Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sci-Fi Entertainment

Sunshine Writer Joins Logan's Run Remake 216

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the expect-nothing-get-something dept.
bowman9991 writes "Remember to check your palm to ensure that your crystal hasn't gone black. If it has, you better start running. The 1976 science fiction classic Logan's Run, starring Michael York, is being remade in 3-D with British writer Alex Garland now onboard to write the screenplay. Garland's film Sunshine, directed by Danny Boyle, was one of the stand-out science fiction films of the last decade, and he wrote the screenplays for Leonardo DiCaprio's The Beach (based on Garland's own novel) and the science fiction horror 28 Days Later (a massive adrenaline rush of a movie). This should give first-time director Carl Rinsch some great material to work with — a great premise meets a great writer."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sunshine Writer Joins Logan's Run Remake

Comments Filter:
  • This is good news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pojut (1027544) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @11:49AM (#32665826) Homepage

    Logan's Run is a classic in every sense and, in my opinion, shouldn't be fucked with. Still, if someone HAS to do it, the guy that wrote Sunshine (which was a modern day masterpiece) is certainly a good choice.

    • by Seq (653613) <slashdot@ c h r isirwin.ca> on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @12:06PM (#32666106)

      I'll bet it will be great, until about half-way through, when the sunburned space zombie appears.

      • by cayenne8 (626475) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @12:13PM (#32666212) Homepage Journal
        I hope they stick more to the BOOK, rather than the previous movie.

        I'd read the book first, and IMHO, they really fsck'ed up the movie. The gun was MUCH cooler in the novel (I'd like to see how they do the 'Homer' fired out of it), and much more riveting, and character development was better as you saw Logan change through his run. That and the Sandmen were badasses, trained in all sorts of arts, like a Jason Bourne type in abilities.

        At least...go back to the age limit of 21 (not 30), and for God's sake...don't do the stupid carousel thing they made up for the movie.

        • by billmarrs (97555) * on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @01:18PM (#32667274) Homepage

          I read this book recently. I don't mean any offense, but it's pretty badly written and stupid.

          I hope they completely ignore the book.

          Really, I wish Hollywood would stop remaking stuff. I mean, there's a ton of good, fresh, original, insightful, well-written science fiction in many books from the last few decades that would be great to see made into a movie. But, Logan's Run...again? Well, it makes me sad.

          I did love the oringinal movie when I was a kid... I even liked the TV series... I was young.

          I suppose they know I'll have to watch this new movie because of that and I will. But...

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by CODiNE (27417)

          RENEW!!! RENEW!!! RENEEEWWWWW!!!!!!!! ... some non-caps text to get past the lameness filter.

        • by budcub (92165)

          I read the book too before seeing the movie (on broadcast TV, so I'm sure it was heavily edited) and I'm guessing they changed the age to 30 for practical reasons. They had actors in mind and didn't think they could all pass for under 21.

          I was about 11 or 12 when I read the book, it may have been too mature for me, but I loved it anyway.

      • Re:This is good news (Score:5, Interesting)

        by clone53421 (1310749) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @12:21PM (#32666328) Journal

        I had about the same reaction. Well, that and the otherwise generally-inaccurate science, such as the astronaut wrapping himself in insulation to protect him from the cold of deep space.

        In reality, without any atmosphere to draw heat away from him via convection, he would really only lose heat via black-body radiation. Sure, the virtually-nothing of space is nearly absolute zero, but that is only because there is virtually nothing but empty space to absorb the heat from the sunlight... and by the same token it cannot absorb the heat from your body either. It is a common misconception.

        Are we are going to get the same piss-poor treatment of science in this one?

        • Re:This is good news (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Abstrackt (609015) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @12:49PM (#32666830)

          I had about the same reaction. Well, that and the otherwise generally-inaccurate science, such as the astronaut wrapping himself in insulation to protect him from the cold of deep space.

          In reality, without any atmosphere to draw heat away from him via convection, he would really only lose heat via black-body radiation. Sure, the virtually-nothing of space is nearly absolute zero, but that is only because there is virtually nothing but empty space to absorb the heat from the sunlight... and by the same token it cannot absorb the heat from your body either. It is a common misconception.

          Are we are going to get the same piss-poor treatment of science in this one?

          Well, it is called science fiction for a reason. To me, Sunshine was never about the science so much as the people and their circumstances. Till they introduced the sunburned space zombie mentioned in an earlier post anyway.

          • by PCM2 (4486)

            Well, it is called science fiction for a reason. To me, Sunshine was never about the science so much as the people and their circumstances.

            Except that a big part of Sunshine's marketing campaign was all the research Danny Boyle had done to prepare for it, and all the scientific advisors they had on staff, and all the films and documents about NASA spacecraft they watched so they could get every detail right. I've read a quote from Danny Boyle where he talked about how on the Space Shuttle, every single screw is a unique size so that every screw only fits exactly where it's supposed to go, and he wanted that level of detail and realism in Sunsh

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by camperdave (969942)
          Actually that would depend on the insulation. If it is that mylar backed stuff, it would reflect a great deal of the radiant energy back to the astronaut. Presumably, though, the people who made the space suit would have known about the concept of radiant heat loss and would have incorporated some sort of reflective material into the suit itself.
        • by Animaether (411575) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @01:15PM (#32667212) Journal

          The Director's Commentary on the DVD (probably the Blu-Ray as well) notes that they did consult with scientists to be as scientifically accurate as possible.. but also noted specifically the float-in-space-and-you-freeze as an example where they went for visual and story-telling appeal, rather than for scientific accuracy; pointing out that it really doesn't matter much that you wouldn't lose heat that quickly.. you can't hold your breath for more than a few minutes anyway and then you'd die from asphyxiation.

          So yes, maybe the same piss-poor treatment of science would be in this one, too... if they believe that visual/story-telling appeal takes precedence.

      • by Abstrackt (609015)

        I'll bet it will be great, until about half-way through, when the sunburned space zombie appears.

        I wish I could mod you insightful... /sigh

    • by radtea (464814) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @12:08PM (#32666128)

      which was a modern day masterpiece

      Implausible premise, implausible technology, and completely ridiculous story peopled by totally unrealistics characters. The most important rescue mission in history is crewed entirely by psychologically unstable children who routinely make trivially imbecilic decisions for no readily apparent reason.

      I guess as a reflection on how vacuous and self-involved modern Western culture it has some artistic merit, but not very much.

      To be great art there has to be at least a thread of internal logic that makes for a self-consistent story. Sunshine didn't have that: a culture so completely degenerate as to crew a ship on such an important mission with such a bunch of losers would never have been able to build the ship in the first place.

      • by Lumpy (12016)

        by psychologically unstable children who routinely make trivially imbecilic decisions for no readily apparent reason.

        Have you ever dealt with teenagers or early 20's kids? They are by definition that exact statement..

        "I was late to work, some guy in a honda challenged me at a red light by revving his engine, so I blew the engine in my Scion Xb racing him.... It was sooo worth it though.... That old lady in the civic never knew what hit her.... she was way behind be when the engine blew"

        • by radtea (464814)

          Have you ever dealt with teenagers or early 20's kids? They are by definition that exact statement..

          Actually I have. That's exactly why I would put some rudimentary psychological screening in place before sending a ship-load of people off to save the planet.

          I'm not saying average people don't sometimes act like idiots: I'm saying it's stupidly implausible that the crew of a ship sent to save the whole planet, on a probable suicide mission, would act that way.

          I don't care about the unrealistic science: I care about characters who are unrealistic to the point of making the film self-contradictory. Someo

      • "Implausible premise, implausible technology, and completely ridiculous story peopled by totally unrealistics characters."

        Sounds like typical science fiction fare to me. Still, even at the tender age of 15, I didn't buy Michael York as an under-30-something. However, I kind of get the producer's dilemma at that time; the world of Logan's Run by the book is entirely people by children spending most of their time having sex with each other, somewhat problematic in a puritanical United States. Lets see how they do it with today's standards.

      • ...psychologically unstable children who routinely make trivially imbecilic decisions for no readily apparent reason.

        You've just described the majority of the US electorate and elected.

        • by Tumbleweed (3706) *

          > ...psychologically unstable children who routinely make trivially imbecilic decisions for no readily apparent reason.

          You've just described the majority of the US electorate and elected.

          TEA party! TEA party!

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        Implausible premise, implausible technology, and completely ridiculous story peopled by totally unrealistics characters.

        Wait, are you talking about Sunshine, or Logan's Run? I haven't seen the former, and I liked the latter enough to buy it, but I could make a strong argument for applying your words there.

    • by MozeeToby (1163751) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @12:10PM (#32666162)

      Maybe I'm the only one who really didn't like Sunshine? The premise was ludicrous, the science was laughable, and it devolved into a fantasy slasher film half way through. I prefer my science fiction to have a bit more basis in science personally.

      • I couldn't even bother myself to watch it. My room mates had it on, and it was towards the end the movie, the climax, and I walked in. One of my room mates likes to pick apart movies for flaws, like plot holes and such. He didn't enjoy the movie because very little of it was based upon any science. He said it was more like Science Fiction to those who haven't gone to school yet.

      • by ADRA (37398)

        Oh god, you're not alone. This movie was one of the few movies I saw in theaters and I must say it was a let down. On the bright side, I really really liked 28 days later which I thought was great. Too bad the poster didn't seem to watch or care about that film...

      • I would like the guy who made "Moon" to remake LR. In a way I found the to have a similar feeling.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sockatume (732728)

      Modern-day masterpiece is probably overselling it. I think its aesthetic, both visual and aural, is utterly definitive, but the storyline and dialogue favoured efficiency over the depth the concept offered. That said I think that Garland's big achievement on that picture was knowing when to sit back and let the setting tell its own story. Striking the audience with awe at the grandness and power of space, as an end in itself, has a certain thematic appropriateness.

    • by Lumpy (12016)

      Dont worry, the Studio Execs will take out all the great parts and add in Jar-Jar esque moments. or other equally stupid things to mess it up.

      Logans Run Starring Hulk Hogan....

      Never underestimate Hollywoods ability to royally screw up a good thing.

    • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @12:31PM (#32666524) Journal

      They will subtract the nudity. NSFW. These were the best stills I could find. They look a lot better on the giant silver screen:

      http://www.moviesnxs.com/web/thumbnails/tn-Jenny-Agutter_logans-run_25-02-06.jpg [moviesnxs.com]
      http://rarevideos.bravepages.com/JennyAgutter@Walkabout.JPG [bravepages.com]
      http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PWR3w2VkSZs/SNAbQiLWStI/AAAAAAAAA7s/2mxn62WhWWY/s400/JennyAgutterLogansRun.jpg [blogspot.com]

    • the guy that wrote Sunshine (which was a modern day masterpiece) is certainly a good choice.

      Compared to what? The Island? The remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still was far better. Sunshine relied on far to many cliches. Perhaps what made it so dissappointing is that you could see the areas in which a much better film could've been made, but instead went the Hollywood route. This does not, frankly, bode well.
    • by Danathar (267989)

      Um...it's a cool movie cause of the concept and general plot line but the "Oh so hoooorible" Farrah Fawcett acting and the "OMG...they did not even TRY to hide the fact they were using models" (I mean, Space 1999 did a better job!) it's a movie that SCREAMS REMAKE!

    • Classic? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MsGeek (162936)

      God no, the cheesiest of the MGM sci-fi movies of the 1970s. I think the only reason why people remember it fondly is the fap factor. Jenny Agutter and Farrah Fawcett. In shiny toga-like Dacron mini-dresses.

      However, as others have pointed out downthread, the book was actually way better than the movie and the even cheesier 1-season-wonder TV series told it. Maybe now it will be finally done justice, like Ridley Scott will probably do with Brave New World.

    • "Let's take our clothes off first, before they freeze on us." - Works every time on the ladies.
  • Why 3D? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gothmolly (148874) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @11:50AM (#32665850)

    There's nothing in Logan's Run that needs 3D. Are they going to do weird bullet-time Matrix-like effects of the needlers and rippers flying around?

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by plalonde2 (527372)
      You need 3D for the 1970's titties.
    • The Flying Scene at the beginning is about all I can think of...

      Though, the Laser Surgery station could be downright terrifying in 3D.

      The scene where Michael York is being interrogated and spinning around saying there is no sanctuary could be redone in 3D, but really a camera on a dolly did well in the past, and will do just fine for a remake.

      • The scene where Michael York is being interrogated and spinning around saying there is no sanctuary could be redone in 3D, but really a camera on a dolly did well in the past, and will do just fine for a remake.

        Actually, those were done in 3D. They used real holograms to do the interrogation scene. It was not a simple camera on a dolly trick.
    • Re:Why 3D? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @12:04PM (#32666078)

      There's nothing in Logan's Run that needs 3D.

      Jenny Agutter's tits in 3D!

    • by random coward (527722) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @12:06PM (#32666102)
      It doesn't work right if Carousel is in 2d; it has to be 3d!
    • Re:Why 3D? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by gregthebunny (1502041) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @12:12PM (#32666200) Journal
      Because everything nowadays has to be made in 3D. Apparently, your movie just isn't good enough for the public unless it's in 3D, regardless of how sucky it is (e.g. Alice in Wonderland).
    • There's nothing in Logan's Run that needs 3D.

      There's probably very little if anything in it that needs surround sound. I wonder if, way back when, people asked the question 'Why surround sound?', too.

      There's a few reasons for shooting it in 3D (I hope they're shooting in 3D, at least).

      I'll go with the most obvious tied-number-one first: it draws in crowds that go just for the fact that there's 3D on the title (just as there's people who go see -any- movie starring e.g. Natalie Portman), and the tickets co

      • by jedidiah (1196)

        > There's probably very little if anything in it that needs surround sound.

        Surround sound would probably me mostly if not completely wasted on a movie like Logan's Run too.

        Not everything is a space dogfight spectacular.

    • by mea37 (1201159)

      Not sure what you mean when you say "There's nothing in Logan's Run that needs 3D." Since the screenplay hasn't even been written, I guess maybe you're confusing the yet-to-be-made-in-3D movie with the made-long-ago movie, and observing that nothing in the made-long-ago movie requires 3D. I suspect that because you have no idea what will be in the yet-to-be-made movie, so you cannot know if it will contain elements that require 3D.

      Perhaps you meant "nothing in the original story requires 3D". Well, nothi

  • Classic? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 16K Ram Pack (690082) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (dnomla.mit)> on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @11:50AM (#32665860) Homepage
    I like the original Logan's Run, and it's a good story, but I don't think it's a classic. It could be remade as a better film.
    • Re:Classic? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fermion (181285) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @01:32PM (#32667454) Homepage Journal
      Agreed, but it will have to use the modern misgivings about the future. Logans run about a future where resources were limited and therefore lives had to be limited. We do not believe that anymore. Most of us believe that we can have as much stuff as we want, we can live as long as we want and we should never have to suffer. Every old person deserves as much medical care and welfare, because the worked and earned it.

      Further, logans run was made at a time when we thought that science was going to make nature irrelevant. We would all be living in cocoons never to see the sun. Some sort of technological disaster, such an oil spill, would mean the natural environment would not be safe and we would no longer have safe food, such as oysters. It was only after time had past and the world had healed that the people could be free.

      Obviously this future has to some degree happened. For many, they can move from house to garage to SUV to garage to office with very little natural contact. Filtered water and filtered air is the rule. Processed food using natural food as the base to which synthetics are added to reconstruct the texture and taste.

      So the premise has to be different. Maybe a natural disaster killed off the older people. Maybe everyone who is old and unable to work at maximum efficient are shunned and forced to the outside. I can tell you one thing. When Jessica get undressed I expect to see alot more of Jessica. Margo Stilley has no issue with nudity.

    • by Danathar (267989)

      You know, Sans Farrah Fawcett and assuming they could get the original prints just re-doing ALL of the special effects (music and maybe some voiceovers) would make for a cool remake.

  • by jollyreaper (513215) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @11:53AM (#32665900)

    You're not going to add a damn thing to the original. Why not tell a whole new story and add something to the culture?

    And what's with all the love for Sunshine? The premise sounded like another typical, tedious, scientifically illiterate Hollywood movie all the way down to the secret killer, crew getting picked off one by one, and impossibly large plot holes. How was it not awful?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by smitty777 (1612557)

      Why? Because Hollywood is incapable of coming up with an original idea. Apparently all the good stories have been used up. Now we are left with movie remakes of TV shows, 10th sequels, or plots that have been re-made for the 3rd or 4th time.

      Why? Because it's less of a gamble - they have an assured audience $$$ using the known formulas.

    • by Pojut (1027544)

      And what's with all the love for Sunshine? The premise sounded like another typical, tedious, scientifically illiterate Hollywood movie all the way down to the secret killer, crew getting picked off one by one, and impossibly large plot holes. How was it not awful?

      Well, for one thing, that's not what it was about at all. It focused on the interactions and relationships between people when they are on a mission that could either save or doom the entire solar system. It's done a fairly realistic manner, from the ship they are in to their interactions to their responsibilities. The whole "crew picked off one by one" happens literally in 10 of the last 20 minutes of the movie, and although the reason for it plays a major role in the final outcome, in the scope of the

      • by 0xdeadbeef (28836)

        Well, for one thing, that's not what it was about at all. It focused on the interactions and relationships between people when they are on a mission that could either save or doom the entire solar system.

        And instead of being serious scientists on a serious mission to save the world, they're a bunch whiny brats from a reality TV show thrown into a lame horror movie. It was a SyFy movie with production values.

        "Oh noes we forgot to turn the shade mirror we're all gonna die ahhhh!"

        "Oh noes our greenhouse blew u

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sockatume (732728)

      I can do that too!

      2001 was that wanky nonsense that veered from intelligent design to a psycho computer and stumbled to its finale with a bunch of trippy bullshit.
      The Fly was about Jeff Goldblum inventing a teleporter and turning into a big scary bug that kills people grusomely.
      The Matrix was Johnny Mnemonic with a lot more explosions, shooting, and fighting.

      There is slightly more to a movie than the IMDB synopsis and what you've heard from other people who haven't seen it but are outraged at the premise.

      • I went to see Sunshine at the cinema, and was really excited by seeing the first half, which appeared to be some really good, hard sci fi. Then the "Event Horizon"-esque charred corpse serial killer showed up and derailed the entire thing into Jason Fucking X. What a fucking let down. Pathetic.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by TheRaven64 (641858)

        2001 was that wanky nonsense that veered from intelligent design to a psycho computer and stumbled to its finale with a bunch of trippy bullshit.

        Yes, pretty much. Watch 2001 today on a small screen and it's pretty dull. The plot is pretty thin, the production values are low by modern standards, and the ending is interminably long and apparently only enjoyable with the aid of psychotropics. I enjoyed the book immensely, and have reread it several times, but once was quite enough for the film as an adult, although I did enjoy it (once) as a small child.

        The thing that made 2001 special was the effects. Long scenes of space ships docking with real

    • And what's with all the love for Sunshine? The premise sounded like another typical, tedious, scientifically illiterate Hollywood movie all the way down to the secret killer, crew getting picked off one by one, and impossibly large plot holes. How was it not awful?

      Sounded like? Did you actually watch the movie, or are you just going with the IMDB/Wikipedia summary?

      Sunshine was actually very good until the last 1/4 or so. The ship was believable, even if the premise (kick-starting the sun) was not. The movie (at least the first 3/4) revolved more around the stresses involved in such a mission.

      It wasn't until the very end that the axe murderer showed up and things got silly.

      Maybe not the best thing I've ever seen... But it certainly wasn't awful. And it was pretty

    • by Syberz (1170343)

      Why? Easy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money [wikipedia.org]

    • by ADRA (37398)

      In regards to remakes, there are times when a remake brings something interesting into the current landscape. A remake done well will adapt the story to the important issues of the day. As an example, Logan's Run could be adapted to the overpopulation and lack of natural resources that plagues mankind. This is a re-occurring theme that has re-emerged from the 70's yet again. Tie it with climate concerns and peak oil and you'll have a real horror show.

      Another note on remakes is that no matter how much of a m

    • by oneiros27 (46144) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @01:10PM (#32667146) Homepage

      what's with all the love for Sunshine

      They're still working on making sure there's an equivalent of Top Gun for every profession:

      • mail carriers : The Postman
      • fire fighters : Backdraft
      • geophysicists : The Core
      • meteorologists : Twister

      ... etc.

      Why can't the solar physicists get an unrealistic movie that makes them seem cool, too?

      • by radtea (464814)

        Why can't the solar physicists get an unrealistic movie that makes them seem cool, too?

        Because despite the stunning visual aesthetic in parts of the film it didn't make solar physicists seem cool--it made them seem like complete gits you wouldn't put in charge of a beer-run, much less the most important mission in human history.

    • And what's with all the love for Sunshine? The premise sounded like another typical, tedious, scientifically illiterate Hollywood movie all the way down to the secret killer, crew getting picked off one by one, and impossibly large plot holes. How was it not awful?

      I also don't understand this. I got it through NetFlix, watched it, and found that there wasn't even one quality to this film that made me want to talk to anyone about it. The acting was wooden and laconic, the storyline was linear and predictable, the musical score wasn't much, and overall it just had the feeling of a made-for-SyFy movie with a bigger budget so it wasn't as cheesy and terrible.

      All in all, it was incredibly mediocre. If this is what passes for a "stand-out" Sci-Fi film, then maybe the Sc

  • ...Although we wouldn't need to worry about any dubious cribbing with Logan's Run; the original was a classic.

    /liked Sunshine.
    //just thought it smelled awfully much like Event Horizon, that's all.

  • Logan's Run is a classic, but watching it, it's painfully obvious that it's based on a short story. There's a short story's worth of ideas in there, stretched out first pathetically, then painfully:

    Fish, and plankton. And sea greens, and protein from the sea. It's all here, ready. Fresh as harvest day. Fish and sea greens, plankton and protein from the sea. And then it stopped coming. And they came instead. So I store them here. I'm ready. And you're ready. It's my job. To freeze you. Protein, plankton...

    At least having Garland on board means it's unlikely to be turned into the obvious thing, a pure action film. There's definitely deep flaws in the original, though the underlying story is worth being told visually. Just please, no cardboard robots.

  • by scorp1us (235526) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @12:03PM (#32666042) Journal

    The Island [imdb.com] (2005) was already a remake. I was pissed because in LR you got to see tits. Not so with Scarlett Johansson. Damn Hollywood.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The Island was a remake of The Clonus Horror, not Logan's Run.

      • Sadly, The Clonus Horror was actually a better film than The Island

        The Island: nonsensical plot, dumb flying vehicles, typical Michael Bay incoherence on a mind withering $126 million budget

        The Clonus Horror: bizarre nose jobs, smoking crotches, Peter Graves and an MST3K version all on a $257,000 budget

        No contest.

        Logan's Run was a good SF flick, but for 1970s dystopic films Soylent Green owns all.

      • by vigour (846429)
        It might have also been "inspired" by Spares [curledup.com] by Michael Marshall Smith [michaelmarshallsmith.com]. From wikipedia:

        The controversy surrounding the lawsuit opened the floodgates to more criticism and accusations. Michael Marshall Smith's 1996 novel, Spares, in which the hero liberates intelligent clones from a "spare farm", whose clients are told they are not conscious, was optioned by DreamWorks in the late 1990s but was never made. It remains unclear if the story inspired The Island, and so Marshall Smith did not consider it worthwhile[5] to pursue legal action over the similarities. Paramount (once sister studio to DreamWorks after its parent Viacom purchased DreamWorks in late 2005, then spinning it off again in 2008) was in talks to option the novel after DreamWorks' rights expired, but declined after The Island was released. Marshall Smith considers it unlikely a Spares film will ever be made

      • by scorp1us (235526)

        That's splitting hairs. Without revealing plot spoilers, the differences between the two are minuscule Once the big revelation is made... what is left? Does it matter if you go in direction A or B?

        I think people who saw Clonus thought it was a lovely adaptation of LR.

         

    • Damn Michael Bay!

      Michael Bay is a brilliant director, not only with 'The Island' to back him up but also with blockbuster movies like 'Armageddon' and 'Pearl Harbor' listed in his resume. But, according to some, he should keep quiet every once in a while, especially as he recently decided to speak about Scarlett Johansson wanted to go topless and he did not allow her to.

      In an interview with 'Esquire' Magazine, Bay told the reporter that the curvy actress refused to put on a bra for a certain scene in the ac

      • By the way, I don't agree with the "brilliant director" part - The Island and Armageddon both sucked balls.

  • Logan's Run is one of those rare cases where the movie is far better than the book. The original Logan trilogy read like they were written by a thirteen-year-old.

    If this remake is going to be based more on the original books than on the film, I don't have high hopes for it.
  • ...'28 Days Later' (a massive adrenaline rush of a movie)

    Seriously? Seemed like formulaic zombie/virus-apocalypse chum to me. Wasn't even that scary. But I am more of a 'Children of Men' and 'The Road' kind of guy anyway....

    • by Sloppy (14984)

      I hated 28 Days Later too, and I love the zombie / apocalypse genre. Gimme BBC's "Survivors", George Romero's classics, occasionally throw in a triffid, and I'm a happy camper.

      28 Days Later's biggest problem (and the Dawn of the Dead remake had the same problem) was that the movie looked shitty. LEARN TO HOLD YOUR CAMERA STEADY!! Jerky cameras are not scary ("is that blur attacking or running away?"); they just make it look like you cheaped out on special effects ("What's the matter, don't want me to see

  • I have mixed feelings about remakes of classics, especially one where the time they were made seem to add to the films charm. Still, there have been some good remakes. I don't like the idea of adding 3D. DVD viewers will not that and the temptation for the producers to rely on that for entertainment versus a good story will be strong.

  • Yellow: Birth to 7
    Blue: 7-14
    Red: 14-21
    Blinking red/black: Lastday (Book: 21 Movie:30)
    Black: runner
    Clear: reset

    The movie and TV series were WAY different from the book. Check wikipedia for a quick comparison

  • Both the wikipedia page for this movie and the book it was derived from are very interesting.

  • Stop it stop it stop it stop it already!!!

    Quit remaking classics.

    What makes a classic good is that it takes you to a new place. Logan's Run was mindblowing when I saw it. The remake can never be.

    You want to rule the world? Make a good original movie.

  • Garland's film 'Sunshine,' directed by Danny Boyle, was one of the stand-out science fiction films of the last decade

    Um... Am I the only one on /. who thought Sunshine was a lot of [feces]?

    For a professional crew sent to save the world, they behaved more like a bunch of college friends on a poorly organized camping trip.

  • I don't really see a need to remake or update movies. I think that's just a euphemism for "we've run out of original ideas".

    And y'all must have seen a different "Sunshine" than I did. What I saw was a standout science fiction film only because of how bad I thought it sucked. The effects were interesting and the spaceship design was cool, but other than that...

  • by rbrander (73222) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @12:29PM (#32666488) Homepage

    The original novel came out at the height of the baby boom hitting adulthood; across the developing world, the population explosion was making it look like the whole world was kids. (Erlich's "The Population Bomb" was just out, too.) So they had this world where you were shot at 20, there were only teenagers. How the high-tech machinery kept running was never explained.

    The movie raised the 20 to 30 to accommodate a not-nearly-teen Michael York. Who kept the lights on was still never explained; everybody seemed to lounge about in day-glo party clothes.

    Of course, it was terrible science fiction; many analysts were pointing to dropping birth rates in the developed world and debunking Erlich even at the time. The youth explosion of the decade was a blip. Now the world faces an increasingly aging population and it's the loss of 50-somethings from the workforce that is creating concerns.

    Apparently, they are good at keeping the lights on.

  • Garland's film 'Sunshine,' directed by Danny Boyle, was one of the stand-out science fiction films of the last decade

    Has anyone here even heard of this movie? I'm sure I'll probably get marked Troll, but can you call a movie "Stand-out science fiction" if no one has ever heard of it? I'm not saying that it may not be a great film, just saying that I have never heard of it. I pulled it up on IMDB and didn't recognize the name of anyone in it either, which suggests that it is either an independant film or a low budget film (or both).

    As for Logan's Run, I am just not sure a modern-day remake would work. Post-appocolyptic wor

    • by Cruciform (42896)

      The first two thirds of Sunshine is a good sci-fi movie. And then it goes to complete shit. Almost as if a Hollywood exec ran out of toilet paper while reading the script in the bathroom.
      The only reason it can be considered 'special' is because Danny Boyle and Cilian Murphy were attached to it.

      • by 0123456 (636235)

        The only reason it can be considered 'special' is because Danny Boyle and Cilian Murphy were attached to it.

        Given Boyle's record, presumably that's 'special' in the 'special ed' sense.

  • A quick poll - which do you think will happen in the next ten years? In twenty? Assuming at least one of them is inevitable, which would you prefer?

    1) Star Wars IV - VI, converted to 3D

    2) Star Wars IV - VI, remade in 3D

    3) A third Star Wars trilogy, of course in 3D

    Spoiler: Google "Star Wars 3D" - Lucas is already talking about the first option. Greedo shooting first, now in "bullet time!"

    .
  • by Culture20 (968837) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @12:42PM (#32666730)
    The best part was the ending, when grandpa became a zombie, and the little girl was revealed to be a gray alien.
  • these days, it should really be news if they aren't remaking something.
  • Are they going to work Obamacare into the plot somehow?

  • by honestmonkey (819408) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @01:06PM (#32667084) Journal

    There is another reason to NOT make this movie. It doesn't make any sense, from a historical perspective, to do so. Back when the book was written, the world was concerned about the population explosion, and that it seemed the average age was going YOUNGER. There were going to be a bunch of young people around and no way to support them. The way it's worked out, however, is that the population has actually gotten OLDER. There are many more older folks now, as a percentage of the population. Overpopulation also has not become as large a problem as anyone thought. If we could figure out food DISTRIBUTION, then there wouldn't be anyone going to bed hungry.

    And, yeah, "The Island" kind of already was a remake, albeit a lousy one.

    The original, goofy as it was, is a classic, and they won't be able to add anything of substance.

  • Here's how to remake it. In the future Hollywood only has a small select of films to show because they've run out of ideas. The way that they ensure ticket revenues is by killing off everyone over 21. My life clock is black as pitch!

  • by brunes69 (86786) <slashdot@nOsPAm.keirstead.org> on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @06:59PM (#32671888) Homepage

    Garland's film 'Sunshine,' directed by Danny Boyle, was one of the stand-out science fiction films of the last decade,

    Stand out in what way?

    It was a commercial flop, it was boring, it had a ridiculous plot, it had horrible acting, it had little to no character development at all. It was an all-around horrible movie from start to end as far as I'm concerned, and most of the movie-going public seems to agree with me.

One good suit is worth a thousand resumes.

Working...