Writer boards big-screen version of 'Man From U.N.C.L.E.'
- Thread starter Dusty Ayres
- Start date
Given they did a couple of Man from U.N.C.L.E movies quite some time back with both Robert Vaughn and David McCallum and they weren't the best I wouldn't really hold my breath on a new movie.
Or put another way - think of The Avengers with Ralph Finnes and Uma Thurman and take it as a warning.
Or put another way - think of The Avengers with Ralph Finnes and Uma Thurman and take it as a warning.
They only did one, and that was nearly 30 years ago. I think you don't need to hold your breath. (There were other UNCLE movies but they were cobbled from episodes in the 1960s.)
I agree that The Avengers, as well as Wild Wild West and I Spy, should be taken as cautionary tales as to how NOT to do a film remake of a TV series. Napoleon Solo is a Canadian in his early 30s; Ilya Kuryakin is a Russian in his 20s. They act like squabbling brothers but they're the best of friends despite their cultural differences. Mess about with that too much and you lose the point. I'll be surprised if Kuryakin remains a male character, though. Unless they bring in April Dancer, I suppose.
And if they don't take advantage of both Robert Vaughn and David McCallum still being active and get them into the show in some way, it'll be a shame.
In fact if I were handling it I'd create two new UNCLE agents and have Vaughn and McCallum appear as the men in charge of UNCLE, with Illya revealed as having been working deep undercover with a US Navy investigative team for the last few years and Napoleon having spent the last few years dabbling in con games in Britain! Hey, it could work -- remember when "JB" appeared in the reunion film!
Alex
There was only one such movie, The Return of the Man from UNCLE: The Fifteen Years Later Affair, and that was a TV movie. A feature film remake is a whole different ball of wax.
Although that means it'll probably be much worse, since big-budget movies are subject to much more meddling by executives who want them to conform to proven formulas and don't much care about fidelity to the original.
Although I remember The Fifteen Years Later Affair being reasonably good. Or at least what you'd expect from a telemovie written by Michael Sloan, the king of '80s TV-movie revivals of '60s and '70s shows. But then, I've hardly ever seen the original series so I don't have much to compare it to.
^^ I enjoyed The Fifteen Years Later Affair. It was a well-done and affectionate follow-up to a very good 60s adventure show. In other words, the people in charge liked the original and didn't screw with it.
This, or something similar, would be the right way to do it; or at least the beginning of the right way to do it.
I think they should get together with George Lucas and do a crossover.
"I'm Napoleon Solo and this is my cousin Han."
"I'm Napoleon Solo and this is my cousin Han."
on the big screen.
Dusty Ayres
Commodore
More likely, it'll be a reboot, with a younger Solo & Kuryakin and a new Mr. Waverly.
^ I'd be extremely surprised if it wasn't a reboot, with a younger Solo & Kuryakin.
I've only seen bits and bobs of the original but it does strike me as a quirky of-its-day show, like The Avengers, that may not translate to a modern setting as well as, e.g. Mission: Impossible. Much like, er, the movie of The Avengers.
The other problem for them is recapturing the chemistry between Vaughn & McCallum. Who would be a good fit for those characters? Clooney is too old for Solo, as is Kyle McLachlan, who was clearly channeling him in Twin Peaks. I can see Paul Bettany as Kuryakin, though again, he might be too old.
I've only seen bits and bobs of the original but it does strike me as a quirky of-its-day show, like The Avengers, that may not translate to a modern setting as well as, e.g. Mission: Impossible. Much like, er, the movie of The Avengers.
The other problem for them is recapturing the chemistry between Vaughn & McCallum. Who would be a good fit for those characters? Clooney is too old for Solo, as is Kyle McLachlan, who was clearly channeling him in Twin Peaks. I can see Paul Bettany as Kuryakin, though again, he might be too old.
I find that an odd comparison, since the movies calling themselves Mission: Impossible are not really a translation of the original at all. They have little in common with the show beyond the name, and only the third movie is even partly an effective homage.
Indeed, the original M:I was very much a product of its day -- a formulaic, episodic series with no character development or continuity, even to the point that its episodes could hardly even take place in the same reality as one another (since the team members often showed their faces on national or global television yet were still able to stay anonymous thereafter, and since there were more imaginary Eastern European countries in the show's run than could possibly fit in Eastern Europe).
^ Yes, but the idea of an organisation called the IMF, specialising in impossible, er missions, works well in both incarnations and is durable. Lines like 'Your mission, should you choose to accept it...' or 'This tape/disc/whatever will self-destruct in 10 seconds' have survived. In the 1st and 3rd movie, you did have Hunt's people working as a team (albeit only for short times). The rubber masks and iconic theme tune were holdovers from the original show.
The Man from UNCLE has a bad guy organisation that sounds like an embarrassing illness and no catchy theme tune. The idea of a Russian working for the good guys is no longer as daring as it was in 1960. True, you could probably re-jig TMFU to make it more like the Cruise MI or even the Bond movies, but that'll probably piss off fans of the original without having anything distinctive to separate it from the pack.
The Man from UNCLE has a bad guy organisation that sounds like an embarrassing illness and no catchy theme tune. The idea of a Russian working for the good guys is no longer as daring as it was in 1960. True, you could probably re-jig TMFU to make it more like the Cruise MI or even the Bond movies, but that'll probably piss off fans of the original without having anything distinctive to separate it from the pack.
I love this. It would make me soooooo happy.
They really should get Vaughn or McCallum in as the director. Even if the director is "Mr. Waverly" and it's cameo time. But I'd love to see it updated (but not screwed with!) and have an older Napoleon Solo as the "new" head, replacing the old guy who just retired, who was Kuryakin...
But, Lord, yes, "Wild, Wild West" (ack, ptui!) and "The Avengers" should be a cautionary tale.
They need to do it RIGHT. Just a little tongue in cheek, like the show, but they need to take the source material seriously.
!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH0YdU1L2yU
Tony
Except it was portrayed totally differently. Originally the IMF seemed to be a small, off-the-books operation, literally run out of one guy's apartment, in order to give "the Secretary" deniability if the operatives were caught or killed. Aside from the lead man (Dan Briggs or Jim Phelps), the team members weren't professional agents but experts recruited from various fields -- actors/masters of disguise, engineers, circus performers, doctors, etc. In the movies, however, the IMF was a department of the CIA, manned by professional agents and run out of an office in Washington. It wasn't really the IMF in the movies, just a generic movie-style spy agency that happened to use the name IMF. In the first two movies, they could've just changed a few names and nobody would've thought they had anything to do with M:I. They would've been just another Brian DePalma paranoid thriller and just another John Woo action flick.
They could make it a period piece.
^ Yeah, you're not wrong with the DePalma/ Woo remarks. But I think the MI concept - differing as it may be between the series and movies - is one which is easily adaptable.
And a period piece movie would ROCK! I'd love to see them do a 60s set Bond movie as a one-off (Devil May Care, anyone?) but I can't help wonder if Austin Powers has scared moviemakers off doing a serious spy movie set in that period.
And a period piece movie would ROCK! I'd love to see them do a 60s set Bond movie as a one-off (Devil May Care, anyone?) but I can't help wonder if Austin Powers has scared moviemakers off doing a serious spy movie set in that period.
I doubt if the current audience would go for a 60s period piece. That would translate to "cheesy" for the current demographic.
Would if be seen a cheesy though or is that more a result of what Hollywood thinks would happen.
The problem is we never get to see because Hollywood never gives us the chance to see much in the way of 60s period pieces for example.
Though I guess with the amount of money at stake I can sort of understand it but then there's the absolute stinker movies that come and out you have to wonder who green-lit them.
I don't see why a period piece set in the '60s would automatically be seen as cheesy. There are plenty of respected films set in the '60s, such as Apollo 13, A Beautiful Mind, Doubt, Full Metal Jacket, Goodfellas, etc. It all depends on how you approach it.
But part of that could be that 3 of those films revolved around events that occurred in the 1960s and as such need to be set in the 60s to portray them (not familiar with Doubt or Goodfellas)
^Which has nothing to do with the question of whether there's any correlation between cheesiness and a period setting. And it's far from a comprehensive list anyway, just a few scattered examples.
Besides, the point is to address the concern that The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is too dated because it's a spy story from a time when having a Russian and an American team up was a big deal. And because spy stories aren't as easy to tell in the post-Cold War era. So maybe it's also something that needs to be set in the '60s, or at least might work better in that milieu.
Besides, the point is to address the concern that The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is too dated because it's a spy story from a time when having a Russian and an American team up was a big deal. And because spy stories aren't as easy to tell in the post-Cold War era. So maybe it's also something that needs to be set in the '60s, or at least might work better in that milieu.
Dusty Ayres
Commodore
A retro-movie won't work for a lot of reasons, mainly money-it costs a lot of it to make a retro world. Also, those movies haven't been doing that well (King Kong and Sky Captain being prime examples.) An U.N.C.L.E. movie has to work NOW and relate to NOW, not yesterday, or nobody will care. The idea of a multinational espionage-based peace agency shouldn't be that hard to do-take a look at G.I. JOE and it's success. And Mission: Impossible's success points to a good way to make U.N.C.L.E. work now-no Cold War concerns should be wrecking it. In fact, the post-9/11 world we live in posits the question; what if U.N.C.L.E. had been around to stop the events of that day from happening? What if the nations of the world decide, post Iraq War and Afghanistan War, to start up U.N.C.L.E. to keep such events from happening? To prevent terrorism from messing up the world further? To keep corporations from violating environmental laws? These events and concerns show that The Man From U.N.C.L.E can work now.
Last edited: