Walter Hill To Write & Direct An Unnecessary Remake Of 'Whatever Happened To Baby Jane?'

News
by Kevin Jagernauth
July 11, 2012 4:40 PM
6 Comments
  • |

File this under pointless and unnecessary. Starring Bette Davis and Joan Crawford, Robert Aldrich's "What Ever Happened To Baby Jane?" is a demented classic, so why Walter Hill feels the need to rewrite and remake the damn thing is beyond us.

But plow ahead he will, as the helmer was apparently approached by Warner Bros. -- who are releasing his next effort, "Bullet To The Head," starring Sylvester Stallone -- with the idea of tinkering with the movie and updating it. Or actually, they're going to keep it period based, but more contemporary and classic. Confused? Let Walter Hill explain: “The intensity of the Gothic storyline makes a reconfiguration of the drama still a potentially searing experience. The idea is to make a modern film without modernizing the period. It needs to resonate the golden age of Hollywood.” Yeah, we don't know what that means either.

The original film tells the story of two sisters, and retired actresses, who are living together in a crumbling mansion. The crippled Blanche, who was the far more successful one of the pair, relies on the care of Jane (a former child star), who wants to return to her career, and who has become bitter and abusive towards her sister. But when Jane learns that Blanche might sell the house, and lock up her up in a sanitorium, things get out of control. Frankly, it's one of a kind and attempting to remake or contemporize it or whatever Hill is trying to do seems kind of pointless as Alridch already knocked this one out of the park. But since there is a subset of audiences who refuse to watch anything in black and white or made before 1980, we guess there is a market for it. Mabye that can make it in 3D too! Maybe in 4D with bird feathers floating on the audience!

But it's gonna happen one way or another, so we might as well grit our teeth and bear it. Any suggestions on who should play the sisters? [Deadline]

You might also like:
Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

6 Comments

  • ? | July 12, 2012 1:15 PMReply

    "The original is more of a campy cult-classic than an actual classic, so I see no problem with a fresh take. Walter Hill is certainly the spiritual descendant of Aldrich, so I can't think of anyone more suited to the task."

    what are you talking about? if anything Walter Hill is the spirtual descendent of Sam Peckinpah..Walter Hill once said EVERY film he makes is a western to some degree...(although I don't know Brewster's Millions fits in with that mantra...)

  • Katie Walsh | July 11, 2012 6:41 PMReply

    WB are super remake happy. They basically offer anyone they work with a chance to pitch a remake of something from their catalog.

  • Jeff | July 11, 2012 6:17 PMReply

    The original is more of a campy cult-classic than an actual classic, so I see no problem with a fresh take. Walter Hill is certainly the spiritual descendant of Aldrich, so I can't think of anyone more suited to the task.

  • AS | July 11, 2012 6:01 PMReply

    I really don't understand why they keep remaking movies because they ALWAYS bomb. Seriously, none of them make any money. I don't get it. Someone please explain it to me.

  • SR | July 11, 2012 5:59 PMReply

    My guess is they will try to get Helen Mirren and Meryl Streep for this. Won't be near as good as the one with Crawford and Davis they are legends!

  • Jim Tushinski | July 11, 2012 5:16 PMReply

    Actually, this would be the 2nd official remake of Baby Jane - a TV version starring Lynn and Vanessa Redgrave turned up in 1991. In color! So there is even less reason to do this. And Walter Hill? Really? I can't think of a director less likely to know what to do with this story, except maybe Michael Bay.

Email Updates