salamander42

victheremin

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.

Dolly-At-School

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...

fuchikoma

MarlboroTestMonkey7

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).

radio1

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."

DSTRYA

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.

Scaramanga9

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

hopskipper

@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.

CyberKender

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.

Klebert L. Hall

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

Final

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.

dirtybacon

SavannahJack

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.

Gyrus

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

MrLister

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

Discrete-Daniel

Dereks

doctor_cos

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.

cybergrunt

ggodo

tezby

Gregnog

KingEdRa

codydog

codydog

codydog

codydog

Szin

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 :)

doctor_cos

Grey_Area

Grey_Area

Grey_Area

Nifty!

Zantor

Garrison Dean, Mr. Privilege

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.

DeadlyRaptor

Tim Faulkner

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.

AdamL

AmishJohn

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.

AdamL

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.

smcallah

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.

PriorMarcus

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

themidnighter