[Theepistle] Why a remake of the Saint would be awesome

Sun Feb 28 01:24:15 GMT 2010

What Tim wrote was better than anything I could write on the subject, and Carolyn nailed the Human Target part. I forget who wrote the Vertigo version but was not crazy about the darker interpretation.
Delmo Walters Jr.
--- On Sat, 2/27/10, Carolyn Gruske <be265 at torfree.net> wrote:

From: Carolyn Gruske <be265 at torfree.net>
Subject: Re: [Theepistle] Why a remake of the Saint would be awesome
To: 
Cc: theepistle at fascicle.org
Date: Saturday, February 27, 2010, 2:42 PM

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Tim Forcer wrote:

> At 10:30 24/02/2010, Delmo wrote:
>
>>  This guy liked the Kilmer film? 'Nuff said.
>>
>>  --- On Tue, 2/23/10, Ian Dickerson <ian.dickerson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  I came across this today which I thought might be of wider interest.
>>
>>
>> <http://www.fusedfilm.com/2010/02/the-pitch-why-a-remake-of-the-saint-would-be-awesome/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-pitch-why-a-remake-of-the-saint-would-be-awesome>http://www.fusedfilm.com/2010/02/the-pitch-why-a-remake-of-the-saint-would-be-awesome/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-pitch-why-a-remake-of-the-saint-would-be-awesome
>
> My initial reaction was the same as Delmo's.  But I stuck with it,
> hoping that there would be some clear and informed insight into why
> the Kilmer film failed, how that stacked up against Kevin Coll's
> youthful enjoyment of the film, what there is about either the film's
> approach or the basic material which offers serious potential for
> today's market, etc.
>
> Actually, my initial reaction was "Good starting point", when Coll
> referred to "the classic series that once starred the incomparable,
> Roger Moore".  Sadly, from there on, all elements of classic Saint
> (whether book, film, radio, TV, strip, whatever) are totally
> ignored.  In other words, this is a standard modern media
> accountant's attitude: "look at what is successful now, clone it,
> preferably adding references, names, actors, directors which have had
> success with anything in the past (attract new viewers who won't look
> past the simple fact of a recognisable name)".  The "pitch" is
> essentially to have a Kilmer-style master of accents (and, to a
> lesser extent, disguise) going undercover as thief or detective (or
> both) in a TV series or a "spy thriller" film.  Pick'n'mix from what
> has got big audiences recently.
>
> Yes, ST used accents and disguises from time to time (although the
> alias "Sebastian Tombs" only fools bears of very little brain).  Yes,
> he "spied" from time to time.  Yes, he "went undercover" from time to
> time (but in many yarns he is in plain sight for all or much of the
> time).  Yes, he was both thief and detective (almost all the
> time!)  But where in the "pitch" is the Saintliness?  Where is the
> "Robin Hood of crime"?  Where is the simple, gleeful (but not
> gratuitous) bopping of the ungodly?  Where are the situations which
> frighten the criminals and baffle the cops?  Where are the strong
> women and damsels in distress?  Where are the downtrodden victims of
> injustice being set back on their feet?
>
> Instead, we're offered stunts and car chases.  How novel is
> that?  Expensive, certainly, as are the suggestions of Brad Pitt et
> al.  No mention of screenwriters, indicating the desired approach is
> simply to set up some extended high-energy big-budget scenes, then
> stitch them together with lame plot development.  Viewers won't worry
> about the holes in the plot as they'll be recovering from the
> edge-of-the-seat thrills.  All of which makes a nonsense of Coll's
> statement "you must make sure there is a lot character development".
>
> A true return of the Saint has to come from top quality writing first
> and foremost.  Get that right, and choices of cast and director
> should be easier.  Also, well-written material with good strong
> characters and plots is going to be cheaper to produce, because a) it
> doesn't need the biggest of big-name stars to carry second-rate
> writing and b) it doesn't need lots of special effects and stunts to
> achieve real impact.
>
> But all of you know all this anyway - sorry, I just had to write it
> out of myself.
>
> Tim

Tim,

You're right in absolutely everything you say, and I doubt anybody reading 
your reaction feels that you need to apologize for writing it out of 
yourself.

Just to add a further morsel of "proof" to your argument about 
the Hollywood approach to the Coll's treatment is that while he references the Human 
Target TV series, he has absolutely no clue that the show is exactly what 
he is proposing for the Saint: a bastardized, blow-em-up, generic action 
piece with bad special effects, and (more importantly) something that pays 
absolutely no heed of the source material whatsoever, beyond the fact that 
the title character is named "Christopher Chance."

Actually if he wanted to make a Kilmer-style action/spy/detective thriller 
that involves the main character going undercover and using accents and 
elaborate disguises, then what he should have been proposing is a big 
screen version of the Human Target that goes back to its comic book roots.

Historically* Christopher Chance has been a bodyguard for hire. The 
difference with Chance's approach is that disguises himself as the person 
he is supposed to be protecting, and in effect making himself a "human 
target" for a sniper's rifle, a thug's knife, or a seductress' poisoned 
chalice.

As a character Chance tended to come across as a mature, distinguished, 
erudite type of person. He can also be disdainful or haughty, especially 
if he thinks his client has been acting like a fool. In those cases he 
makes sure to soak a hefty fee out of the intended victim.

In other words, the character and the premise have absolutely zero 
resemblance to incarnation that is currently on TV, just as this blogger's 
Saint would have no resemblance to the character that we know and love.

*I should point out that when I said "historcially" I meant from the time 
the character was created up until the 1990s or early 2000s.
At that point, from what I understand, the comic book was revived again,
and from what I understand given even a darker, more psychologically complex
twist that deviates even further from the TV version. (Delmo, I'm 
referring to the Vertigo series by Milligan -- I've probably got his name 
wrong -- if you care to add anything to the discussion.)

So not only has Coll held up a bad example of a Saint interpretation, he 
has also help up a poor example of a Human Target adaptation. The guy is 
two-for-two in the "getting things wrong" department.

Carolyn

_______________________________________________
TheEpistle mailing list
TheEpistle at fascicle.org
http://www.fascicle.org/mailman/listinfo/theepistle

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.fascicle.org/pipermail/theepistle/attachments/20100227/e602dc6a/attachment.html 