Curmudgeon Gary Kerr sounds off about movie remakes
Keeping in mind the fact that today’s movies must reflect modern sensibilities, here’s my treatment for a movie I want to pitch:
This is a movie about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but I had to make changes to appeal to my target audience: 15-25 year old males. First, I updated the attacking planes, since Mitsubishi Zeros are over 60 years old. I mean, PROPELLOR planes are so 20th century. Hip, modern audiences wouldn’t believe that these outdated planes could cripple the Pacific Fleet, so in my improved story, the Japanese are flying F-16s, which are way cooler than Zeros.
Second, I moved the site of the attack to the Washington DC Navy Yard so I could have a cool scene where 25-year-old studmuffin FDR floats out of the White House on his hover-chair, witnesses the attack, and realizes that it’s his destiny to win the war. By the way, FDR’s coming from a wealthy, patrician family isn’t edgy enough for today’s young males, so in my version, FDR is confined to his hover-chair, following an assault by his abusive step-father.
Following some steamy sex with his super-hot wife, Eleanor, FDR and the members of his Cabinet (all 25 years old, since they were all in the same high school graduating class), jump into their F-22 Raptors, follow the Japanese jets, and sink the Japanese fleet with tactical nukes. End of story.
Sounds like a sure-fire hit to me! JJ – call me.
Gary
I LOVE Gary’s post..A few of us feel the same way!
“Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.”
- Homer Simpson
This pitch is spot on. The term “reimagining” is one of the most disgusting euphemisms; there is no imagination involved. And as bad as some remakes are, at least the word is accurate and not designed to assuage the guilt of those trashing previous artists’ work and confuse the audience into thinking they are watching something “new.”
Lest we forget, Battlestar Galactica is an example of a “reimagining” that makes huge changes from a beloved original, resulting in a very different, but brilliant new version.
Mr. Okuda, I did not mean to disparage Ron Moore’s Galactica. To tell the truth, I have never seen an episode of either it or the Glen Larson original, so it didn’t even enter my mind when I typed my (in hindsight) unfair umbrella statement.
L.M. Oliver stole my thunder about that overused word, reimagine. Is it just me, or have you noticed that 9 out of 10 times, whenever a producer or director says they’re going to “reimagine” a movie or TV show, they really mean, “We’re going to do an unecessary remake of a classic, and it’ll be so bad, it’ll make your teeth hurt”? Of course, Ron Moore’s BSG is that 1 in 10 exception.
I think BSG is the exception rather than the rule, especially given that the execution of the source material (though beloved by me) was less than stellar.
I think it’s interesting to note that most top tier screenwriters working today make their living rewriting existing drafts or otherwise developing an already established idea for a studio. Not that there’s any less “creativity” involved there, just that very few original ideas are able to survive the trek to the screen with their creators intact.
No problem! Too many remakes ARE pretty bad, although bad and good are often in the eyes of the beholders.
But do give Galactica a look, if you get a chance.
God, I hate to debate Mike Okuda on this, but BSG is different then Trek. BSG was around for a few years. That show was able to be updated, because not much was done with it. Also you have better writers on BSG. The guys who did “Transformers” are doing this movie.
It hurts me to bring in another sci-fi movie/series in on this, but what about Star Wars, could you see a different person playing Han Solo or a different Millennium Falcon or Death Star? When George Lucas rerelease Star Wars, (Made in the 70’s) did he take out and redesign the Millennium Falcon or Death Star? Did the look of Star Wars change in the new movies?
I am cool, with the idea of a TOS movie and a Young crew. I just feel that they want to “Star Wars” up Trek. You get the guy who work on Star Wars to Design the Enterprise. Why bring in elements from another Sci-fi movie to update trek? (I know I know ILM Design alot of stuff for the movies) To me that was more of Evolution of a design.
I do not want this to sound like I am Kissing butt, but you have people like you and most of the Art Department who knows TOS Style and the looks of TOS and understand why things are the way they are. I saw In a Mirror, Darkly in HD and I saw the Remaster in Theaters. TOS Enterprise is a Good Looking ship, I just think that a better job could have been done updating the design. I have to say, that I do like the updated transporter effect.:D (You see I can say something good about the movie
)
I hope that I am wrong and the movie is good. If it is, then maybe another TNG Movie could be made. One can hope.
Ok I am out of Caffeine, so my rant is over.
Again thanks for the post!
The current iteration of Galactica? Worth your time.
This next movie? Not sure yet.
I’d very much appreciate it if you could pose an unrelated question to Gary Kerr, since he’s probably the only person in the world who knows the answer (having had access to several copies of the original blueprints as well as Tony Meininger’s spare castings): precisely how long was the Enterprise-C miniature and what was the scale it was built to?
I would like to double check the 526m length from the Encyclopedia; the figure was apparently taken from the writer’s technical manual (1725 feet), but that’s as far as I’ve been able to trace it back, and I could find no other sources.
Hmmmmm, unless Tony Meininger was given all Trek castings, the Ent. C casting would be held by Greg Jein he is the artsit who crafted that model for TNG, it was seen during that series. Unless I am mistaken Tony’s crew effectively was hired on and began with DS9 and Voyager, and believe me I looked for an Ambassador class during the Dominion war I didn’t even see a CG version!
You’re right, it was Greg Jein; my mistake.
I laughed hard at Gary’s post, too. Joe, I think possibly more than a few of us feel the same way.
I’ll admit my biases; I have no earthly use for reboots/remakes/reimagings of any sort. Retellings that are true to the source material I’m cool with. But if you take on an existing property, only to throw out all that was established by that property and do something else, no, that I’m not in the least inspired by. Ironically, my catchphrase quote on the subject comes from none other than J.J. Abrams: “I think that if you’re going to reimagine something, you should imagine something else.”
As for Galactica, I *have* watched it all the way through, and fully plan to watch ’til the end. To me, it’s the exception that proves the rule. It may be better written than the original, on a line-for-line basis, but almost all the things that made the original lyrical and engaging to me are gone. I can barely accept that this is another civilization; the way they’ve made it, they might just as well have done a post-apocalyptic Earth story, with the remains of Earth Humanity fleeing into space.
I’m still on the fence about the new Trek. From what I’ve seen, it could be a lot worse. So I’ll give it a shot. But as I learn bits and pieces about the story, I admit I’m already working on a treatment to rewrite the whole thing into extant Trek continuity, just to prove it could have been done without losing the intrinsic nature of the story.
Best,
Alex
Hopefully you guys don’t mind me saying… If creating a remake or two meant money to produce more original films, I’d be all for it. Unfortunately, remakes are instead largely created to be tent pole films and suck up hundreds of millions of budget dollars. Films like “The Day the Earth Stood Still” hold a special place for many, myself included, even with their budget and technological limitations. I believe there could be a place for remakes if they were made with special care as artistic endeavors– not easy-money making star vehicles. Or, why not make them for fun and offer them at a discount like the band Rush who released a cover album (Feedback) for half price?
The real point though, is making a beloved franchise and everyone who ever contributed to it effectively your… uhh… submissive play-thing is not advancing the art form nor does it make practical long-term business sense (if it ain’t broke…) Did folks go to Transformers to see pretty humans in a daytime soap opera? Heck no, they when to see massive living robots in a battle for their very existence! And they certainly didn’t go to the theater to see their childhood favorites perform kitschy humor in awkward American Pie moments. Even considering the rare cases where a major overhaul has been successful, I tend to think they should just call it something else and make something new. Nothing is truly original so, why pretend? Nothing absolutely needs a household name to work. It just needs to be good.
Thanks guys!
“Ridley Scott to remake The A-Team”: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7856758.stm
(No, I have never watched the original, perhaps half an episode.)
Seems like an odd choice for Ridley Scott, and I speak as a one-time fan of that show. There was a time when I was an absolute Cannell-created-shows fanboy, is all I can say and that goes nowhere being a defence/excuse.
Why do they always stone me when I complain about the “coolness” in movie remakes (or reboots)? Perhaps because I’m never that funny.
I have no prob with remakes, as updating myth and lore for new generations is nothing new in the realm of human history. Passed-down and/or the spoken-word tradition (with inevitable author tweaks/spins) is how history and legend first became, the stuff of history and legend.
And besides, heck, most all stories are just retellings of the original “hero’s tale,” the Mesopotamia poem; Epic of Gilgamesh. Joseph Campbell has written some fascinating and wonderful books on the history and power of myth, and how it became so. And Shakespeare (Trek’s very inspiration by Gene’s own declaration); it’s a time-honored tradition to recast and reset the same tales time-and-again with and within different ages and settings.
Basically, there’s nothing new under the sun.
It’s the story and the characters that count to me in the end. And whether or not the “remake” expresses the spirit of those assets in a intriguing and fresh way, that determines whether or not the “remake” is any good, IMO. And sure sure, I’ve seen enough remakes that “jump the shark” in that regard. But I’ve also seen ones that carry on the lore well, sometimes even improving upon it along the way. The proof is ever always in the puddin’, ne’er does it lie merely in the idea, IMO.
LLP,
deg
deg – Actually, Doug is the one who put the word “remake” in the title of the article. In my original email to Doug, I was reacting to statements by some Star Trek fans, who were saying that because the last few Trek movies didn’t do well, this proves that the concepts of Star Trek are outdated and must be thrown in the trash bin so Abrams can “reimagine” Star Trek for the modern audience.
The last few Trek movies didn’t do well because the scripts were weak, not because Trek’s backstory (aka “canon”) is too restrictive. Remember – the same cast was in “Yesterday’s Enterprise” and “Best of Both Worlds”. That’s why I facetiously mentioned changing the history of WWII to make my fictional movie more “relevant”.
Remakes, in themselves, aren’t necessarily bad things. Too often, though, it seems that remakes get greenlighted simply because they offer built-in name recognition, rather than offering a fresh take on an old story.
Gary
I didn’t want to draw a connection to anything that might be seen as overtly criticizng the new JJ movie.
Heya Gary! Sure sure, I concur dude, 100%. And yeah, when a project just attempts to ride the coat-tails of name-rec for nothing more than $$$ generation, more than likely we’re in for a monumental serving of tripe, indeed along the lines of your facetiousness.
Thanks for the reply dude.
PLL,
deg
Oh, BTW, nice work on TOSR too, eh.
(If this is indeed thee Gary Kerr I am speakin’ with.)
LLP,
deg
deg – Yes, I’m the one, the only. Thanks for kind words for my work on TOSR. Save some kind words for Mike Okuda and the people at CBS Digital. I helped get the Enterprise model correct, but Mike & Co. had to make it fly & do tricks every week!
Way-coolness Gary, another “E man” it seems.
I’m a bit of a fastidious E detail nut myself, and then some, eh.
And yes indeed, Majordomo Kudos to Mike and the CBS Digital crew for all their work as well! What a dream project/gig, eh!
I never got that feeling Doug. I’ll be savin’ that for when the puddin’ is tasted, eh.
PLL,
deg
Oh, and when I saw “E man,” I of course mean, TOS E man.
LLP,
deg
Doug – Like I said a few comments ago, my remarks are directed more toward the fans who are blaming the poor showing of the last few Trek movies on ST being an outdated concept, rather than on weak, stale scripts. When the JJ movie is released, I’m sure I’ll have a few more comments.
deg – You said, referring to TOSR, “What a dream project/gig, eh!” I’m sure the job seemed more like a nightmare project at times, since CBS Digital had to pump out a whole lot of pixels in an impossibly short time. This is a job that Mike did out of love for the subject matter, rather than as a means to get rich quick and retire.
Gary
I read that Gary. I had taken some flak earlier for an entry criticizing the JJ E design, and just wanted to make sure I did not get hit in the head with a brick.
I guess anything worth doin’ is worth makin’ the required effort to do it. But I hears ya dude. Helps take the edge off a bit I would imagine when it’s doin’ somethin’ you love sO much.
And Doug, you crack me up dude! Look out! He’s got a IDIC brick!
For myself, I learned to steer clear of those STXI discussions as they tend to be very very heated in my experience, and too often tend to easily spiral into quite ugly confrontations of opinions. The core-Trek ideals too often go right out the proverbial window, and I tend to try to live by IDIC and all that stuff. In my experience, with discussions about STXI, too often ironically and sadly, said Trek ideals get lost in the warp wake, or in the blast of a core breach.
All we are sayin’ is give peace a chance…
All we are sayin’ is give IDIC a chance…
IDIC,
deg
Would this be an appopriate place to gush about TOS:R?
Because I would really like to gush.