?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
02 June 2008 @ 05:54 pm
A Few More Highlander Remake Thoughts  
On one of the Highlander email lists, I glanced at a few emails on the subject today. There seems to be the sentiment that if only the two sequels had gotten the big budget that the remake's getting, things would have been different. And people seem quite bitter about it. But is that really true? Can you turn a sow's ear into a silk purse? If 'The Source' had had a 55 million dollar budget, it just would have been a more expensive crap movie. In the end, it's the story that makes a movie. If Highlander could grip us with relatively low budget TV episodes, then money isn't the key, IMHO. To my mind, the most hopeful thing about the remake isn't the budget, but that the script is going to be written by people who seem to be able to tell a good story. And a good story is a good story no matter how much money is thrown at it. All the money in the world couldn't have turned 'The Source' into a good movie. Just my good for nothing opinion, of course :)
 
 
 
amonitrate: 44caliberamonitrate on June 3rd, 2008 01:02 am (UTC)
word.
Panthera: Methos namespanthology on June 3rd, 2008 01:17 am (UTC)
The thing I'm finding sad about The Source, really, is those bits of that it had potential. Maybe not for a movie, but the band of Immies Methos has with him - if it ever came about that there was a Methos TV series, Reggie, Zai and maybe Giovanni would have made an interesting group to follow. They had potential, but it got bogged down in the crappy script and the heavy-handed Dunky's-our-hero routine. ("Dear Duncan. You're a Mary-Sue. Look it up. Love, Methos.")

Which I guess is a rambly way of saying yes, good writing makes it happen, regardless of budget.
Laurie odell: ceccolicyberducks on June 3rd, 2008 01:23 am (UTC)
I don't understand why they have to remake the only good HL movie period - it's not like the original is that old.

Oh well, the result is gonna suck anyways.
Sinanjusinanju on June 3rd, 2008 01:46 am (UTC)
It remains a source of perpetual mystery to me how the same people who gave us a great television series could produce so many awful, awful movies from the same source material!

Or maybe I do. Perhaps it was the lower expectations of a weekly, low-budget tv show that made the difference. They couldn't hope to produce a blockbuster epic every week...so they didn't try. They settled for smaller, more personal stories. And that worked very well most of the time. (Though they had their fair share of stinkers even so--and the whole Ahriman storyline should have been round filed the moment it was suggested.)

Will the remake be any good? It's...possible, but signs point to no.
patpat_t on June 3rd, 2008 02:10 am (UTC)
I agree with what you said. Bill Panzer had an idea of what he wanted and he wasn't listening to anyone else. He didn't want David's script, so he had someone write a script to his specifications. He got the director he wanted to shoot the scenes the way he envisioned. And it was crap!

Money wouldn't have made a difference. All shows, movies,etc start with a good script. These movies didn't have them. Which is why I'm taking a wait and see attitude. Because a big budget doesn't gaurantee a good movie either.
wh00pswh00ps on June 3rd, 2008 02:32 am (UTC)
Just a question: wasn't there a legal issue with the David script?
Mischief: PWBetrayalem_kellesvig on June 3rd, 2008 04:00 am (UTC)
Sort of. When he wrote the first script for The Source, Dimension Films still held the rights to Highlander. When those rights lapsed, they kept that script. David then wrote another, different, script. The actors signed on for The Source based on David's script. However, the one they received on set was written by someone else but still had David's name on it. No one had the heart to call him and ask what had happened to the beautiful script they had heard about and why they were filming this piece of shit. Finally, Adrian called David and they discovered that Bill Panzer had commissioned a third script, switched it with David's new one, and it was too late to do anything about it. Adrian demanded that David fly to Lithuania and spin as much of that script as possible but there really wasn't much he could do with it. Sad, very sad.

Edited at 2008-06-03 04:02 am (UTC)
wh00pswh00ps on June 3rd, 2008 04:23 am (UTC)
Agh.
I will call her George: Highlander Swordstrangevisitor7 on June 3rd, 2008 02:20 am (UTC)
*applaudes you* Yes!Story is everything. The second HL sucked because the story about aliens and was a stupid story - more money would have just gone into to making more special effect for a crappy movie.

Happens all the time look at the 2nd Matrix movie - three times the budget 10 times the stupid
Sonia: methos_joe_sourcelastrega on June 3rd, 2008 02:21 am (UTC)
55 million bucks worth of crap is still crap.
DarthHelloKittydarthhellokitty on June 3rd, 2008 04:57 am (UTC)
I'm so sick of the Dance of 1000 Remakes. How about somebody make an ORIGINAL movie? If we want to see the original HL movie again, WE CAN RENT IT.
Unovisunovis on June 3rd, 2008 02:06 pm (UTC)
Yes.
But -- I'm curious about what was behind the urge to remake this, in particular. Was there love for the idea behind the original movie and its descendants, anywhere? Was there an urge to make it better by rebuilding from the ground up? I mean, god knows the last one was a flop, so Highlander the franchise isn't an automatic money-maker. Why? Remake the founding movie so that there *isn't* only one at the end?
DarthHelloKittydarthhellokitty on June 3rd, 2008 04:47 pm (UTC)
It doesn't make any sense to me, but then I'm in one of those nothing-makes-sense-to-me moods.

I can see remaking a movie if you're planning on improving on it in some way, or changing it in a way that makes it work better. But arguably, the first movie is the best of the bunch, certainly the most popular, and done as well as anybody could do it. It's a classic. As far as I can see, they're just doing this because they can - and I don't know how they can, considering the last one was released direct to BitTorrent. Who would put up money for this project?

(Deleted comment)
DarthHelloKittydarthhellokitty on June 3rd, 2008 04:49 pm (UTC)
Some of the best movies I've seen have had a great script, and practically no budget at all.
Unovisunovis on June 3rd, 2008 02:11 pm (UTC)
$55 million could have meant a better director, more footage shot to choose from, and fewer disasters in the endgame of editing and distribution. Unless it had some impact on the choice of script or script writer, then no, the movie would still have been pretty bad. Unless it influenced them to move away from the horror genre, then no, the movie would still have been bad. But we might have had decent lighting and more pretty source material for vids.