I think there's an argument that can be made for both approaches. While it may not be possible to completely recreate an era, setting the movie adaptation in the era it was originally produced allows for the opportunity to comment on the era with a modern perspective. In a way, it adds a new layer to the story.

Another interesting question is: how closely do we think movies set in "present" day recapture "present" day-to-day life?

They should and they shouldn't.

For Watchmen the setting and storyline demands that it be based during the Cold War, it's integral to the backdrop. Also Watchmen is already based in a world that's so radically different to our own anyway, basing it in the original time period is no more a challenge than basing it in an alternative reality where superheroes exist. If the director trust that the audience will understand the themes, and the message is strong enough, then the original time period can do wonders for a film.

On the other hand a movie like The War of the Worlds can easily be adapted to any time period. It clearly takes place in our own reality (or at least in a near-future where aliens invade) so updating the backdrop of the story can't harm it, and can in fact enrich it. Did Spielberg do it right? No. He decided to change the themes of the novel and used it to draw upon the threat of terrorism, rather than to point out how small humanity really are (plus the ending was far too happy to really capture the bleakness of the novel) - his mistake was changing the novels themes, not updating the novels setting.

I'm not really sure where your idea of retro-futuristic adaptation comes from - a movie like Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is an homage to the older days of science fiction, but a straight out adaptation should try to remain plausible and believable within the context of our modern day understanding of science and aesthetics, if the source material was plausible and believable within the same context at time of publication.

I think most film makers try to avoid going retro because of the costs and constraints.

Try turning a block of NYC into 1950's NYC without any modern cars being in the shot and enough wardrobe for all the extras. Or get enough 1950's cars together to make a realistic shot. It's not cheap. Even trying to go back to the 1980's is hard nowadays. I even get annoyed when I see a show set in the 1990's, and Times Square in the background is from the present.

Of course, they could CG everything in the past in a shot now, but that is never the same.

I think that's a reason a lot of film makers avoid the future as well. But that can definitely be CG'd and no one really complain about it.

It's easier to set films in the present, and that's what most will always trend towards. At least until CG is completely realistic.

Well one example that springs to mind is the Fantastic Four films. Harry Knowles hit the nail on the head, beleive it or not. At one point, the gent who directed the campy "Down with Love" was going to direct the FF movie. That's the one with Ewan MacGregor and whatserface, Bridget Jones. Anyway, the movie is really an homage to the late 50s early 60s love stories. Knowles thought that would be a great direction to take the FF movie. Actually set it in the 60s. Camp it up. Put some honest to god Jack Kirby looking technology on the set.

Now wouldn't that have been better than what they actually did with the FF? It's kind of what they did with The Incredibles, which as we all know, is 10x the FF movie than the actual FF movies.

Lensmen, as has been discussed before, would be a verrrrry hard sell as-is, due to the whole Boy-Scouts-in-Space, (for the most part) heavily male-dominated, chauvinistic society. Sure, Jill Samms, Clarissa, and the Children are tough - but they're not 'normal' women.
Moon may have an even bigger problem - women pretty much run their society, by being outnumbered over 2:1, and being the only source of... companionship of the opposite gender sort... for the next 250,000 miles. Not gonna sell too well in conservative areas. Mormons are likely to be unamused as well.

@smcallah:
I think most film makers try to avoid going retro because of the costs and constraints.

That said, it can be pretty damn cool to see in real life. Some friends of mine used to live near the street in Toronto where they filmed "Cinderella Man" It was pretty cool to walk down depression era New York.

I don't see much of a debate: both pose their challenges and both could be done properly, in theory, but usually remakes decide to twist the ending or entire story to achieve a false sense of novelty (I Am Legend, Solaris, Planet of the Apes). That's the bigger problem. Updating or making the past relevant is hardly the question (period pieces certainly haven't died off, never will) -- the question is: why do most adaptations suck? Setting/art direction are usually not tops on my list of suspects.

I would say it depends on whether the film in question is a full blown adaptation or is simply based upon the work. If the former, then absolutely: the film-maker should attempt to reconstruct the era in which the story was written. This also has to take into consideration what the general plot and themes revolved around. Taking Watchmen as an example, then such a work has to have that Cold War vibe. While nuclear war is still a possibility in today's world, there's a specific kind of fear and thematic element related to the launching of nuclear missiles during the time when Moore wrote the comic. The atmosphere of Watchmen is integral to its very existence, and that atmosphere is tethered to a specific time frame.

If the movie is to be based upon the work, then shifting the time period should be no problem. Spielberg's modern War of the Worlds is perfectly fine, as far as this kind of adaptation goes. The themes of the work can be a problem for this approach, however. I highly doubt Watchmen can be moved to a modern time, no matter how universal some of its themes may be. Again, overall it is a tale of the Cold War.

It really comes down to what the classic in question is. Different works call for different approaches. Hell, both approaches might work for the same story but it would take considerable work - so much, in fact, that the movie may become an incredibly distinct entity of its own, with few connections to its source.

As for the Golden Age science-fiction, I'd say it depends on exactly how closely intertwined the technology is with the overall story. If the technology can be given a modern face-lift while retaining the overall concept, then there should be no problem. It also depends on just who the target audience might be: the look of the 1930's and 1960's sci-fi is likely to be a source of laughter amongst modern viewers. If such visuals might clash with today's society, then the film-makers may want to reconsider a straight up adaptation. Personally, I would hate for the work to be compromised simply to rake in more viewers. Besides, I can't imagine Heinlein's work without that almost cheesy science of the time.

Well, in honor of his passing... Were you to (god forbid) do 2001, what would you do?

A well made period piece is always a plus. Like the alternate history from "Sky Captain", it can be fun viewing the fantastic through the eyes of history. Remember the good old days when we were all promised flying cars by the year 2000?

Nifty!

Sorry Charlie, this cannot be answered with a simple yes or no and the previous comments pretty much nailed all the reasons why. Sadly, this will not prevent me from rehashing their well thought out points. As much as I love period pieces (War of the Worlds with wrought-iron, spats and big mustaches? Purrrrr.) Some books are too dated. Others were written with themes that demand to be portrayed in the period of their relevancy. In the end, of course, it's all a matter of how the studio feels it can make the most money.
And thats my two cents.

Sorry Charlie, this cannot be answered with a simple yes or no and the previous comments pretty much nailed all the reasons why. Sadly, this will not prevent me from rehashing their well thought out points. As much as I love period pieces (War of the Worlds with wrought-iron, spats and big mustaches? Purrrrr.) Some books are too dated. Others were written with themes that demand to be portrayed in the period of their relevancy. In the end, of course, it's all a matter of how the studio feels it can make the most money.
And that's my two cents.

Dang! Double post. Sorry.

Shouldn't we be discussing the original ideas vs. remakes/rehashing instead?

For my answer to the question you posed, look no further than King Kong. Which worked better...the 1976 version set in...1976, or the 2005 version, set in the 30s?

Although there was the Thirteenth Floor, which mixed the 'present' with the past and ultimately the (future) present :)

To be honest, I liked the Sky Captain approach to doing a classic Sci-Fi movie like that. If they were to make a new Flash Gordon movie, I'd love for them to keep the same designs of the original serials, just updating with the newer Special Effects and such.

@smcallah: Although i hated "King Kong" the CGI of 1930 NYC was wonderful.. Great job.

@DeadlyRaptor: Good points, but the director has to make a good movie. WOW could have been reworked as a eco-disaster analogy, and been truer to the book in tone.. But what was really bad about it was the plot holes and all the Dakota screen time.

@doctor_cos: How about the 1930 version set in 1930? or whenever.

@Szin: That would be cool.. If you have to CGI everything anyway, you might as well let the art director go nuts.. Sometimes in SF movies, the sets and costums are the best part.. I cite "Chronicles of Riddick (Ridiculous?)

In regards to Watchmen, the time setting of the comic is important to the story and thus needs to be replicated on film if you want to do justice to Moore's work. John Carter, on the other hand, really isn't bound to the time period that the novels were written, as the Mars of Burroughs is essentially a primitive society w/ some anachronistic technology. Barsoom could be presented on screen as a Conan-type milieiu or a Road Warrior setting, and the essential nature and themes of the story wouuld remain. John Carter can come from any point in earth's history; it doesn't really matter to the story.

It very much depends on the project. I'm glad they are going the route they are with Watchmen, as much as it would work in modern times it wouldn't have the same effect.

Personally I'd love to see classic SF novels turned into movies set in the time they were written/set. They'd also immediately become alt. hist. films of which there are far too few.

@KingEdRa: Well, my concern is not so much where he comes from, he could have passed out in Iraq for all I care, but that they keep the alien feel of the barsoomian stuff. The buildings are strange, their dress is negligible but their adornments are weird jewelry type things, and they have four armed green guys running around. that is the feel they need, more Conan than Mad Max, with more acting.

I prefer they keep it retro to show the book how it is meant to be. Keeping to the story line would help greatly of course. War of the Worlds was an abomination really and I am Legend had so much extra stuff added I couldn't believe my eyes. Don't even start me on I, Robot or Planet of the Apes. It really annoys me when they believe that artistic license can replace key elements of the story when those elements could easily be used without extending the film in any way.

The worst ever that comes to mind was the remake of Salem's Lot with Rob Lowe. To anyone who has read the novel - don't see it. It makes the original movie look really really good storyline wise.

@codydog: Yes, but I was talking 'remakes' (and was Peter Jackson's version more an homage to the original)..?

Well, anything what is done is done for some good. Some might like it, other's don't. I didn't like Spielberg's War of the Warlds. But at the same time those screens look pretty damn good! I even didn't understand at first that they where from Watchmen - look just like some remastered 80s movie. And hell yeah, I'm liking it!

There's a third way to bring a classic science fiction movie to the screen: just crib the title for the unrelated movie you're trying to sell.

Seriously, I'd love to see a science fiction movie, adaptation or otherwise, that didn't dissolve into Generic Action Movie Plot #37 by the second reel. One that doesn't owe it's existence to provide vehicle for some lame actor to branch out his or her resume.

I'm still floored every time I watch Forbidden Planet. Such a movie could never be made today, not because of the movie's retro-futurism or period visual stylings, but because the plot and premise don't appeal to the average moviegoer

I think unless the time setting forms an important aspect of the story it'd be OK to set it now. War of the Worlds wasn't bad because it was set now, it was bad because it too Hollywood. On the other hand, Frankenstein could have a lot more meaning if set against a sci-fi background of AI and robotics. Or if Frankenstein was a robot making a human out of parts...

Saying all that, I'd have loved WotW in a Sense and Sensibility time setting.

it all depends on the story. You can update WotW because it's not dependent on any one particular environment. The book is se tin London while every film version yet made has been set in the US and it mostly works (with the caveat that you have to actually adhere to the themes of the book, which apparently Spielberg didn't read and decided to just rehash his daddy issues. again).

John Carter is different. It's a fantasy and as such is reliant on the details of it's own internal mythology. People want to see fifteen foot tall green Tharks wielding swords and a Civil War era soldier of fortune wooing a red skinned princess with his wits and daring do. Adding modern elements for realism will spoil the escapism.

@Discrete-Daniel: Absolutely a brilliant example. How many people realize that Forbidden Planet was Shakespeare's "The Tempest"? Brilliant movie and a perfect example of what can be achieved with imagination and care.
Personally, I believe that time is vital to the understanding of the story, so setting a movie in the period in which it was written (even if said era never actually existed ala Sky Captain and the World of Sepia) is preferable to "updating" the story.
The issue is in the writing: when a film maker takes it upon himself to meddle with genius, he is committing himself to either matching the genius or committing sacrilege.
Just my .02 Ameribucks.

Obviously, it depends on the context of the material, and the creators (or re-creators) should intelligently think about what is best for the material instead of what would be easiest to accomplish, or sell the best.

I loved Sky Captain because of it's retro look at the future, and would personally love to see some cool sci-fi about a future world based on the 50s view of the future. However, that's me, and I've been into Sci-fi since birth. For the masses, it probably wouldn't be that great of a concept, unless done well (like by a speilberg). I'd LOVE to see this setting in a TV series, as it could be a lot of fun, but it wouldn't last a season.

Doesn't matter as long as it's done well.

Too many times too many writers or too many fingers from the studio get involved with a project and ruin it. Once it's story boarded up stick with it and follow through. If you don't commit to something it's obvious and blows the whole movie.

I love Noir pieces though. Gattaca and Dark City both had scenery and a feel that I just drink in.

I'd love to see a Rocketeer shot like Sky Captain

It depends upon the original story. Some stories can be changed greatly in setting and the strength of the plot/characters carries it off.

With something like John Carter, though, it's a pretty light plot. Without the schtick of the setting, where's the fun?

I like period pieces, but modernized movies are sometimes quite good too.
-Kle.

@AmishJohn: I think Lensman would be great if they used the Sky Captain sort of styling, but leaving the original cultural themes in. People would have a lot less issue with the patriarchy, simply because the whole movie would feel more escapist.
As for The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' cultural themes, leave 'em. Those closed minds should be exposed to alternative ideas. More importantly, when it moves to the European market, it they won't interfere at all.

@KingEdRa: I disagree entirely. If you were to take John Carter out of his era and make him a modern person, than you might as well just remake Ghosts of Mars, or some other straight action flick. The fact that Carter is an old-fashioned Southern gent bears great influence on his motivations and actions. If you take that away from him, then you might as well cast Arnold or The Rock as Carter, throw away Burroughs's books, and title it Sex and Violence.

I'm in agreement with most of the above comments: Making a period piece vs. a modern remake really depends on the original material.

Though War of the Worlds had been done many times now, I would love to see someone make it in the time of the book. The scene where 19th century battleships are firing cannons at alien tripods would be pretty cool to see.

How about a movie like Harry Turtledove's Worldwar series? Aliens invading Earth during WWII could be epic.

RE: The Watchmen comments. First people are saying stuff about cold-war mentality, and while that's partially true, it's something of a bad example, as Watchmen takes place in an entirely different reality and timeline than our own. You could call it 1999, and as long as there are global tensions in the world and the threat of nuclear weapons, you can set the story. All you need is the same story line and characters, who, if you look at carefully enough, are independant of their era. Or rather should I say, they MADE their era, so it matters little.

Also, as for retro futurism in films, I'd love to see more stuff like Sky Captain stylistically (I wasn't all that impressed with the story or actors.) Hell, look at Disneyland, which (somewhat) succesfully managed to create a pretty cool retro Sci-Fi pastiche in Tommorrowland.

"How likely is it that film-makers will be able to reconstruct the look of a bygone era and make us understand the real-world issues that the old stories were dealing with metaphorically?"

why does the chronological setting of a g*ddamn SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE have any obligation to "real-world issues"? scifi might typically deal with real-world social problems or philosophical questions but it does this at its best when approached in an allegorical or oblique fashion. i want a STORY and i want it to look AWESOME and i want it to represent in some fashion a glimpse at RADICAL OTHERNESS or the ethical and social implications created by NEW WAYS OF BEING IN THE WORLD. and i want artful production, camera work, and at least mediocre performances. As Sir Laurence once said, "Dustin, it's called science fiction."

Myself, I prefer retro. At least then, you can hope that whoever is handling it, is at least trying to be true to the subject matter.

People don't usually painstakingly reproduce a era just to use a shit script or characterizations.

Updating is a extremely dangerous affair, you can *update* whatever you want: times, mores or motivations. With all those updates, you may not be able stay true to the original subject matter.

Very rarely, does anyone knock it out of the park that equals or surpasses the original, like John Carpenter did with The Thing.

Mostly you end up with The Time Machine ('02) or Planet Of The Apes ('01).

I dream of a Stars my Destination movie which can integrate both futuristic and retro visions, a cross between the Fifth Element and Sky Captain, something out of Syd Mead's portfolios.
That said, what really, truly works is a unified style; think of the Lord of the Rings! It's Alan Lee all over. Alien = Moebius + Giger.

I was fond of cyberpunk... I guess it's become passe as we are basically living in the early cyberpunk era now - commonplace Internet usage even on pocketable gadgets, myriad handheld gadgets carrying unthinkable amounts of data on each, increasingly sophisticated cybernetic prosthetics, large corporate conglomerations calling the shots...

But I miss the aesthetic that was common to so much of the fiction - most places in reality do not have it very much. I guess you could call it kind of a film noir grit mixing artistic themes of technology meeting original uses? But I'll admit that while it's kind of easy to tell what makes a good cyberpunk story (the same thing that makes a good story...) it's hard to pin down exactly what makes a story cyberpunk...

Like you guys have been saying, a lot of the problem lies is trying to make old stories appealing and updated versions faithful. One of the most marketable examples of updated storyline I can think of was V for Vendetta. Most people I know that saw it never read the original, but came away from it with more or less the same response as those who had.

As for me, I have no problem with revisionism (Excuse me while I go watch "Six-String Samurai" for the millionth time!), but I'm willing to be impressed by spot-on recreations, too.

If the setting is important to the logic of the story, then use it. Most of all, write a good script. NO amount of accurate stage setting will save a film if the actors are spouting blather.

Alright, this is a bit of a deviation from the movie focus of this discussion, but I just finished reading Variable Star by Robert A Heinlein and Spider Robinson. Apparently Heinlein wrote an outline and a bunch of notes in 1955 but never actually wrote the story. Then Spider Robinson got permission to write a novel based on the the outline and notes and it was published in 2006. The reason I bring this up is that Robinson pretty much stuck to Heinlein's Future History time-line which had been created before the space race began, but he also extrapolated on modern technology to envision future technology. There are little tidbits like Leslie LeCroix being the fist man to reach the moon mixed in with things like the term "google around" being used when the main character goes online to search for some info. I guess my point is that it's neat to read stories or see movies with a kind of "future retro" feel where the vision of the future is based on what people thought it would look like half a century ago, or where the envisioned future looks a little like the past in some ways. The only two movies I can think of right now as examples are Blade Runner and to a lesser extent Gattica.