. I always enjoyed 3 Stooges Meet Hercules. That is one of the fun things about the Stooges: take any story, throw the Stooges into the mix, see what happens. It worked fine back in the day, but I would rather not see a remake.
how do you remake the stooges??? the stooges are classic, if anything, id like to see a decent biopic of these guys instead of a movie….
any one remember the 90’s film, The Little Rascals?
This will all depend on who they cast as the stooges. Jon Lovitz as Larry? Jack Black as Moe?
Boy it sure does suck when they go and remake something classic like that. Something people known and have loved their whole lives. Next thing you know they’ll try and remake something like classic Star Trek, oh… wait…
Damn you Hollywood, damn you all to HELL!
The Three Stooges strike me as a dream project for the Farrelly Bros and possibly something they might do justice. If it’s anything on par with “Dumb and Dumber,” I’ll be happy.
I’m going to have to disagree on “The four rules” here. It only matches two of the four criteria. Even if it DID have all four…
I can see if they got away with a picture *about* The Three Stooges (or the other two that came later) but how does one “remake” The Stooges? The Stooges are way too iconic. That’s almost like saying you want to remake “Abott and Costello” or “Laurel and Hardy”- you can’t do it.
I mean just that. You can’t do it.
Okay right now you’re shaking your head, ‘what do you mean, they can’t, never say never’. Well, they could have “new” stooges with “new” names. But you can’t have some actor looking like Moe. You can’t have another actor trying to be Curly.
First Darren, according to our 4 magic rules, we dont think they should make this movie either. It has to fulfill all 4 to get a thumbs up from us (like that matters to them?)
Also, I agree a Biopic would be cool. Seeing their story, how each was cast in these memorable roles, how slapstick affected other comedy in its time, their lives after etc. But sadly they are not doing that.
And any actor can be replaced. Some are just harder than others. These ones fall under that stupidly hard. Somewhere there is someone who can nail it, but just because they can, does that mean they should?
The Star Trek project is not a remake, it is a sequel. Completely in line with everything else in the Star Trek universe.
It just happens to also be a reboot because of its storyline.
@ Darren
Replacing a stooge was done back in the day, so I do not know why it could not be done today. Before Curly there was Shemp. As far as replacing a stooge makes no sense like replacing Abbot and Costello or Laurel and Hardy… this comparison does not make sense. Abbot, Costello, Laurel, and Hardy are all actual names of the actors, that is why it would not make much sense doing a remake using those people. A stooge is just a stooge, and anybody can be a stooge.
Now for my own rambling. People really need to quit all the complaining about remakes of classics and how its raping their memories. Guess what, it is impossible for anything made today to mess up anything of the past. Sure it can be a shitty remake, but the only thing that can affect the way you viewed something from the past is your own damn self. No matter how horrible a remake might be, the classic is still in tact on in the same condition prior to any remake. If you do not like the idea then do not see it, but quit with these threads that they are ruining a classic because it is not! The classic is just as good now as it would be if they made a thousand remakes for then next thousand years!!! End of ranting.
Keep on drinking that revision/sequel, new time line makes everything look 98% different, Kool-Aid. Chug that shit. You’re going to need it.
And remember folks, it’s totally ok and cool to re-invent every iconic film, and piece art and literature instead of creating something new, because creativity is dead, and this is how we make money now, by raping older works of art until the cows come home. Remember it’s all about box office returns $$. Calling the new trek film a sequel is the most retarded excuse for a bullshit movie idea that I’ve ever heard. Sequel implies that there was a story that came before. Like Part 1 and Part 2 the sequel. I think you may have meant prequel which is somewhat more of an expectable idea, if you ignore the fact that nearly every visual aspect of the JJ trek universe looks 98% different then what it’s supposed to be representing. Unless JJ is going the Bryan Singer superman route. We all know how that turned out or I should say turd out.
Why do they keep scratching their asses and thinking its “genius”???? What’s next, lets remake the Marx Brothers–Gimme a freaking break!!!!
This film could end up being a disaster.
Box, while you are busy bitching and trying to insult the new direction, keep in mind that the franchise DIED because it was the same old shit over and over again. It got stale, characters were not interesting, stories failed, the series and movies failed.
If they didn’t go back to the beginning and reboot it (while not raping or ignoring the original timeline but rather changing it) people like you would be bitching that they are just doing ANOTHER movie with no original ideas.
So keep chugging your decades old koolaid that no one was drinking for a reason, I will enjoy the new direction in a series that actually makes me WANT to watch it.
It is far harder to remake and re-envision projects than it is to come up with “something new”. At least this way the franchise lives on instead of just dying its lonely death that it was left with for the last 3 years.
@Sahil, yes…. ANY film can be a disaster, but so far it looks to be in good hands and I am looking forward to it.
Star Trek dying or dead huh? Hmmm? Tell that to Art Asylum who’ve been selling boat loads of original series toys for the last few years or CBS who just re-mastered and re did the effects shots on all three sessions of TOS and has them out on blue ray. Or the bad ass Star Trek exhibit currently making it’s way around selling out the country’s museums. What about the John Byrne trek comic books and the other trek comics that are selling like hot cakes. I could go on and on. Yeah real dead there guy. Just because Nemesis sucked ass and Enterprise was yanked off the air (when it was finally getting good) does not mean Trek died. Does it mean Joe six pack fucktard isn’t paying attention anymore? Yep. And that is just fine by me dude.
Couldn’t they have made a new crew or new stories set anywhere/anytime in the Trek universe? I think so.
Naaaaa, why do that? We know what sells! It’s Kirk and Spock! Let’s take the best part of trek and run it through the JJ filter and see what craps out the other side. Who cares who liked it before? I can’t wait till someone rips up the drawing board of something you love Rodney. I’m sure we’ll all hear about it on this blog.
Jeremy -
I think remakes do hurt the original film or song or work of art. Take cover songs for instance. Metallica covered the Misfits on their garage days album. I knew retarded metal dudes who thought Metallica wrote those songs even though the liner notes clearly pointed out the fact that they were cover tunes. I’ve met stupid people who saw the Dawn of the Dead remake (which I enjoyed) who didn’t know about the original and could care less. Remakes dumb down our culture and allow studios to cash in on a brand name and the hard work of the original film makes to squeeze one more nickel out a movie going public. We all hope that the new films are going to be good, and we go see them, and 9 times out of 10 they suck. Yet the folks who don’t know or care about the original never know what they are missing and assume the original must have sucked as well. We all suffer because people aren’t creating new films or new ideas. rehash, remake, re-imagining, revision, re-eat my shit.
@ Box
And nothing you said pertains to the defamation of the original work. Everything you said pertains to ignorant people. The remake does nothing to the original. There are going to be ignorant people whether or not there are remakes! As far as Hollywood trying to bank and former works, that would be Hollywood’s main prerogative. I do not know anybody in Hollywood, but I am willing to bet that everything that has come out of there past, present, and future was or will not be made without hopes of a dollar amount return. Complain all you want about Hollywood trying to cash in on past projects, but those past project were also made to bring in money as well. Even the person that makes the movie claiming to do it just to provide entertainment for the audience still wants to see some money in return. People are stupid, the almight dollar speaks, and in the end the classics still stand with no harm done by the remakes. An ignorant person that did not a movie was a remake would still be ignorant of the original if the remake had not been made. It is not until somebody informs them otherwise or they learn on there own that this knowledge becomes evident.
I see your point.
I know it isn’t exactly the same but, do you think the prequels in anyway harmed the original SW trilogy? What is worse, a new not so great Halloween movie or Rob Zombies lame ass Halloween and does Zombie’s movie in anyway taint new viewers opinions of the original?
Rodeny you said,
“Completely in line with everything else in the Star Trek universe.”
accept that it’s depicting established characters in an established universe completely out of continuity with the 40 YEARS worth of established Star Trek Lore. Just like what happened to the Marvel universe in the 90’s when a bunch of douche bags took over.
Oh wait, I get it. Old Spock goes back and redesigns the entire star fleet from the ground up. Now that makes sense….?
That is all a matter of personal opinion. Are there less Star Wars fan now than there were before the Episodes 1-3 were released, I doubt it. In fact there are probably even more. I still think the original 3 are far superior and very enjoyable still today, the new ones did not change that for me. Halloween is different cup of tea all together. I absolutely hated the originals. Can not stand Jamie Lee Curtis. I found the reboot/remake/rewhateveryouwanttocallit very enjoyable, but I like the dark grittiness that Zombie puts into his movies. All that is my opinion. There are people out there that I am sure will say that the original Halloween is the pinnacle of the horror franchise. Did the remake affect the either views? No, not really. The people that thought it was the greatest horror movie still think it is, the people that hated it (me) continue to hate it.
Sigh…. Box, you act as if they have NEVER time travelled in Star Trek.
This is both a continuation and through plot devices it allows for a NEW history to be written from the point that they change the past.
It is not out of continuity if it is simply a NEW continuity that happens after the events that will take place in Spock’s latter years.
I won’t tolerate more Star Trek discussion that I have already beaten to death in 7 other threads, especially when this post was about Three Stooges.
Sorry I thought we were talking about remakes and why they are a bad idea and they suck.
Sure they time traveled a lot in Trek, which was one of the main complaints from people who dislike trek and they same old time travel story line. But never have they traveled back and radically changed the entire future of the show and what has come before. Also if they change the entire future then does it make the entire 40 year history of the show irrelevant?
Everytime they time travel they make the point of not obstructing the timeline, this time disruption is the purpose and the stars of the show that always win are the ones intending on it, so they will succeed in messing up time.
Remakes are not a bad thing when the remake is GOOD, however few people find remakes worthy of the original and so it has become trendy to bash on them.
If remakes were universally hated and made no money there would be no remakes. Battlestar has proven you can remake or re-envision and succeed, those remakes that dont succeed often end at one shot.
The reason for using a timetravel storyline is to make this a reboot while still respecting the original. The existance of this variant timeline doesn’t ignore but tangents from a point in history. This way the original timeline still exists in parallel and is not eliminated. It is unique to break the rules, and it might still fail, but the franchise can’t get worse.
They should have it so that they travel back in time, grab the Three Stooges, and while traveling back to the future the Stooges get loose at the time the Federation is being formed! Then they can knock out both the Three Stooges movie and Start Trek movie at the same time!!! Like how I brought that back on track with the Stooges?
this has all kinds of FAIL on it.
and what is so difficult about doing a brainless movie about 3 bumbling idiots with lots of physical slapstik humor without it being a stooges movie?
@Leeloo….. because the movie you just described would suck??
^ lol. well yeah i know. :/
Fuck NO!
As mentioned above, the Stooges were pure legend. One could say the Holy Grail of classic Hollywood slapstick. I’ll admit it, I am a 90’s child(although I prefer the 80’s), and I grew up loving these guys. I can understand not wanting to let something as fucking awesome as the stooges die, but this is where I draw the line. This is like Michael Bay redo-ing the original Star Wars trilogy. They WERE their characters. This was all they ever did, and they are legends for it. The whole idea of replacement is different with actors whose entire career has been one character. I too enjoyed the several movies they made. I am inclined to agree that actors can be replaced, but this is a no-no. And I would just like to point something out about remakes hurting the originals: Good or bad, the remake is all the new people have. You don’t see Stooges DVDs in Walmart anymore, because they’re fucking 60 years old. Fans still have their copies to watch and enjoy granted. But a remake is a cover up any way you slice it. When the new movie comes out, they will not push the originals to DVD again. The Longest Yard was a remake, and it sucked. It was funny, but an awful movie in my opinion. I have never seen the original, and everyone who I have spoken to constantly tells me to see it. Remakes in general suck because they suck; not because they’re stolen/borrowed property. Sequels(like Indy 4) work differently in the sense that they are not covering up the oldies, but rather reviving them. Indy 4 may not have been the best of the quad, but it did bring the original trilogy to DVD. Some things are just not meant to be updated. And 70 years is way too fucking long to wait for a modernization. If anyone can be a stooge, why wasn’t it continued rather than laid to rest? Like Indiana Jones only worked because it took place in the 20’s-50’s. If it took place today it would be another matter entirely. Different eras have different senses of humor, and the stupidity that this generation accepts as comedy is not the same as the 30’s. As for the money business, I am an aspiring writer/director. I write scripts and dream about making movies so that people can enjoy them. Of course I expect to be paid if someone wants to take my idea and run with it, but FACT money makes the world turn. But the day I start making something and putting my soul into it or half-assing it solely for a paycheck is the day I crawl into a car compactor.
I’m personally waiting for the Marx Bros remake, with a fully CGI Harpo.
@ War-Journalist
I would have to disagree with you. Remakes are not cover ups. If anything they revive the original. Take a person that has never heard of the original. A remake is done, now one of four things can happen:
1. The person does not see the remake, and continues living in ignorance of the original. So in reality nothing changes.
2. The person sees it not knowing it is a remake, and continues living in ignorance of the original. So in reality nothing changes.
3. The person sees it and sometime before, during, or after the person discovers it is a remake. They choose not to see the original for whatever reason.
4. The person sees it and sometime before, during, or after the person discovers it is a remake. They hunt out the original to see.
There may be a few other outcomes such as they see the original because the remake brought to light an original and they see that instead of the remake, but will go off these four aforementioned outcomes. The first thing to point out is that in none of these outcomes is there any harm done in regard to the reputation of the original. We are talking about a person that has never heard of the original; therefore, the first three outcomes result in the continuation of the person not seeing it for whatever reason. Thus the original remains in it’s current state of neither growing in popularity or diminishing. On the other hand, the fourth outcome results in a new viewer. They may like it or they may not, either way it resulted in the person seeking it out and watching it. That is all personal opinion, for what is one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. If the person saw the remake and hated it, so when finding out about the original does not see it because the remake sucked. It still does not degrade the value of the original. It pretty much remains in the same state. This can be argued I am sure, but I do not want to get into that. In the end I still do not think the remake can do any harm to the original. It either leaves in the same state prior to the remake being released or it opens new doors to the original.
By the way, Indy 4 did not bring back the original three to DVD. I bought the original three box set about four years prior to the Crystal Skull even being announced as being in production. The DVDs have been for sale and on the shelves of most places since it’s release on DVD, the Crystal Skull only added one more movie to the set. If the Three Stooges do get a remake, then I will not be surprised at all if it gets any publicity that stores will start stocking the originals on DVD once again. Re-releasing originals prior to a remake’s release is only good business sense as it is just another form of advertisements. I was shocked looking on Netflix’s instant viewable movies to find The Day the Earth Stood Still, and I bet that would not be on their list if it was not for the fact that a remake is coming out in the near future. I am not looking forward to a remake of the Three Stooges, but if it is done I see no harm to the originals being committed. If anything, a few new fans may come from it.
I see your point(s) Jeremy. Of course no physical harm is done to originals by remakes, but reputation is affected. If a remake is terrible, then a new viewer will either believe that the original was just as bad, or have a little hope and seek it out. Most people lean towards the former. As regarding to my “cover-up” comment, I do see remakes as more or less replacements. Good movies can last quite a while(70 years in this case) in popularity. Of course, movies involving a specific non-fictional event, such as WW2, usually have the plot based around the event & can be made or remade simply to keep the film alive, but keep the same things that made up the original. Anything NOT serving a historical point is generally not supposed to be subject to change, because it can serve so many generations. Granted things have obviously changed since the 30’s, but the Stooges never really drew attention to it. There was never a movie called “The Three Stooges Meet Hitler”, etc. A property like Trasformers serves all cultures. Now a property where Transformers are built to fight Nazis would not really translate well as a remake. Films show culture and the state of the place in which they’re made whether they want to or not, and I believe that films that cater to that culture specifically should not be remade. By this time I believe I have muddled my point, so I’ll return to it. I believe that the Stooges were/are the Stooges, and that they, or any other property, should not be changed to fit new culture, hence updated/remade. People and fans from when the Stooges were valid can keep on enjoying, but if the Stooges are not valid enough to service the new generation, then that’s all there is to it. You and I both know that a new movie would fundamentally change the Stooge formula to fit this generation’s standard of comedy, which is quite different than that of the 30’s. I do not think they should be altered to flow with the times if the times have changed enough to make them obsolete. A movie like “The Fifth Element” would be fine as a remake becuase it is about an unknown future. A movie like “The Valley of Elah”(great flick) could not be updated because it deals with American culture during our war with the Middle East, and would not apply to the future of 2037 or whathaveyou. Batman Begins & The Dark Knight are not culture specific and probably could apply in 2037 because we never mention or make a point of our political or military status in those films. I suppose that the stooges should not be updated simply because they would be changed beyond recognition of the originals. I love the Stooges and hate Jackass, and I’m sure there are variations out there, but I could not stand the Stooges approaching that kind of material which more or less represents modern humor. Think as you wish, but that’s my mind about it.
I still do not see how it could harm the reputation. If the person see’s the remake without yet having seen the original and then hates it so much they do not want to see the original, more than likely they would not have seen the original in the first place had the remake not been made. Therefore nothing has changed as far as the originals reputation goes since the person continues to not see it.
As far as modernization of the Stooges. I know these movies probably are not all that well liked, but I thought what they did with them on the remake was pretty hilarious: The Brady Bunch movies. Taking this family from the 70s (?) and not changing them at all, then placing them in modern times. It was funny as hell seeing how those two worlds collide. They could do a similar story, not that they will, where the Stooges start off in black and white looking just like they did when they were first release, then fall into the clutches of a time machine again (see Meets Hercules) and end up in modern times and in color. They could zap in and accidentally fumble a bank robbery or something, and end up with criminals and cops after them while they try to make it back to their own time. Or something ridiculous like that. But as I said, the director probably will not take this kind of approach and we will end up wit ha “Dumb, Dumber, and Dumbest” Three Stooges movie.
Well I thought the Dumb and Dumber movies were absolutely retarded. Futhermore, they were NOTHING like the Three Stooges.
If they did some silly “out of time” Stooges Movie it would also be on par with Dumb and Dumber. The point is that they CANT do a Stooges movie in a modern era and capture what made slapstick fun back then.
So they will rape it, and it will blow.
I do not get the “CAN’T” do that in modern day shtick. Do you still like the slapstick from back in the day? They can’t take three look alikes, throw them in a kitchen where they proceed to bop each other on the head, pull noses, and poke each other in the eyes. Then while in the middle of their slapstick shenanigans have the Hell’s Kitchen guy walk in and be like “What the fuck is going on back here?” Could even have Curly do the sideways hand in front of nose eye poke block, then Moe use both hands to bypass the block. If I remember right there was an episode similar to that, replace the Hell’s Kitchen guy with some random irate restaurant owner obviously. Sure this would all limit the audience to those that like that old school slap stick humor, but it is totally doable. I am by far not interested in the a Three Stooges movie, but I also do not see any harm in it. Another classic that I thought they did a decent job on making a remake of was The Adam’s Family.
Wish there was a way to edit posts. “They can’t take three look alikes, throw them in a kitchen where they proceed to bop each other on the head, pull noses, and poke each other in the eyes.” was supposed to be a question. And yes, there would obviously have to be a story to it, but that would just be a scene. Like they are being chased for something so they duck into the kitchen and disguise themselves as cooks.
Jeremy the point is that we accepted the slapstick from back then, but popculture has elevated simple slapstick into staged reality shows like Jackass.
The type of people who might be amused by a pointless poke in the eye and then instant forgiveness after a retaliatory nose tweak will wonder why they are offering up such weak attacks.
Where is the shopping cart full of goat semen and rotting fish smashing into your groin? Current trends just don’t seem to be forgiving of old school classics when you try to blend the two.
The failure of the above mentioned Brady Bunch movies should be a clear sign. The gag might be funny for a youtube video, but the studios are going to take a bath if they make that into a feature film.
A permanen bath if I get my hands on them…
play the part of curly kevin james or frank caliendo or mark addy or jack black
they make a part 2 of the three stooges I LIKE TO SEE robin willims to play shemp howard he funny