Reboots, remakes and adaptations

If you're in a crowd, and some topic leads you into the area of Stephen King adaptations, usually two phenomenons prove to be short of unavoidable; 1. Mentioning the 1990's television miniseries "It" ( usually referred to as a "movie", because let's face it, the origin may differ, but most of us have the vhs or dvd copy of it stowed away in our shelf ).
2. Lashing out our respective discontent - spoiler - over the big rubber spider climax.
I have often thought about a big budget remake, willing to fill in the gaps and the grains of salt that seems to be a recurring topic of Tommy Wallace's creation, as beloved as it may be; So naturally when someone spurred the rumor of another production involving the horror scene's lovable pet antagonist known as Pennywise, my sense of nostalgia jumped through the roof.
Over the next few months I clinged to the half and half reliable gossip that the cavalcade of zealous movie sites gladly paraded around the web, hoping for more good news.
Until I found an underline scoop; "It" is not hitting the big screen, reinvented with a big shiny budget, but rather following up it's tv debut on ABC, and sticking to television.
In no lesser terms, this pissed me off immensely; here we have any half decent horror gem from Asia to Europe, remade and tossed out in US theaters for the convenience of disposable profit. But when we mention one of the bestselling and beloved domestic authors, and a big fan of box office income I might add, why the hell do the iconic camp factory, the Sci-Fi channel, of all things come to mind. We wanted LESS rubber monsters and cheap fixes.

Summary: The fans deserve better, the Author deserves better, and Pennywise sure as hell deserves better.

All I can hope for now, is inaccuracy and hearsay concerning the "It" - to some extent - remake: I'll gladly grasp at straws.

An example of a painfully reformatted Stephen King television adaptation: "Desperation"
( 2006 ).
This mini-series would serve well as a cliff note for the book, somewhere in the "for dummies" section - as such; Remove all content that actually forms the identity of the literature in question, and all you have left is a very thin summation of the overall concept; composed in such an assimilated manner that it would be suitable for a 5 year old as much as a 25 year old. In one sense the storyline is fitted for a very passive, even apathetic, demographic. In another sense: falling back to a Nickelodeon like mentality, where anything harboring stereotypes or criticism concerning ethnicity ( this was expressed as an askew perception; as it was spurred from the antagonist, ie; not advocating spite towards any group ) were replaced by cheap popculture references like: "Your name is Peter Jackson?; I love the lord of the rings!" hardy har har, que Sponge Bob Squarepants.
I have to leave a sticker here and submit to you that the actor that delivered these poorly jotted fillers - Ron Perlman - has no fault in this, seeing as he is a fantastic character actor, and performed as well as could be expceted under the circumstances.
Another side note, as to not raise confusion; Stephen King actually wrote the teleplay for ABC, but he did work under restrictions and guidelines. To be blunt; a writer has as much influence as an ant in a sh*t storm when it comes to PC* no-no's.

*Politically Correct


... I have to be fair, there have been a few acceptable teleplays of Stephen King novels.
Then again, none of recent productions.

So, I do not plead or beg, but rather insinuate; to whatever network who picks up the "It" franchise, Sci-fi channel or no: there are more than a few of us out there that expect an adaptation, not a cliffnote.
You do not want to mess with a majority, that has learned to apply such a direct media as the internet effectively and correctly, and have enough free time to gradually nag down the chinese wall. Trust me.

Reboot of the franchises

A "reboot" is basically a means to recreate any franchise that has strayed too far from any form of applicable profit. Concocted in such a manner that no direct compromise can be seen as ill will, but rather an effective solution; In short, they clean house. Out with the old ( directors, writers, actors, concepts ) and in with the new ( all of the formerly mentioned ).
A fairly recent example of this process can be found in the highlights of the box office; in the form of "Batman Begins", as well as it's sequel, "the Dark Knight". In this case we went from a poor atempt of copycatting early Tim Burton cinematography with rubbery scenery and tacky neon lights, to a more socially realistic and gritty take on the infamous chiropteran protagonist... And boy, did they earn a buck.

Now that we have gotten the obligatory hook out of the way, I've taken it upon myself to suggest a few franchises in need of said reboot. And since I do not receive any form of compensation for my thoughts - except for my own self satisfaction - I'm going to restrain myself from using in depth reasoning, and/or exhausting expositions. I'll simply edit the existing titles and tag lines of the following films, insert some stickers, and hope that I'll emphasize various obvious reasons that justifies makeovers.

The "Alien" franchise.

The first two titles of this series - "Alien" & "Aliens"- could be defined as the holy grail ( only in plural ) for any faithful mainstream film buff - And yes, I also fall into that category... Hell I'll even advocates Fincher's "Alien 3"; So with no further ado, we move onto the black sheep ( or I should say, the first of the flock )

Reasons supporting a reboot ( reasons are marked in red, for your leisure ):

Alien 4: aka. Sasquatch in outer space.

Alien vs. Predator - tag line: "Whoever wins... We lose". Actually, I couldn't have said it better myself. Although one might suggest that they should have clarified that "We" include the fans, the original characters, the predecessors, the franchises... etcetera, etcetera.

Alien vs. Predator: Requiem - tag line: "In space, no one can hear you scream. On Earth, it won't matter." Yes. We did scream and protest till we found ourselves to be horse, when we discovered that a sequel to the horrible aberration, dubbed AvP*, were under production. And yes, our attempts were infact feeble.
So at least the tag line presented some duality; A very perceptive and anticipative appraisal of the fans response to the film, and at the same time, a very well directed kick to the balls.

* The origin of "AvP": The title of a video game based on the two franchises.

The "Terminator" franchise.

Once again,* we find James Cameron successfully laying his claim on a big chunk of the massive science fiction gem - with "Terminator" and it's sequel - like it ain't no thing'; breaking down barriers and edifying milestones.
I'm fairly reliant that all I have to do is to mention these two titles, without placing a verb in the context, to imply their respective magnitude and importance. Sadly, after the second "Terminator" picture, the rights to the franchise vacated the grasp of it's original creator, James Cameron, and later landed in the lap of Jonathan Mostow, as well as a brigade of willing writers.
Thus a spectacle claiming to be "Terminator 3" came to pass... unfortunately.
( Another trivial fact; The franchise also gave birth to a very formulated television show: "The Sarah Connor Chronicles". )

*Cameron also directed and wrote/co wrote "The Abyss" as well as "Aliens".

Reasons supporting a reboot:

"Terminator 3": "Raise of the machines". Here we went from hydraulic presses and sociopathic murder machines to inflatable breasts and Chippendale dancers.


Worth mentioning is the fourth addition to the Terminator series, currently under production, dubbed "Terminator Salvation". Here we find a dilemma; while Salvation inhabits a number of very prominent characteristics of a reboot - new cast, director and writers - it also retains a relative continuation of the storyline found in "Terminator 3; Rise of the machines".
Meaning, in plain terms, "it could go either way"; Another aspect supporting this thesis is the choice of director; Mr.McG - Or as I like refer to him, a cinematographic Mr. Magoo;
The origin of that alias can be found in his previous work: Charlie's Angels 1 & 2. Here I feel an overwhelming urge to depart from my verbal virtues and succumb to my most elementary form of expression. So bare with me.

Charlie's fucking angels? Have they even seen those movies? WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED STANDARDS?! McG can change his fucking screen name to something less resembling a bowl movement, and thereafter start working on the next few seasons of the fucking Teletubbies.

But you never know, maybe it'll pan out. At least courteous enough to supply us a buffer zone, with his most recent title, "We Are Marshall".

More to come...