The irony of a remake
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Logan's Run
collinskocik-33106 — 9 years ago(July 16, 2016 05:58 AM)
I guess I'm in the minority, since the rest of the world seems to have embraced remakes; I never understood the point.
But Logan's Run in particular. I read an article the other day about how Logan's Run is prime material for a remake, becauseget thisit's more relevant than ever. Well, geez, if it's more relevant than ever, seems to me what you do is re-release it. Perhaps with digitally enhanced special effects, like Star Trek and Star Wars. But why a remake?
The only possible explanation for the need for a remake is becauseold stuff doesn't matter. The original is more than 30 years old, and must be discarded. This is a world of youth. Time for Logan's Run to be renewed.
Don't misunderstandI'm too old to fight tooth and nail against a movie. I just don't care about such stuff anymore. If they want to do a remake, fine. Go enjoy. I just won't see it because I'm just not interested; I love the original film and I'll stick with it, thank you very much.
Just strikes me that remaking Logan's Run is pretty ironic. -
stazza — 9 years ago(July 29, 2016 07:32 PM)
The old film was based on concepts in the book, but didn't really follow it very closely at all. If you read the book, you think about the movie and scratch your head why they made it like they did. Both are good, just different in many important ways.
I agree that everyone else seems to embrace remakes. But a new one would just be another "CGI! OOH LOOK AT MY COOL COMPUTER CARTOON EFFECTS" yawner. Think of all the scenes they would wreck, and how cool it was the 70's version did it with out computers churning out photo realistic cartoons:- the carosel where live people hung on wires
- those cool guns
- the large and real sets
- the doctor chamber (ok the lazers were faked but you know they CGI that operating table into some impossible TRANSFORMER-ESQUE nightmare machine just to out do the original's simple elegance)
- the deep stairs
- even the domes, bad as they looked would be this CG faked crap
Luckily, any new version is in development hell and will probably never be made.
-
liberius — 9 years ago(September 05, 2016 04:49 PM)
Your premise is wrong. Logan's Run doesn't need to be remade. It needs to be made properly with respect to the novel. The difference is not subtle.
It's prime material for a new movie, or better still, a short-run TV series. Even the likes of Amazon could do it. Follow the book, expand the universe a bit, keep it dark and dangerous, instant hit. CGI is cheap, so no problems there. -
spielberto — 9 years ago(September 06, 2016 07:50 AM)
The end of the book sucked terribly.
If they made that monstrosity it would be laughed at.
Here's a pic of the audience when they have the big reveal at the end:
Here's the critics:
Logan's Run (remake)
Logan's Run (remake) -
kaskait — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 12:22 PM)
The novel couldn't be filmed.
It would require young teenagers with the acting abilities of adults. That isn't possible. Nor would it be possible to film them in the adult situations that the book portrays them in.
Logan, in the book, is about 17 maybe 18 tops. Jessica is even younger at 15 or 16. The death age in the book is set at 21. Any film with actors at those ages (or looking those ages) would be laughed out of the theaters. It would look too Mickey Mouse club. -
liberius — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 12:44 PM)
Of course it can be adapted to the screen. Your objections are mere assertions. There would be a ton of young actors who could play younger than their real age, and there's nothing wrong with finding new talent.
I remember a young Kate Winslet doing stellar work in her first couple of movies, Heavenly Creatures, Sense and Sensibility, Titanic. Also Natalie Portman comes to mind being only 15/16 in Leon and Heat. Scarlett Johansson was only 18/19 when she did Lost in Translation and Girl with a Pearl Earring.
Goodness, the acting world is full of these capable actors. And the central theme of Logan's Run is the sacrifice of culture upon the altar of perpetual youth; it has to be played by such actors, and it would be a stunner making Hunger Games seem like mindless fluff, which it kinda is regardless. -
kaskait — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 02:14 PM)
All the actors you mentioned were few and very FAR between. Kate Winslet was an outlier. I don't consider Scarlett Johansson or laugh Natalie Portman anywhere in her league. The young Hunger games actors aside from its female lead, were also less than noteworthy.
The young set would never pull off a film of this kind. -
Blueghost — 9 years ago(January 20, 2017 01:23 AM)
The effects are poor beyond belief, and the music is and overall production design are both a little dated.
The story and acting, however, are really top notch.
And reading the posts here about, presumably, younger viewers not getting the story or theme thereof, a remake, if appropriately done, might be welcome.
The downshot is that a lot of scifi is geared towards pre-teens, so expect a lot of inane put down dialogue, and other character actions that are insulting.
It's just today's trends, and it's all dictated by market data;
Teenage boys like putting eachother down, so they put in put-down humor.
Teenage boys like hot girls (preferably naked), so they'll put in a lot hotties in skin tight suits, maybe flashing their bodies.
Teenage boys supposedly have a short attention span, so it'll be put together wth a lot of quick edits that'll make older viewers sick.
Teenage boys think they're clever than older people, so the scenes will focus on how much more clever a more youthful Logan is than a lot of fast talking foul mouthed costars playing other characters.
The days of thoughtful scifi, as was the original Logan's Run or 2001 a Space Odyssey, or over.
And it doesn't look like they're coming back, because teenage dollars is where you make the money.
If it were me, I would do as you suggest, and just replace, tweak or otherwise enhance the poor effects shots to make it palpable for all audiences. That's a movie I'd pay to see again. -
collinskocik-33106 — 9 years ago(January 20, 2017 01:33 AM)
Well, I differ with you about the music. Jerry Goldsmith was a masterhell, I'll call him a modern-day Beethoven. Absolutely magnificent.
And I sure don't mind hotties in skin-tight suits. In the original film, I sure don't mind looking at Jenny Agutter in her little green cloth.
Aside from that, yeah, I think you're right.
I keep hoping thoughtful sci-fi is coming back. I was pretty impressed with Interstellar despite a few flaws. Moon was good. I haven't seen Arrival, but I'm hearing a lot of good things about it from people whose opinion I trust.
But I think your description of what a Logan's Run remake would be like is exactly right. -
Blueghost — 9 years ago(January 20, 2017 09:56 AM)
Yeah, I didn't want to sound negative, but all you have to do is look at the superhero junk that's on the screen. "Guardians of the Galaxy" and the upcoming sequel, are prime examples of what corporate studios are making.
And when I say skin tight suits I guess I mean more of the shooting style. When Jenny got naked for the original film it was meant for the young males, although it was also in the vein of the story. A remake will probably have a lot of ass shots and cleavage footage as the actress smiles or looks serious.
When I went and saw Rogue One I thought the film was okay. But all the previews were aimed at children. When I went and saw Star Wars in 1977, A) there weren't any previews until the rerelease, and B) what previews I saw were aimed at true general ("all ages") audiences, and not kids, teenage boys, or girls.
I thought "Interstellar" was okay, but had problems. I've not seen "Moon". What I liked about the original "Logan's Run" was that in spite of the poor effects the live action sequences were exceptionally well shot. York and cast really put in spectacular performances.
Oh well.
Who knows, maybe the producers'll read this thread. -
collinskocik-33106 — 9 years ago(January 20, 2017 10:26 AM)
I see what you mean. Yeah, and in the remake Jessica will probably be a Kung Fu master who will whip Francis's ass in endless Matrix-style fight sequences, while Logan looks on in amazementthen after kicking Francis over a bush or something, turn to Logan with a self-satisfied smile and make some wisecrack geez
Yeah, I admit the original Logan's Run isn't perfect. The Old Man is fun to watch, but probably would've been more effective if he was a wise old man rather than a demented old codgerkind of lost the point. Some more explanation of what who and what Box is and how he fits in to the city would have been nice. And it makes NO sense that shooting the computer blows up the whole city.
But I just love the character growththe journey of discoverythe way the city starts as seeming like the whole world of the future, but when they go back at the end, after all they've seen and learned, it seems like this silly little placethe exploration of Washington D.C. is one of the most beautiful and haunting and sad and epic sequences I've ever seen in a movie.
And I agree with you the cast is terrific. That was the main drawback to the short-lived TV series; it had a lot of potential and I enjoy it, but the actors just don't seem to take it seriously. -
Blueghost — 9 years ago(January 21, 2017 01:16 AM)
Yeah, it's a good film in spite of the SFX.
True story; Lucas's SFX guys were speaking at the former Jack Tarr hotel in SF during a convention in either 77 or 78. They were asked what they thought of Logan's Run SFX. Their response; "We hoped our SFX wouldn't look like that."
Everyone laughed.