Set film adaptions in the period they were written!

[Tiller]

Tiller, obviously your compendium has me at a disadvantage, but I still think the true heart and soul of Superman lies in his first tales and would make the most interesting films and the setting should be the mid to late thirties... .

It's been awhile since I've read the book, but doesn't the story with him standing in front of his parents grave, start with his Dad dying and giving him a speech about how special he is?

 

[Mr Vim]

Not that I recall, its just one frame in the first Action Comics of him in fron tof his parents grave.... I could of course be mistaken.

 

[John in Covina]

And Atlas Shrugged is really more of a political/economic argument than a successful novel (there's a 70-page-long speech near the end!), and the upcoming movie is almost certain to please nobody - not the hardcore Ayn Rand crowd, not folks who read the book and found it just okay rather than brilliant, and not the innocent film goers who have no knowledge of it...

fftopic:
I can't see how this can be adapted as a film that will resonate with many viewers. As a book it is brilliant in some parts and drags in others so that as a big book it seems to take forever setting everything up to get to the end. The philosophy is both hard core and celebrated by many. I think it nails it in some parts but it does not allow for charity at all so it is a form of social Darwinism in a way. If any one is interested in an insight into the book and probably the film, the Ayn Rand Center has posted "The Meaning of Money" speech which is an interesting read. you can do a search for it.

 

[John in Covina]

I'd like to see some new James Bond films set in the time of writing by Fleming.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Another series of books which absolutely can't be taken out of their proper time period are the writings of P. G. Wodehouse -- even though he kept writing them into the early 1970s. The world he wrote about ceased to exist -- if it had ever existed at all -- with the start of WW2, and the idea of Bertie Wooster gadding about swinging-sixties London is so abhorrent as to be unimaginable.

 

[Isis]

I have a very strong feeling that when older books, or comics, are set in the present day, it is due to a grave underestimation of the audience. In the 90's there was a couple of movie adaptions of a series of detective storys by Maj Sjöwall and Per Whalöö (I know they are translated to English, but I don't know how well known they are outside Sweden.) Anyway, the original books were set in the 60's and early 70's and they are truly books of their time. For good and bad- some of the plots are sp grounded in the political climate of teh time that they are not possible to take place at any other time. Still, the movies were set in the present day to the result that in some they had to change the plot into something completely new to make it work. They also felt the need to "spruce up" the violence, to give it a more "modern" feel. To this day I can't fathom how one can feel that a story about a man who rapes and kills little girls need more violence. The general feel of those movies where also that they felt a bit lost. And I suppose they were- lost in time.

 

[Isis]

Another series of books which absolutely can't be taken out of their proper time period are the writings of P. G. Wodehouse -- even though he kept writing them into the early 1970s. The world he wrote about ceased to exist -- if it had ever existed at all -- with the start of WW2, and the idea of Bertie Wooster gadding about swinging-sixties London is so abhorrent as to be unimaginable.

I agree, they just wouldn't work. I adore the series with Hugh Laurie and Stephen Fry though. Lovely 30's feeling in those!

 

[skyvue]

Then there are the two terribly miscalculated cinematic adaptations of Raymond Chandler's work: The atrocious 1978 version of THE BIG SLEEP, which takes place in the '70s and is set in London, and Robert Altman's THE LONG GOODBYE (1973), which not only turns Philip Marlowe into a bumbling schlub in the swinging early '70s, but also is hampered by a drastically different ending that is entirely unfaithful to Chandler's novel.

 

[Tiller]

Not that I recall, its just one frame in the first Action Comics of him in fron tof his parents grave.... I could of course be mistaken.

I found my book, it's called The Greatest Superman Stories Ever Told Vol 1 1987, and I forgot just how bad I beat up this poor book. lol I have the cover taped together and almost every bottom corner is bent, I really did use to read this thing all the time.

Anyways the story I was thinking of is actually simply a retelling of the original. It says "Story by Jerry Siegal" but Shuster isn't mentioned. Anyways the last page of the story has John (not yet "Jonathan") giving his son this speech just before he dies. Which is how these things seem to happen in the comic book world. lol

Clark: Dad...
John Kent: There's not much time son... I'll do the talking... No man on Earth has the amazing powers, you have. You can use them to become a force for good.
Clark: How Dad?
John Kent: There are evil men in this world... Criminals and outlaws who prey on decent folk! You must fight them... In cooperation with the law! To fight those criminals best, you must hide your true identity! They must never know Clark Kent is a... Superman! Remember, because that's what you are... a Superman!"

I can try to take some pics if you want, but it's to beaten up to scan. lol

 

[Widebrim]

Trying to make Superman "hip" is utterly ridiculous. He's the very antithesis of smarmy hipsterism. And if you present him with thirties-style values in the modern era, he gets turned into a camp figure, which is just as ridiculous.

Which is what happened to Batman, as he was portrayed by Adam West on the 1960s TV program.

 

[Widebrim]

Then there are the two terribly miscalculated cinematic adaptations of Raymond Chandler's work: The atrocious 1978 version of THE BIG SLEEP, which takes place in the '70s and is set in London, and Robert Altman's THE LONG GOODBYE (1973), which not only turns Philip Marlowe into a bumbling schlub in the swinging early '70s, but also is hampered by a drastically different ending that is entirely unfaithful to Chandler's novel.

Solid observations. Mitchum did much better in Farewell, My Lovely, which was set in its original period.

 

[The Wolf]

I mentioned to a co-worker a while ago that I think the Hulk's origin works better in the 1960s.
I would prefer a Green Hornet with him going against racketeers of the late 1930s.
A 1940s Batman movie with Rousso's big full moons, Sprang's Joker and Finger's over-sized props (in one scene only) would be fun.
I would love to see a 1930s Doc Savage film (animated or live action).
I was surprised, though, that the Phantom movie was set in the 30s considering that the strip has been updating with the times and has never stopped being written.

Sincerely,
The Wolf

 

[Mr Vim]

Wolf you just hit on a huge one,
Doc Savage,
now there is an adaption that should be set in the time it was written!

 

[Feraud]

Which is what happened to Batman, as he was portrayed by Adam West on the 1960s TV program.

Ah so I take it you are not a fan of the Batusi- [video=youtube;Jid6FMNHh6E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jid6FMNHh6E[/video]

 

[Mr Vim]

Aw nuts! I'm on a government workstation and cannot see the batsui clip you posted!

 

[Benzadmiral]

. . .
Personally, I'd be interested in seeing some Sherlock Holmes stories set between 1900-1930/1940 (whenever they decide to have him die I guess) when he is starting to, and then is is outright retired. Personally I think The Final Solution by Michael Chabon is a great little story, which is set in 1944 I believe. In the story "the old man" (ie Holmes) still is brilliant, but is none the less well beyond his own time and he knows it, but never the less an interesting problem presents itself, and despite his anti social behavior he can't help but want to solve it.

I hadn't seen that one. But in David McDaniel's "Man from U.N.C.L.E." novel, "The Rainbow Affair," Holmes appears as "William Escott" (which I understand was the name he used while traveling in America when Watson and the world thought him dead). "Escott" in 1968, we're told, is nearly 100 years old, but still quite sharp -- and of course raises bees in Sussex. . . .

"Rainbow," if you can find it, is a delight from start to finish. Practically every British crime fighter or criminal from the classic novels, from The Saint and Father Brown to Dr. Fu Manchu and his daughter, appears without names being given.

 

[Benzadmiral]

On the Superman topic, I recall a couple of original novels, not movie adaptations, done by one Elliot S. Maggin during the time of the first two Chris Reeve movies. One of them, I think the second, contains a neat prologue in which Jonathan Kent worries that young Clark, the superbeing-to-be, will turn into a monster -- after all, who could stop him if he decided to rule the world? And I believe that same one features a wonderful plot in which Superman dons a disguise and suckers Lex Luthor, a la "Mission: Impossible," into a trap. So it's possible to write solidly about Superman, I think, without going "hip" or "camp."

 

[scottyrocks]

Batman is my favorite SH of old. DC and Marvel are generally in different universes, DC being the older of the two. Most of the Marvel heroes are contemporary '60s creations, whereas the big DC heroes are WWII era.

That being said, I think it would be cool to see a Batman origin/first adventure film set in 1940. The technology would have to be era-appropriate which might be a challenge for the production team.

There is a short Batman fan film called Dead End which puts an older tech Batman into a newer tech world, in that the second villain(s) are from the '90s, although they could have exisyed in the 1940s, as well. I know Im being coy here, but give it a looksee on youtube and tell me what you think, if youd like.

 

[John in Covina]

I have a very strong feeling that when older books, or comics, are set in the present day, it is due to a grave underestimation of the audience.

There is an idea that people today cannot understand the values and language of the past even the relatively recent past. So as we move back 20, 30, 40 and more years the past is like a very foreign country.

Here in LA high school many students don't know who was on what side for WWII or WWI, why it was fought or anything or value. In the US I don't know where high schoolers have Shakespeare in the old English style as required reading. Today there are those that feel the need for a modern interpretation of everything to make it easy on everyone. (What happens is the lessons become wrapped up in itself so that those students don't get the exposure to the past or the idea of how things were. As the past gets pushed aside from society's memory, it allows it to be repeated.)

Because this represents such a large portion of movie goers that have no background in the past it becomes a gamble by the studios to do period projects. Those that get done are a credit to the ability of the producers to sell the studio on the project. It is a lot easier to sell a Matrix 7 or Scream 19 type film then a period film of The Long Goodbye.

Speaking of The Long Goodbye the Elliot Gould version is awful and now it is more dated than you can imagine. Can anyone name a film Gould's acting was stellar?

 

[John in Covina]

Which is what happened to Batman, as he was portrayed by Adam West on the 1960s TV program.

The 1960's Batman was intended to be campy, I am reminded of the Monkees show for the weirdness. However, as a vehicle for bad guys and girls they did create some memorable ones. Caesar Romero as the Joker when he would say "Delicious!" Gorshen as the Riddler, Merideth as the Penguin and any one of the honeys as Catwoman. Their portrays were in a way ground breaking.