Retro Look Good Enough for Another Sci Fi Remake

[Basil]

The discussions about needing to reboot Star Trek and update its look has included repeated assertions by some that the production design of the 1960s would never work today, as it would be laughable to sci-fi geeks as well as a general audience. The implication, too, is no one in their right mind would ever dream of doing such a thing for today's "sophisticated" audiences.

Well, word broke in the past 48 hours of a remake of Forbidden Planet under the helm of big name producer Joel Silver and Babylon 5's J. Michael Straczynski, only now it's not so much a remake as what sounds more like a sequel:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/38991

Of special note is the assertion that "Straczynski was not shy about paying homage to FORBIDDEN PLANET in BABYLON 5, so it's not a surprise that he would want to honor the integrity of Wilcox's visionary film.

As for the look of the film, it will apparently be an "enormous, giant, retro sci-fi movie"; in other words, they're going to implement the design of the original rather than attempt something modern. As Harry said, nothing "sleek or chromy" like Fox would do."

Of course, this film may never get made at all, but if the retro look is good enough for Silver and Straczynski and Forbidden Planet, why not for Abrams and Star Trek?

 

[SonicRanger]

That's terrifying... Straczynski and retro? Babylon 5 had a production design from costumes to sets (dear gods, the colors of the sets) that screamed 1980s, like almost Miami Vice era... which would be fine if the show was made in the 1980s, instead of starting in the mid-1990s. So expect a movie that looks like a vision of the 2200s from the 1950s made in the 1990s.

 

[Basil]

That's terrifying... Straczynski and retro? Babylon 5 had a production design from costumes to sets (dear gods, the colors of the sets) that screamed 1980s, like almost Miami Vice era... which would be fine if the show was made in the 1980s, instead of starting in the mid-1990s. So expect a movie that looks like a vision of the 2200s from the 1950s made in the 1990s.

Well, the Kelvin looks rather like a rejected design from the 1980s, right down to the graphics, and the cadet images in Star Trek have a strong resemblance to those in 1997's Starship Troopers.

From what I can tell, quite a bit considered "modern" in sci-fi can trace its roots back to visual aesthetics in the 1980s (themselves influenced by 1968's 2001: A Space Odyssey)..

But the article doesn't suggest a 2009 interpretation of Forbidden Planet's aesthetic so much as a re-creation of it. Again, the more pressing question is if such a retro aesthetic is so awful, so passe, why would two Hollywood powerhouses be willing to embrace it as the aesthetic for their contemporary film?

 

[gastrof]

Be careful, Basil.

I stood my ground twice recently on this, and ended up the victim of a mobbing on this board, including participation by someone who should never have taken the step they did.

People don't want you to disagree with the design choices made in the upcoming movie, nor to intelligently make a case.

They'll resort to abuse, threatening PMs, and vague accusations of "bad posting methods" in order to silence you.

It's not working in my case, but be prepared for a nasty attack, especially if you try to be reasonable in your approach...like you have been.

 

[TeutonicNights]

I don't like the sequel idea. This would work well as a remake, even if we'd know how the ending is.
The atmosphere of the movie could be translated very well into a modern movie, and I'd love to see the Krell underworld redone and of course the saucer bridge, the planet and everything.
For eample that navigational sphere would be kick-ass as a hologram and the Robot should look more menacing by today's standards.
And updating the designs to make them more believable while still retaining the overall look- if you're aiming at a "retro" feel or not- is a fascinating thing. I would have loved that approach in newTrek as well.

 

[StCoop]

You're using AICN as a source of factual information?

Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

 

[StCoop]

You're using AICN as a source of factual information?

Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

It's not working in my case, but be prepared for a nasty attack, especially if you try to be reasonable in your approach...like you have been.

And playing the martyr doesn't work either.

 

[Akiraprise]

It's not working in my case, but be prepared for a nasty attack, especially if you try to be reasonable in your approach...like you have been.

And playing the martyr doesn't work either.

Guys, stop.
Topics, not posters.
Blah blah blah, I know.

 

[jgdst]

You're using AICN as a source of factual information?

Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

You're using AICN as a source of factual information?

Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

LOL. It was an important point, it definitely needed saying twice.

According to Harry, Straczynski's screenplay will essentially act as if Altair 4 didn't blow up.

I thought that was supposed to be a pretty major part of the original... Does it make sense to ignore it?

 

[Patrickivan]

That is really funny, because I saw Forbidden Planet the other day, end went on to my wife about what a really neat movie it was. She joked that hollywood will do a remake of it like everything else.

So I can believe it.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Guys, stop.
Topics, not posters.
Blah blah blah, I know.

You are right, of course. I apologize. I'm sorry gastrof.

 

[Sci]

I'm not sure I'd call JMS a "powerhouse." The guy's big in geek circles, but he's not nearly as successful or as powerful an entertainment name as JJ Abrams.

Besides -- the two guys have different aesthetic sensibilities. What's the issue? For one, retro works, and for the other, retro needs to be reinterpreted a bit. Big deal. Besides, the images released from the Abrams film so far do look retro -- stylized retro, but retro nonetheless.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I'm not sure I'd call JMS a "powerhouse." The guy's big in geek circles, but he's not nearly as successful or as powerful an entertainment name as JJ Abrams.

Straczynski's status in Hollywood has changed considerably since "Changeling", though.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'd enjoy seeing a "Forbidden Planet" sequel (which is apparently what this is, rather than a remake) using retro design. Besides Robby himself, I adore the C-57D saucer design and the astrogator in the middle of the command area of the ship (and I can tell you that dual plastic domes that size are expensive as hell, too expensive for a low-budget fan film, because I recently priced them).

That said, simply because this is the early intention of at least someone associated with the project does not mean that this is what we will eventually see.

For one thing, at some point in the process some suit is going to look at the design work and say "Looks like 'Sky Captain,'" and then there's no telling what happens.

In either event: choices made on one movie mean nothing regarding choices made on another. MGM wants to go retro on FP, good. Paramount does not want to go retro on "Star Trek," that's just fine too.

I'm not sure I'd call JMS a "powerhouse." The guy's big in geek circles, but he's not nearly as successful or as powerful an entertainment name as JJ Abrams.

Straczynski's status in Hollywood has changed considerably since "Changeling", though.

Indeed, the "Changeling" gig may have gotten him the offer. It's nice to score a writer who has both done a potentially Oscar-nominated Eastwood film and a lot of genre stuff for this kind of flick).

 

[Basil]

I'm not sure I'd call JMS a "powerhouse." The guy's big in geek circles, but he's not nearly as successful or as powerful an entertainment name as JJ Abrams.

Besides -- the two guys have different aesthetic sensibilities. What's the issue? For one, retro works, and for the other, retro needs to be reinterpreted a bit. Big deal. Besides, the images released from the Abrams film so far do look retro -- stylized retro, but retro nonetheless.

Given his success with the Babylon franchise, animation, novels, comics, and now "mainstream" Hollywood, he's as much a powerhouse as Abrams -- and he didn't come from a Hollywood family to give him a boost up

The issue, though, isn't freedom of choice but the philosophy behind those choices. Two big Hollywood names have announced keeping an even more dated and "hokey" look for their remake of a film that so obviously predicts TOS -- not to update, revise, or tweak that look, but to literally keep it. If updating the aesthetics of sci-fi is so critical to attracting an audience today, why would these moguls be doing the opposite? And why would a major studio even be considering it?

Abrams did okay with the uniforms, but little else so far looks enough like TOS to say he's only reinterpreted a bit. If anything, his production design harkens back to the 80s films and some of the Phase 2 drawings. He might be retro in that sense, but he more or less skipped ahead of the source. Silver and Straczynski are not.

 

[Basil]

Be careful, Basil.

I stood my ground twice recently on this, and ended up the victim of a mobbing on this board, including participation by someone who should never have taken the step they did.

People don't want you to disagree with the design choices made in the upcoming movie, nor to intelligently make a case.

They'll resort to abuse, threatening PMs, and vague accusations of "bad posting methods" in order to silence you.

It's not working in my case, but be prepared for a nasty attack, especially if you try to be reasonable in your approach...like you have been.

Some of the discussions have been pretty rough -- thanks for the heads up.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

There is nothing inherently good or bad about going with retro or going with modern. The proof will be in the final execution.

Re: Star Trek XI

Having claimed that the movie is a prequel and yet radically changing the design, the burden is on Abrams and Co. to justify that decision.

The only justification that the studio likely cares about is a healthy box office.

The rest is left for us to fight about here.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The only justification that the studio likely cares about is a healthy box office.

Bingo!

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

The only justification that the studio likely cares about is a healthy box office.

Bingo!

And, of course, my concerns are not their concerns.

But my concerns are Paramount to me, for whatever that's worth.