# St Trinians (2007)



## ray gower (Feb 5, 2003)

Heard a rumour today that the 1955 comedy film Belles of St Trinians is to be remade.

Does anybody know anything of this?

Can they really do it justice without the great character actors like Alistair Simms, Joyce Genfell and George Coal?

Or is it going to be one of those ghastly Hollywood overcooked rehash?


----------



## Tabitha (Feb 6, 2003)

ding ding ding

And your second option hits the nail on the head.

You seem to have a good nose for sniffing out these ill-conceived remakes, Ray 

I think I'll consign this to my "it'll never happen, I hope" bin.


----------



## ray gower (Feb 6, 2003)

Why, thank you! 
I think!

The old ones were quite a good match for the comic strips in the newspaper and even the 1980 film, as corny as hell, had comic charm.

So a revamp need not be quite so bad?


----------



## Tabitha (Feb 6, 2003)

I loved the old Alasdair Simm ones - but I don't recall the 1980 version.

I just wonder why there aren't more original, or at least haven't-been-moviefied-previously productions.  St Trinians was and still is fun, but I just wish they'd leave it be.

And apart from anything else, I can see it being pushed in a American Pie, or even teenage Russian Lesbians direction.  Not too much innocent fun left in the movie world these days, and I think that is kind of what made St trinians great.


----------



## Dave (Aug 1, 2007)

*Re: The Belles of St Trinians (1955)*

The trailer for this is running before _Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix_. While I really want to hate them for having no originality and constantly remaking everything, I have to say that from the trailer it actually looked good. The clips are set to that _Shampoo_ song, _Trouble_ - "Uh-Oh, We're In Trouble, Something's Come Along And It's Burst Our Bubble..." and it has one girl causing an explosion then doing the Michael Caine line from _The Italian Job_ - "You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!"

Edit: St Trinian's is released on 21 December 2007 (UK) 



> _IMDb_
> Plot Outline: St Trinian's, a school for "young ladies" with its anarchic doctrine of free expression, brings together a motley crew of ungovernable girls who, using their wit and ingenuity, save the school from bankruptcy.


 So, that is the same plot as the first original Alisdair Sim film.


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 1, 2007)

*Re: The Belles of St Trinians (1955)*

The originals were quite charming in a typically British, saucy postcard kind of way. However, all these remakes are really starting to cheese me off.

There's only one way to stop Hollywood and its addiction with remakes - don't watch it, don't buy it and don't give it the oxygen of publicity. At least that's my new Zero Tolerance stance on remakes. Rant over.


----------



## j d worthington (Aug 1, 2007)

*Re: The Belles of St Trinians (1955)*

I'm afraid I'm becoming more and more of your mind on this, Foxbat. It's getting to the point I'd rather give my money to even a _bad _original film than to support this endless cycle of remakes, sequels, and films based on old television series. It ends up with a near-complete stifling of any new material... which in turn eliminates the best talent by driving them into other fields, as they can't be at all original and survive.....


----------



## ray gower (Aug 1, 2007)

*Re: The Belles of St Trinians (1955)*

Would not go quite as far as that. I can think of a whole raft of 50's and 60's films that COULD benefit from being remade, now that CGI and other effects have caught up with the inventiveness of the original. 

The proviso is that the idiots in charge from producer to actors have to have a real 'feel' for the original, and not go off on their own tacky track, which is where everything falls down.

In the case of St Trinians, the original was inuendo, exaggeration and larger than life characters. They were not extreme, outrageousness, or even explict.


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 1, 2007)

*Re: The Belles of St Trinians (1955)*



ray gower said:


> Would not go quite as far as that. I can think of a whole raft of 50's and 60's films that COULD benefit from being remade, now that CGI and other effects have caught up with the inventiveness of the original.


 
A fair point. One  that comes to mind being _The Thing From Another_ _World _and _The Thing._ Both contributed something new and refreshing. Sadly, originals and remakes like these are very few and far between. 

I'm not a big fan of CGI - mainly because it's used so much, and has lost much of its initial impact. Overuse of CGI tends to happen at the cost of subtlety in most cases.

Back to St Trinians - for its time it was pushing the boundaries a little but nowadays it would need to go much further (and, in the process, lose much of its charm).


----------



## j d worthington (Aug 2, 2007)

*Re: The Belles of St Trinians (1955)*



ray gower said:


> The proviso is that the idiots in charge from producer to actors have to have a real 'feel' for the original, and not go off on their own tacky track, which is where everything falls down.


 


Foxbat said:


> A fair point. One that comes to mind being _The Thing From Another_ _World _and _The Thing._ Both contributed something new and refreshing. Sadly, originals and remakes like these are very few and far between.
> 
> I'm not a big fan of CGI - mainly because it's used so much, and has lost much of its initial impact. Overuse of CGI tends to happen at the cost of subtlety in most cases.
> 
> Back to St Trinians - for its time it was pushing the boundaries a little but nowadays it would need to go much further (and, in the process, lose much of its charm).


 
I think that hits the nail squarely on the head. The problem is that we do seem to have dumbed audiences down to where they can't "get" subtle... they have to be smacked in the face with the bladder. If anthing is on a higher level than a Punch-and-Judy show, the majority simply find it boring. Which rather puts the lie to the idea that we've advanced much....

No, I'm not entirely against remakes but, because of this particular aspect, and the fact that, at this point in the cycle, if you give them any support that's all we're likely to keep getting (remakes, etc.)... I still think supporting even a bad original film rather than yet another one of these retreads is the only way to get back to where there's a healthy balance....


----------



## Dave (Aug 2, 2007)

*Re: The Belles of St Trinians (1955)*

I think it's probably easier to make low budget original films and get them distributed now than ever before. I'm thinking of 'Napoleon Dynamite' and 'Nacho Libre' which are really off the wall. Also there was something on the local news about a man who directed a gangster movie in his south London home using neighbours and their houses as actors and sets. He sold it straight to DVD and is making a profit. And then there is the Internet!

The problem with film studios is the same with many 'creative' industries (and science research companies) - that they are now run by accountants.


----------



## tangaloomababe (Aug 2, 2007)

*Re: The Belles of St Trinians (1955)*

I have only vague memories of this movie, but they are all good.  I recall it as very funny and I don't think we have that type of humor now.
I would hope that Hollywood don't get a hold of it as it was a very British comedy. The two styles are vastly different. As a preference I don't think you can beat British comedy. Its what I grew up on. Show like The Two Ronnies and Dave Allen had me in fits of laughter.
If it were to be re done it would have to be by British film makers.


----------



## ray gower (Aug 2, 2007)

*Re: The Belles of St Trinians (1955)*



Dave said:


> The problem with film studios is the same with many 'creative' industries (and science research companies) - that they are now run by accountants.


Is it the accountants, who in my experience are allergic to spending money no matter what and very few big films appear to come in on budget? 

Or is it that the big studios have a back scratching production system that stifles inventiveness and promotes laziness, or at least a lack of motivation to learn the craft?

It occurs to me that the many films are made in the Effects Lab and the live 'acting' is simply added to join the scenes together later, Dare Devil is a good example. 

So perhaps a lack of control over/in the technical departments when they insist on using all the biggest effects in the box?

Turning around to somebody and saying 'I want an particularly icky slimy monster, here is a tenner!' ala the BBC and Doctor Who must promote inventiveness. 

In the same way going back with a working result having spent 20p on a Tesco raspberry jelly and a matchbox full of fag ash must have a certain level of creative cunning and satisfaction?


----------



## Dave (Dec 10, 2007)

*Re: The Belles of St Trinians (2007)*

I met someone yesterday who had been to a pre-screening of this at Covent Garden, London. She was positively enthusing about the film. Russell Brand is Flash Harry and apparently is excellent. Rupert Everett plays both male and female parts as Miss Fritton and Carnaby Fritton. It also has Stephen Fry, Celia Imrie, Cheryl Tweedy and it does seem to have captured the original formula, and yet updated it. It is made at Ealing Studios too. I think I will have to go and see it now.

It is released in the UK just before the Christmas holidays on 21st December 2007.

The IMDb page is here: St. Trinian's (2007)


----------



## The Ace (Dec 10, 2007)

*Re: The Belles of St Trinians (1955)*



j. d. worthington said:


> I think that hits the nail squarely on the head. The problem is that we do seem to have dumbed audiences down to where they can't "get" subtle... they have to be smacked in the face with the bladder. If anthing is on a higher level than a Punch-and-Judy show, the majority simply find it boring. Which rather puts the lie to the idea that we've advanced much.




  Yes JD, I still remember, 'The Flintstones,'  Originally Miss Stone's first name was to be, 'Rosetta.' but it was changed to 'Sharon,' because the studio was afraid audiences wouldn't get the joke.


----------



## Dave (Dec 10, 2007)

*Re: The Belles of St Trinians (1955)*



The Ace said:


> Yes JD, I still remember, 'The Flintstones,'  Originally Miss Stone's first name was to be, 'Rosetta.' but it was changed to 'Sharon,' because the studio was afraid audiences wouldn't get the joke.


 I find that strange because I remember other good jokes/puns in that film. I actually thought it was okay. And if that is true, they really don't think much of their audience. It isn't as if studio executives are high-brow either


----------



## Gav (Dec 10, 2007)

*hmmm...*

It's not the fact that this is a remake that troubles me, it's the sexualistion of the girls.  These are supposed to be schoolgirls.. and yet at least two of the cast members look to be in their 20s and are.. well... sexy.  I am not normally one to complain about the sexualisation of children (most who do are normally Daily Mail "think of the children" idiots) but in this case I actually found the imagery troubling.

What's exactly wrong with schoolkids being schoolkids?  There's no need for them to be be errr... saucy in order for a decent movie to be made.  If anything I thought that it detracted from the movies potential.

I liked the originals as a child and see nothing of worth in this remake.

The fact that that knob Brand is in it just sums it all up as far as I am concerned.

Having seen the trailer (I saw Golden Compass at the weekend it's on before that) I have to say that the film looks dire: hackneyed, cliched, dull, predicatable etc... Take a look at the pop culture reference made in the trailer if that's as funny as it gets you would have to suffer a lobotomy to enjoy it.


----------



## Gav (Dec 10, 2007)

*Re: The Belles of St Trinians (1955)*



ray gower said:


> Is it the accountants, who in my experience are allergic to spending money no matter what and very few big films appear to come in on budget?
> 
> Or is it that the big studios have a back scratching production system that stifles inventiveness and promotes laziness, or at least a lack of motivation to learn the craft?
> 
> ...



A lot of the problem with the studio system is that the studios are not quite as wealthy as people think.  They are normally reliant on one or two (major) his a year to keep going.  As a result they tend to be quite conservative.  This is also one of the reasons why you see trends in the movie industry.

Occasionally one of the houses takes a gamble (for whatever reason) and makes a movie; e.g. remakes, or in newspeak "re-imagines", a film ; which is financially successful.  The other houses see this and think "hey, that was an easy way to make money" and follow suit.  The law of diminishing returns kicks in and the various houses go all out to tap into whatever is "fashionable".  And they mine it for all that it is worth until we are sick of it.

Remakes of popular films are quite good for this.  A lot of the groundwork has already been done.  There are nominally cultural references (well the famous films anyway) which will normally guarantee an audience of some sort.  There is already a script (which may or may not require some rework) and you should be able to find people to be in the movie quite easily.  As a result, the theory is, the house will win because it will get profit for relatively low risk and effort.

I suspect we are coming to the end of the fashion for remakes.  Remember that remaking films is nothing new, it's even occasionally successful, but we've been in a period where the film industry is suffering really badly.  They seem to be obsessed with "film" piracy and haven't recognised that people don't want to pay for crap.  I have a suspicion that we will start to see a few more quality films as soon as one of the houses takes a gamble which pays off.  Only time will tell.

However as we all know this is not true. 


PS. I've only really scratched the surface on this topic (and I don't have time to do it justice right now) I think this is a subject which would make a really excellent thread on its own.


----------



## Harpo (Dec 10, 2007)

*Re: The Belles of St Trinians (2007)*

In case anyone hasn't seen either the new trailer or the original films, here are some clips:

YouTube - St Trinian's (2007) full and final film trailer

YouTube - St. Trinian's - Flash Harry


----------



## Dave (Dec 29, 2007)

I saw this yesterday, well not much on TV, was there?

It was okay, not terrible, but not fall around funny either. Most of the best jokes are spoilered in the trailers. Given a choice, you should see 'I am Legend' (which I will).

I'd just like to answer some of the questions raised:


ray gower said:


> Can they really do it justice without the great character actors like Alistair Simms, Joyce Genfell and George Cole?


I think so. St Trinians did begin life as a Ronald Searle comic strip, though this is a remake of the first film, 'The Belles of St Trinians'. I have seen Brand before on 'Big Brother's, Little Brother' and can see he is easy to dislike, but playing himself here he fits the part I would say.

As for 'sexing-up' the girls, I don't think it was any more shocking that the original would have been in its day

It is advertised as an Ealing Studios film with National Lottery funding. I remember something about the rescue of Ealing studios with Lottery funding, and Ealing studios were the home of many great British comedy films. The only thing is, the original St Trinian films were not made at Ealing, but at Shepperton studios


----------



## PTeppic (Dec 29, 2007)

Having seen both St Trinians and I am Legend, I think I preferred the former... but that's personal choice and YMMV


----------



## BloodAndSouls (Dec 29, 2007)

I haven't seen the original, but I love Russell Brand so I'll probably watch the remake just for him.


----------



## PTeppic (Dec 30, 2007)

I'm not his biggest fan, so thought he might be awful but was pleasantly surprised...


----------



## ray gower (Jan 8, 2008)

Not being quite old enough to be allowed to see it when it first appeared, I didn't want to compare the Belles with this new rendition, but it is very difficult not to; All the right ingredients are there for a classic British slapstick farce- Nothing explicit, just plenty of innuendo and sight gags.

Rupert Everett is no Alistair Sim, but then the sort woman that runs that sort of establishment no longer wears corsets made from Battleship girders either, so he made fair stab.
Russell Brand is pretty woeful as Flash though.
And perhaps the girls of St T's are a little debarbed. There is no way Cheltenham College would have scored in 1954, let alone get off the pitch in a bus. But then every chap who has ever seen a girls school hockey match knows that females between the ages of 13 and 15 have more in common with Atilla the Hun than sugar, spice and anything nice and the match will be the re-enactment of the Battle of Boscombe Down. So we have the necessary poke at the public school system.
The plot is perhaps a little thin, but so were the originals and certainly no worse than many modern films. 
Although updated for the modern day, it is neither crass or vulgar, so all in all, both writers and directors had a good idea of and sympathy for the original.

If you are going to produce a remake of an old film, then I would say this is the one that sets the 'standard' for how to do it?


----------



## Rosemary (Jan 12, 2008)

I've seen the 1955 film and thoroughly enjoyed it.  British comedy just cannot be beaten!

I've only ever watched a couple of remakes of films that I had previously seen, like The Italian Job.  I just did not enjoy them at all, so I doubt if I will be watching the new St Trinians.


----------



## ray gower (Jan 20, 2008)

Just bought the original quartet of Frank Launder films (Amazon do a complete set for £9) and there is enough difference between them to make describing the new one as 'Just Another Bloody Remake' as disingenuous. 

While the fourth form are perhaps not given quite enough time to be portrayed as naturally mindless cannibals, the sixth form are still arch schemers, the film still makes its satirical poke at modern education and youth but without vulgarity or an inflated sheep's bladder on a stick and to be honest, it has a lot more plot than the original.

So let's not describe it as a remake, but the sixth entry into the series with most of the original strengths and nature


----------

