# Metropolis remake?



## Foxbat (Jan 21, 2008)

Apparently producer Thomas Schuehly has bagged the rights to remake Metropolis and is currently in discussion with a variety of people in an effort to find the right person to drive the project forward.

http://www.movieweb.com/news/64/24964.php

But why bother?
Although there are probably some aspects that make this seem like an appealing project (social comment on the growing gap between rich and poor in modern life etc.), Thea von Harbou’s tale of heart, head and hand is fairly simplistic and I do not believe will fit into the wants of the modern cinema-going public. Fritz Lang’s epic sits at the pinnacle of the German Expressionist era and is hailed as a classic by all and sundry – and rightly so!  But it does lack that modern sophistication because it was made in a time when both filming and editing were in its earliest stages of evolution. Much has changed. The world has changed – perhaps too much for another Metropolis.

Lang's is  a movie of beautiful simplicity and awe-inspiring spectacle, but it is a child of _its_ time, not of ours.

The only way to make this work would to change drastically much about the original story – so much so that to call it Metropolis would probably be a travesty. I’m sure that the CGI available now will make a fine spectacle but I wonder about the substance and whether it will have any bearing on the original.

So why go down the path already trodden by Lang and von Harbou? Why not use Metropolis as inspiration rather than as carbon paper? After all  – in the words of  Shakespeare’s Juliet :  A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 21, 2008)

Why? For the same reason they keep doing remake after remake, sequel after sequel, and adapting old (usually bad) television series to the big screen: paucity of creativity, lack of vision on the part of studio heads, and lack of any kind of literacy in the genre -- otherwise, they'd realize there are tons of viable alternatives dealing with such themes, but closer to our time (and more likely to appeal to current audiences), many of which would make fine films themselves. But _remaking a classic_ is all the rage... gawdselpus!

Lord, I am so damned sick of "Hollywood attitude"....


----------



## Overread (Jan 21, 2008)

Yep - I have to agree with you there JD - there is nothing new or exciting in the media industry at the moment - and when these things do come along they get shot down horribly (Fire Fly - not only canceled - but they also managed to air it for the first time in the wrong order!!).
What I hate though is that even when the writers get hold of a new idea - copying a book - they have to make it "their" story as opposed to the story in the book. Even the mightly Lord of the Rings is guilty of this crime -- though unlike many others this rewrite does manage to retain the feel, image and plot of the original source material ( it can also be argued that for good filmmaking a drastic cut of LotR was needed as they only had 3 films to fit it into)


----------



## Tillane (Jan 21, 2008)

Totally agree - but what worries me even more is that _people go to see the damn remakes_!  Worse - they absolutely _rake _in cash for the studios.  I know there's probably a curiosity factor in there somewhere for the audience, and also probably a generation (or at least a demographic, to use an industry term) who haven't seen the original films, but if no one went to see the remakes the studios would quickly have to start coming up with more original material.

Which is why I boycott remakes.  My own little protest at Hollywood's lack of originality.  Pointless, most likely, but it makes me feel better.


----------



## The_Warrior (Jan 22, 2008)

Wasn't there already an Anime remake made?


----------



## Overread (Jan 22, 2008)

I understand that the anime is a different production sharing the same name - it deals with robots and sentience. Though I have seen neither, so I might be wrong; but I think that this is the case


----------



## ravenus (Jan 22, 2008)

The anime Metropolis is a different film.


----------



## ray gower (Jan 22, 2008)

Yes, remakes without consideration are a bad thing. 
But Metropolis is a very old film and as suggested a product and interpretation of its time. The book, the film and the BBC radio versions are all very different interpretations, so there is plenty of scope for a different take on the story.


----------



## Steve Jordan (Jan 25, 2008)

I agree that the message of _Metropolis_ is one that stands to be explored.  But the era of masses of people running massive machines by repetitive lever-pulling certainly isn't going to work today.  If you can't find another way to depict the plight of the hopeless workers against the clueless elite, there's really no point in it.

There are other ways, to be sure (in a way, _Battle for the Planet of the Apes_ was a great contemporary example of the same schism between elite and worker), but I wouldn't call it _Metropolis_.


----------



## ray gower (Jan 25, 2008)

Steve Jordan said:


> I agree that the message of _Metropolis_ is one that stands to be explored.  But the era of masses of people running massive machines by repetitive lever-pulling certainly isn't going to work today.  If you can't find another way to depict the plight of the hopeless workers against the clueless elite, there's really no point in it.
> 
> There are other ways, to be sure (in a way, _Battle for the Planet of the Apes_ was a great contemporary example of the same schism between elite and worker), but I wouldn't call it _Metropolis_.



Ever see them working in a call centre?
If you think battery hens have a hard time, don't go near one. Incidently that was the route the BBC radio play took.

And to be honest the type of economy depicted IS what the US (and the rest of the world) relies upon to stave off recession. People making and buying more things they don't want or need. While at the top, the elite, crow loudly, not realising that their 'economy' isn't as stable as a straw house.
So the story is still very relevant.


----------



## Foxbat (Jan 26, 2008)

Yes,  this is a theme still very relevant today but surely we can bring about our own take on the subject without regurgitating a 70 year old film? 

Question - what's the difference between the movie industry and a cow chewing the cud?

Answer: not a lot.


----------



## ray gower (Jan 26, 2008)

Think we will have to wait and see. 
At the moment the term 'Remake' is fashionable and perhaps used in places it should not, perhaps because the film has to be couched in terms the people with the money might recognise. Consequently it covers a lot of ground: 
King Kong was a remake from top to bottom. 
War of the Worlds was a reworking of the HG Wells story and despite the claims had only limited reference to the 1966 film.
St Trinians could easily be classed the sixth film in the series.

Of course if we were going to be really cynical we can safely observe all of them are replication from the original Shakespear, heaven knows how many times a year his works are copied directly! 
All modern fantasy stories are replication of the original Lord of the Rings and that was a re-image of the Saxon Beowulf legend.
Where do we stop?


----------



## Foxbat (Jan 27, 2008)

All very good and fair points. My particular beef is that some movies just should not be touched. Metropolis is not only iconic but is fused into the strata of cinematic history. It is  a landmark - a cinematic van Gough (and who in their right mind would want to remake his work?) 

The creation images of Futura for example, were not only beautiful, innovative and imaginitive,  but have become so well known (even by those that have not seen  Metropolis) that it has become a part of our culture and cinematic history. 

No amount of CGI or tens of million of dollars can recreate this majesty because part of its strength is that it was made at the peak of German Expressionism - a time long gone and that will never return. 

But, as you say, we shall have to wait and see.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 27, 2008)

And, as has been noted already, we can do this type of theme without rehashing the ground Metropolis covered, thus eliminating most of the comparisons and allowing each film to be viewed in its own right. Even if they wanted to adapt a "classic" sf story on this theme, there are plenty of things that could be done that haven't yet been touched. A little PR work, and "Hey, Presto!" you've got a new classic added to the roster.

As for all stories being "remakes", "retellings", etc.... this is _theoretically_ true, but only on an _extremely_ basic level. One could as easily say that every story that tells of overweening ambition (as opposed to pride) is a retelling of Aesop's story of the dog with the bone seeing his reflection. A _remake_, on the other hand, is just that: an attempt to redo an older film with changes while still capitalizing on the popularity and status of the original. By its very essence, it is prone to short-circuit creativity; and where it does attempt to differentiate itself from the original, it usually (not always, but usually) does so *just* to be different, without regard to the internal logic of the storytelling, the cinematographic effect, or any other aspect of what might be called "quality".

_That_ is what I have against remakes....


----------



## ray gower (Jan 27, 2008)

> All very good and fair points. My particular beef is that some movies just should not be touched. Metropolis is not only iconic but is fused into the strata of cinematic history. It is a landmark - a cinematic van Gough (and who in their right mind would want to remake his work?)


But Van Gough's work is always being recreated. Everybody who does an art course paints a bunch of flowers in a pot and the number of half smiling bints I've seen leering at me from walls defies counting. But they are not Van Gough's, or his  interpretation.

Perhaps it would be a good idea if we actually defined what we call a 'REMAKE'?

As I have observed some of the recent 'REMAKES' haven't been, they've just had the names of other films used for their title, perhaps, sometimes, for cynical reasons. People recognise the name and shout 'Remake'. 

If they simply redo Metropolis in mime, grainy black and white film stock with a few pop up captions (or even in colour and turn all the lights off) then that is a remake, no questions asked and doomed to fail, if only because the number of actors in the world that can handle the level of expression to make it work can be counted on the fingers of one hand.  But there are a whole gambit of directions it can take from there that could constitute a blind copy, or even a visionary revisioning.

Certainly the story behind it is not sacrosanct just because it was done 80 or even 800 years ago and a title is just that, a name to glue on at the front. 

In this case, I agree, using the same name could be classed, at first glance, as terribly cynical. But the stakes have now been raised. The new film must at least match the old one in all aspects and add something more, or it will be very second rate?


----------



## MG1962 (Jan 27, 2008)

Foxbat said:


> No amount of CGI or tens of million of dollars can recreate this majesty because part of its strength is that it was made at the peak of German Expressionism - a time long gone and that will never return.


 
It is interesting you say this - I was certain at times during the first few Batman films that some sort of homage was being paid to the expressionist movement.

Having said that, I am not sure how Metropolis can work - the themes and ideas were all social experiements of the future. Today they are experiments of our past. Some worked, many failed. The point is we know the result, so that whole process of speculation that made Metropolis, is closed to us.


----------



## Nikitta (Jan 27, 2008)

j. d. worthington said:


> As for all stories being "remakes", "retellings", etc.... this is _theoretically_ true, but only on an _extremely_ basic level. One could as easily say that every story that tells of overweening ambition (as opposed to pride) is a retelling of Aesop's story of the dog with the bone seeing his reflection. A _remake_, on the other hand, is just that: an attempt to redo an older film with changes while still capitalizing on the popularity and status of the original. By its very essence, it is prone to short-circuit creativity; and where it does attempt to differentiate itself from the original, it usually (not always, but usually) does so *just* to be different, without regard to the internal logic of the storytelling, the cinematographic effect, or any other aspect of what might be called "quality".
> 
> _That_ is what I have against remakes....



I remember watching 1984, made in 1984, and thinking that it could've been done so much better and I've since wanted to see it made that much better so that it will also make sense to those who have not read the book and I won't need to explain the scenes to anyone. 

A movie should be able to explain itself alone; if it doesn't, it's a failure. When I tell people that I'd like to see it made better, they will tell me that there are so many other stories with the same theme and they're right, but it's this particular story I'd like to see, only made better.

Does that mean that I'm wanting a remake?


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 27, 2008)

Nikitta said:


> I remember watching 1984, made in 1984, and thinking that it could've been done so much better and I've since wanted to see it made that much better so that it will also make sense to those who have not read the book and I won't need to explain the scenes to anyone.
> 
> A movie should be able to explain itself alone; if it doesn't, it's a failure. When I tell people that I'd like to see it made better, they will tell me that there are so many other stories with the same theme and they're right, but it's this particular story I'd like to see, only made better.
> 
> Does that mean that I'm wanting a remake?


 
Yes... and no. With something like *1984* (or the numerous adaptations of Austen, Dickens, etc.), what you're dealing with is primarily a literary text that's being adapted to the screen. Some of the adaptations will be very similar (especially if they are attempting to be fairly true to the original material), while others will take their own route (while still attempting to capture at least the feel and spirit of the original material -- if they have any respect for it, that is). So what you're asking for is another adaptation of a literary work, one that meets those requirements.

A remake (as commonly meant) is the redoing of what is primarily known as a film, and the only reason it is considered for remaking is because of the reputation of that original film. Without the reputation and fame of that original piece in the same medium, the remake would not even be considered; they'd look to something else (whether an adaptation of a literary work or an original screenplay) instead of redoing what has been done before. (This is true even with bad films that are remade; as they've got some sort of cachet to begin with, else filmmakers -- especially producers -- are simply not going to touch it with a barge pole. This is an entertainment industry first; any art that comes out of it is through the particularly strong personality of a guiding hand or incidental. The first point is to make money on what is, after all, a very expensive thing to produce in the first place.)

Which brings us to Shakespeare (or, for that matter, any other playwright) and the numerous filmic takes on his work. While Shakespeare was written to be read (in various senses of the term), his plays were also written to be performed, by various actors at different times and in different places. A film of such is simply another staging of material _intended_ for numerous dramatic presentations to begin with; there was no intent to have a "definitive" take on any such plays, nor can there ever really be such. A film that is _not_ an adaptation of a literary classic, on the other hand, is initially made with intent to succeed itself, as something that already _is_ the definitive handling of this particular piece. Often this would seem to be the case even when it is an adaptation of a preexisting but lesser-known literary work -- though there the claim is more than slightly doubtful. Remakes are done with full knowledge that they are competing with the original film, and (as said above) intent to capitalize on said film. Otherwise it's extremely unlikely that the original film would ever even be noted (by the filmmakers, at least) at all.


----------



## kaelcarp (Jan 27, 2008)

From a financial standpoint, it makes a lot of sense to remake a classic film or TV show. You have a much better chance of making a profit because there is a built in audience who will be at least curious. Films not based on anything pre-existing need to be marketed from scratch. It costs more and is less reliable.

From an artistic standpoint, it's stagnant. It's uninteresting. It's disappointing to those of use who want something new.

Unfortunately, as film costs go up, the need weight of importance moves to the finances over the art. One of the things that will be good about the democratization of technology in the coming years is that it will soon be possible to make a pretty high quality movie with home equipment for comparatively little money. Actually, it already is possible, but you still have to be really technically skilled. In time, it will get easier.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 27, 2008)

kaelcarp said:


> From a financial standpoint, it makes a lot of sense to remake a classic film or TV show. You have a much better chance of making a profit because there is a built in audience who will be at least curious. Films not based on anything pre-existing need to be marketed from scratch. It costs more and is less reliable.
> 
> From an artistic standpoint, it's stagnant. It's uninteresting. It's disappointing to those of use who want something new.
> 
> Unfortunately, as film costs go up, the need weight of importance moves to the finances over the art. One of the things that will be good about the democratization of technology in the coming years is that it will soon be possible to make a pretty high quality movie with home equipment for comparatively little money. Actually, it already is possible, but you still have to be really technically skilled. In time, it will get easier.


 
On the expense of making films... that has skyrocketed due to overinflated salaries for various actors coupled with the "goshwow!" special effects extravaganzas (especially in the sff fields, but also in much general filmmaking)... something that really isn't necessary to make either a quality or popular film... or even a "classic" film which remains popular (though Hollywood never can seem to quite get that distinction -- the shadows of such as D. W. Griffith and Cecil B. DeMille remain long) as the history of cinema can demonstrate quite well.

As for the other point... yes, I agree. The fact that we are seeing a lot of amateur adaptations of literary works which, however crude, nonetheless manage to be more faithful and capture more of the feel of the original material than anything the big boys have turned out for a couple of decades (at least), strongly indicates this may be a very beneficial trend in the future....


----------



## Foxbat (Jan 27, 2008)

MG1962 said:


> It is interesting you say this - I was certain at times during the first few Batman films that some sort of homage was being paid to the expressionist movement.


 
You may be right about Batman but I think it important to keep homage seperate from actuality. The German Expressionist movement was a creation of its time - influenced heavily by both the defeat of Germany in WW1 and the post war confusion that followed. Homage (as respectful as it may be intended by the creator) is not subject to the same circumstances and is, for want of a better phrase, merely a copy of an actuality.


----------



## kaelcarp (Jan 27, 2008)

A pretty good amount of what Tim Burton has done is either an homage to or is very strongly influenced by German Expressionism, as far as I can tell.


----------



## MG1962 (Jan 27, 2008)

Foxbat said:


> You may be right about Batman but I think it important to keep homage seperate from actuality. The German Expressionist movement was a creation of its time - influenced heavily by both the defeat of Germany in WW1 and the post war confusion that followed. Homage (as respectful as it may be intended by the creator) is not subject to the same circumstances and is, for want of a better phrase, merely a copy of an actuality.


 
Oh I dont disagree in the slightest - There will never be another true Expressionist film made, for the exact reason you suggested. But it is still nice to see a modern film maker respect the influence the movement has on their work.


----------



## Foxbat (Jan 28, 2008)

MG1962 said:


> Oh I dont disagree in the slightest - There will never be another true Expressionist film made, for the exact reason you suggested. But it is still nice to see a modern film maker respect the influence the movement has on their work.


 
I agree with you 100%. and I think the most important word for me is 'influence'


----------

