108 replies to this topic

[Arjan Dirkse]

Excalibur remake...aren't there like 3 of those a year already? Plotwise I'm not sure how much that movie was different from any other Arthur/Merlin/Knights of the Round Table projects.

The movie was great, but the story in itself wasn't that remarkable. I think it was the acting and the visuals which made it special. Helen Mirren and Nicol Williamson were brilliant.

[Johnny Henning]

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.

True, and I'm not kidding when I say it reminds me of the HUNGER GAMES. Essentially, you have a rich society of godlike people lording it over barbarians who they dominate, arm and set against each other to keep them from overpopulating and becoming a threat. Zed is a barbarian who goes on a quest to find these gods. He comes across their city, and is kept there as a pet, a slave and a subject of interest for these terminally bored immortals to play with. Then, as he's subjected to all sorts of mental and physical games and experiments by these "eternals," he comes to realize that he is actually a mutated human designed by a traitor eternal scientist, the "Zardoz," to essentially bring the entire, inhuman system crashing down around their ears.

In the end, he does just that, destroys the gods and their city and, with a few now mortal eternal survivors following him, he sets out with his superior power and knowledge to put an end to the cycle of violence they've imposed on the people of the outside world.

[craggy]

it's stupidly wrong of me, probably, but I'd like that story to start with the man destroying the gods, then have much of the show dealing with his building of a better world.

[Nicholas Taggart]

To me Excalibur stands out from all the other King Arthur films I have seen by being the most purely mythic. I love the way it takes bits and pieces from loads of different legends and makes it into this mythic cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. Much more interesting to me than trying to make a realistic King Arthur movie.

[Johnny Henning]

it's stupidly wrong of me, probably, but I'd like that story to start with the man destroying the gods, then have much of the show dealing with his building of a better world.

That's ZARDOZ II!

It could be interesting... or it could be MATRIX RELOADED.

Still, I think the story of one man looking behind the curtain and then destroying his gods would be dramatic enough. Also, it's very unified - a better fit for this sort of movie which, almost by necessity, is in the "follow one man around with the camera" filmmaking model.

Surprisingly, I thought Boorman would've used more of Wizard of Oz in the story than he did with Zed being the Dorothy stand in. Throw in a robot, a human-plant and human-cat hybrids and you'd have interesting versions of the Scarecrow, Tin-Man and Cowardly Lion.

And of course, flying monkeys.

[craggy]

maybe they could do a TV Spin-off?

[Johnny Henning]

You mean like...?

[steveuk]

That's ZARDOZ II!

It could be interesting... or it could be MATRIX RELOADED.

Still, I think the story of one man looking behind the curtain and then destroying his gods would be dramatic enough. Also, it's very unified - a better fit for this sort of movie which, almost by necessity, is in the "follow one man around with the camera" filmmaking model.

Surprisingly, I thought Boorman would've used more of Wizard of Oz in the story than he did with Zed being the Dorothy stand in. Throw in a robot, a human-plant and human-cat hybrids and you'd have interesting versions of the Scarecrow, Tin-Man and Cowardly Lion.

And of course, flying monkeys.

I think the process of bringing the gods down to earth (as it were) would probably be more exciting than "what happens next?"

There are more films about WW2 than about the post-war reconstruction, even though some good films have been made about the period.

As for Zardoz and 'The Wizard of Oz'; Boorman's really wasn't a straightforward man in any way. Everything I've read about him, including his autobiography, makes it clear that he was mostly interested in coming at things sideways.

I'm using the past tense because his later films have been less unusual, he's not dead or anything.

[craggy]

You mean like...?

I can't see that image.
so...maybe?

[Johnny Henning]

Are you blind!

As for Zardoz and 'The Wizard of Oz'; Boorman's really wasn't a straightforward man in any way. Everything I've read about him, including his autobiography, makes it clear that he was mostly interested in coming at things sideways.

I'm using the past tense because his later films have been less unusual, he's not dead or anything.

He used to edit or publish a periodical on filmmaking, right? PROJECTIONS? It was pretty good as I recall.

As an oddity, ZARDOZ stands out. However, what I find interesting - as I mentioned about most cult films - was the idea that somehow everyone involved with the production looked at this (below) and thought - yeah, this'll be a massive hit!



Here's part of Ebert's review which is about the only one I can find from the period: http://rogerebert.su.../401010325/1023

...The movie is an exercise in self-indulgence (if often an interesting one) by Boorman, who more or less had carte blanche to do a personal project after his immensely successful DELIVERANCE. Boorman seems fascinated by stories which are disconnected from the ordinary realist assumptions of most movies; his LEO THE LAST (1970) gave us Marcello Mastroianni as the last of the big-time decadents, living in a mansion at the end of a deserted street in an eerie London.

Boorman puts a lot of heavy concepts into ZARDOZ, but seems uncertain whether he takes them seriously himself. There are sight gags (the attempt to turn on Connery with futuristic pornography provides the best) , there are group seances that seem lifted bodily from pajama parties, there is no end of special visual effects (every optical printer in England must have been busy for weeks), and at the end there's a combination shoot-out and mercy-killing spree that is at once ridiculous, depraved and low camp.

Sean Connery wanders through all of this with a slightly bemused expression on his face. He begins as a barbarian given to distrust and childish impulses, but after he gathers all knowledge to himself (the movie is full of phrases like "gathers all knowledge to himself"), he turns into a sort of body-building Einstein who sees into the center of the Vortex, deciphers the wisdom of the crystal, stimulates the Apathetics (that's another social class I forgot to mention), makes love with a good-looking Immortal dame (she regains the knack) and finally turns into a fossil while the sound track milks Beethoven's 7th for all it's worth...

[steveuk]

I think most of them saw a paycheck, as usual.

Connery... I'm not sure, but he's done some interesting work around the star vehicles so even he might not have been planning his Oscar speech when he put on that costume.

[David Meadows]

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

I'm looking forward to that for the car chase with the exploding caravans. And the Albanian gangster who speaks cockney rhyming slang

[steveuk]

I'm looking forward to that for the car chase with the exploding caravans. And the Albanian gangster who speaks cockney rhyming slang

It looks like enough of a joke without any help!

'The Sweeney' wasn't that ludicrously macho even back in the 70's.

[Rory Abel]

I think most of them saw a paycheck, as usual.

Connery... I'm not sure, but he's done some interesting work around the star vehicles so even he might not have been planning his Oscar speech when he put on that costume.

At the same time he turned down starring in both the Matrix and Lord of the Rings because he didn't "get" them so who knows what he thinks when he reads a script?

[Christian U]

I'm damned if I know...

The ship sinking isn't the ending to the story told in Titanic. It's just one circumstance that we know will be happening.

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

Well, not a lot of people read history for entertainment, that's for sure.

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?

Giving your audience glimpses of the ending of the story you're telling is a very different thing from making a prequel. It's a narrative technique and does in no way limit the story you want to tell in the first place.




Come to think of it, though, you could use prequelisation in the same manner that the fate of the Titanic can be used - the essence of tragedy being that you cannot escape your destiny, even if you know what's coming, and its looming above you while you're trying to fight it is the whole point of things. That would've made sense for Star Wars, certainly.

[Rory Abel]

Come to think of it, though, you could use prequelisation in the same manner that the fate of the Titanic can be used - the essence of tragedy being that you cannot escape your destiny, even if you know what's coming, and its looming above you while you're trying to fight it is the whole point of things. That would've made sense for Star Wars, certainly.

Lucas has claimed since the start that his intent with the Star Wars prequels were exactly that. From wikipedia:

This change in character would provide a springboard to the "Tragedy of Darth Vader" storyline that underlies the prequels.^[15]

For Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, the first film in the prequel trilogy, Lucas made Anakin nine years old to make the character's departure from his mother more poignant.^[9] Movie trailers for The Phantom Menace focused on Anakin, and a one-sheet poster showing him casting Vader's shadow informed otherwise unknowing audiences of the character's eventual fate.^[16] The movie ultimately achieved a primary goal of introducing audiences to Anakin Skywalker.^[1]

After deciding to create the prequels, Lucas indicated the series would be a tragic one examining Anakin Skywalker's fall to the dark side. He also saw that the prequels could form the beginning of one long story that started with Anakin's childhood and ended with his death. This was the final step towards turning the film series into a "Saga".^[17]

[Christian U]

Lucas has claimed since the start that his intent with the Star Wars prequels were exactly that.

It was? Well, that didn't work out at all now, did it.

[Rory Abel]

It was? Well, that didn't work out at all now, did it.

Yeah. I was actually having a conversation recently where we were talking about whether campy horror films from the 80's were intentionally funny or just really bad at being scary.

[Arjan Dirkse]

Boy, they really did screw up those Star Wars prequels didn't they

I think it will be interesting to see wether they can in any way redeem the franchise. Rescue the franchise from the Dark Side, so to speak...

Edited by Arjan Dirkse, 06 April 2012 - 03:50 PM.

[Henry Blanco]

Well, not a lot of people read history for entertainment, that's for sure.

*sheepishly raises my hand*