108 replies to this topic

[Christian U]

I'm fine with both remakes (if there's a point to them and they're in any way interesting) and sequels and reboots and all of that. The one thing I can't stand are, as you know, prequels. I just don't see why anyone would want to tell a story leading up to something rather than further developing a line of thought. It's so limiting, comparatively.

I'd make an exception for a Tales of Aragorn movie.

(Kidding.)

(Maybe.)

[David Meadows]

The one thing I can't stand are, as you know, prequels. I just don't see why anyone would want to tell a story leading up to something rather than further developing a line of thought. It's so limiting, comparatively.

You're right. That's why Batman Year One was so rubbish in the comics.

[Christian U]

Yeah, because comics characters with their constantly changing backstories and convolution of characters' developments are the obvious way to go to justify sequels

(And I thought Dark Knight Returns was better, anyway! In your face!)

[Steve Sensible]

You're right. That's why Batman Year One was so rubbish in the comics.

Year One wasn't a prequel. It was a retelling of the origin story.

[Christian U]

That is also a good point

[steveuk]

It was a prequel the first time someone wrote the origin, which wasn't the first Batman story that appeared.

My only problem with prequels, or sequels, is when they undermine what already exists. A sequel that takes a "happy ever after" ending (or even an "unhappy ever after ending") and undoes it so they can tell another story is just as bad as a prequel that demystifies, confuses or weakens aspects of a character's backstory.

[Christian U]

It was a prequel the first time someone wrote the origin, which wasn't the first Batman story that appeared.

Also a fair point! But then I have no idea if that prequel was any good or not.

My only problem with prequels, or sequels, is when they undermine what already exists. A sequel that takes a "happy ever after" ending (or even an "unhappy ever after ending") and undoes it so they can tell another story is just as bad as a prequel that demystifies, confuses or weakens aspects of a character's backstory.

Weirdly, I have no problem with a sequel unmaking an ending. I suppose the original movie is still there for me as it was. In the same way, my problem with a prequel isn't the impact is has on the originals (well, except maybe in the case of Star Wars) but rather with the prequel itself.

[steveuk]

Also a fair point! But then I have no idea if that prequel was any good or not.

I'm sure its been reprinted.

Weirdly, I have no problem with a sequel unmaking an ending. I suppose the original movie is still there for me as it was. In the same way, my problem with a prequel isn't the impact is has on the originals (well, except maybe in the case of Star Wars) but rather with the prequel itself.

They why make a special case for prequels if it's not about how they affect the pre-established (but subsequent) story?

[Christian U]

I'm sure its been reprinted.


They why make a special case for prequels if it's not about how they affect the pre-established (but subsequent) story?

It's more about how it affects the prequel. No matter what story you're telling, the end point of the voyage is already fixed. I think that is more limiting than the starting point being set. Doesn't mean you can't do a lot of interesting, or even great, things with it, but it just kind of goes against the grain with me. Why would you want to tell a story where the ending is already told?

[steveuk]

I'm damned if I know...



Why does anyone read history, if not to know where things came from?

[The Lorcan Nagle]

Even leaving aside Titanic or something like All Quiet on the Western Front, what about stories that start in media res, or have an achronological order like Memento?

[Andrew]

There's that quote, questioning why everyone remakes already good/great films, instead of trying to improve on bad films. Pick a film that had potential but was squandered by a poor director, or studio interference, and remake THAT.

[Johnny Henning]

Solarbabies fits that description. So do a lot of films from the late 70's and 80's. BATTLE BEYOND THE STARS - basically The Magnificent Seven in Space - would be equally prime for a remake along the lines of FIREFLY but interstellar instead of interplanetary.

Like the British film, LIFEFORCE, for example. It, too, had a great idea, but really needed a better budget and plot.

[steveuk]

Solarbabies fits that description. So do a lot of films from the late 70's and 80's. BATTLE BEYOND THE STARS - basically The Magnificent Seven in Space - would be equally prime for a remake along the lines of FIREFLY but interstellar instead of interplanetary.

Like the British film, LIFEFORCE, for example. It, too, had a great idea, but really needed a better budget and plot.

'Lifeforce' is a cult film for precisely those reasons. Well those and Matilda May.

I'm a fan, but I'm still not sure I understand exactly what's going on sometimes? The book is much more scifi and strays into Lovecraftian scifi/horror territory.

'The Keep' was also a lost opportunity, but even the author now admits its a tough story to tell cinematically.

[Johnny Henning]

Still, it could be a much more popular film with a better production - the concept itself is pretty great - Space vampires invade Earth and cause a worldwide zombie plague. It hits every possible category, including a Lovecraftian backstory for the aliens and a Twilight-esque love story for the vampires.

I mean, this could be an Avatar-level epic movie.

As a basic idea, THE KEEP also has a lot of potential, but, other than ALIENS, very few war-based horror movies seem to succeed even as good movies. R-POINT and DEATHWATCH are two that are pretty good, but still don't quite pay-off nor were they big hits.

Essentially, it's the SS vs DRACULA, but the problem is that, first, you know - I'm rooting for Dracula in that scenario, and, second, the war and holocaust are so horrifying in themselves that throwing in Dracula is sort of comical.

I think remakes make sense for a lot of cult movies because, originally, the filmmakers were trying to appeal to a wide mainstream audience. It's not really the basic concepts of LIFEFORCE or THE KEEP that make them cult movies, but the strangeness of the films themselves that acquired it - probably a little unfairly since neither movie really has much of a following today other than nostalgia for those who saw them when they came out.

Ridley Scott's LEGEND (with Tom Cruise) is another film in that category. Or Boorman's EXCALIBUR maybe, though I seem to recall it was pretty successful as well.

Speaking of Boorman, could ZARDOZ be remade into a watchable film?



Maybe something closer to THE FIFTH ELEMENT?


Now, as far as bad movies made out of good books, I think this one has to win first prize: Ghost Story (1981)

The book is on par with King's Salem's Lot but the movie completely screwed up the story in every possible way.

Speaking of King, I think there are a number of his stories that could be remade or adapted today. I'd like to see James Watkins (The Woman In Black) adapt Jerusalem's Lot (the short story)or any of his early supernatural work to the screen. There was a movie made from King's The Night Flier which was carried by the performance of the constantly underrated Miguel Ferrer, but I think it would fine for a remake. King's stories, I think, are better suited to film than many of his novels.

[steveuk]

Still, it could be a much more popular film with a better production - the concept itself is pretty great - Space vampires invade Earth and cause a worldwide zombie plague. It hits every possible category, including a Lovecraftian backstory for the aliens and a Twilight-esque love story for the vampires.

I mean, this could be an Avatar-level epic movie.

It could, but that also demonstrates just how silly a lot of big movies are when you get to their core ideas.

'Lifeforce' would probably be screwed up again, even if it happened for different reasons. The 80's version just gets strange but a modern remake would, like as not, become silly.

If you get rid of the trashy elements, the nudity, the scenery-chewing cast and the flashy FX then you'd have to take it all very seriously in an 'I Am Legend' way in order to make it interesting, and it might not be all that interesting without those things?

Alternatively keep all of those things and give it to Michael Bay.

As a basic idea, THE KEEP also has a lot of potential, but, other than ALIENS, very few war-based horror movies seem to succeed even as good movies. R-POINT and DEATHWATCH are two that are pretty good, but still don't quite pay-off nor were they big hits.

Essentially, it's the SS vs DRACULA, but the problem is that, first, you know - I'm rooting for Dracula in that scenario, and, second, the war and holocaust are so horrifying in themselves that throwing in Dracula is sort of comical.

True, in both cases.

The book is interesting, but it doesn't quite work either, neither did Wilson's own comic adaption recently.

It probably is a concept that sounds better than it writes.

Ridley Scott's LEGEND (with Tom Cruise) is another film in that category. Or Boorman's EXCALIBUR maybe, though I seem to recall it was pretty successful as well.

Speaking of Boorman, could ZARDOZ be remade into a watchable film?

Maybe something closer to THE FIFTH ELEMENT?

'Legend' could be redone like 'Snow White and the Huntsman', but why bother? Its not a title with any recognition value and the story is so slight it could be reworked into something unrecognisable very easily.

'Zardoz' doesn't seem to offer much to re-use, but 'Excaliber' IS being redone. Bryan Singer is directing.

[Johnny Henning]

That's pretty interesting. Excalibur itself, and not simply the Arthur legend?

I think if you went back to ZARDOZ with today's perspective, there are a lot of interesting ideas to play with. First, it's almost a simpler version of Dan Simmons' ILIUM/OLYMPOS novels mixed a bit with the old 80's Russian (or Polish) animated movie Chronopolis. Second, the basic plot is quite simple and pretty direct compared to most science fiction novels. Make the characters teenagers, and it's like the HUNGER GAMES!

However, I think it would have to have a lot of humor to work as well.

[steveuk]

That's pretty interesting. Excalibur itself, and not simply the Arthur legend?

Yes, but its dead/dormant right now; http://www.cinemable...Dead-27411.html

I think if you went back to ZARDOZ with today's perspective, there are a lot of interesting ideas to play with. First, it's almost a simpler version of Dan Simmons' ILIUM/OLYMPOS novels mixed a bit with the old 80's Russian (or Polish) animated movie Chronopolis. The basic plot is quite simple and pretty direct compared to most science fiction novels.

However, I think it would have to have a lot of humor to work as well.

Maybe, its a film I haven't seen in a very long time and I mostly remember the utter strangeness of it.

I don't know how much would survive a remake?

[Rory Abel]

Maybe, its a film I haven't seen in a very long time and I mostly remember the utter strangeness of it.

I don't know how much would survive a remake?

Why does it matter how much survives? Cronenberg's The Fly has very little in common with the original film and is still one of the best remakes around.

Edited by Rory Abel, 04 April 2012 - 08:50 PM.

[steveuk]

It only matters if it works or not. 'The Fly' was a recognisable premise and had the tragic tone that still worked, with a lot of work of course,

'Zardoz' was (I think) a very strange product of the 60's/70's and I don't recall much worth keeping from it. Better to start from scratch.

Now, for those of us familiar with UK cop shows;