Metropolis remake?

[Foxbat]

Apparently producer Thomas Schuehly has bagged the rights to remake Metropolis and is currently in discussion with a variety of people in an effort to find the right person to drive the project forward.

http://www.movieweb.com/news/64/24964.php

But why bother?
Although there are probably some aspects that make this seem like an appealing project (social comment on the growing gap between rich and poor in modern life etc.), Thea von Harbou’s tale of heart, head and hand is fairly simplistic and I do not believe will fit into the wants of the modern cinema-going public. Fritz Lang’s epic sits at the pinnacle of the German Expressionist era and is hailed as a classic by all and sundry – and rightly so! But it does lack that modern sophistication because it was made in a time when both filming and editing were in its earliest stages of evolution. Much has changed. The world has changed – perhaps too much for another Metropolis.

Lang's is a movie of beautiful simplicity and awe-inspiring spectacle, but it is a child of its time, not of ours.

The only way to make this work would to change drastically much about the original story – so much so that to call it Metropolis would probably be a travesty. I’m sure that the CGI available now will make a fine spectacle but I wonder about the substance and whether it will have any bearing on the original.

So why go down the path already trodden by Lang and von Harbou? Why not use Metropolis as inspiration rather than as carbon paper? After all – in the words of Shakespeare’s Juliet : A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

[j. d. worthington]

Why? For the same reason they keep doing remake after remake, sequel after sequel, and adapting old (usually bad) television series to the big screen: paucity of creativity, lack of vision on the part of studio heads, and lack of any kind of literacy in the genre -- otherwise, they'd realize there are tons of viable alternatives dealing with such themes, but closer to our time (and more likely to appeal to current audiences), many of which would make fine films themselves. But remaking a classic is all the rage... gawdselpus!

Lord, I am so damned sick of "Hollywood attitude"....

[Overread]

Yep - I have to agree with you there JD - there is nothing new or exciting in the media industry at the moment - and when these things do come along they get shot down horribly (Fire Fly - not only canceled - but they also managed to air it for the first time in the wrong order!!).
What I hate though is that even when the writers get hold of a new idea - copying a book - they have to make it "their" story as opposed to the story in the book. Even the mightly Lord of the Rings is guilty of this crime -- though unlike many others this rewrite does manage to retain the feel, image and plot of the original source material ( it can also be argued that for good filmmaking a drastic cut of LotR was needed as they only had 3 films to fit it into)

[Tillane]

Totally agree - but what worries me even more is that people go to see the damn remakes! Worse - they absolutely rake in cash for the studios. I know there's probably a curiosity factor in there somewhere for the audience, and also probably a generation (or at least a demographic, to use an industry term) who haven't seen the original films, but if no one went to see the remakes the studios would quickly have to start coming up with more original material.

Which is why I boycott remakes. My own little protest at Hollywood's lack of originality. Pointless, most likely, but it makes me feel better.

[The_Warrior]

Wasn't there already an Anime remake made?

[Overread]

I understand that the anime is a different production sharing the same name - it deals with robots and sentience. Though I have seen neither, so I might be wrong; but I think that this is the case

[ravenus]

The anime Metropolis is a different film.

[ray gower]

Yes, remakes without consideration are a bad thing.
But Metropolis is a very old film and as suggested a product and interpretation of its time. The book, the film and the BBC radio versions are all very different interpretations, so there is plenty of scope for a different take on the story.

[Steve Jordan]

I agree that the message of Metropolis is one that stands to be explored. But the era of masses of people running massive machines by repetitive lever-pulling certainly isn't going to work today. If you can't find another way to depict the plight of the hopeless workers against the clueless elite, there's really no point in it.

There are other ways, to be sure (in a way, Battle for the Planet of the Apes was a great contemporary example of the same schism between elite and worker), but I wouldn't call it Metropolis.

[ray gower]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I agree that the message of Metropolis is one that stands to be explored. But the era of masses of people running massive machines by repetitive lever-pulling certainly isn't going to work today. If you can't find another way to depict the plight of the hopeless workers against the clueless elite, there's really no point in it.

There are other ways, to be sure (in a way, Battle for the Planet of the Apes was a great contemporary example of the same schism between elite and worker), but I wouldn't call it Metropolis.

Ever see them working in a call centre?
If you think battery hens have a hard time, don't go near one. Incidently that was the route the BBC radio play took.

And to be honest the type of economy depicted IS what the US (and the rest of the world) relies upon to stave off recession. People making and buying more things they don't want or need. While at the top, the elite, crow loudly, not realising that their 'economy' isn't as stable as a straw house.
So the story is still very relevant.

[Foxbat]

Yes, this is a theme still very relevant today but surely we can bring about our own take on the subject without regurgitating a 70 year old film?

Question - what's the difference between the movie industry and a cow chewing the cud?

Answer: not a lot.

[ray gower]

Think we will have to wait and see.
At the moment the term 'Remake' is fashionable and perhaps used in places it should not, perhaps because the film has to be couched in terms the people with the money might recognise. Consequently it covers a lot of ground:
King Kong was a remake from top to bottom.
War of the Worlds was a reworking of the HG Wells story and despite the claims had only limited reference to the 1966 film.
St Trinians could easily be classed the sixth film in the series.

Of course if we were going to be really cynical we can safely observe all of them are replication from the original Shakespear, heaven knows how many times a year his works are copied directly!
All modern fantasy stories are replication of the original Lord of the Rings and that was a re-image of the Saxon Beowulf legend.
Where do we stop?

[Foxbat]

All very good and fair points. My particular beef is that some movies just should not be touched. Metropolis is not only iconic but is fused into the strata of cinematic history. It is a landmark - a cinematic van Gough (and who in their right mind would want to remake his work?)

The creation images of Futura for example, were not only beautiful, innovative and imaginitive, but have become so well known (even by those that have not seen Metropolis) that it has become a part of our culture and cinematic history.

No amount of CGI or tens of million of dollars can recreate this majesty because part of its strength is that it was made at the peak of German Expressionism - a time long gone and that will never return.

But, as you say, we shall have to wait and see.

[j. d. worthington]

And, as has been noted already, we can do this type of theme without rehashing the ground Metropolis covered, thus eliminating most of the comparisons and allowing each film to be viewed in its own right. Even if they wanted to adapt a "classic" sf story on this theme, there are plenty of things that could be done that haven't yet been touched. A little PR work, and "Hey, Presto!" you've got a new classic added to the roster.

As for all stories being "remakes", "retellings", etc.... this is theoretically true, but only on an extremely basic level. One could as easily say that every story that tells of overweening ambition (as opposed to pride) is a retelling of Aesop's story of the dog with the bone seeing his reflection. A remake, on the other hand, is just that: an attempt to redo an older film with changes while still capitalizing on the popularity and status of the original. By its very essence, it is prone to short-circuit creativity; and where it does attempt to differentiate itself from the original, it usually (not always, but usually) does so just to be different, without regard to the internal logic of the storytelling, the cinematographic effect, or any other aspect of what might be called "quality".

That is what I have against remakes....

[ray gower]

All very good and fair points. My particular beef is that some movies just should not be touched. Metropolis is not only iconic but is fused into the strata of cinematic history. It is a landmark - a cinematic van Gough (and who in their right mind would want to remake his work?)

But Van Gough's work is always being recreated. Everybody who does an art course paints a bunch of flowers in a pot and the number of half smiling bints I've seen leering at me from walls defies counting. But they are not Van Gough's, or his interpretation.

Perhaps it would be a good idea if we actually defined what we call a 'REMAKE'?

As I have observed some of the recent 'REMAKES' haven't been, they've just had the names of other films used for their title, perhaps, sometimes, for cynical reasons. People recognise the name and shout 'Remake'.

If they simply redo Metropolis in mime, grainy black and white film stock with a few pop up captions (or even in colour and turn all the lights off) then that is a remake, no questions asked and doomed to fail, if only because the number of actors in the world that can handle the level of expression to make it work can be counted on the fingers of one hand. But there are a whole gambit of directions it can take from there that could constitute a blind copy, or even a visionary revisioning.

Certainly the story behind it is not sacrosanct just because it was done 80 or even 800 years ago and a title is just that, a name to glue on at the front.

In this case, I agree, using the same name could be classed, at first glance, as terribly cynical. But the stakes have now been raised. The new film must at least match the old one in all aspects and add something more, or it will be very second rate?