Tony Scott Explains Why He's Moving The Warriors to LA

June 3, 2009
Source: Rotten Tomatoes

The Warriors

We must have missed the memo. When was it announced that The Warriors was being remade? And by Tony Scott, nonetheless? Whatever the case, Rotten Tomatoes caught up with the director and got him to reveal why he wants to move the remake from New York to Los Angeles. From the sounds of it, this is going to be much more of a reboot or a re-imagining than a remake. Scott explains: "I love the original Warriors and I'm using the same basic story. It's really still 10 guys stuck at point B and they need to get back to point A. But I'm going to set it in Los Angeles and it's going to be a kind of study of gang culture in LA today."

The Warriors, for those who don't know, is a 1979 cult classic about a group of gang members who try to get from the Bronx all the way back to their home turf of Coney Island primarily via the subway. I actually got to see it on the big screen in New York a few years ago and it's a great movie. With that said, though, not only is Scott bringing it to Los Angeles, but he's going big, very big. "I'm hoping to get a hundred thousand real gang-members standing on the Vincent Thomas Bridge for one shot," Scott explains. But why move it to LA? "It's a city which is horizontal. New York is vertical, all skyscrapers, and Los Angeles is horizontal."

In regards to all those thousands of gang members, Scott is actually trying to pull together real gang members. "I've been meeting the various gangs as part of the research," he says. "I never meet the gang leader, always his second-in-command. I have to do this little tap-dance and sell the film to them. I've met them all, Crips, Bloods, The 18th Street Gang, The Vietnamese and so on. The all love The Warriors. So it was, 'Yeah, fuck yeah we'll be in that!'" That's a bit scary, but if he thinks he can pull it off, then so be it. I get what he's trying to do and I'm sure it'll be big and thrilling, kind of like Crank with some gang members.

As a die-hard fan of the original movie, I'm inherently opposed to the remake, but I at least understand what Scott is doing and I expect it to do fairly well in theaters in the end anyway. But that said, I'll have to see more to really make a real judgment. But will this transition to Los Angeles upset too many New York fans?

Find more posts: Movie News, Opinions

Discover more around the web:

Reader Feedback - 38 Comments


I call bulls**t. There's no way he sat down with leaders of gangs. "Ello thea. I'm an old white Englishman directa who wants to get all of the gangs hea in LA to get together peacefully and be filmed. How does that sound?" BS! And this movie is BS also. Unless they call it something different and do not refer it to the original.

Dan W on Jun 3, 2009


Another remake. Surprise surprise.

Stevo on Jun 3, 2009


Bo-------gus! I'm not a big fan of The Warriors but the reason it is such a cult hit is because it's campy as hell. The plot/acting/costumes/etc are all totally ridiculous and the idea of "re-imagining" the film (or its source novel) as something modern and serious is even more so. I'm fine with a Tony Scott LA gang film, even if it does use the same basic idea. But there is no reason to associate a new (serious) film with The Warriors other than to sell tickets via said association. Why not remake The Rocky Horror Picture Show as a dark, bloody, sci-fi thriller. Bullshit.

Mark on Jun 3, 2009


Yeah this is going to be retarded. The same guy that just remade Pelham 1 2 3, which I'm assuming will suck. This movie does not need to be remade.

D on Jun 3, 2009


I agree D. This is a classic and it should stay that way. Hollywood sure knows how to ruin a good thing.

John is a Basterd on Jun 3, 2009


old news Alex..he's been talking about remaking Warriors since Domino...even stating on the Domino commentary about using real gang members instead of actors for the remake...

Christopher M. on Jun 3, 2009


This was announced back in 2004-05. There's probably a good reason why it still hasn't been made.

AW on Jun 3, 2009

8 There's a link to a September 2005 story about this. But it was announced much earlier than that.

AW on Jun 3, 2009


Am I the only one who wants to see this?

Smiffy1 on Jun 4, 2009


GOD i hope it's not crank with gang members. why did you say that.

Ben on Jun 4, 2009


and for the record, this one's been in the works for years

Ben on Jun 4, 2009


study of gang culture lol. All these movies do is glorify gang culture in the eyes of youth. And what in the frick is with all these remakes?

JimD on Jun 4, 2009


THIS IS THE WORST NEWS YET!!!! i heard about this awhile ago, and it still boils my blood. And as someone who literally adored The Warriors (i was one 4 years in a row for halloween =D) I'm sooo gah damn upset! and fuck Tony Scott, Walter Hill (the original director) got all the gangs in NY for his peace scene, and didn't gloat about it at all. and moving it to LA? fuck that idea, half the reason it was so good was the amazing shots through NY's shoddier parts of town. Tony Scotts a pussy and just wants to shoot close to Hollywood so he can feel safe i spit on this idea and if i didn't have to hunt down Kurt Wimmer and stop him from ruining Total Recall i would totally destroy Tony Scott

DoomCanoe on Jun 4, 2009


dont fucking touch it tony. NOBODY ASKED YOU TO

gabe the Accuser on Jun 4, 2009


"But I'm going to set it in Los Angeles and it's going to be a kind of study of gang culture in LA today." FUCK THAT. This movie was supposed to be like a comic book, with the over-the-top gangs, and the ridiculous assholes who are in them. This is not cool, I don't give a flying fuck about "gang culture". No one does. I now hate this man.

Syphous on Jun 4, 2009


Can you dig this? I can´t.

fishsticks on Jun 4, 2009


Well, for my own part, I'd love to see a reboot of The Warriors. If it's bad, no loss (at least not to me, but I don't hold the original in some sacred light, either). If it's good, awesome. I think the premise of The Warriors is really fun, and I'd like to see another film made around it. I don't think anyone should take Scott's comment about exploring gang culture too seriously. After all, it's a straightforward action story, so it obviously won't be an episode of Gangland. I suspect he's just trying to make it sound like it won't be a B-movie (which is how everyone remembers the original, fans and critics alike), or it's just a somewhat pretentious way of saying he'll exploit the full range of LA Gangs, who now come from all sorts of backgrounds and countries. If he does it right, the latter would be cartoonish enough to capture the spirit of the original without seeming quite as childish (though I suspect some people only like the original for how dated it now seems). In any case, it might suck, but I'm interested to see what he does with it. Honestly, people expressing outrage over a reboot strikes me as silly as people bitching about the new Star Trek, which still boggles my mind.

Petoria on Jun 4, 2009


No Coney Island? No Meeting in the Bronx? No NY Subway system? No guys on roller boots? On my first trip to New York I actually went to Coney Island specifically because of that film. Just call it something else for fucks sake.

Crapola on Jun 4, 2009


So wait, let me get this straight.... He's going to put (try) all of LA gang members on one bridge. That sounds like a death wish to me. If these gangs can’t control themselves, what makes Tony think he could control them. I've seen a lot of Ross Kemp and Louis Theroux to determine that this is not going to work. But if Tony could pull it off, more power to him. I'll watch it, then I'll tell women to tie a mattress on there backs so they could be more comfortable!

MiKeDeEz on Jun 4, 2009


I really think it's an elaborate plot by the LAPD to week out gang members by having them take each other out. Blaming some half-witted Englishman for the death of 50,000 gang members removes all liability from the authorities. I like it. Honestly, he may have done some decent movies, but any director of a George Michael video is not my friend.

Cody on Jun 4, 2009


# 18 I'm totally with you dude,especialy the subway was i.m.o a mayor part of the plot. There's no point whatsofuckin` ever to do remake of the Warriors,some movies just do NOT lent themself for a remake,anywichway you rewrite it.Step off suckas!! Peace y`all.

Zerge on Jun 4, 2009


Remake, remake, remake yawn...ZzzZZzzzzZZ

Thomas on Jun 4, 2009


Tony Scott don't have to explains why he's moving the Warriors to LA, he explain why he's doin a remake of Warriors in the first place, take your stinking hands off Tony

Thomas on Jun 4, 2009


this movie is going straight to BET

richard on Jun 4, 2009


i always thought this would be a great remake if Quentin Tarantino did it... now i'm nervous.

jason on Jun 4, 2009


Meh dont know why this pisses you guys off so much just another remake on the list of 1000 in the next years

cody on Jun 4, 2009


It was 9 warriors that had to make it back not 10 you silly bitch. Tony Scott should die of colon cancer for doing this. I hope they all get shot in LA when filming, so this movie is never made. But non the less im curious whod the actors be? Fuck Tony Scott, Ridley Scott should direct.

Jesus is gay on Jun 4, 2009


OKAY.... The 1st movie was a classic. In my opinion it set the stage for every side-scoller videogame ever made. I will withhold judgement until I see more, but dude, he better not "F" this thing up.

Mr j Money on Jun 4, 2009


How can directors call themselves fans of a movie then remake them? It can't understand that.

Dir3ct on Jun 4, 2009


UN-FUCKING BELIEVABLE When I first heard about the Re-Make, I was like please no. I'm speechless but # 18 I can't explain any better then you have

Blue & Orange NY on Jun 4, 2009


I laugh my ASS OFF every time I see that chick get BLASTED with the chair in slow motion! I don't know about this reboot.

Joe Moms on Jun 4, 2009


this is such a travesty that it's not even funny!!! someone should go buy AND read the book BEFORE trying to "re imagine" or " remake" this movie! this is one film that should not be touched except to watch over and over again! the setting IS new york and if you screw with that then it's NOT the warriors.....HELLO! just plain stupid it's sad.

thejugfather on Jun 5, 2009


Man I'm glad everyone else is upset like me. I honestly don't mind it being remade... but LA? LA??? REAL GANG CULTURE? It's going to keep me up at night praying to every deity that Mr. Scotts head gets lodged so far up his own ass that he suffocates on his crumpet filled scat.

Syphous on Jun 5, 2009


It's the only gang movie New York has!!!! Why steal and add a bunch of Crips and Blood waving guns and flashing signs??? Theirs nothing to be seen in that!?!? 1993 much

Mag on Jun 8, 2009


Most of you have something against L.A.. i can tell. I live in L.A . There is more gangs then just crips and bloods. I know for a fact there is Punk And Skinhead gangs here in L.A so that would be a great addition to the movie.

oipunx310 on Dec 18, 2009


Most of you have something against L.A.. i can tell. I live in Los Angeles . There is more gangs then just crips and bloods. I know for a fact there is Punk And Skinhead gangs here in L.A so that would be a great addition to the movie.

oipunx310 on Dec 18, 2009


@ #36 Yep, L.A's gang culture has a nice healthy splash of Gang Punx and Skins. If they forget this, then i curse this film to fail, cos quite frankly, i'm sick of seeing films about the black and mexican gangs.... infact, are we even gonna see any asian gangs? Tony Scott has no idea how the streets breathe, therefore, this film is probably gonna be another film just glorifying black and mexican gangs... FAIL.

Antis-Oi!-cial on Jul 6, 2010


Who gives a shit about seeing "real" gang members? Watch Gang Land on the history channel if you're that torqued up about it. Did Gone with the Wind use real civil wars soldiers - HELL NO! And LA!? What a stupid idea!? Or wait, do they have a subway system I don't know about? Because that was part of the fun of the original, it had different levels. Like a video game before video games. Another HUGE problem - gangs have cell phones now. They could just hide, call for help and wait. When the original was made, cell phones were called phone booths. That was the problem, our guys were on foreign turf, cut off with no communication. They had to fight (or bop) their way home. Tony Scott, get your head out of your ass. Go screw up some other classic.

laughingcrows on Jul 15, 2010

Sorry, no commenting is allowed at this time.




Alex's Top 10 - 2017
1. Call Me By Your...
2. War for Apes
3. Shape of Water
4. Florida Project
5. Dunkirk
6. Jane
7. Foxtrot
8. Faces, Places
9. Never Really Here
10. Thelma
Click Here for Thoughts

Jeremy's Top 10 - 2017
1. mother!
2. Lady Bird
3. A Ghost Story
4. The Big Sick
5. Dunkirk
6. Get Out
7. Killing Sacred Deer
8. John Wick 2
9. War for Apes
10. The Beguiled
Click Here for Thoughts


Subscribe to our feed or daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main profile on twitter:
For the news posts only, follow this acct:
Add our feed to your Feedly: follow us in feedly