Doc Savage
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
Solo4114
Master Member
I....doubt anyone is interested in doing a faithful translation. As mentioned upthread, The Shadow was (as I understand it) a mostly faithful translation which flopped because audiences don't really want to see 1930s-1940s Republic-serial-style heroes.
See also, The Rocketeer, and The Phantom.
And no, Indiana Jones isn't REALLY a Republic-serial-style hero. He's a Republic-serial-style hero filtered through the lens of the late 70s/early 80s and modernized.
cboath
Master Member
I don't think the phantom would've done any better if set in modern times when it was released. It's not a direct time frame, but Batman (with keaton) was a 1930's/40's 30 seconds into the future kind of thing that went over huge. Granted it fit the comic book come to life bit perfectly, but still. Titanic was a period piece that did better than anything else.
The rocketeer, for me, came off a bit more Fantasy. But I also love a good period piece. You can't fight the nazi's in 2015. Captain America was literally a 1940's super hero. 90% of it took place in WWII as well.
the phantom, to me, was a niche hero that was far from well known when it was released. Maybe i'd feel different now, but i also recall thinking it was so-so and nothing special, but that it had some cool moments.
I loved the rocketeer. But admittedly, the stars have to align for things like that to go over super well.
The rocketeer, for me, came off a bit more Fantasy. But I also love a good period piece. You can't fight the nazi's in 2015. Captain America was literally a 1940's super hero. 90% of it took place in WWII as well.
the phantom, to me, was a niche hero that was far from well known when it was released. Maybe i'd feel different now, but i also recall thinking it was so-so and nothing special, but that it had some cool moments.
I loved the rocketeer. But admittedly, the stars have to align for things like that to go over super well.
Solo4114
Master Member
The Rocketeer is a lot more adaptable and relatable. And yeah, I loved it, too.
A big part of the problem with The Phantom and The Shadow for today's audiences is the racial undertones. The fictional "darkest Africa" and "mysterious Orient" countries and characters just would not fly today. But a ton of the backstory for these characters -- especially The Phantom -- rely on this stuff and the whole "white savior" thing.
Doc Savage can sort of avoid that, but it loses something in the translation by doing so. Or at least it loses something that made the original what it was. I just think that a lot of the 1930s pulp heroes simply don't translate all that well to modern filmmaking unless you strip out a ton of what made them what they are. The more you do that, the more you have to ask "what's the point?" I mean, audiences don't even really know these characters, so it's not like the brand itself is all that valuable.
A big part of the problem with The Phantom and The Shadow for today's audiences is the racial undertones. The fictional "darkest Africa" and "mysterious Orient" countries and characters just would not fly today. But a ton of the backstory for these characters -- especially The Phantom -- rely on this stuff and the whole "white savior" thing.
Doc Savage can sort of avoid that, but it loses something in the translation by doing so. Or at least it loses something that made the original what it was. I just think that a lot of the 1930s pulp heroes simply don't translate all that well to modern filmmaking unless you strip out a ton of what made them what they are. The more you do that, the more you have to ask "what's the point?" I mean, audiences don't even really know these characters, so it's not like the brand itself is all that valuable.
Laspector
Master Member
I would think that they are probably banking on the fact that no one (mostly) knows who the character is, therefore they can pull out all that stuff and hope it goes unnoticed. The only reason Indiana Jones doesn't have all that kind of racial undertone is because the character was actually invented in modern times. But you and I both know that if Indy had actually been a serial from the 30s-40s it probably would have had all that stuff in it originally.
My housemate is the current ghostwriter for the Doc Savage Novels (He wrote the 85th anniversary novel. You want to hear an uproar. the hard core Doc Savage groups are throwing rocks at the sky. We're talking Affleck as Batman, Keaton as Batman, JJ Trek VS TOS level of venom here. As it is Mr. Johnson is booked through 2017, plus they're talking ANOTHER Script Redux, so this more is realistically 3-4 years down the road IF it doesn't get shelved.
nightwind1
Well-Known Member
Your housemate is Will Murray? Cool...
My housemate is Kenneth Robeson - which is actually a generic name made by Bantam for whoever they currently have writing the novels. The book he did a couple years ago for the anniversary was a bear in that he had to craft the story around the painting they did for the book cover. He was targting 80-90,000 words but ended up over 120,000. Oh and his computer decided to crash - twice, on him.
Strikerkc
Sr Member
Hmmm, so the "flagship" imagine that wikipedia is using for this character, Johnson looks nothing like; but a TON of the other interpretations look a TON like somehing he could do. I'd say he's bigger than all the depictions, but he'd be able to slim down a little, and stay super toned up and be spot on. So I'll endorse the idea.
The set up of the character sounds "mary-sue-ish" to me (he's the best at all things) but that just means the writers will need to come up with proper story lines to test him, without just being a series of things he stomps on and moves on from with no conflict.
Doc Savage still shows up on his upcoming film credits on IMDB.... along with NINE other films that are announced, pre-production, or currently filming; so I supposed the idea hasn't been scrapped in the last 2+ years.
That said, one of those other "announced" films that I either hadn't heard about, or have since forgotten, is a Big Trouble in Little China. Hell yes.
The set up of the character sounds "mary-sue-ish" to me (he's the best at all things) but that just means the writers will need to come up with proper story lines to test him, without just being a series of things he stomps on and moves on from with no conflict.
Doc Savage still shows up on his upcoming film credits on IMDB.... along with NINE other films that are announced, pre-production, or currently filming; so I supposed the idea hasn't been scrapped in the last 2+ years.
That said, one of those other "announced" films that I either hadn't heard about, or have since forgotten, is a Big Trouble in Little China. Hell yes.
I take it there's no love for the 1975 film? Extremely campy but I gotta say, very, very close to the source material. Face it, some things just don't translate to film. On paper it works but not on film.
The film 1984 was exactly like the book. Exactly. Though the book always keeps me engaged, the film, is slow as molasses, dark, dirty and depressing. The film simply didn't work.
To make my point even more simple, comic books. Hugh Jackman would look silly in yellow spandex.
The film 1984 was exactly like the book. Exactly. Though the book always keeps me engaged, the film, is slow as molasses, dark, dirty and depressing. The film simply didn't work.
To make my point even more simple, comic books. Hugh Jackman would look silly in yellow spandex.
Laspector
Master Member
I only remember reading one or two of the books as a kid, but I do remember going to see that 1975 film. Don't really remember anything in the movie though, except I vaguely recall at one point he had this small flat scuba tank on his stomach for some reason. That's literally all I remember of the movie (if I am even remembering that correctly).
Similar threads
