Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sunshine Writer Joins Logan's Run Remake

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the expect-nothing-get-something dept.

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."

6 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. Hope they do it right this time... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Informative
    I hope they stick more to the BOOK, rather than the previous movie.

    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.........
    1. Re:Hope they do it right this time... by billmarrs · · Score: 4, Informative

      I read this book recently. I don't mean any offense, but it's pretty badly written and stupid.

      I hope they completely ignore the book.

      Really, I wish Hollywood would stop remaking stuff. I mean, there's a ton of good, fresh, original, insightful, well-written science fiction in many books from the last few decades that would be great to see made into a movie. But, Logan's Run...again? Well, it makes me sad.

      I did love the oringinal movie when I was a kid... I even liked the TV series... I was young.

      I suppose they know I'll have to watch this new movie because of that and I will. But...

  2. Puritan Americans will ruin it by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
  3. Director's Commentary notes this by Animaether · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  4. Re:This is good news by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Put an hot object in a (near-)vacuum at 100'K and it will chill quite capably.

    Do you know what a vacuum flask is? It eliminates the heat exchange from conduction and convection, leaving just radiation. Try this as an experiment. Get some water and heat it up to boiling. Now pour it into a vacuum flask and put it in the freezer. Freezers cool to below freezing point, so the temperature difference is more than 100K, but it will still take a long time to lose heat - a lot longer than a human can hold its breath, for example.

    Note, however, that temperature difference is not relevant when you're talking about radiation (only convection or conduction). Heat lost to radiation is dependent on the absolute temperature, not the relative temperature. An object at room temperature radiates a little infra-red light, but not a huge amount.

    Do you think your fridge is cold because it's windy?

    Not too far wrong. The primary reason things cool in the fridge is through convection. The cold air in the fridge touching the object heats (cooling the object) then, because it expands and becomes less dense, rises to the top of the fridge allowing more cold air to touch the sides. Air is fairly good at this, but liquids are even better. Try putting some water in the fridge until it reaches the ambient temperature and then put two warm things in the fridge, one in the water and one in the air. The one in the water will cool faster. Try the same thing with

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  5. Re:This is good news by mosb1000 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Temperature difference is the driving factor in all heat transfer, including radiant heat transfer. If you agree with the theoretical approach (that all objects containing thermal energy are constantly giving off radiation) then you will notice that an object receives radiant energy from it's surroundings. If you are thinking about black body radiation, you can see that an object will reach equilibrium at the temperature of it's surroundings (at which point the radiation received will be equal to the radiation lost).