^ I agree with Turd (not a sentence I like seeing read back, lol). Recasting is one part of it. The tone makes a huge difference to the product and it's not about current technology of the present era. It's almost like what is 'now' is too realistic. That dark and gritty does not compare well to rose-tinted. When you look at those movies they did of the Brady Bunch with a different cast and years later, they tried to keep the retro aspect as part of the story. It kind of worked.
About recasting beloved 80s original cinematic icons.
- Thread starter HarryCanyon1982
- Start date
The reboot Doc Brown will probably use a Tesla this time.
I don't have a problem with light or dark reimaginings of shows, as long as whichever path you choose, you have a unique idea and execute it well. If a remake is going dark because it's derivative trend-hopping, it's going to be terrible, but if it's a brilliant original idea that only shares the general concept of the original like Battlestar Galactica it could be great. Same with making a light remake, have an original vision for the premise and execute it well, and it will be much better than if it's a light fluffy derivative rehash.
Yes! Plus the casting was pretty damn good. Shelley Long made a great Carol Brady and the legendary Gary (Office Space) Cole did a great Robert Reed impression. I see this treatment as analogous to Galaxy Quest and Young Frankenstein, where you're poking fun at the source material and its era, but in a loving rather than belittling way.
Well, that's kind of a problem with a movie trying to be a comedy.
The only thing from the Eighties I don't want to see recast is TNG. And ... maybe TOP GUN! Otherwise, have it. That era's had its shot and all so very long ago. Everything from it is up for grabs (save for the above). And besides, recasting, rebooting, reworking and all that good stuff only brings up comparisons to the originals, which then return to the public consciousness and have a chance -- remote, perhaps -- of becoming embraced, again, by a whole new generation experiencing it for the very first time.
Exactly. When an old property gets remade, it often shines a bright light on the previous version. You get sidebar articles on the original, "where are they now" type features, the original book or movie or TV show gets reissued with some flashy new packaging, old fans may be motivated to check out the original again, possibly for the first time in ages; new fans may become curious about the old version. "Wait? There was an earlier version of WESTWORLD?"
For example: When the new DR. STRANGE movie came out, it suddenly became much easier to get the old 1970s version on DVD. See also the original AVENGERS tv series when the Uma Thurman remake happened.
(Somebody needs to remake SOMEWHERE IN TIME so I'll have an excuse to reissue the novel with a cool new movie tie-in cover.)
For example: When the new DR. STRANGE movie came out, it suddenly became much easier to get the old 1970s version on DVD. See also the original AVENGERS tv series when the Uma Thurman remake happened.
(Somebody needs to remake SOMEWHERE IN TIME so I'll have an excuse to reissue the novel with a cool new movie tie-in cover.)
I'd rather have a copy of Doctor Mordrid than that '70s TV movie. Decent cast, Hayley Mills' dad as The Ancient One, for instance, but no budget, and everyone but the actors all but phoned it in. Typical disrespect for the genre, really.
My problem with those kind of movies is that they more or less took franchises and turned them into comedies, even if the source material wasn't. Yeah, it worked for the Brady Bunch as it was already a sitcom, but we also had a slew of movies in the 90's such as Starsky & Hutch which didn't resemble its source material other than name and car.
With The Dark Knight, it can be argued that Nolan was simply emphasizing what was already there. The city of Gotham's character was already dark and grimy even when it was campy; it was noir. It was supposed to be a polar opposite of Metropolis where that had a sunny and hopeful air, both stylistically different for their own purposes. That's also partly why I feel making Superman dark and gritty didn't work. They took him out of his element.
I confess I loved the DR. STRANGE tv-movie as a teen. And enjoyed being able to rewatch it again, warts and all. Nostalgia sometimes casts a magic spell . . ..
When I finally got to see the '70s Doctor Strange I was already jaded by having already seen Doctor Mordrid, which I didn't know was an adaptation with the serial numbers filed off until I saw it. (Full disclosure: I had the opportunity to ask Jeffrey Combs if it was meant to be Doctor Strange. He said yes, but they lost their license along the way and had to change all the names). I saw what could have been with Doctor Strange '7? if they'd had the budget and a looser hand on creativity from the studio, but Doctor Mordrid was such a better film I couldn't get into it.
I looked this up and I have to say, Reeve's costar was as beautiful as it gets! But tell me, and tell me true: just how bad is "Somewhere in Time"? Because I like costume dramas and it's looking a fright cheesy ...
Reeve's costar is Jane Seymour, former Bond girl, Doctor Quinn--Medicine Woman, Apollo's wife on the original Battlestar Galactica, Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger, etc. She's had a long and varied career.
As for the movie, I'm biased, of course, being Richard Matheson's editor, but it is beloved by many and has a devoted cult following. Believe it or not, an annual Somewhere in Time celebration is held every year at the hotel where the movie was filmed. Both Stephenie Meyer (author of TWILIGHT) and Jennifer Aniston have cited it as among their all-time favorite movies. It was even made into a stage musical a few years ago. It's lush and romantic and sentimental in a shamelessly old-fashioned way.
Which is why I'm amazed that Hollywood hasn't remade it yet.
Last edited:
Some remakes are actually better than the original, but that usually happens when the original sucked in some way. Basically, good premise, but the follow up had something to be desired.. sometimes it wasn't there fault, not enough money, effects of the day were crap, etc.
However, well regarded tv and movies are different, I feel that, if you have a better story to tell, or continue telling, then go ahead, but if your just phoning it in, and hoping name recognition will make you money.. please stop..
As for new ideas.. there are literally Thousands of books out there in the world that would make a good series or movie!
Hollywood is looking for guarantees.. and they think right now if they attach a known name to something, that people will come see it.
However, well regarded tv and movies are different, I feel that, if you have a better story to tell, or continue telling, then go ahead, but if your just phoning it in, and hoping name recognition will make you money.. please stop..
As for new ideas.. there are literally Thousands of books out there in the world that would make a good series or movie!
Hollywood is looking for guarantees.. and they think right now if they attach a known name to something, that people will come see it.
I'm not a bit surprised! You don't meet women like that in Real Life, that's for sure.
That Somewhere in Time Celebration sounds kind of nice, as does the film, itself. Thanks for the response.
I saw it a few years ago and honestly felt like it was a gem in the rough. It's not perfect by any means, but it's beautifully filmed on Mackninac Island, a place which I feel probably more people should know about.
Somewhere in Time is a fantastic move, with some exquisite layered acting.
Yep, and Mackninac Island (whose name escaped me earlier) is where the SOMEWHERE IN TIME celebration is held every year.
Trivia: the novel was originally titled BID TIME RETURN (from Shakespeare), but the film producers were supposedly concerned that people would hear it as BEDTIME RETURN, so . . . SOMEWHERE TIME. I'll cop to putting the movie title on every new edition of the book (with the author's permission, of course) since, at this point, the movie title is much better known.
Based on the story, I assume? I've never visited the island, but I'd love to someday. Hear it's quite expensive though being that they're supposedly entirely self-sufficient.
Here is a video by one of my youtube friends on why recasting iconic cinematic original icons like John McClane, Freddy Krueger, adult Han Solo, Indiana Jones, Rocky Balboa, John McClane etc. that are different than characters brought to life in books/comics/video games than purely original cinematic characters.
