SF films/shows that ought to be remade?

[vhsiv]

I was passsing the time this afternoon, and happened to come accross the ill-fated Brainstorm (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085271/maindetails) (1983), which turned out to be Natalie Wood's last film, because she died prior to the film's completion, and director, Douglas Trumbull's last film, because he insisted on completing it after Woods' death, and the studio MGM/UA would have sooner taken the money and run, rather than complete the film.

That said, the film is good, though it doesn't quite fulfill it's potential... my question then, is can anybody think of other films or shows that ought to be remade?

Off the top of my head, I've come up with the following:Brainstorm (1983)
Silent Running (1972)
The Matrix Revolutions (2003)
Soylent Green (1973)
'I Am Legend/Omega Man/Last Man On Earth' Other suggestion are hereby solicited...

[PrairieScaper]

Originally posted by vhsiv
Silent Running (1972)
Soylent Green (1973)
Redoing "Silent Running" is bad enough, but you would remake "Soylent Green"??? :shocked:

But WHY? To make it 'better?' How?!

I'd rather see new genre flicks rather than recycling old ones, particularly classics. Don't you think the new ones would only suffer by comparison?

[fermicat]

I'm not big on remakes, but there are lots of good SF books I'd like to see made into movies.

Examples: A Fire Upon The Deep, A Deepness In The Sky, The Doomsay Book, the Hyperion series, Ender's Game, etc..

[ChianaMuse]

I heard somewhere that they ARE making Ender's Game into a movie.

and if anyone ever remakes Soylent Green, there will be the WRATH OF KERRI to face. :grr:
And nobody likes me when I'm angry. :elol:

-kerri

[Digger]

Originally posted by fermicat
Ender's Game Having just read the entite "Ender" series for the first time last month (and getting very little sleep during that period because I was constantly staying up until 2 or 3 in the morning) I would also vote for this. What an amazing book. And I think it would translate to the screen really well.

But I agree that I would rather not remake sci-fi films that have already been done well, like Soylent Green. I hate when that happens (as I've said on this board several times). There is no need to remake something that is already considered a classic. Find something new, or even something that wasn't done well the first time.

[scrape_medic]

That is a film that should never be remade. It is a classic and was one of the first films to really get me blubbering. I think all the kids in the world who throw rubbish on the street, buy something one week only to throw it away the next, think nothing of wasting everything, should be made to watch this film. It made an environmentalist out of me.

Long live huey, dewey and louey [I don't think I spelt that right - what the hey].

[Darth Buddha]

You know, of your recommendations, the ones below are all movies that don't require a lot of special effects. If Skiffy wants original films, they really ought to consider them.

Brainstorm (1983)
You are right, Natalie Wood's death made this DOA.

Silent Running (1972)
Yes, new special effects & scientific knowledge would make a redo far more believable, but WHERE are you going to find somebody to take the role that Bruce Dern played?

Soylent Green (1973)
The original was a bit baked, it could easily be done again. The acting might be a little expensive for Skiffy or a USA/Spike type channel. After all, we are talking Edward G. Robinson here!

'I Am Legend/Omega Man/Last Man On Earth'
Also an easy one to do, but you need some decent acting to pull it off.

[vhsiv]

Originally posted by PrairieScaper
Redoing "Silent Running" is bad enough, but you would remake "Soylent Green"??? :shocked:

But WHY? To make it 'better?' How?!

I'd rather see new genre flicks rather than recycling old ones, particularly classics. Don't you think the new ones would only suffer by comparison? I knew I was going to take some heat on this one... :whip:

But it was the Trumbull thing that got me going - as I was watching 'Brainstorm' and reading some IMDB.com comments on it, the film seemed strangely prescient for a pre-Silicon Valley world - the tech edge, the culture of innovators, etc., etc., which made me consider Trumbull's other film, 'Silent Running'.

Since 'Silent Running' was released in 1972, it seems that ecological concerns have become much more of a mainstream concern. The film is more an artifact of the times in which it was created - post '60's - rather than something that addresses our current Global Warming situation and our current concerns about energy sources. While I think we could lose the cute robots and the Joan Baez on the soundtrack, our knowledge and concerns about the ecology have only deepend.

As much can also be said of 'Soylent Green', though my only problem with that film is that we have no idea what's going on outside of the Greater New York area - is that all that's left of the civilized world? What are the energy needs/concerns of the world, now that we've turned ourselves over to the mass-processing of Soy and seaweed, and Soylent Green 'Corpse McNuggets' to feed whatever industrialized bits of civilization that are left. What of disease and health-care in this Brave New World?

In that film, the open sewer of NYC, c. 2022 that so closely resembles some of the rougher neighborhoods of NYC c. 1973. What has become of health care, etc. in this dystopic society? The way the film depicted it, the city was ripe for a pandemic of some sort, but there was no evidence thereof. Granted our 'modern' concerns about genetically modified foods (GM), Mad Cow Disease and AIDS, these elements would certainly factor into the decisions about which persons and corpses were chosen for consumption. The original filmmakers probably couldn't imagine any of theese variables, yet here we are, 30 years later, plate-full of many of the same concerns (ecological, sociological, ethical, ecomomic) for both movies.

Why remake them? Because the issues addressed in those films are still relevant in ways that 'Gilligan's Island', 'Skeeeter', 'Bugs', the latest Ashton Kucher film and 'The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas' are not. And if you did them well, they'd be sure to draw an audience.

And Buddha, thanks for the props...:cool:

[grinner]

'The Postman' Because the evil one, Kevin Costner, destroyed a brilliant book by inserting his politics.

DIE COSTNER, DIE.

[AnnieBW]

You could call it "New and Improved Soylent Green." "Good people. Good Soylent Green." :rollin:

[AnnieBW]

Originally posted by fermicat
I'm not big on remakes, but there are lots of good SF books I'd like to see made into movies.

Examples: A Fire Upon The Deep, A Deepness In The Sky, The Doomsay Book, the Hyperion series, Ender's Game, etc..

David Brin's "Earth", "Forever War", and, of course, the "Harry Dresden: Wizard" series! (With James Marsters as Harry, Ben as Michael, and George Carlin as the voice of Bob the Skull.)

[grinner]

Originally posted by AnnieBW
David Brin's "Earth", "Forever War", and, of course, the "Harry Dresden: Wizard" series! (With James Marsters as Harry, Ben as Michael, and George Carlin as the voice of Bob the Skull.) The Forever War and Forever Free. Maybe even Forever Peace. All three are awesome books.

Anything by Mike Resnik. Santiago, the Widowmaker trilogy...

[vhsiv]

Originally posted by AnnieBW
... and, of course, the "Harry Dresden: Wizard" series! (With James Marsters as Harry, Ben as Michael, and George Carlin as the voice of Bob the Skull.) I'm not familiar with the David Brin books, but "aye" on 'The Forever War', though that's a notorious middle-ground between 'Ender' and 'Starship Troopers'. As for Marsters, I always thought he'd make the best 'John Constantine' - unfortunately, that role has already been usurped by a dark-haired Keanu Reeves - or is it Nicholas Cage... ?You could call it "New and Improved Soylent Green." "Good people. Good Soylent Green." That sounds notoriously like a Paul Verhoeven film - or at least a Verhoeven commercial insert, in one of his films. For some reason, I don't think he'd be the right director for the remake... Michael Mann, Tony Scott, Paul W.S. Anderson, Andrew 'Gattaca' Niccol, or Paul 'Gangster No. 1' McGuigan could direct, though...

[Antrobus]

Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes - See if Skiffy could make a worse/funnier version !!
http://ia.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/12/93/91m.jpg

...on that same note, how about a remake of Barbarella!!

[grinner]

Originally posted by Antrobus
Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes - See if Skiffy could make a worse/funnier version !!
http://ia.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/12/93/91m.jpg
http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/coverv/70/215070_thumb.jpg
why would you want to remake this classic. It is good as it is.

[vhsiv]

Originally posted by Antrobus
...on that same note, how about a remake of Barbarella!! Now there's a film that doesn't need to be remade - ever.

It's perfect. No one could replace Jane Fonda.

Ever.

[DRD2001]

Freaks should be remade. But it won't be done because it isn't PC. But the ending just ruined this film. After a disclaimer at the intro stating that genetically disabled people are no different than you or me, capable of love, sorrow, joy and despair, they give it a "supernatural"ending. Ugh!

[JrMissToughChick]

1984

[ChianaMuse]

I was reading an ezine that I get today, and I saw this and thought of this thread:

-- Whose Running Logan?
The Monitor is reporting that Matt Damon will be the lead in the upcoming remake of "Logan's Run." Confused? Damon is the one that can act and Affleck is the one that used to hang with Jennifer Lopez. "Logan's Run" is one of my favorite classic sci-fi films and concerns a world where the age of 30 means death. Actually, that's pretty much the way it works in Hollywood.
eek. I really don't want them to remake that...
and there was also a rumour that Speilberg wants to make John Christopher's Tripod trilogy a movie or three. I don't want that to happen either...


*sigh*

[vhsiv]

Originally posted by JrMissToughChick
1984 Wha'... JrMissToughChick - You didn't like the 1984 version (http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:91) with John Hurt? I don't think anyone could have cast a better actor. John Hurt is Winston Smith.

I mean, I didn't intend on this becoming a flaming session, but please give reasons why you think such-and-such or so-and-so need to be remade.

PrairieScaper already put my feet to the fire, and I stepped in to back it up. You need to justify your need for a remake.

And ChianaMuse, THAT'S just shameless. It seems as if they're pimping any and eveything they can get their hands on these days with some young, telegenic star... Granted Mr. Damon is a great improvement over Richard Chamberlain ('The Bourne Identity (http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:6803)', 1988), but does he need to slap his face on yet another remake, without cause or urgency? I mean he's aleady *over 30*, right? It would be one thing if they adopted the idea of 'Logan's Run' with a new story (see 'Gattaca (http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:158677)'), but reimaginings of the Battlestar Galactica sort are just lame. If they want to trreat a subject, do something to make it better, not worse. If Mr. Damon wants to tackle a project of this sort, he ought to go after 'Brave New World' as that's only been done for television - in 1980 (http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:124174) and 1998 (http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:161646), respectively, if you're not counting 'Gattaca' - and when the tv guys did it, they did it poorly.

[Darth Buddha]

Killer Tomatoes

Originally posted by grinner
http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/coverv/70/215070_thumb.jpg
why would you want to remake this classic. It is good as it is. You know, I wouldn't mind, but John Astin is irreplaceable.

[BillFrugge]

Originally posted by Darth Buddha
Killer Tomatoes

You know, I wouldn't mind, but John Astin is irreplaceable.

I'm sure you're aware of this, but Astin wasn't in 'Attack of the Killer Tomatoes.' He was in the following three films.

Anyway, if they remade Killer Tomatoes, would they have to wreck another helicopter?

[Beaulah]

Wha'... JrMissToughChick - You didn't like the 1984 version with John Hurt? I don't think anyone could have cast a better actor. John Hurt is Winston Smith.


I agree with JrMiss.
IMHO John Hurt was cast very well but the movie didn't have the same feel as the book. In the movie John Hurt seemed broken and complaisant from the start. In the book I got the sense that Winston was quietly defiant and wasn't broken until the ...rats. The book was also haunting, I was freaked out for while after reading it but I didn't get the same feeling from the movie. I know your going to say "you can't get that same paranoid feeling from a movie" (or something like that) but they were able to do it with "A Handmaid's Tale".

I think they should re-make "Brave New World"....damn I love that book.

[Scaper989]

For TV series, the old U.F.O. and Space: 1999 (but without the
silly morphing character).

For books, how about Azimov's Foundation series? or
Niven/Pornell's Ringworld?

[ChianaMuse]

oOoOo! I'd love to see the Foundation series attempted. I really enjoy those books!

[grinner]

Originally posted by ChianaMuse
oOoOo! I'd love to see the Foundation series attempted. I really enjoy those books! only problem is, is that Isaac Asimov does NOT translate well into Movies. None of his books have made good movies. All the action takes place outside of the books...

[BillFrugge]

Originally posted by grinner
only problem is, is that Isaac Asimov does NOT translate well into Movies. None of his books have made good movies. All the action takes place outside of the books...

That sounds a lot like what we get now. (Besides Farscape, of course)