Slashdot Mirror
Sunshine Writer Joins Logan's Run Remake
bowman9991 writes "Remember to check your palm to ensure that your crystal hasn't gone black. If it has, you better start running. The 1976 science fiction classic Logan's Run, starring Michael York, is being remade in 3-D with British writer Alex Garland now onboard to write the screenplay. Garland's film Sunshine, directed by Danny Boyle, was one of the stand-out science fiction films of the last decade, and he wrote the screenplays for Leonardo DiCaprio's The Beach (based on Garland's own novel) and the science fiction horror 28 Days Later (a massive adrenaline rush of a movie). This should give first-time director Carl Rinsch some great material to work with — a great premise meets a great writer."
Logan's Run is a classic in every sense and, in my opinion, shouldn't be fucked with. Still, if someone HAS to do it, the guy that wrote Sunshine (which was a modern day masterpiece) is certainly a good choice.
Living With a Nerd
There's nothing in Logan's Run that needs 3D. Are they going to do weird bullet-time Matrix-like effects of the needlers and rippers flying around?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I like the original Logan's Run, and it's a good story, but I don't think it's a classic. It could be remade as a better film.
In the original book, didn't everyone have to die at 17?
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
You're not going to add a damn thing to the original. Why not tell a whole new story and add something to the culture?
And what's with all the love for Sunshine? The premise sounded like another typical, tedious, scientifically illiterate Hollywood movie all the way down to the secret killer, crew getting picked off one by one, and impossibly large plot holes. How was it not awful?
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
...Although we wouldn't need to worry about any dubious cribbing with Logan's Run; the original was a classic.
Garland's film 'Sunshine', directed by Danny Boyle, was one of the stand out science fiction films of the last decade
Sunshine was good sci-fi. It is up there with Moon as far as hard science fiction films. That is, of course, you ignore the last 25 minutes of the film {which was psychological-horror-slasher-esque}. I always felt like the ending to Sunshine was one forced on by a movie studio. It started so strong.
With that being said, Hopefully Logan's Run turns out to be a good film.
Logan's Run is a classic, but watching it, it's painfully obvious that it's based on a short story. There's a short story's worth of ideas in there, stretched out first pathetically, then painfully:
Fish, and plankton. And sea greens, and protein from the sea. It's all here, ready. Fresh as harvest day. Fish and sea greens, plankton and protein from the sea. And then it stopped coming. And they came instead. So I store them here. I'm ready. And you're ready. It's my job. To freeze you. Protein, plankton...
At least having Garland on board means it's unlikely to be turned into the obvious thing, a pure action film. There's definitely deep flaws in the original, though the underlying story is worth being told visually. Just please, no cardboard robots.
The Island (2005) was already a remake. I was pissed because in LR you got to see tits. Not so with Scarlett Johansson. Damn Hollywood.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
It had the same bloody plot from It! The Terror from Beyond Space (1958)
Wow, we've come a long way haven't we... /sarcasm
It doesn't work right if Carousel is in 2d; it has to be 3d!
Logan's Run is one of those rare cases where the movie is far better than the book. The original Logan trilogy read like they were written by a thirteen-year-old.
If this remake is going to be based more on the original books than on the film, I don't have high hopes for it.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Seriously? Seemed like formulaic zombie/virus-apocalypse chum to me. Wasn't even that scary. But I am more of a 'Children of Men' and 'The Road' kind of guy anyway....
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
I have mixed feelings about remakes of classics, especially one where the time they were made seem to add to the films charm. Still, there have been some good remakes. I don't like the idea of adding 3D. DVD viewers will not that and the temptation for the producers to rely on that for entertainment versus a good story will be strong.
I'd read the book first, and IMHO, they really fsck'ed up the movie. The gun was MUCH cooler in the novel (I'd like to see how they do the 'Homer' fired out of it), and much more riveting, and character development was better as you saw Logan change through his run. That and the Sandmen were badasses, trained in all sorts of arts, like a Jason Bourne type in abilities.
At least...go back to the age limit of 21 (not 30), and for God's sake...don't do the stupid carousel thing they made up for the movie.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Yellow: Birth to 7
Blue: 7-14
Red: 14-21
Blinking red/black: Lastday (Book: 21 Movie:30)
Black: runner
Clear: reset
The movie and TV series were WAY different from the book. Check wikipedia for a quick comparison
Never trust a man wearing a coat and tie!
Both the wikipedia page for this movie and the book it was derived from are very interesting.
exponentially more elusive however.
Stop it stop it stop it stop it already!!!
Quit remaking classics.
What makes a classic good is that it takes you to a new place. Logan's Run was mindblowing when I saw it. The remake can never be.
You want to rule the world? Make a good original movie.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Um... Am I the only one on /. who thought Sunshine was a lot of [feces]?
For a professional crew sent to save the world, they behaved more like a bunch of college friends on a poorly organized camping trip.
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
You could argue that the 70's movie fucked with the even better late-60's novel. The novel wasn't limited to a post-nuclear holocaust bubble city. I hope the "remake" goes back to the novel that could be better realized with a big budget.
I loved the film, and saw it uncounted times as a child, but when I later read the novel, I liked it even better.
And the production line up sounds pretty good. Although Sunshine disappointed me. It started out like 2001 and ended up as Event Horizon, which was a step backwards.
I don't really see a need to remake or update movies. I think that's just a euphemism for "we've run out of original ideas".
And y'all must have seen a different "Sunshine" than I did. What I saw was a standout science fiction film only because of how bad I thought it sucked. The effects were interesting and the spaceship design was cool, but other than that...
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
The original novel came out at the height of the baby boom hitting adulthood; across the developing world, the population explosion was making it look like the whole world was kids. (Erlich's "The Population Bomb" was just out, too.) So they had this world where you were shot at 20, there were only teenagers. How the high-tech machinery kept running was never explained.
The movie raised the 20 to 30 to accommodate a not-nearly-teen Michael York. Who kept the lights on was still never explained; everybody seemed to lounge about in day-glo party clothes.
Of course, it was terrible science fiction; many analysts were pointing to dropping birth rates in the developed world and debunking Erlich even at the time. The youth explosion of the decade was a blip. Now the world faces an increasingly aging population and it's the loss of 50-somethings from the workforce that is creating concerns.
Apparently, they are good at keeping the lights on.
They will subtract the nudity. NSFW. These were the best stills I could find. They look a lot better on the giant silver screen:
http://www.moviesnxs.com/web/thumbnails/tn-Jenny-Agutter_logans-run_25-02-06.jpg
http://rarevideos.bravepages.com/JennyAgutter@Walkabout.JPG
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PWR3w2VkSZs/SNAbQiLWStI/AAAAAAAAA7s/2mxn62WhWWY/s400/JennyAgutterLogansRun.jpg
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Garland's film 'Sunshine,' directed by Danny Boyle, was one of the stand-out science fiction films of the last decade
Has anyone here even heard of this movie? I'm sure I'll probably get marked Troll, but can you call a movie "Stand-out science fiction" if no one has ever heard of it? I'm not saying that it may not be a great film, just saying that I have never heard of it. I pulled it up on IMDB and didn't recognize the name of anyone in it either, which suggests that it is either an independant film or a low budget film (or both).
As for Logan's Run, I am just not sure a modern-day remake would work. Post-appocolyptic world (oh no, is Iran going to nuke the planet?), free-love society, hippie culture... Just not sure if a remake of these themes will work in 2010.
There's probably very little if anything in it that needs surround sound. I wonder if, way back when, people asked the question 'Why surround sound?', too.
There's a few reasons for shooting it in 3D (I hope they're shooting in 3D, at least).
I'll go with the most obvious tied-number-one first: it draws in crowds that go just for the fact that there's 3D on the title (just as there's people who go see -any- movie starring e.g. Natalie Portman), and the tickets command a higher price. Typically theaters don't get both the 3D -and- the 2D version, so if the only convenient theater near you only has the 3D version, that higher price will likely be paid.
Also semi-obvious: because they can.
Derived from that and a bit less obvious: and if they do so -now-, they'll spare themselves the headaches and generally iffy results from 2D-to-'3D' post-conversion.
Derived from both of the above.. hey, now they've got -two- movies to work with in 2D for a 2D release. The right eye shot looks better than the left? Great, the editor can mix-and-match them as he pleases.
( Just be glad some distributor hasn't decided upon separate Director's Left Eye Cut and Director's Right Eye Cut DVDs/Blu-Rays, charging full price for both, as of yet. )
Which leaves the subject.. why -not- 3D? Why must every 3D movie be packed full of in-your-face effects before it becomes acceptable to use 3D? Avatar might have popularized 3D-as-a-technique-rather-than-an-effect.. but before that the latest Final Destination already showed that even if there's no reason to shoot stereoscopic (only the specific effects distinctly showed the use of 3D) for every scene.. even the 'boring' scenes. Of course part of that is the fact that if you're going to make some shots with 3D in mind, it'd be disruptive to just shoot the rest in 2D), but you could pretty much shoot any movie in 3D and have it 'work'.
A quick poll - which do you think will happen in the next ten years? In twenty? Assuming at least one of them is inevitable, which would you prefer?
1) Star Wars IV - VI, converted to 3D
2) Star Wars IV - VI, remade in 3D
3) A third Star Wars trilogy, of course in 3D
Spoiler: Google "Star Wars 3D" - Lucas is already talking about the first option. Greedo shooting first, now in "bullet time!"
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
The best part was the ending, when grandpa became a zombie, and the little girl was revealed to be a gray alien.
these days, it should really be news if they aren't remaking something.
They don't need to make it, it's Ben Dune (been done)
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Are they going to work Obamacare into the plot somehow?
Have gnu, will travel.
There is another reason to NOT make this movie. It doesn't make any sense, from a historical perspective, to do so. Back when the book was written, the world was concerned about the population explosion, and that it seemed the average age was going YOUNGER. There were going to be a bunch of young people around and no way to support them. The way it's worked out, however, is that the population has actually gotten OLDER. There are many more older folks now, as a percentage of the population. Overpopulation also has not become as large a problem as anyone thought. If we could figure out food DISTRIBUTION, then there wouldn't be anyone going to bed hungry.
And, yeah, "The Island" kind of already was a remake, albeit a lousy one.
The original, goofy as it was, is a classic, and they won't be able to add anything of substance.
Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
They're still working on making sure there's an equivalent of Top Gun for every profession:
... etc.
Why can't the solar physicists get an unrealistic movie that makes them seem cool, too?
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
The Director's Commentary on the DVD (probably the Blu-Ray as well) notes that they did consult with scientists to be as scientifically accurate as possible.. but also noted specifically the float-in-space-and-you-freeze as an example where they went for visual and story-telling appeal, rather than for scientific accuracy; pointing out that it really doesn't matter much that you wouldn't lose heat that quickly.. you can't hold your breath for more than a few minutes anyway and then you'd die from asphyxiation.
So yes, maybe the same piss-poor treatment of science would be in this one, too... if they believe that visual/story-telling appeal takes precedence.
Will the women still have short dresses and be nude with an PG rating. (^_~)
My Web Site
Here's how to remake it. In the future Hollywood only has a small select of films to show because they've run out of ideas. The way that they ensure ticket revenues is by killing off everyone over 21. My life clock is black as pitch!
Logan's Run is the sexiest movie ever made!
soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
God no, the cheesiest of the MGM sci-fi movies of the 1970s. I think the only reason why people remember it fondly is the fap factor. Jenny Agutter and Farrah Fawcett. In shiny toga-like Dacron mini-dresses.
However, as others have pointed out downthread, the book was actually way better than the movie and the even cheesier 1-season-wonder TV series told it. Maybe now it will be finally done justice, like Ridley Scott will probably do with Brave New World.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Soylent Green I find tied with Rollerball (the original, starring James Caan and directed by Norman Jewison, not the shitty in-name-only remake) for 70s dystopia.
While Soylent Green uncovered the ecological horror (albeit set a little too close in the future), Rollerball seemed to show the politico-corporate horror far more clearly and seems to be a more apt critique of the future as we actually live it.
Both were great, though.
C'mon, Hollywood, it's long past time for it.
*** Don't be dull.***
The reason remakes are successful is that we are old geeks that revel in the glow of "classics". My 17 and 19 year old children have never heard of many of my old "classics" and refuse to watch the old "black and white" versions I have. They cant understand why I think the the original The Day the Earth Stood Still or War of Worlds, are not even the same story as the remakes. They did however shell out their twelve bucks for a tried and true forumla. Although the fact that I like the movie title should have chased them away screaming. Hollywood or movie making is about making $. I will invest in a remake that has made money far sooner than I will in a "new" idea. it is simple econonics. Logans Run will make money. Period. Maybe not record amounts, but it will keep everyone involved employeed until the next "great" idea comes along. The purpose is and always has been to make money. So with actors and crew available, but no "great" ideas brimming, Lets do a remake so we all get to eat supper.
Seriously, I'm reading through comments and it's like you're all a bunch of out-of-touch weirdo hermits waiting for "perfect" things that will never exist.
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? into a movie
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
Because everything nowadays has to be made in color. Apparently, your movie just isn't good enough for the public unless it's in color, regardless of how sucky it is (e.g. "Trail of the lonesome pine").
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Garland's film 'Sunshine,' directed by Danny Boyle, was one of the stand-out science fiction films of the last decade,
Stand out in what way?
It was a commercial flop, it was boring, it had a ridiculous plot, it had horrible acting, it had little to no character development at all. It was an all-around horrible movie from start to end as far as I'm concerned, and most of the movie-going public seems to agree with me.
You are misleading people here. Look up heat transfer from radiation. It's usually a lot less than conduction and convection but with large temperature differences (eg. 200K) it becomes significant. It's not sci-fi two seconds to frozen solid but it's still a matter of losing a lot of heat over time if you are on the dark side of something.
A simple observation that will show this to you is to compare cloudy winter nights with clear winter nights.
We are talking about heat loss and thus heat transfer here.
Black body radiation is only a single side of it and you need to consider a two body problem if you are talking about two bodies (you can model space as a sphere of constant temperature, or more usefully as just another 1 dimensional object). A hot object in space is going to lose heat faster than a cold object in space. To work it out you consider the heat transfer between two objects by radiation and have your spacesuit skin as one surface temperature and pretty close to absolute zero for whatever objects are around or far off as the other surface temperature - something like equation 19.3 on this page http://mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
As you can see it's a bit more complex than the usual lie to children.
The cinematic frozen solid in seconds is of course even far more riduculous than the frozen solid in liquid nitrogen in seconds where there is far more rapid heat transfer (think it took me 20 mins just to freeze a banana in nitrogen). It would probably take days or weeks on the dark side of something. Out in direct sunlight the object would of course get hot by radiant heat just like the sunny side of spacecraft do.
You've been misled.
Near the bottom of this page is a worked example of heat tranfer by radiation in a thermos bottle as an example:
http://mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
I get the idea from the posts by several on this thread that all they were told on this subject was a few words about black body radiation.
Darkness in space has been modelled as being enclosed by a sphere that is close to absolute zero - because it's not "nothing" but instead a whole lot of cold somethings that just happen to be far away in every direction. Of course you can reduce that to one dimension and plug that in as one of the surface temperatures in the 1D equation on the example page I've linked.
Heat loss by radiation is not completely ignorable. It's why you get cold on a still clear winter night after all.
As for the "radiation shielding" bit, it's got nothing to do with what I'm writing - the above poster actually wrote "insulation" which most definitely does make a difference. I've never seen the film so I'm only going on that mention of insulation.
Now consider if you had a lot of insulation in a spacesuit and your body is not warming up the skin of the spacesuit much - then the difference between the surface temperature and that of cold stuff in space is not as much so less heat is transferred by radiation than if the spacesuit was thin. It's proportional to (surfacetemp)^4 - (heatsinktemp)^4, so the hotter the skin of the spacesuit the more heat you lose.
The other points you made about cooling via expanding gas are interesting but not related to the incorrect assertion that only one temperature matters.
The only reason we are getting into this discussion is because usually conduction and convection matter a lot more and in science education heat transfer by radiation is pushed into the "you won't need to know about this unless you study physics or engineering later" basket.
Also when radiant heat is the major source of heat transfer the mathematics gets to be annoying because the temperature terms are to the fourth power and thus sources of error are also amplified - but that's another story.
Who kept the lights on was still never explained; everybody seemed to lounge about in day-glo party clothes.
The city was automated by the central AI. Near the end when the AI has a breakdown, the city breaks down. They didn't come out and directly explain it, but it seemed pretty obvious. The SF genre is rife with advanced tech societies where the actual inhabitants have no idea how any of it works. Everything's great until something breaks.