I know....that is subjective rather than objective. But still, it's an interesting thought exercise given some of what is classed as "classic" science fiction.
I mean, could you accept anyone reinterpreting Philip Hose Farmer's "Riverworld"? The Sci-Fi Network's attempt seemed lame and totally without regard to Farmer's major points of wonder.
That is but one example of a host of examples showing the film world's terrible penchant for not getting the point. Remember the remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still"? Guess what? The Earth never did stand still. No benevolent act of power it seemed was worthy of a mention....even though it was the vital point of the first film.
Should "The Day the Earth Stood Still" have been considered for a remake? Sure! But in a couple of years when whoever owns the rights tries it again, maybe this time they will remember Gort's awesome stature. As opposed to turning Gort into billions of radioactive dust bunnies.
That is not to say that all interpretations of the written word are as bad as that. As we know, some are untouchable classics. Well, only one really. I rue the day that anyone decides to remake "2001: A Space Odyssey".
But apart from that exception, I think just about any written science fiction classic has the potential to be visualised or re-visualised. As long as the original author's point is maintained.
For example (not a written book example, but valid scripts)....remember "The Outer Limits" from the 60's?
Season one, episode one, "The Galaxy Being" - Wanna know a secret? As a kid I never dreamed bad dreams. I never had a nightmare. Until I saw this particular episode back in the sixties.
Cliff Robertson and the "Galaxy Being"
That show freaked me out! When my family viewed it as a repeat back in the sixties, I hid behind the sofa......I was terrified.
But I grew up and the nightmares stopped.
Still, I have always been fascinated by the "Kubrick-esque" aspect of the "Galaxy Being" episode.
"Kubrick-esque"? Sure! Note the blinding brightness of the Californian sky in the beginning. The clinical difference between one scene composition and another. The careful reasoning meant for the science questions that were sure to follow. This episode of "The Outer Limits" is a classic for those reasons alone.
It only took me 40 f***ing years to get that. But then again, I didn't know Kubrick back then.
But one night, I asked myself a question.........could that be re-written? Could that be updated? Could that be re-prepared for a 2010 audience but still be faithful to the original? I mean, the facts that have overtaken the original zeitgeist are enormous. But still, could it be reworked keeping the original moral question intact?
I think it could.
What do you think?
I'd like to ask readers (if any) to comment on how best the original intent of the story could be served and how the technology could be updated to reflect the 21st century and not seem so hokey.
I have a good idea.......but do you?
No comments:
Post a Comment