Having read some reviews (all bad) on the new Rollerball (2002) I doubt I'll be seeing it. It sounds as though they have ruined a reasonable idea, and turned it into "Starlight Express". Even a MGM executive is quoted as saying "It sucks..."
The original film wasn't a great film, but it did make a political statement about Corporate power, and about aggressive anti-social behaviour in society. Statements that many films have followed and copied since. The year was 2018 (43 years in the future.) There is no crime and there are no more wars. Corporations are now the leaders of the world. The film, and the short story it was based on (Roller Ball by William Harrison in Esquire magazine) extrapolated the violent tendancies in 1970's society (before the advent of WWF wrestling and video console games) into the future.
The new version sidelines any political statements for more amazing rollerblading stunts than plot. No mention of the Corporate Wars is made now; it is set in 2005 (why would such a violent game be developed and allowed in only 3 years from now?) The films explains this by Rollerball not yet being a worldwide phenomenon, but something that's popular in Turkey and Kazakhstan, and expanding elsewhere. Jonathan E is now Jonathan Cross. He is new to the game, not a 10 year veteran, recruited by a Russian Entrepreneur to play Rollerball, instead of being an employee of the Energy Corporation.
In a complete reverse of the story; although audiences and money men love him, he WANTS to get out of the game because the stakes are being raised for more blood and guts. In the original, the game was an unwinable digression for the masses that demonstrated the futility of individuality. It had him trying to stay in the game, while the stakes were being raised in an attempt to force him to retire, or to kill him off, because he had become greater than the game itself.
Did anyone involved in this even understand the original films premises?
The original film wasn't a great film, but it did make a political statement about Corporate power, and about aggressive anti-social behaviour in society. Statements that many films have followed and copied since. The year was 2018 (43 years in the future.) There is no crime and there are no more wars. Corporations are now the leaders of the world. The film, and the short story it was based on (Roller Ball by William Harrison in Esquire magazine) extrapolated the violent tendancies in 1970's society (before the advent of WWF wrestling and video console games) into the future.
The new version sidelines any political statements for more amazing rollerblading stunts than plot. No mention of the Corporate Wars is made now; it is set in 2005 (why would such a violent game be developed and allowed in only 3 years from now?) The films explains this by Rollerball not yet being a worldwide phenomenon, but something that's popular in Turkey and Kazakhstan, and expanding elsewhere. Jonathan E is now Jonathan Cross. He is new to the game, not a 10 year veteran, recruited by a Russian Entrepreneur to play Rollerball, instead of being an employee of the Energy Corporation.
In a complete reverse of the story; although audiences and money men love him, he WANTS to get out of the game because the stakes are being raised for more blood and guts. In the original, the game was an unwinable digression for the masses that demonstrated the futility of individuality. It had him trying to stay in the game, while the stakes were being raised in an attempt to force him to retire, or to kill him off, because he had become greater than the game itself.
Did anyone involved in this even understand the original films premises?