• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Writer boards big-screen version of 'Man From U.N.C.L.E.'

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.

That doesn't make sense. Two examples don't prove that the category is to blame, since most movies in general aren't successful so if you pick any two random films out of a given category, odds are they'll both have fared poorly. There have been many successful period pieces made over the decades, not to mention successful films set in the future.

There have been recent period pieces that have done well at the box office, including Changeling and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Meanwhile, on TV, the '60s-based Mad Men is extremely successful and well-regarded. If a period piece can be done on a TV budget several years in a row, it's clearly absurd to claim that it's prohibitively expensive for a feature film.

And where do you get the bizarre notion that a story set in the past can't relate to the present? Ever heard of analogy or metaphor? Just to cite one of countless examples, M*A*S*H was set in the Korean War but was a pointed critique of the Vietnam War that was ongoing when it premiered.


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.

Nobody said it would be hard to do. That's not what we're talking about here. Captaindemotion pointed out that, while the concept of a Russian working with an American had considerable impact and novelty at the time of the original show, it wouldn't carry the same resonance today. It would be easier to do today, and therefore less impressive. My suggestion was that if it were done as a period piece, at least the Russian-American partnership would have impact in-story, even if it wouldn't be as startling a concept to the audience.


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.

"Wrecking?" Odd choice of words. The Cold War was the heyday of spy fiction, because the lines were so clearly drawn and the stakes so high. If anything, a lot of post-Cold War spy stories seemed to be kind of halfhearted or directionless for a while, at least until the "War on Terror" got underway. Spy fiction is most effective in an era where there are clear-cut "bad guys," at least from the perspective of the nation the fiction is made for.

These events and concerns show that The Man From U.N.C.L.E can work now.

I never said it couldn't work now; I merely offered a period approach as a suggestion. Offering one suggestion is not meant to exclude all other possibilities. Obviously there are many ways the film could be approached.
 
^The Mad Men reference cinches it. Jon Hamm for Napoleon Solo. Start the campaign now! We all know he looks good in a 60s suit!
 
Meanwhile, on TV, the '60s-based Mad Men is extremely successful and well-regarded. If a period piece can be done on a TV budget several years in a row, it's clearly absurd to claim that it's prohibitively expensive for a feature film.

That's a TV show; this is a feature film we're talking about, based on a now obscure (compared to Star Trek) '60's TV show. The people who own it aren't that in love with the past, and would likely want to modernize it for today, like the James Bond movies, Get Smart, & Mission: Impossible-they're not going to risk millions on making it like the 60's. Would you deny James Bond the right to be updated to the present simply because the 60's adventures were amazing?

Also, John & Jane Q. Public haven't been as encompassed by U.N.C.L.E. as most of its fans have; they won't love it like you do, and won't know about it enough to want to see a 60's only movie


My suggestion was that if it were done as a period piece, at least the Russian-American partnership would have impact in-story, even if it wouldn't be as startling a concept to the audience.
As I said, it's a multinational intelligence-based security agency; the audience doesn't need to have Solo & Kuryakin's being American & Russian thrown in their faces, since they've been (somewhat unwary) allies for quite some time now. Also, U.N.C.L.E. was never about East/West that much, since all of the villains were standard international no-goods who upset the world order, which U.N.C.L.E. sent its agents to set right. Only the episode 'The Neptune Incident' was about East/West that much.


"Wrecking?" Odd choice of words. The Cold War was the heyday of spy fiction, because the lines were so clearly drawn and the stakes so high. If anything, a lot of post-Cold War spy stories seemed to be kind of halfhearted or directionless for a while, at least until the "War on Terror" got underway. Spy fiction is most effective in an era where there are clear-cut "bad guys," at least from the perspective of the nation the fiction is made for.

The 'bad guys' may not be as clearly defined these days, but they are still bad, and they're up to no good: rouge PMC's (Blackwater in real life and Artemis in the video game HAWX), rouge cartels and rouge army officers (General Medrano & Quantum in Quantum Of Solace) and religious fanatics/white supremacists (Al-Quaida and any of the American nationalist militias in real life, Anarchy 99 in XXX and the Watchdogs in the 'Two Americas' storyline running in Captain America right now), extremist environmentalists (ELF in real life and the Horizon Corporation in Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six novel) and secret societies with the power of a corporation/nation state (The Brotherhood of NOD in the Command & Conquer games). As well, there are also environmental problems for U.N.C.L.E. to tackle; corporation that deliberately mess it up and need to be brought to heel, something a global security agency like U.N.C.L.E. could deal with. And all without torturing people for info as on 24 and Alias!

I never said it couldn't work now; I merely offered a period approach as a suggestion. Offering one suggestion is not meant to exclude all other possibilities. Obviously there are many ways the film could be approached.
You just couldn't see what I said, because you love the '60's milieu a lot!:lol: But with just a little more digging and foresight, now you can. If U.N.C.L.E. can deal with current day crises in two comic book series published years apart, U.N.C.L.E. can deal with them in a big screen movie. All it takes are smarts and good writing.
 
Meanwhile, on TV, the '60s-based Mad Men is extremely successful and well-regarded. If a period piece can be done on a TV budget several years in a row, it's clearly absurd to claim that it's prohibitively expensive for a feature film.

That's a TV show; this is a feature film we're talking about, based on a now obscure (compared to Star Trek) '60's TV show.

Exactly my point. A feature film has a far larger budget than a TV series. You claimed that a period film was impractical for budgetary reasons specifically, and the fact that a period TV series can be successful clearly disproves that claim.


The people who own it aren't that in love with the past, and would likely want to modernize it for today, like the James Bond movies, Get Smart, & Mission: Impossible-they're not going to risk millions on making it like the 60's. Would you deny James Bond the right to be updated to the present simply because the 60's adventures were amazing?

What the hell are you even talking about? "Deny the right???" All I did was suggest the possibility. Like I said, suggesting one possibility doesn't mean dismissing others. Don't be so melodramatic. Not every conversation has to be a holy war between opposing extremes. It can just be an open, friendly exploration of multiple possibilities.


Also, John & Jane Q. Public haven't been as encompassed by U.N.C.L.E. as most of its fans have; they won't love it like you do, and won't know about it enough to want to see a 60's only movie

Okay, who are you having this conversation with? Not me. I don't love TMFU; I have nothing against it, and what little I've seen of it was enjoyable enough that I'd like to see more given the opportunity, but I have very little familiarity with it and little emotional investment in it. Like I said, all I did was suggest a possibility. I'm having a conversation, but you seem to think it has to be an argument. I don't understand that.

You just couldn't see what I said, because you love the '60's milieu a lot!:lol:

There you go again. All I did was bring it up. You're the one who seems to have some deep investment in this issue, some exaggerated need to shoot other people's casual suggestions down.
 
The problem I see with UNCLE, unless you make it a '60s period piece (or a restart, about UNCLE but with totally new characters), is:
It was meant to be the Napoleon Solo show, with a token Russian to show that UNCLE was an international organisation abvove the Cold War. Then David McCallum caught the audience's interest and he became co-lead - and the double act between them was far more important to the show than any of the plots.
How, in a contemporary version, do you stop Napoleon and 'Illya' just being from the same globalized background, so you still get that Kirk-Spock feeling of cameraderie in spite of differences? (Iranian Illya? North Korean? Nothing really feels workable...)
 
Chris Pine as Solo and Zachary Quinto as Kuryakin. But Kuryakin has to strangle Solo and leave him stranded on an ice flow to be eaten by a Polar Bear, otherwise it just won't feel contemporary.
 
UNCLE could be a genuine international intelligence agency, instead of some covert ops daydream.

Or UNCLE could be much more like a police force, an INTERPOL with power to arrest.

The partners could be political opposites, a libertarian and a socialist, maybe.

Or the partners could be a straight/gay combo.

Narratively all these would work for an updated Man I think.
Commercially is another question entirely.

But a period piece would suffer terribly from the fact, proven by events subsequent to 1989 in central Europe and 1991 in Russia, that the Cold War was pretty much BS, just cover for a US hostility against a militarily weaker and much less aggressive opponent. And the recent tendency for the rightwingers to try and rewrite history to fit their Cold War ideology creates pressure to portray a period Ilya Kuryakin as a Solzhenitsyn style antiCommunist. The original was completely nonCommunist but he wasn't an antiCommunist.

The more I think about it, the less feasible the whole project seems.
 
UNCLE could be a genuine international intelligence agency, instead of some covert ops daydream.

Or UNCLE could be much more like a police force, an INTERPOL with power to arrest.

The partners could be political opposites, a libertarian and a socialist, maybe.

Or the partners could be a straight/gay combo.

Narratively all these would work for an updated Man I think.
Commercially is another question entirely.

why would they need to be such opposites? - we're talking the Man From U.N.C.L.E here not The Odd Couple. Kuriakym might of been a Russian but he worked with Solo as a team and they worked well together.
 
What about Alexander Skaarsgard (True Blood, Generation Kill) as Kuryakin?

Good choice. But who would play Solo? My choice for that would be and could be Ben Browder, but I have a feeling that he'll be too busy with Wildcats to care. Maybe Connor Trineer can play Solo.

Other casting:

Patrick Stewart: Alexander Waverley

April Dancer: Charisma Carpenter or Keira Knightly

Mark Slate: Simon Pegg

Randy Kovacs: Cole or Dylan Sprouse
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top