There Was A Discussion On Local Radio This Morning About The Proposed Remake Of Dad's Army.

[sandyRoe]

Some of the callers said they'd found the original show hilarious and were sometimes in tears of laughter watching it.
I thought it was amusing but not the funniest thing I'd ever seen. Just a sense of humour failure on my part, or was it not as funny as some seem to remember?

[shoota]

I didn't find it at all funny or amusing.

[elliemay1]

I never found it very funny either. Loved Morecambe and Wise, though.

[janbee]

It was lovely, gentle , innocent humour and I loved it but I don't know that a re-make is the right thing to do.

[Baldric]

//Proposed Remake Of Dad's Army.//

Well, they could only improve it, that's for sure!

[janbee]

It wasn't side splittingly funny but I still enjoyed it. No ribs were cracked with laughter but as I say, it was good and I enjoyed it.

[Svejk]

I didn't like it much when it was first aired. But I came to like it better as I got older. Like a lot of things, I suppose. The reverse is also true.

[Frank97]

I find it mildly amusing, can't say it actually makes me laugh though!

[-Talbot-]

Had its funny moments but In the main it was ***.

[andy-hughes]

The strength of DA is the interaction of very individual characters - always a hallmark of superior situation comedy - Steptoe, Towers, One Foot,and so on.

I never found it hilarious, but i did like it.

i think the remake is a mistake - no matter how strong the cast is - the original audience will not appreciate their memories being messed with, a young audience will not understand the nuances of the characters, and the background of wartime, so it could well be a massive flop.

[ludwig]

It was very funny, largely because of the excellent cast. In particular Arthur Lowe and John Le Mesurier.

The later series become a bit useless when they ran out of ideas, but the earlier ones are great.

[weecalf]

I always think why do they do this .Why not just make a film about the home guard .Firstly the actors just played themselves ,so the new film will actors playing the people that played parts in Dads army .Wont be going to see it no .Went to the stage play just a case of doing well known scenes from the programme hoping the audience would remember those .

[andy-hughes]

weecalf - they do it to make money, and for no other reason.

The fact that their logic is terribly flawed doesn't stop them.

Even historical evidence that re-makes are usually a disaster - the Avengers anyone? Steve Martin as Inspector Cluseau? The Lone Ranger?

They see dollar signs and off they go.

Idiots!

[weecalf]

Who do they think they are kidding andy

[Zeuhl]

andy

don't leave out Steve Martin as Bilko

aargh!

[weecalf]

Steve martin has perfeced the art of stopping being funny with out ever starting ... just made that up there must use that again .

[Zeuhl]

agree with andy @ 11.56

unless they re-imagine this in some genius way or Hamish McColl produces a jaw droppingly hilarious script; it will be a limp joke at best

It never ceases to amaze me that there are film projects that 'almost' get made for years and years - and others that complete and you just wonder 'what were they thinking?'

of course the mystery of the film making process is that the most unimpressive concept (or script even) can produce something wonderful with the right combination of Director and cast

while something that everyone agrees is a sure-fire hit on paper turns into a turkey

[andy-hughes]

I think the point that re-makers fail to grasp, is that films and TV series are of their time.

Dad's Army attracted a huge audience of the war generation, who understood, not only the comedy, but the underlying theme that as daft as it seemed, Home Guard volunteers like thes really did believe a Nazi invasion was probable, and were quite prepared to fight and die to prevent it.

A new generation will not understand what made DA popular, or appreciate that it is the interactin of the actors, as well as the characters, that made it successful - and that cannot be replicated, only immitated, and who needs that?

Those who enjoyed DA can see it on DVD, and will not travel to a cinema to see a pale copy that has only the title in common with what they remember, and the young audiencce will be baffled and uninterested and unengaged.

If I - and others on here can see this - why is it so hard for film makers who get paid more than any of us, to see it as well? Is it just the wilful desire for money, however badly misplaced? I suspect it is.

You can re-boot a TV series like the Equaliser as a film because, apart from the title and character name, it retains noting whatever of the original. Thus, as a vague memory for 70's TV viewers, there is a film that reminds them of nothing they saw, but more importantly, for a new audience, they can start from scratch, and as the first film was alrgely scene-setting, and wide open for a sequel, there will be at least one,maybe two more films.

I have not seen the word 'flop' written so large in advance over a film project until I saw that Tom Cruise was down to play Jack Reacher, or Johnny Depp was on course to play Tonto.

What is WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Prudie]

I never watched it but tastes in humour do change as we get older. I remember the Goodies used to make me cry with laughter, now it just makes me cringe.

[jno]

the Addams Family films were better than the TV series, and personally I think the same of Mission Impossible. The origin version of Star Trek was pretty good too. These things can work if done right. They're done right about as often as any other sort of film, so I don't think they're automatically doomed to fail.