Kevin's Watch

Everyone who has read the novel knows the movie was the worst cinematic crap ever to have raped literature.
But the question of a remake alway's makes me ask; who would play Ballard?
Who would play, in a world where no one lived past the age of 21, a virile bad ass 40 year old who hunts tigers with a bow and arrows?
My vote?
Vin Diesel.
Grow a little hair though, for crissake!

Lord Zombiac wrote:Everyone who has read the novel knows the movie was the worst cinematic crap ever to have raped literature.

Dune was worse. Starship Troopers, also worse.

How about Mark Wahlberg?

___ wrote:

Lord Zombiac wrote:Everyone who has read the novel knows the movie was the worst cinematic crap ever to have raped literature.

Dune was worse. Starship Troopers, also worse.

Curious, I enjoyed both films. I have not read starship troopers, but I have read all but 40 pages of Dune.
Then again I'm a huge David Lynch fan to begin with.
You can't get much worse than:
1. raising the age of lastday from 21 to 30. Wow, there goes you whole premise!
2. Taking a post apocalyptic world on a vast scale and reducing it to a single domed city about as tame as a shopping mall.
3. Casting an effeminate British wuss (no offense you English peeps!) and casting him as Logan.
4. cutting many mind blowing scenes.
5. The worst offense ever: turning Ballard into a senile old fart instead of a virile, tough, bad ass.

Spoiler

who also happened to be Frances in disguise

That is corruption of one of my favorite novels on the highest level.
What I did like about the movie was that they used the Ankh as a symbol for sanctuary. I liked the costumes, and I liked Box, although he was a shadow of the menace he was in the book.

Starship Troopers was only worse if you take both the book and the film at face value.

The only reason to watch Logan's Run

Lord Zombiac wrote: What I did like about the movie was that they used the Ankh as a symbol for sanctuary. I liked the costumes, and I liked Box, although he was a shadow of the menace he was in the book.

There was nothing, not one bloody thing, that I saw in Dune or Troopers that I could describe as having 'liked'.

I suppose if I had read Logan's Run before or even after seeing the film I'd identify with some of the complaints. Since I didn't, my only real criticizm is that the opening special effects depicting the cityscape that is an offense to everything good and proper in the universe. After that I thought the story and it's direction was above average 70s sci fi. If I could buy a special edition dvd with the opening re imagined with todays special effects I'd do it in a second.

And by the way I agree with danlo.

aTOMiC wrote:I suppose if I had read Logan's Run before or even after seeing the film I'd identify with some of the complaints. Since I didn't, my only real criticizm is that the opening special effects depicting the cityscape that is an offense to everything good and proper in the universe. After that I thought the story and it's direction was above average 70s sci fi. If I could buy a special edition dvd with the opening re imagined with todays special effects I'd do it in a second.

And by the way I agree with danlo.

You should read the book. It is my all time favorite sci-fi paperback, and it was absolutely bastardized by those cokeheads in the 70's.
When you turn the most pivotal character from a powerful, seasoned middle aged man to a blithering senile dolt it is more than just a little slap in the face. It would be like portraying Frodo Baggins as a smurf!

barbarianclan.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=111
I had to link this indirectly, because ihugny's script won't post a complete link with an apostrophe.
My website, however, will.
Read about it and tell me this isn't the worst atrocity perpetuated on literature by film!
I'm serious about this-- no film has ever left me so betrayed!
In the book, Sanctuary is real!
We're supposed to believe that the dystopian society of the future crumbles when they see the senile, wrinkled, slathering, slumped over movie version of Ballard!
Sh*t, if I saw Ballard, I'd torch him with gasoline to put him out of his misery, and drink myself into a stupor waiting for "lastday" so I didn't age like that!
Plus, the novel is chock full of sex, drugs, and crazy violence.
The chapter where the dee-stickers make logan cut an ounce of flesh out of Jessica is unforgettable (although I admit I can't quite remember whether he actually does this or not).
Logan's transformation from anti-hero to hero in on a par with Thomas Covenant.
This was a brilliant novel, distorted by the cocaine laced fantasies of the 70's.
Don't give me that sh*t about how David Lynch ruined "dune."
I couldn't get past three chapters of that dull endless story before I watched David Lynch's gleefully perverse re-envisioning of it!
Only afterwards did I almost finish that epic borefest!
It stands to reason that a kid who enjoyed reading about Thomas Covenant raping Lena and then their daughter want to bone down with him would delight in a boil-festered fat baron raping and killing a young man wrapped in clear plastic...
I know, I'm a freak...

I think Stan Lee's attitude about the differences between comics and movies is the most healthy and stress free. The movie is the movie and the comic is the comic. Film adaptations of books almost always fart around with the original content.
For myself Logan's Run the 70s film is what it is. When they produce the remake and try to stick closer to the source it will be kind of familiar but also quite different. I will read the novel at some point but it won't change my opinion of a film I've been so familiar with for most of my life.

Lord Zombiac wrote:Don't give me that sh*t about how David Lynch ruined "dune."

No amount of profanity will change the fact that Lynch ruined Dune. He turned an incredible story about politics, religion and power into a circus sideshow. The casting was abominable, the effects were crap, and the plot was so off, it looked like Lynch forced several 6th graders to read the book, and then had them write the screenplay for him. I don't know what your problem with the book is, but it's one of, if not the, best sci-fi books ever written.

As for Starship Troopers, that's one Heinlein book I haven't yet read, but I've read enough Heinlein to know his work is miles above that pathetic waste of celluloid.

None of this means I don't think Logan's Run sucked; I just rate it no better than 3rd on the 'raped literature' list.

I have only read "the Moon is a harsh mistress" by Heinlein.
I enjoyed "Starship Troopers" a lot.
Politics, power, and religion are fine subjects if you can manage to keep them from being boring.
As far as casting is concerned... Patrick Stewart? Kyle McLaughlin? Everett McGill? These are some of my favorite actors.

I'd highly recommend Starship Troopers. It's a fast, easy read and almost nothing like the movie. The downside is that there isn't much of a plot, reading more like a mech-soldier's travelogue. Considering Verhoeven directed the adaptation, I'm kind of intrigued by his decision not to use the main plot vehicle in the movie, but maybe he wanted to get away from any Robocop connections.

If you have a brain and haven't read the book, yeah, the movie's probably going to suck for you. But when you realize it's actually a dialogue, both sides arguing in hyperbole, it becomes much more enjoyable.

I'm more excited about who will play the gypsy chicks!!

I broke out my old VHS tape of Logan's Run, and watched it. I still like it. A few months back I tried to watch my old VHS tape of Dune, and couldn't get through 30 minutes of it.

danlo wrote:The only reason to watch Logan's Run

Just think, danlo, if LZ had his way, Jenny wouldn't have even been cast in the movie, as she wasn't specifically mentioned in the book. And that, my friends, would have been a damn shame.

Jenny Agutter was simply gorgeous (as she was in An American Werewolf in London); always sweet and always game to get her kit off! However it was pretty much the only redeeming feature of Logan's run.

Starship Troopers on the other hand was written as a spoof of the "Green Berets" type propaganda/recruiting movies of John Wayne and Audie Murphy. It was deliberately over the top in its handling of the "fun" of war. The movie tried (IMO) to capture that, but instead captured the very people who the real thing would have been aimed at! It also scared away many of the rest as only a few "got it", because only a few had read the book and figured out what it was lampooning.

Interestingly the latest Orson Scott Card novel which is a sequel to "Empire" has a plot supported by the development of the technologies envisaged by Heinlen in ST.

But well done Danlo on posting that pic!

finn wrote:Starship Troopers on the other hand was written as a spoof of the "Green Berets" type propaganda/recruiting movies of John Wayne and Audie Murphy. It was deliberately over the top in its handling of the "fun" of war. The movie tried (IMO) to capture that, but instead captured the very people who the real thing would have been aimed at! It also scared away many of the rest as only a few "got it", because only a few had read the book and figured out what it was lampooning.

Bullshit. Nobody failed to 'get it'. That's one problem with the movie; it lacks any subtlety, any realism. Nobody could miss the point. Unfortunately, when a director goes so far out of his way to make sure everybody understands his point of view, the movie suffers. What ended up happening was the movie came off as so patently ridiculous that nobody could believe what was happening. It's hard to sell someone on your cause when the scenario you've presented is completely and utterly unbelievable.

I'm one of the few who actually enjoyed Starship Troopers. Sure, there's no subtlety, but it's still a fun movie.

___ wrote:

finn wrote:Starship Troopers on the other hand was written as a spoof of the "Green Berets" type propaganda/recruiting movies of John Wayne and Audie Murphy. It was deliberately over the top in its handling of the "fun" of war. The movie tried (IMO) to capture that, but instead captured the very people who the real thing would have been aimed at! It also scared away many of the rest as only a few "got it", because only a few had read the book and figured out what it was lampooning.

Bullshit. Nobody failed to 'get it'. That's one problem with the movie; it lacks any subtlety, any realism. Nobody could miss the point. Unfortunately, when a director goes so far out of his way to make sure everybody understands his point of view, the movie suffers. What ended up happening was the movie came off as so patently ridiculous that nobody could believe what was happening. It's hard to sell someone on your cause when the scenario you've presented is completely and utterly unbelievable.

Well maybe you failed to get it.... but then you didn't read the book!

What do you think the point was?