# Beowulf and Grendel (2005)



## Riselka (Aug 19, 2006)

How many of you have seen this film? If you have seen it, how did you like the rather updated language - especially that of Selma, the Sarah Polley character?

I really liked it. Gerard Butler made a very good Beowulf, and Stellan Skarsgard was fantastic as King Hrothgar. Polley's character was one of a kind, and wasn't Ingvar Eggert Sigurdsson amazing as Grendel?

It makes for an interesting exercise to watch this film back to back with "The Thirteenth Warrior" and compare and contrast the way the storyline has been handled.


----------



## Loner (Aug 22, 2006)

I instantly thought of Beowulf when I saw The Thirteenth Warrior. Does Michael Crichton mention Beowulf at all or give any credit in his book "Eaters of the Dead", on which the film was based?
If not, shame on him as its a pretty obvious bit of plagiarism!

Sadly I haven't seen Beowulf & Grendel, but I will soon...


----------



## Riselka (Aug 22, 2006)

I have vague recollections of seeing something to do with Beowulf mentioned on a copy of Eaters of the Dead I was looking at once.  Whether it's mentioned on all the various publications of the book, I don't know.

I've read Beowulf, but I've not read Eaters of the Dead.  I kind of gave up on reading Crichton's books when I realized that I just didn't develop any feelings for his characters.  The science was good, and seemed very well researched, but the way he writes his characters, I just find myself not caring in the least whether any of them live or die.

Except in the case of that bratty little girl in Jurassic Park.  I found myself hoping that a dinosaur would chow down on her so I didn't have to put up with her irritating self any longer.

But getting back to Beowulf and Grendel.  There seems to be two camps amongst fans of the epic poem - those that appreciate the fact that it remains a bit truer to the poem than The Thirteenth Warrior did, and those that blast it for its somewhat modernized dialogue.

Be forewarned that it has some rather adult language in it.

I quite liked the film.  But then again, I kind of like it when someone decides to shake a few trees when they make a movie.  And Iceland was a fantastic venue to film it in.  Makes me want to take a vacation there.


----------



## Justin Thorne (Sep 5, 2006)

*Beowulf & Grendel*

The 13th Warrior is one of my favorite movies of all time and part of its charm, is the interactions between the Norsemen...

So I was really looking forward to the new Beowulf and Grendel movie and it didn't disappoint at all... Gerard Butler was great as the lead and the scenery is breathtaking... I really want to go North!

Anyone see it?


----------



## carrie221 (Sep 5, 2006)

*Re: Beowulf & Grendel*

Okay now i am confused. I thought that movie wasn't coming out until next year, the site says 2007. But I am looking forward to it when it does come out.


----------



## Justin Thorne (Sep 5, 2006)

*Re: Beowulf & Grendel*

There was a limited release in Canada... it's out on DVD there now.


----------



## Ozymandias (Sep 5, 2006)

*Re: Beowulf & Grendel*

Were you guys unlucky enough to catch that god-awful science fiction update of the Beowulf myth starring Christopher Lambert? It was nut-grindingly bad. Case in point? It had a techno soundtrack.


----------



## Justin Thorne (Sep 6, 2006)

*Re: Beowulf & Grendel*

Yes, I was unlucky enough to see that garbage, Ozymandias... I think I turned it off half-way through and cursed Blockbuster for taking my money.

I have given up on Christopher Lambert... he will take any role, and I mean ANY role... since highlander, he has only had a couple of good movies, The Hunted was one, which is a brilliant movie about the last clan of Ninjas... and the Fortress was ok... everything else has been dire! Especially the Highlander sequels!


----------



## GOLLUM (Sep 6, 2006)

*Re: Beowulf & Grendel*

Justin slighlty off topic but you may like to check out the book Grendel by John Gardner, one of the Fantasy Masterwork books. It provides quite an interesting viewpoint of humankind's need for myth from a highly introspective Grendel slain by the might Beowulf.

Recommended.

Here's a review courtesy of SF Site to give you a better idea.

http://www.sfsite.com/12b/gr190.htm


----------



## Justin Thorne (Sep 6, 2006)

*Re: Beowulf & Grendel*

Funny you mention that, Gollum!

The actor who actually plays the part of Grendel, swears he got the part because he read that book! He was in a bookstore in Iceland, and he heard a customer asking about the filming of the movie and as he was due to audition, he told the man that it hadn't started filming yet. The man asked him what part he was playing and when he told him he was playing Grendel, the man pulled that book from his pocket and insisted that he read it... he bought it off the man right there in the bookstore lol!

So I definitely want to read that!


----------



## GOLLUM (Sep 6, 2006)

*Re: Beowulf & Grendel*

Huh? Small world hey?....

Please let me know what you think once you get hold of a copy of the book....

I've seen 13th Warrior and remember enjoying it at the time. I'm yet to see Beowulf and Grendel but I'll watch out for it.

*EDIT:* Will be interesting to see how that actor or the storyline was influenced by reading Grendel actually.


----------



## Justin Thorne (Sep 6, 2006)

*Re: Beowulf & Grendel*

Will do, I just ordered it from Amazon!

I'm sure you know this, G, but the 13th Warrior is based on Michael Crichton's *Eaters of the Dead*... an unusual book, written in diary entry style.


----------



## Rosemary (Sep 6, 2006)

*Re: Beowulf & Grendel*



			
				GOLLUM said:
			
		

> Justin slighlty off topic but you may like to check out the book Grendel by John Gardner, one of the Fantasy Masterwork books. It provides quite an interesting viewpoint of humankind's need for myth from a highly introspective Grendel slain by the might Beowulf.
> 
> Recommended.
> 
> ...



Oh, I think I might have to look out for this one Precioussss...although I will have to re-read Beowulf beforehand, so that I can compare the viewpoint.


----------



## Justin Thorne (Sep 6, 2006)

*Re: Beowulf & Grendel*

I remember reading Beowulf when I was at School... eons ago! 

I have to say that after watching Beowulf & Grendel, it is clear just how much of an influence the poem must have been on Michael Crichton when he wrote Eaters of the Dead and perhaps the film makers of 13th Warrior... the Norse humour is brilliant in both movies as is the imagery and cultures. I'm a big fan.


----------



## Rosemary (Sep 6, 2006)

*Re: Beowulf & Grendel*

That sounds very interesting Justin.  Various cultures have always been something I like to read about, and perhaps the movie of Beowulf & Grendel will compliment the book...


----------



## GOLLUM (Sep 7, 2006)

*Re: Beowulf & Grendel*



			
				Justin Thorne said:
			
		

> Will do, I just ordered it from Amazon!
> 
> I'm sure you know this, G, but the 13th Warrior is based on Michael Crichton's *Eaters of the Dead*... an unusual book, written in diary entry style.


I was aware of it but I've not read the book myself.

Thanks for the update...


----------



## j d worthington (Sep 7, 2006)

*Re: Beowulf & Grendel*

I've not seen the film, though it's to be shown (or recently has been shown, I'll have to pick up another program guide) here in Austin... but as far as John Gardner's book, I read it about 20 years ago, and was quite impressed; but then, Gardner was often quite impressive... Definitely worth reading, Gollum & Teresa. The man takes a different approach, but he knew the material well before playing with it, so it's done with skill and sensitivity to the original.


----------



## GOLLUM (Sep 7, 2006)

*Re: Beowulf & Grendel*



			
				j. d. worthington said:
			
		

> ....as far as John Gardner's book, I read it about 20 years ago, and was quite impressed; but then, Gardner was often quite impressive... Definitely worth reading, Gollum & Teresa. The man takes a different approach, but he knew the material well before playing with it, so it's done with skill and sensitivity to the original.


UMM...actually I had read it, hence my earlier post here recommending it to Justin. I agree it's impressive and in fact beautifully crafted. The way I'm going maybe I should be asking Masterwork for a commision!...

No problem though, I'll forgive you as long as you hand me that Gin and Tonic....


----------



## j d worthington (Sep 7, 2006)

*Re: Beowulf & Grendel*

nag, nag, nag.....


----------



## GOLLUM (Sep 7, 2006)

*Re: Beowulf & Grendel*

Thanks buddy, see you back in the Lounge Room....


----------



## Justin Thorne (Sep 7, 2006)

*Re: Beowulf & Grendel*

I go on holiday on Sunday, plenty of time for reading... I think I will bump *Grendel* to the front of the pile! 

I'm fascinated to see if the book influenced Ingvar Sigurosson's performance of Grendel, there were some intense scenes, especially when Grendel seemed to be in a rage and self-harming. Some more scenes with Grendel in the cave with his father's head and how he interacted with the human witch... great acting really, as he had to deliver the mood without speech most of the time... it's amazing how some grunts, howls and body language can resonate... I think perhaps Andy Serkis is another actor who could have pulled this off.


----------



## Justin Thorne (Sep 25, 2006)

*Re: Beowulf & Grendel*

Finished *Grendel* by John Gardner...

A fascinating little book, easily readable in two sessions at just over a hundred pages... really well written and interesting seeing the Northmen through the eyes of the main character... 

It's quite the meditation on lonelyness, insanity and the purpose of existence... Gardner uses it as a vehicle for his own philosophy on morality and the conversations between Grendel and the Dragon are where most of these insights are given.

Brutal, literary, funny, poetic, philosophical... quite a lot packed in to such a small package! Good recommendation, Gollum.


----------



## Rani2aj (Jan 16, 2007)

I am a bit late posting to this site mainly due to the fact that Beowulf and Grendel was never released and shown on the big screen in Australia, so I had to wait and watch it on DVD.

I am a fan of Gerard Butler's so was very interested to see how he would handle the role of Beowulf.   I did know a bit about the storyline so that helped and when I saw it I was very pleasantly surprised, it was a terrific movie and the acting and direction was very good, although I am not too sure about Sarah Polley's portrayal of Selma!   A lot of reports said that the different 'accents' were offputting but I did not find this to be the case.  Also, I must say that the photography and scenery was awesome.

I don't whether any of you know but a documentary has been made by Jon Gustafsson.   Jon had a small part in the movie and inbetween shooting took a video of what went on behind the scenes, the obstacles and challenges faced and the harsh climatic conditions but all the while maintaining a good sense of humour.

This documentary is called "Wrath of Gods" and details are on their website.   It is hoped that it will be shown at many festivals and the DVD is due for release soon.   I have visited this site many times and have seen the trailer.   In my opinion it is going to be amazing, don't miss it!

Rani


----------



## undoto (Jan 16, 2007)

Hi 

I saw Beowulf and grendel in LA....
I loved it!!!
And I agree about Butler.. who couldn't love a Beowulf like that????

I saw the documentary that you mentioned ona broadcast on the CBC
well it was a small segment of it..
But OMG!!!  now I just want to see all of it...  I have watched the trailer and 
all the mini clips and read through the pages of the web page for Wrath of Gods...
can you blieve all they went through to make the movie???

Perhaps we will both see it soon and then we can share our thoughts on it....

Cheers


----------



## Delvo (Jan 16, 2007)

This movie apparently was never released in the USA so I didn't see it. (And I even thought it was still "in development" when it was already released elsewhere!) But I do know that Crichton has said many times in many places that "Eaters of the Dead" was heavily based on "Beowulf" and a couple of other things such as the diary of the real Ahmed Ibn Fahdlan. Seriously, folks, he didn't even change some of the names at all, so how could you ever think he was even TRYING to be sneaky about it?


----------



## undoto (Jan 16, 2007)

Hi
Beowulf and Grendel did have a limited release in the USA.
It showed at something like 6 major cities.
Not a very big release at all.  But that is what happens to 
independent films.  This one was a production of Canada, Iceland,
and the UK...
Iceland was just awesome.   
Sometimes for a lot of folks seeing the making of type 
film about a movie helps understand and appreciate the  
movie so much more..  After I saw the CBC showing I was just blown away.
These guys went through pure hell to make Beowulf and Grendel...
I really reccomend seeing Wratho f Gods when it is released and then 
watching beowulf and grendel either for the first time or again..
and you will see it so differently..
I however did enjoy the movie first time round when I saw it at a theater in lA.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Jan 16, 2007)

Loner said:


> I instantly thought of Beowulf when I saw The Thirteenth Warrior. Does Michael Crichton mention Beowulf at all or give any credit in his book "Eaters of the Dead", on which the film was based?
> If not, shame on him as its a pretty obvious bit of plagiarism!
> 
> Sadly I haven't seen Beowulf & Grendel, but I will soon...



Certainly, but, thematically speaking, this film adaptation owes far, far more to John Gardner's brilliant novel,_ Grendel_, a powerful, sympathetic re-telling of this classic tale from the monster's point of view. 

This is so typical of the movie industry. They habitually raid and pillage from whatever source is close at hand without a moment's thought to ethics or legality.


----------



## Rani2aj (Feb 15, 2007)

I don't know too much about the accuracy or legality of Beowulf and Grendel, I just took it at face value and I must say I really enjoyed it.  Granted it is not everyones cup of tea but it certainly was mine.

The documentary Wrath of Gods is going to be very interesting and will show all the trials and tribulations encounted whilst this movie was being made.  I have already reserved my copy of the DVD.

Rani


----------



## undoto (Feb 15, 2007)

I personally liked this adaptation of Beowulf and Grendel.
It gave Grendel human qualities and this one had such humor..
I took it for what it was worth, a movie, entertainment, and I 
completely enjoyed it.

As you said Rani..
everyone has their own cup of tea.

I have preordered my DVD of the Wrath of Gods too..
and some posters
I really can't wait to get the DVD....
Maybe I will be lucky and it will show at a film festival 
and I can see it.....

cheers


----------



## Rani2aj (Feb 19, 2007)

I hope you get to see Wrath of Gods at a festival, it would be cool to see it on the big screen.

I have just ordered some posters too.

Rani


----------



## undoto (Feb 19, 2007)

won't be long now...

lots of exciting stuff on the way......

300 is right around the corner....

looks good to me!!!!!!


----------



## Rani2aj (Feb 21, 2007)

I have to wait until April to see 300 here and then at the end of April should receive the Wrath DVD.  Two things I am really looking forward to.

Are these your favourite type of movies?

Rani


----------



## undoto (Feb 21, 2007)

my favorite movies ar historical epics... anything Native American
as long as it is done with class,  I love movies about Vikings and knights,
of course I love other stuff too... but these types are my favorites....


----------



## Rani2aj (Mar 2, 2007)

Hi,

Historical movies are my favourites too but I also like musicals, thrillers, courtroom drama's and romantic comedies too, as long as they are not really silly.

I like stories that are true to life as long as the storytellers do not stray too far from the actual facts.   I believe I will most certainly enjoy 300 and I thought Beowulf and Grendel was awesome.

Just waiting, in anticipation, for Wrath of Gods.

Rani


----------



## undoto (Mar 2, 2007)

Hi Rani 

long time no see...  

yes 300 is coming on the 9th...

YIPPIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am looking forward to seeing Path Finder too.....

I have an appreciation for all movie types...
as long as they are good...  

2007 has a lot of exciting stuff....
a good year for the cinema..

Wrath of Gods is showing at a Festival in Winnipeg this weekend...

Wouldn't it be nice to be in Canada... 
Green with envy I am!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Rani2aj (Mar 16, 2007)

Hi, just checking in again.

Apparently 300 is a huge hit, took much more than expected at the box office last weekend.  Have you seen it? I have to wait until April before it is released here.

I have found out that Wrath is going to be showing at a festival in my home town, I am so excited about this.  Also, I got my Poster this week, have you got one?

Rani


----------



## Bikewer (Mar 17, 2007)

Did anyone try to watch the terrible thing they did on the sci-fi channel?
I only made it through about 10 minutes....   First, Beowulf fires an exploding crossbow bolt at the monster, impressing Hrothgar's men.
Then, cut to Hrothgar's "great hall", which looked suspiciously like the banquet center down the street... Complete with table linen.


----------



## undoto (Mar 17, 2007)

Bikewer - I heard about it.. and the guy who was telling me about it
had the same response you do...  YUCK!!!!!!!

Rani - I saw 300!!!!  I thought it was great...
The showings were all sold out... and the lines were really
long...
You will like it I am sure...

I got my poster too!!!!! I love it..
How cool that you will get to see Wrath of Gods right there in your hometown on the big screen...  

the DVD is released next month...  I CAN'T wait!!!!!!!


----------



## Raoul Mitgong (Apr 9, 2007)

*Attitude toward scifi film remakes*

I visited a forum recently that had a thread on the possible remake of Forbidden Planet and who might be in the cast.

There was the usual hue and cry against remaking classic films and I just don't understand it. What is the problem?

If you are one of those that feel the remake is an insult to the original, ignore it. I'll be the first to admit that the remakes are usually not as good as the original but I still enjoy most of them. 

No matter how bad they might be it can only make one appreciate the original more


----------



## Dave (Apr 9, 2007)

*Re: Atitude toward scifi film remakes*

If I owned a classic car, for example, a 1970 Plymouth Barracuda Gran Coupe, what would be the point of producing a new car that looked just like it?

It could never be quite the same, it would never look exactly like it. It would have a more efficient and lighter engine, and could incorporate better alloys in the construction, and the design would be improved. it would have the latest electronic ignition. It would be safer, handle better on corners, and have power steering, a sat nav, air conditioning, etc.

Just for having those things, it would not be the 1970 Plymouth Barracuda Gran Coupe, and it could never be it. That was a product of the time it was designed, it is completely linked with the time it was designed. All I would do by copying it, would be to cash in on it's appeal and fame, but my copy would always be a poor shadow of the original.  

Now why not spend the money on producing something completely new instead? A revolutionary, state of the art, original design. Something very modernistic and never seen before. Something that will really shock everyone.


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 9, 2007)

*Re: Atitude toward scifi film remakes*

Exactly. Remakes mean that original work -- and there are plenty of original projects out there, believe me -- go a-begging, because they aren't "proven". Sequelitis, and remakes, means that no challenges are allowed to grow. All we get are retreads of the same material.

Now, if you think that the original story germ is valuable, but you've got truly fresh and innovative ways to approach it (e.g., Cronenbeg's *The Fly*); then you may have a valid reason for doing a remake. But it's still questionable, with so very, very much good material that hasn't been picked up, or that has the option bought, but which sits on the shelf for years or decades because they'd rather make the umpty-umpth version of an old story rather than put the effort into making something fresh, new, and exciting. It kills creativity, and dulls the mind into an acceptance of this idea that "all the good ideas have been done". Bushwa! "If you're broken, it's because you're brittle", as Goldman had Eleanor say in The Lion in Winter. If they can't come up with any new stories, then it's because they're idiots, morons, and stunted in imagination -- or, more likely, ghouls and vultures who feed off the ideas of those who went before.

And, in the meantime, those who truly do have new visions, new voices, and new approaches to a theme, find themselves without a way of making a living. as most remakes are original ideas farmed out to rewrite teams that do nothing but rewrites, while original scripts by new, fresh writers (or even older, established, but still creative and innovative writers) are left to collect dust. It costs less; the writers' pay becomes less and less (a chronic problem in Hollywood), and the audience gets more and more watered-down product as a result. The best that can be said for 99% of remakes is that they're nice eye-candy. Beyond that, nearly every one fails. Why not give something new a try, and support growth and creativity in the medium instead?

I'd say those are pretty valid reasons for being opposed to remakes and sequels, wouldn't you?


----------



## Mollygurl (Apr 9, 2007)

*Re: Atitude toward scifi film remakes*




j. d. worthington said:


> ...I'd say those are pretty valid reasons for being opposed to remakes and sequels, wouldn't you?


Well, when you put it that way, absolutely-positively!  

I will say one thing for remakes (and not much for sequels other than *T2* & *Aliens*; they were both worthy efforts) - and this is not to counter what you've said because both you & Dave make great points - but remakes _can_ help to introduce the classics to younger viewers. Like Planet of the Apes for example; though the remake wasn't very good, I know plenty of people who decided to watch the original for comparison. Most enjoyed it more than the Marky-Mark version.


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 9, 2007)

*Re: Atitude toward scifi film remakes*



Mollygurl said:


> Well, when you put it that way, absolutely-positively!
> 
> I will say one thing for remakes (and not much for sequels other than *T2* & *Aliens*; they were both worthy efforts) - and this is not to counter what you've said because both you & Dave make great points - but remakes _can_ help to introduce the classics to younger viewers. Like Planet of the Apes for example; though the remake wasn't very good, I know plenty of people who decided to watch the original for comparison. Most enjoyed it more than the Marky-Mark version.


 
In earlier days, I'd say that was a valid point... and it may still have some very slight validity now; but with so many film "classics" easily available on videotape or DVD, or showing on classic movie channels on cable, that's an awfully tenuous claim to a _raison d'être_, I think... and I'd wager that, in general, it is outweighed by the harm it does to fantastic films, by giving the impression to the uninitiated that "well, it's science fiction (or fantasy)... it doesn't _have_ to make sense" or "it isn't supposed to be _good_, just fun", etc., an argument that I've heard more often than I can count to excuse absolute garbage wearing the name of sff.

(Don't get me wrong -- I do enjoy a bit of schlock now and again (including the film of that title -- but even original schlock tends to be more entertaining than big-budget remakes of earlier films. How, for instance, can most modern fantasy films compare in maturity of execution and thoughtfulness with, say, *Outward Bound*, or *On Borrowed Time*, or *Death Takes a Holiday* -- which was remade into *Meet Joe Black*, gawdelpus! which was twice the length and had about half the substance. Not that there aren't remakes that are worthy films... though most of those are new adaptations of literary pieces, rather than remakes of original screenplays (*The Fly* being one such). And there are some good sequels out there, too: *The Bride of Frankenstein* is, in some ways, better than *Frankenstein*; *Aliens* is, in some ways, a better film (or at least a vastly different film) than *Alien*, and so forth. (Actually, I'd say that's why these sequels succeed -- they're not rehashing the original, but taking a different approach and, while connected, are telling a different type of story.) But for every one of those, you get dozens of *Friday the 13th, part MXMLXIII* or *Halloween 17* (and a remake of *Halloween* -- _*WHY?*_) or *Hellraiser: Toiletries and Accessories* (and I hear they're doing -- have done? -- a remake on *Hellraiser*, too. Damn! And I _liked_ that film!)

As a result, we're seeing audiences reinforced in the opinion that sff in cinema must be on the intellectual level of a *Porky's* or *Dumb and Dumber* or *Idiocracy*... instead of also being capable of a *Gattaca*, or a *2001: A Space Odyssey*, or a *Solaris*, or even a *Silent Running* (which has logical holes you could drive a solar system through, but is still an intelligent film) or *The Lathe of Heaven* (the original television production, not that dreadful remake of a few years ago). Or, for lighter fare, how about a *Sleeper*, or the television production of *Overdrawn at the Memory Bank*, or even *Dark Star*? (I mean, if you can't do better than *Dark Star* -- as much as I enjoy that film, and as quirky and wonderfully wonky as it is -- then we're in terrible trouble here!) That, too, is one of the big problem with remakes -- they almost never get more intelligent, but they very frequently get considerably more stupid!

EDIT: Hmmmm. Makes me wonder -- if they decided to do a remake of *Atomic Submarine* ... or *Plan 9 from Outer Space* *shudder* -- could they get even more stupid than that? The mind boggles!


----------



## Raoul Mitgong (Apr 9, 2007)

*Re: Atitude toward scifi film remakes*

Don't get me wrong, I would always choose something original over a remake. 

I have been twisting in the wind for promised films like Enders Game, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Hyperion, (just to name a few), for years and still don't know if I will live to see them.

I am only saying that I am not as adamently opposed to remakes as some seem to be. If they remake Forbidden Planet, I will look forward to it and while I might rather see the effort put to a Foundation or Hyperion film, I will eagerly await the FP remake without any jaded outlook on the prospects of improving on the original. After all, The 1956 Forbidden Planet was an excellent SF film for that time but it was not a Mona Lisa of films. The same can be said for POTA and some other remakes.

The promised remake of Logan's Run is a better example of a waste of time since it was nothing to write home about originally and it has for all purposes already been remade as The Island.


----------



## Mollygurl (Apr 9, 2007)

*Re: Atitude toward scifi film remakes*



j. d. worthington said:


> In earlier days, I'd say that was a valid point... and it may still have some very slight validity now; but with so many film "classics" easily available on videotape or DVD, or showing on classic movie channels on cable, that's an awfully tenuous claim to a _raison d'être..._


~True enough. It just seems to me that for the younger generations – who have grown up immersed in popular culture and who are always seeking the next, newest, best thing – most have no interest in watching the ‘classics’, even if a DVD were handed directly to them. It’s about appeal and not availability. It may not be until the remake, which always stars the ‘hot’ film star of the moment, that they decide to have a look-see at the original. I’m not saying it’s a _raison d'être, _merely a silver lining.  




j. d. worthington said:


> ... Not that there aren't remakes that are worthy films... though most of those are new adaptations of literary pieces, rather than remakes of original screenplays (*The Fly* being one such).


~Agreed. The Fly was a great adaptation/remake and arguably better than the original, which I discovered after watching it for comparison. An unusual reversal.


j. d. worthington said:


> ...And there are some good sequels out there, too: *The Bride of Frankenstein* is, in some ways, better than *Frankenstein*; *Aliens* is, in some ways, a better film (or at least a vastly different film) than *Alien*, and so forth. (Actually, I'd say that's why these sequels succeed -- they're not rehashing the original, but taking a different approach and, while connected, are telling a different type of story.) But for every one of those, you get dozens of *Friday the 13th, part MXMLXIII* or *Halloween 17* (and a remake of *Halloween* -- *WHY?*) or *Hellraiser: Toiletries and Accessories* (and I hear they're doing -- have done? -- a remake on *Hellraiser*, too. Damn! And I _liked_ that film!)


~Absolutely! In my mind – staying connected but telling a different story is the purpose of a sequel. Too many movie honchos fail to understand this however and they end up grinding out formulaic movies in the interest of dollar signs. And that translates in to the appalling sequels that you’ve mentioned. I’m with you on the original *Hellraiser* – a damn good and damn scary movie. It's too bad that they totally wrecked it with the subsequent sequels. 

Speaking of remakes…what do you think of the upcoming *Transformers* movie? The previews look good but I’m imagining that the producers threw out plausible plotlines in favor of expensive CG work.


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 9, 2007)

*Re: Atitude toward scifi film remakes*



Mollygurl said:


> Speaking of remakes…what do you think of the upcoming *Transformers* movie? The previews look good but I’m imagining that the producers threw out plausible plotlines in favor of expensive CG work.


 
That's my feeling, I'm afraid. I've only seen the one preview, and that really didn't tell much, but left me wondering what the approach was going to be... looked like they might take a much more dark and menacing approach, which would make an interesting film... but what I've heard subsequently makes me _extremely_ dubious on this one.


----------



## HardScienceFan (Apr 9, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*

Remakes?
Yikes


----------



## Connavar (Apr 9, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*

All remakes suck really.


I havent seen a good one.


----------



## Sibeling (Apr 9, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*

I agree to what all the previous comments, but still there is some positive aspect of remakes - they have better CGI and all kinds of effects than originals. Advances in technology make things look more interesting, even though the plot is old.


----------



## Urien (Apr 9, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*

I'm surprised Forbidden Planet has gone so long without a remake. It's one of my favourite sci fi films. The special effects are fabulous for the time, the sound work is stunning, and the monster from the id, is STILL one of the best sci fi monsters I've ever seen. The sound of it whilst attacking is spine tingling.

Other aspects have aged less well. The crew is essentially a 1950s US navy destroyer crew, all white (I think) and all male.

I would like to see a sympathetic remake, incorporating the best aspects of the original and trying hard to have a futuristic crew and attitudes. (By that I don't mean the attitudes of 2007. And please no more oblique references to Iraq or Bush, Battlestar Galactica I'm looking at you. It's meant to be the goddamn future.)


----------



## Connavar (Apr 9, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*

Battlestar Galactica is the only good remake though.

References to Iraq and Bush? sure but itsnt a big part of the story.


----------



## The Wanderer (Apr 9, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*



Connavar of Rigante said:


> Battlestar Galactica is the only good remake though.
> 
> References to Iraq and Bush? sure but itsnt a big part of the story.




Misses Lorne Greene though and Starbuck, shouldn't be a gorl


----------



## The Wanderer (Apr 9, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*



Connavar of Rigante said:


> All remakes suck really.
> 
> 
> I havent seen a good one.



Ok, I've just looked at a long list of remakes on Wikipedia and here is my list of films in which the remakes are better, there's not many:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original - A Star Is Born (1937) dir. William A. Wellman

Remake - A Star Is Born (1954) dir. George Cukor

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original - Infernal Affairs (2002) dir. Wai Keung Lau & Siu Fai Mak


Remake - The Departed (2006) dir. Martin Scorsese	
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Original - L.A. Takedown (1989) dir. Michael Mann

Remake - Heat (1995) dir. Michael Mann	

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Original - Pygmalion (1938) dir. Gabriel Pascal

Remake - My Fair Lady (1964) dir. George Cukor	


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original - Scarface (1932) dir. Howard Hawks

Remake - Scarface (1983) dir. Brian De Palma	


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Original - The Thing from Another World (1951) dir. Christian Nyby & Howard Hawks

Remake - The Thing (1982) dir. John Carpenter	

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this reflects largely a personal Opinion, but nevertheless, it's less than 1%


Up and coming remakes:

Escape from New York is being remade and 'The Warriors' is being remade by Tony Scott, though I's like to see him try and do a better than Walter Hill did in 1979


----------



## Dave (Apr 10, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*

Just to note: You do know that _Forbidden Planet_ is essentially _The Tempest_ and so is already a remake itself.


----------



## BookStop (Apr 10, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*

What about remakes that are intended for a different audience? Not that I'm saying they are good exactly, but some remakes are very popular with crowds younger than the original would appeal to, and the crowd for which they are intended could argue that they are better films.

For instance, Emma has been remade a few times. Personally, I enjoy the Gwen Paltrow, Jeremy Northam version. My daughter, on the other hand, really enjoys Clueless, a teen film where Emma is updated to today and lives in Beverly Hills. It's a cute movie, but my daughter, after watching Emma with me, will argue until the end of time that Clueless is much better.

I am glad they remade it into Clueless. It was so m uch fun watching both movies and finding similarities. I don't think I could've convinced my daughter to watch Emma otherwise.


----------



## Connavar (Apr 10, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*



The Wanderer said:


> Ok, I've just looked at a long list of remakes on Wikipedia and here is my list of films in which the remakes are better, there's not many:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...




There is no way departed is near as good Infernal Affairs.  Tony Leung eats up Leo and co in that type of role.  


Also by remakes i mean from other movies.

Scarface i heard Al Pacino say they got the idea from a play he saw.  

The only one i can agree about is Heat which was amazing movie mostly cause it was the last time Al Pacino and Robert De Niro got a movie they could shine.  Unlike now they play a supporting role to crappy actors like Colin Farrell.


Most of the others i havent seen.  

Wasnt the thing based on a novel?


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 11, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*



Connavar of Rigante said:


> Wasnt the thing based on a novel?


 
John Carpenter's film went back to John W. Campbell's novella, "Who Goes There?", and is much closer to it in many ways; but he was also paying homage to the original Howard Hawks *The Thing from Another World*, which he loved as a child (in fact, you'll notice that's what the kids are watching on the "creature feature" in the original *Halloween*...)


----------



## jenna (Apr 18, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*



The Wanderer said:


> 'The Warriors' is being remade by Tony Scott, though I's like to see him try and do a better than Walter Hill did in 1979



Actually he's not really remaking it per se, he's just bastardising the name to make some lame rap war movie.


----------



## that old guy (Apr 18, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*

Funny how _I am Legend_ is being "remade" for the third time, starring Will Smith.

Loved _The Omega Man _ as an 11 year old, was embarassed by it when I saw it on DVD a year or two ago.

Never saw _The Last Man on Earth_, I've heard different things about it through the years.


----------



## Raoul Mitgong (Apr 20, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*

So the upshot is they will continue to remake and we will continue to hate the remakes or, in some cases enjoy them.

I think of it this way, Hamlet, MacBeth, et al have been remade hundreds of times, in every way that can be imagined. I have enjoyed many of the "remakes" and I have detested some.

Bottom line, fresh and original is great but retelling a great tale is not bad either.


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 20, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*



Raoul Mitgong said:


> So the upshot is they will continue to remake and we will continue to hate the remakes or, in some cases enjoy them.
> 
> I think of it this way, Hamlet, MacBeth, et al have been remade hundreds of times, in every way that can be imagined. I have enjoyed many of the "remakes" and I have detested some.
> 
> Bottom line, fresh and original is great but retelling a great tale is not bad either.


 
The difference is that Hamlet, MacBeth, etc.... were dramatic presentations written for the stage; where each production, each performance, would be different. And, as they were for the stage, they were ephemeral; once the performance was over, it lived only in the memories of those who had seen it.

Adaptations of literary works, again, are interpretations of something from the page, something that is not primarily visual, but oral. Thus, again, there is no pre-existing image; it varies from person to person and from one reading to the next.

These films, however, are there. They are (more or less) permanent. They can be seen any time. There is no need to do a retread on them, unless one can actually improve on the original -- and that is a _very_ seldom thing. And as for those where they do a shot-by-shot remake... what in hell's the point? It becomes a five-finger exercise with a camera (actually, it becomes cinematic m***********, to be blunt: barren, fruitless, and self-serving).

So... while retelling a great story is fine... it should be retelling a great story; not trying to top a great (or even good) film with a mediocre rehash, using the same medium. There are far too many really good stories going a-begging to waste time watching the studio pick its nose on the screen.....

P.S. This is not intended for you personally, Raoul -- I enjoy seeing your posts, and have no problems with you at all. But I do have very strong opinions on this one, because I've seen far too many good scripts gather dust for years, only to be either lost to posterity or butchered by being rewritten 53,000 times into just another lame regurgitation of cinematic tropes that predate the Bronze Age. It really does get terrifically tiresome... and dammit! There's so many wonderful sf stories out there that haven't even been touched yet, that could make wonderful films, but they won't be made as long as Hollywood can get by with making yet another installment in one of the numerous franchises, or simply do a "re-imagining" of yet another film that's already been done, usually more than once.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Apr 21, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*

I think there are few films nowadays that are 'untouchable' - that is , that there would be a public outcry if another version was made - Citizen Kane is one , Casablanca another


----------



## paranoid marvin (Apr 21, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*

I agree that a remake has to add something to the original - otherwise it's worthless - Ian McKellan's Richard III is a good example of a worthy remake


----------



## Dave (Apr 21, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*

Is that the one with the tanks?

And also think _West Side Story_ is better than _Romeo and Juliette_.


----------



## Rani2aj (Apr 21, 2007)

Just checking in. Won't be long now before the DVD's are sent out, am so looking forward to receiving mine.

Did you hear that Wrath of Gods won an 'Audience Award' at the recent Oxford Ohio International Film Festival? Congratulations to Jon, Gerry and all those involved.

Rani


----------



## undoto (Apr 21, 2007)

that was great news wasn't it..

those people at Oxford have good taste ..
just like us..    

that DVD release is just days away!!!!

I am so excited!!!

not long to wait now.....


undoto


----------



## Connavar (Apr 21, 2007)

I have wanted to see this movie but it isnt out here on cinema or dvd.

I have actually read alittle about Beowulf in school and Butler is awesome in these roles even before 300. I remember seeing him as Atila the Hun very cool.

Hopefully they will the milk of Butler now that he is world famous as Leonadis and show this movie to more people.


----------



## Connavar (Apr 21, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*

Romeo and Juliette? the movie? or the original play?

Why even compare a musical to a legendary tale like that....


----------



## Raoul Mitgong (Apr 21, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*

Thanks for your comments J.D. and I appreciate your strongly held and inteligently stated opinion on the matter.

I understand the difference in theatre vs. film in the case of Hamlet, etc. The catch is that classical theatre is now part of the film genre and since Lawerence Olivier's Hamlet, the film has been remade probably a half dozen times, in modern dress, on location and with special effects that clearly define it from a theatrical production.

My point is only that remakes will happen and each can be judged on it's own merit. I certainly agree that originality is better for films but I just don't get as testy about the remakes.

I promise to shut up now.


----------



## Raoul Mitgong (Apr 21, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*



paranoid marvin said:


> I think there are few films nowadays that are 'untouchable' - that is , that there would be a public outcry if another version was made - Citizen Kane is one , Casablanca another


 
I agree with you on those films. There have numerous threats to remake Casablanca and some half hearted chatter about Citizen Kane. I expect in the end someone will remake Casablanca. They will try to do it well but they will fail. 

No one will ever seriously attempt Citizen Kane. While I'm not one that believes it is the best film ever, it is, without doubt, impossible to remake as anything but a bad joke.

I would avoid either like the plague


----------



## Connavar (Apr 21, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*

The story of Casablanca isnt really special, its only cause of Bogart awesomely coolness, skill and Bergman's skill and ways that made the movie.


Which is a good chance it wont be a remake.    No one wants to bear the shame o ruin a movie like that hopefully, that will keep them away.


I


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 21, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*



Raoul Mitgong said:


> I promise to shut up now.


 
LOL!  Please don't! 

Oh, and Connavar:



> No one wants to bear the shame o ruin a movie like that hopefully, that will keep them away.


 
Errrr.... this is Hollywood we're talking, remember?


----------



## Connavar (Apr 21, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*

Yeah damn i forgot that bit


----------



## undoto (Apr 22, 2007)

Connavar of Rigante said:


> I have wanted to see this movie but it isnt out here on cinema or dvd.
> 
> I have actually read alittle about Beowulf in school and Butler is awesome in these roles even before 300. I remember seeing him as Atila the Hun very cool.
> 
> Hopefully they will the milk of Butler now that he is world famous as Leonadis and show this movie to more people.


 
Hi
Wrathof Gods is availale now for preorder.. athe website.. WRATH OF GODS   I sure have mine on preorder..

I already have my Beowulf DVD...

I loved Atilla.. it was the first time I ever saw Butler in a movie.. 
He did some awesome work before 300...

He is hilarious in the Wrath of Gods..
The clips sure made me want more...
It really looks like a great documentary..
not jsut because of Butler either..
jsut really entertaining...

cheers


----------



## Steve Jordan (May 21, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*

I really can't think of a remake I've enjoyed more than the original.  And just having access to CGI is a poor reason to remake a film, as the style of a movie is also developed by the director to satisfy the available technology, and can be just as effective as cgi efforts.  Is someone going to give us a better _Wizard of Oz_ by using modern film tricks?  _2001_?  _Blade Runner_?  Nope.

I'm also on the "stuff those remakes" bandwagon... there are far too many good works out there waiting to be done, to waste time with remaking to "fix" something that isn't broken.


----------



## Kostmayer (May 21, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*

About the only remake which I preferred more then the original was the 70's version of "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers". It was just much creepier then the first version.

I agree with the above poster about CGI not neccesarily making a remake better. I defy any remake to improve the scene in Forbidden Planet, when the ship is attacked by the ID monsters, or the scene in Jaws where the dodgy rubber shark first appears.


----------



## Steve Jordan (May 22, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*



Kostmayer said:


> I defy any remake to improve the scene in Forbidden Planet, when the ship is attacked by the ID monsters, or the scene in Jaws where the dodgy rubber shark first appears.



The first time I saw the shark rear up in Brody's face... then swim by the boat ("We're gonna need a bigger boat...")... no CGI is gonna improve on those scenes!


----------



## Quokka (May 22, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*



Steve Jordan said:


> I really can't think of a remake I've enjoyed more than the original. And just having access to CGI is a poor reason to remake a film, as the style of a movie is also developed by the director to satisfy the available technology, and can be just as effective as cgi efforts. Is someone going to give us a better _Wizard of Oz_ by using modern film tricks? _2001_? _Blade Runner_? Nope.
> 
> I'm also on the "stuff those remakes" bandwagon... there are far too many good works out there waiting to be done, to waste time with remaking to "fix" something that isn't broken.


 

Who knows, maybe they will beat all the odds and create a better movie using modern techniques, thats exactly what happended with the 1939 classic, being a remake of the 1925 version.

There's no doubt that the vast majority of remakes are shocking but some do work. *Gone in 60 Seconds* wasn't all bad. The original movie is famous for one of the longest chase scenes in history (about 40+ minutes from memory) but its rarely noted for its great acting and *The Thing* and *The Fly* are definately two of the best remakes of all the movies where I've seen both versions(horror movies do seem to do better out of remakes then most). 

Alot of movies I don't realise are remakes because they've been lucky enough to have been left for a decent period of time. *Titanic* is a movie that just makes me shudder but if it had been remade as a movie chronicling a historic event and tragedy rather then a love story that just happens to occur whilst 100's are dying around them, it might have worked.

I've got to say I kind of liked *Payback* but as with Clueless, LOTR etc I think alot of remakes work when they go back to reinterpret the source material rather then remake the previous movie.


----------



## littlemissattitude (May 22, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*



Steve Jordan said:


> Is someone going to give us a better _Wizard of Oz_ by using modern film tricks?



No.  Of course not.

Actually, the classic 1939 version of _The Wizard of Oz_ was a remake.  At least, the story had been put to film two or three times before that.  So, it is just that we all know and (most of us) love that version that we think of it as inviolable.  On the other hand they did remake it again (we won't mention the animated versions of various _Oz_ stories), as _The Wiz_, which basically turned into a vanity project for Diana Ross although it didn't start out to be that.


----------



## Quokka (May 22, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*

I suppose in the end they're never going to make a better version for me but at some point a remake probably will appeal to a large portion of the audience that never saw the original and would find it too outdated to be relevant?

Of course this time period is usually about a factor of 10 greater to when the remakes actually occur.


----------



## gully_foyle (May 22, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*

Maybe someone will remake Star Wars I, II & III. Sorry, rewrite and remake. Preferably someone young, with a zeal for making magic rather than making franchises. Do I sound bitter?


----------



## Ragnar (May 22, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*

One thing that's always bugged me about re-makes - they don't re-write classic novels or re-paint old masters so why is it ok to remake classic films?

On the whole, I'm not a fan (The Wicker Man - say no more) but, as a few have pointed out (The Thing, The Fly etc...), sometimes a remake (or should that be re-imagining?) can be worth watching.


----------



## j d worthington (May 22, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*

Ragnar: Two reasons, predominantly. One: It's a dramatic presentation, not a literary work, or a piece of art done by one person. It's a cooperative effort and therefore, like drama, is open to reinterpration by different actors, scenarists, and directors.

Two (and the much more important one where motive is concerned): Hollywood does not look at movies as art, but as a _business_; it's entertainment enterprises, and anything that reaches the level of art is largely serendipitous. They'll be more than happy to take the bows, but as far as producing art, they don't (by and large, there are a few exceptional individuals) give a damn. And remakes are often much cheaper to pay for on the writing (property) end, because you avoid the first few steps in the process -- the original idea is already there, a development has already been done, an original (and usually several rewrite) scripts have been done, so you don't have to pay for that -- which you do have to do with original material, whether the movie gets made or not (unless things have changed since the last time I checked into this stuff). So, at least in the initial development stages, it makes pocketbook sense to do remakes/sequels, because you avoid a lot of those costs if it never goes any further than the written page.


----------



## HardScienceFan (May 22, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*

Considering most remakes,I'd remake the remakes
'The 39 steps,pt 16' Ben


----------



## Munkeygames (May 22, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*

The Wicker Man

I rest my case.....gun case I will use to kill Nicholas Cage


----------



## Steve Jordan (May 22, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*



Quokka said:


> ...I think alot of remakes work when they go back to reinterpret the source material rather then remake the previous movie.


This (and littlemissattitude's comment about _The Wiz_ are good points: A _reinterpretation_ of the material can be okay.  It's like jazz... variation on a theme.  That's why I don't consider _The Wiz_ a remake, for example.  And in terms of movies, there are even more movies made as variation on a theme than there are remakes... pretty much all but, what?  Seven of them?  (I've forgotten what the accepted count on the "basic story themes" is today.)

Actually, a thread listing reinterpretations of themes, as opposed to remakes, might be interesting...


----------



## Ragnar (May 22, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*



j. d. worthington said:


> Ragnar: Two reasons, predominantly...


 
LOL. I get that - I was being sarcastic. Probably should've included the universal symbol of the little winking dude


----------



## j d worthington (May 22, 2007)

*Re: Attitude toward scifi film remakes*



Ragnar said:


> LOL. I get that - I was being sarcastic. Probably should've included the universal symbol of the little winking dude


 
*sigh* There I go taking people seriously again....


----------

