I have been gushing on Twitter for the past few months about the recently-released novel Death of the Planet of the Apes. The story follows Taylor through his last days, from the time he left the cave at the end of PotA to lift-off of the rocket that would carry Cornelius, Zira, and Milo to our Earth (c. 1973). After finishing the book, I rewatched both Beneath and Escape, and really found both movies thin. I'd of course loved them up to that point, but Andrew EC Gaska's ideas and delivery have forever changed how I'll watch those films.
So here's today's discussion point: Name something you've read - at any point - that you feel would have greatly enhanced an existing film had that storyline been turned into a screenplay. Comics, scifi, detective, whatever...
The first movie, or really series of movies, that comes to mind is Conan - both the original Arnie features and the more recent one starring the future Aquaman (of which I only saw about the last half on TV). I know the first one in particular has its diehard fans, but I don't think Conan has been well-served on the big screen. What I think should have been done right from the start is straight adaptations of Howard's original stories, or of the comic adaptations of those stories by Roy Thomas and Smith or Buscema (or any of the other artists). The stories are far better than anything that was eventually turned into a motion picture, and, in the case of the comics, the production companies already had them story-boarded.
I agree, Edo. And this also serves a point concerning Conan, and Tarzan, that (generally speaking) these characters are only portrayed as brooding or even not-so-smart onscreen. In the comics and novels - far from it! But it seems that filmmakers feel that brawn wins over brains, and a lead character cannot have both (Hulk, anyone?).
This is probably a bit off topic but I never have felt that Kurt Vonnegut’s works have been translated well to the screen. I feel those are ripe for cinema (particularly books like Cat’s Cradle or Slapstick). Some of the movies that were produced including “Slaughterhouse Five” never held my interest like the books.
And as far as something that has not been attempted yet - I hope that someday a movie is made of the multi-part “Siege on Avengers Mansion” by Stern and Buscema, but I don’t believe anybody could ever do justice to that amazing arc.
Doug, re: brooding and not-so-smart. Yes, this is one of my biggest problems with the Conan features - the other is the need to do an origin story. In Howard's original stories and in the comics, he's a swashbuckling adventurer with a sense of humor and a good deal of street smarts and general cleverness, whereas in the Schwarzenegger films, Conan is overly serious and, frankly, kind of dense. I always say that in the second Arnie movie, Grace Jones came closer to actually playing the character that Conan is supposed to be.
Hmmm, interesting question but it's hard to think of specific examples. I was kinda hoping that A.C. Crispin's Han Solo trilogy would be used as the template for the Solo movie, but no such luck; given how the movie was received, they maybe should've gone with Crispin's stories, which were pretty cool.
Fascinating topic, Doug. My first answer would be Ray Bradbury. Although I enjoyed the film treatments of "Fahrenheit 451" and "Something Wicked this way Comes", I think he's ripe for an updated attempt.
A general observation from today's discussion: after so many years in the shadows, so to speak, comics are really in the public eye now. An animated Spiderman film winning an Oscar, teenage Redartz would have been amazed. And some major story arcs from the glory days of Bronze have been presented: " Days of Future Past", for example;and the CW will be tackling " Crisis on Infinite Earths". So many great stories could be found within those newsprint pages. And to follow some above comments, Conan certainly qualifies. Imagine "Red Nails"...
I would nominate the film adaptations from Phillip K. Dick. I haven't seen them all, but of the ones I have, they've been a little lacking in grappling with the notion of what makes something real--or more real--than something else with the same tenacity which he does. I thought the scene in Blade Runner 2049 where K. and Joi have their tryst with the help of another synthetic to have been probably the best example of using film and special effects to raise those kinds of issues. Sadly, however, there seem to be more is-this-real-or-is-this-not questions, rather than examinations of what the difference would consist of and what meaning that could have.
The first one that comes to mind is the original film version of FRANKENSTEIN-- where the Creature is just a shambling, barely-aware disaster-in-big-shoes. In Mary Shelley's novel, of course, the Creature effectively teaches himself to speak, read, and think-- and is possessed of an extraordinary intellect. I do imagine there have been filmed versions that follow that track more closely-- which makes for a much more complicated moral dilemma for both Creator and Creation, y'know?
And along those lines--- geeze, don't get me started on both the TV series and Ang Lee Film versions of the Hulk! Cripes-- they both managed to surgically remove the inherent PERSON that is the title character. Bruce (or David) Banner is the only character--- the Hulk is merely a hugely powerful not-Banner with no particular identity of his own. . .
Sometimes the film improves on the original book. I like Shirley Jackson's THE HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE but the 1963 film THE HAUNTING is actually better. It ditches one annoying, unnecessary character and alters another (the doctor's wife) so she becomes a sceptic of the supernatural rather than a believer as in the novel. As a result her arrival in Hill House in the movie builds towards the conclusion whereas in the novel the doctor's wife is a rather pointless character.
But the 1999 remake of THE HAUNTING is utter crap.
10 comments:
I have been gushing on Twitter for the past few months about the recently-released novel Death of the Planet of the Apes. The story follows Taylor through his last days, from the time he left the cave at the end of PotA to lift-off of the rocket that would carry Cornelius, Zira, and Milo to our Earth (c. 1973). After finishing the book, I rewatched both Beneath and Escape, and really found both movies thin. I'd of course loved them up to that point, but Andrew EC Gaska's ideas and delivery have forever changed how I'll watch those films.
So here's today's discussion point: Name something you've read - at any point - that you feel would have greatly enhanced an existing film had that storyline been turned into a screenplay. Comics, scifi, detective, whatever...
Thanks!
Doug
The first movie, or really series of movies, that comes to mind is Conan - both the original Arnie features and the more recent one starring the future Aquaman (of which I only saw about the last half on TV). I know the first one in particular has its diehard fans, but I don't think Conan has been well-served on the big screen.
What I think should have been done right from the start is straight adaptations of Howard's original stories, or of the comic adaptations of those stories by Roy Thomas and Smith or Buscema (or any of the other artists). The stories are far better than anything that was eventually turned into a motion picture, and, in the case of the comics, the production companies already had them story-boarded.
I agree, Edo. And this also serves a point concerning Conan, and Tarzan, that (generally speaking) these characters are only portrayed as brooding or even not-so-smart onscreen. In the comics and novels - far from it! But it seems that filmmakers feel that brawn wins over brains, and a lead character cannot have both (Hulk, anyone?).
Doug
This is probably a bit off topic but I never have felt that Kurt Vonnegut’s works have been translated well to the screen. I feel those are ripe for cinema (particularly books like Cat’s Cradle or Slapstick). Some of the movies that were produced including “Slaughterhouse Five” never held my interest like the books.
And as far as something that has not been attempted yet - I hope that someday a movie is made of the multi-part “Siege on Avengers Mansion” by Stern and Buscema, but I don’t believe anybody could ever do justice to that amazing arc.
Doug, re: brooding and not-so-smart. Yes, this is one of my biggest problems with the Conan features - the other is the need to do an origin story.
In Howard's original stories and in the comics, he's a swashbuckling adventurer with a sense of humor and a good deal of street smarts and general cleverness, whereas in the Schwarzenegger films, Conan is overly serious and, frankly, kind of dense. I always say that in the second Arnie movie, Grace Jones came closer to actually playing the character that Conan is supposed to be.
Hmmm, interesting question but it's hard to think of specific examples. I was kinda hoping that A.C. Crispin's Han Solo trilogy would be used as the template for the Solo movie, but no such luck; given how the movie was received, they maybe should've gone with Crispin's stories, which were pretty cool.
Fascinating topic, Doug. My first answer would be Ray Bradbury. Although I enjoyed the film treatments of "Fahrenheit 451" and "Something Wicked this way Comes", I think he's ripe for an updated attempt.
A general observation from today's discussion: after so many years in the shadows, so to speak, comics are really in the public eye now. An animated Spiderman film winning an Oscar, teenage Redartz would have been amazed. And some major story arcs from the glory days of Bronze have been presented: " Days of Future Past", for example;and the CW will be tackling " Crisis on Infinite Earths". So many great stories could be found within those newsprint pages. And to follow some above comments, Conan certainly qualifies. Imagine "Red Nails"...
I would nominate the film adaptations from Phillip K. Dick. I haven't seen them all, but of the ones I have, they've been a little lacking in grappling with the notion of what makes something real--or more real--than something else with the same tenacity which he does. I thought the scene in Blade Runner 2049 where K. and Joi have their tryst with the help of another synthetic to have been probably the best example of using film and special effects to raise those kinds of issues. Sadly, however, there seem to be more is-this-real-or-is-this-not questions, rather than examinations of what the difference would consist of and what meaning that could have.
The first one that comes to mind is the original film version of FRANKENSTEIN-- where the Creature is just a shambling, barely-aware disaster-in-big-shoes. In Mary Shelley's novel, of course, the Creature effectively teaches himself to speak, read, and think-- and is possessed of an extraordinary intellect. I do imagine there have been filmed versions that follow that track more closely-- which makes for a much more complicated moral dilemma for both Creator and Creation, y'know?
And along those lines--- geeze, don't get me started on both the TV series and Ang Lee Film versions of the Hulk! Cripes-- they both managed to surgically remove the inherent PERSON that is the title character. Bruce (or David) Banner is the only character--- the Hulk is merely a hugely powerful not-Banner with no particular identity of his own. . .
HB
Sometimes the film improves on the original book. I like Shirley Jackson's THE HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE but the 1963 film THE HAUNTING is actually better. It ditches one annoying, unnecessary character and alters another (the doctor's wife) so she becomes a sceptic of the supernatural rather than a believer as in the novel. As a result her arrival in Hill House in the movie builds towards the conclusion whereas in the novel the doctor's wife is a rather pointless character.
But the 1999 remake of THE HAUNTING is utter crap.
Post a Comment