| Re: Priorities for the new DOC movie |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Group: alt.fan.docsavage · Group Profile
Author: Anim8rFSKAnim8rFSK Date: Jul 27, 2008 07:45
> Priorities for the new DOC movie
>
> 1. Actually make the movie.
>
> 2. Make a movie that people will want to go see.
>
> 3. Set it in the 1930s.
>
> 4. Adapt the material to the medium. This is complicated with DOC,
> because DOC himself is complicated. Others superheroes are more
> simple (i.e., Batman, where rich guy's parents murdered = caped
> crusader) or vague (i.e., the Shadow, he knows what evil lurks, yeah,
> but who knows why he wants to know, or affords to do so). You have
> the headquarters, the lifelong training in everything, the Mayan gold,
> the crime college, the five friends. This all requires a certain
> amount of exposition -- much more than most half-witted summer
> blockbusters care to attempt. The 1975 movie went with the voice-over
> narration, and we know that didn't work (who was the famous director
> who stated that voice-over in film is an admission by the director
> that he is unable to use the medium?)
>
> 5. Adapt the material to the times. I think we can all agree that
> the monkey and the pig have to go. The fued between Monk and Ham
> can't be too cartoonish. Monk, Ham, Renny, Johnny, Long Tom -- they
> have to be there. I don't think you make one of them a girl, but is
> one Black, or Asian, or Hispanic? You've got to have a strong female
> part for box-office, so do you include Pat?
>
> Dave
Habeas is fine as long as Monk isn't carrying him the whole time; better
yet if he bites a bad guy or three; better still if left in his mud bath
at home. :)
Chemistry has to go.
--
"He'll succumb to all who find
DOC SAVAGE! DOC SAVAGE!"
Hey, that's what we THOUGHT the words were,
first time we saw the movie in the theater . . .
|