# Fantastic Voyage - REMAKE



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

*Fantastic Voyage - REMAKE AND CONTEST*

OK... so those of you that occasionally search for news about the remake of Fantastic Voyage, and have done so for over a decade.... there actually IS some new news from just a few days ago!

http://news.yahoo.com/david-goyer-joins-james-cameron-fantastic-voyage-remake-113206868.html

(I started a thread on it here, to keep the Carson Dyle thread from drifting off the topic of Rob's awesome build up)


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

They'll redesign the Proteus...


----------



## gman223 (Feb 16, 2010)

Chrisisall said:


> They'll redesign the Proteus...


Yup they always do and its usually disappointing.


----------



## The_Engineer (Dec 8, 2012)

Maybe this time they will stick a bathroom in it.  :tongue: :wave:


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Oh, it HAS TO HAVE a little fold-down potty somewhere.


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

thats the problem with hollywood,...the storyline of the remakes usually has a political message and the redesign the sci-fi craft, like the jupiter 2 from the lost in space remake

I believe in "the Mona Lisa theory" ....that theory is this: you dont go up to the mona-lisa and draw a mustache on her, she is fine the way she is !

but the hollywood boneheads will hack crap out of it like they always do !


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

RMC said:


> I believe in "the Mona Lisa theory" ....that theory is this: you dont go up to the mona-lisa and draw a mustache on her, she is fine the way she is !


I agree. I don't see any need to remake this classic anyway. See what happened with Day The Earth Stood Still? Fantastic Voyage is a great movie. It can't be remade as a better film, they *might* equal it if they're LUCKY, so why do it at all?


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

Well... all this outrage over the re-design of the Proteus has given me an idea! *I'm going to have a contest... wait for it... BEST new Proteus design! * Drawings, models both virtual and physical, any way of proposing what it would look like will be accepted. I will post rules and fine points soon in a new dedicated thread! The prize will be a 1:72 Scale Shapeways printed Proteus kit (estimated value of about $200+) AND a light kit! (also estimated value around $200)!

The rule will be a current modern Proteus, not Steam Punk (I am already designing such a kit) or otherwise antiquated design... it should be a Proteus as it might, or you would like it to appear in the new movie. Since I am coughing up the prize, I will be the judge. I'll be looking for something that is cool and modern but still EXTREMELY true to the Harper Goff design. Contest will kickoff at Wonderfest, and will likely last about two months... ending sometime around end of summer break.

As I said... I just thunk of it... clear and complete rules and such will follow before Wonderfest.

What a first... I just Hijacked my own thread.... a thread I started to prevent another thread from getting hijacked.


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

drewid142 said:


> ... I just Hijacked my own thread.... a thread I started to prevent another thread from getting hijacked.


I think you injected a miniature thread into an existing thread, to battle the brain tumor that the new movie may have.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Chrisisall said:


> I agree. I don't see any need to remake this classic anyway. See what happened with Day The Earth Stood Still? Fantastic Voyage is a great movie. It can't be remade as a better film, they *might* equal it if they're LUCKY, so why do it at all?


I'm thinking the same thing. Just watched it again yesterday. The production values on it are incredible. The storyline is astoundingly good. The acting is great. The special effects are fantastic for the most part (goes from "WOW!" to "Eh?" sometimes but mostly good even by today's standards). The cinematography is superb.

I can't see anyone wanting to touch it except for sucking the blood out of its fame in order to fill seats in the theaters.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Just watched it again yesterday. The production values on it are incredible.


Yeah, I just saw it in the theatre last week as a matter of fact (first time ever on the big screen). In the Sixties, it was my Star Wars...:thumbsup:


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Isaac Asimov, the novelist for the first film, did do a re-write in the 1980's called Fantastic Voyage II. IIRC, this was to correct the problems he had in the first book that were due to the script, inaccuracies of biology, science, and the effects of miniaturization. He updated everything technologically, used different characters and placed it in the Soviet Union. Mostly, he extrapolated the science and made it as accurate as he could. It was quite a read! If the studio starts with that, we might, indeed, have something worthwhile.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

charonjr said:


> Isaac Asimov, the novelist for the first film, did do a re-write in the 1980's called Fantastic Voyage II. IIRC, this was to correct the problems he had in the first book that were due to the script, inaccuracies of biology, science, and the effects of miniaturization. He updated everything technologically, used different characters and placed it in the Soviet Union. Mostly, he extrapolated the science and made it as accurate as he could. It was quite a read! If the studio starts with that, we might, indeed, have something worthwhile.


I remember that! Great read and you're right about a movie based on that having a great start. Still, not sure it could beat the original but might be worthwhile.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

I think it was done right the first time, so it's another pointless redo.

But James Cameron does like submarine stuff. No doubt the spx will be cooool.

Who has the presence of Raquel?


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

charonjr said:


> Isaac Asimov, the novelist for the first film, did do a re-write in the 1980's called Fantastic Voyage II. IIRC, this was to correct the problems he had in the first book that were due to the script, inaccuracies of biology, science, and the effects of miniaturization. He updated everything technologically, used different characters and placed it in the Soviet Union. Mostly, he extrapolated the science and made it as accurate as he could. It was quite a read! If the studio starts with that, we might, indeed, have something worthwhile.


I read it but did not care for it too much- the thing I remember most is one character always whining about how they did not want to be miniaturized (worse than Bones & the Transporter)...

I do think a sequel instead of a remake would be best- leave the original story stand as is. Have the new Sub specially designed to deal with the situation instead of being drafted from the Navy and incorporate features which address difficulties encountered with the first Voyage.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Richard Baker said:


> I do think a sequel instead of a remake would be best- leave the original story stand as is. Have the new Sub specially designed to deal with the situation instead of being drafted from the Navy and incorporate features which address difficulties encountered with the first Voyage.


Yes, this would make the most sense IMO.:thumbsup:


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

My two cents worth...
I would LOVE to see a remake of the original movie... TRUE to the original script and art direction, but upgraded to modern time and with todays best FX. I would cast Raquel Welch herself to replace the agent character or the surgeon. I'd like to see some of the action modified to help a little with the suspension of disbelief, but I realize that in this case the suspension of disbelief must be "donated' by the viewer if they have any grasp of the math and science involved... kind of like Gravity... I thought it was AWESOME, but the liberties taken with orbital mechanics, the fact that the three stations would never be in such close proximity, and if they were it would have only been for a short period of time as their orbits crossed but it was still a very cool and vey successful motion picture.


----------



## electric indigo (Dec 21, 2011)

With Cameron involved, imagine 

"The Abyss"

inside your body

in IMAX 3D.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

One element the original movie ignored but the novel included was that the Proteus, even when absorbed by the white blood cell, still had to be removed from the body before it returned to full size. The people were slowly getting larger and the sub was too (the white blood cell was described has having a case of unexpected indigestion), they just got everything out in time, but the Proteus was an eroded pile of wreckage, 
That sort of detail Asimov did so well, but the film had to simplify things somewhat.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Richard Baker said:


> they just got everything out in time, but the Proteus was an eroded pile of wreckage,


I'd always assumed the Proteus was totally dissolved and that they vented the expanding volume of fluids through an emergency incision...


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

The Asimov adaptation of the screenplay, which was an adaptation of the original short story, was glorious with those kinds of details. Like the Proteus having an onboard mini-miniaturizer for shrinking the air they siphon from the lungs to restock their oxygen stores. Great stuff... Of course an hour later those miniature oxygen atoms would expand in their blood with possible unexpected surprises.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Chrisisall said:


> I'd always assumed the Proteus was totally dissolved and that they vented the expanding volume of fluids through an emergency incision...


Something like what happened to this beached whale carcass?

(WARNING: Do not watch while eating.)


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

scotpens said:


> Something like what happened to this beached whale carcass?


Ummm, I was conjuring a slightly more gradual gush...


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Personally, I don't see the problem with remakes. They're just another artistic interpretation of a story. People have been doing that since before the Greeks. Remakes don't cause any of the previous versions to cease to exist, and won't change my appreciation of the original. Instead it may open up a beloved story to a new generation of fans. If anything, a remake will probably make people more aware of the original rather than less -- and that's a good thing.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

You're right!


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

Cameron is such an ass. He really said that if the Titanic had backed up, it could have bought it the time needed to save passengers. Also, several stars of his movies refuse to work with him again.


----------



## electric indigo (Dec 21, 2011)

Antimatter said:


> Also, several stars of his movies refuse to work with him again.


Possibly the effect of the infamous nailgun incident...


----------



## spawndude (Nov 28, 2007)

It would be hard to replace Donald Pleasence as the bad guy.

Always played a fantastic role as a slightly crazy, evil, cold hearted bad guy. His characters were always kinda wimpy, withdrawn, cowardly, not a viable threat to anyone until he sprung his trap which would ultimately be unsuccessful. Back in the day I didn't like him personally because he did such a great job being bad. Today I really admire his work.


----------



## spawndude (Nov 28, 2007)

Richard Baker said:


> One element the original movie ignored but the novel included was that the Proteus, even when absorbed by the white blood cell, still had to be removed from the body before it returned to full size. The people were slowly getting larger and the sub was too (the white blood cell was described has having a case of unexpected indigestion), they just got everything out in time, but the Proteus was an eroded pile of wreckage,
> That sort of detail Asimov did so well, but the film had to simplify things somewhat.


That's one thing that always bothered me as a kid. I wondered how the heck they would ever found all the little pieces of the broken down sub??? I mean even little screws and shards of glass would return to full size! I just told myself they somehow got it out and just didn't show it.


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

drewid142 said:


> Well... all this outrage over the re-design of the Proteus has given me an idea! *I'm going to have a contest... wait for it... BEST new Proteus design! * Drawings, models both virtual and physical, any way of proposing what it would look like will be accepted. I will post rules and fine points soon in a new dedicated thread! The prize will be a 1:72 Scale Shapeways printed Proteus kit (estimated value of about $200+) AND a light kit! (also estimated value around $200)!
> 
> The rule will be a current modern Proteus, not Steam Punk (I am already designing such a kit) or otherwise antiquated design... it should be a Proteus as it might, or you would like it to appear in the new movie. Since I am coughing up the prize, I will be the judge. I'll be looking for something that is cool and modern but still EXTREMELY true to the Harper Goff design. Contest will kickoff at Wonderfest, and will likely last about two months... ending sometime around end of summer break.
> 
> ...


Cool idea. I know there have been some really beautiful renditions of the Flying Sub done. Love to see a serious contest!!
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_KXBZvbU0L.../F_U1_sL3lHA/s400/flying-sub-painting_650.jpg


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

Richard Baker said:


> One element the original movie ignored but the novel included was that the Proteus, even when absorbed by the white blood cell, still had to be removed from the body before it returned to full size. The people were slowly getting larger and the sub was too (the white blood cell was described has having a case of unexpected indigestion), they just got everything out in time, but the Proteus was an eroded pile of wreckage,
> That sort of detail Asimov did so well, but the film had to simplify things somewhat.


No hijack intended, but my big problem is when they needed more oxygen and they went to the lung membrane to fill up their tanks. How could their shrunken lungs utilize "full-size" air molecules?????

:tongue:


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

kdaracal said:


> No hijack intended, but my big problem is when they needed more oxygen and they went to the lung membrane to fill up their tanks. How could their shrunken lungs utilize "full-size" air molecules?????
> 
> :tongue:


In the movie, it was a flotation tank, not a breathing air tank, that started leaking and losing pressure, but refilling the tank with normal-sized air still wouldn't work.


----------



## Krel (Jun 7, 2000)

spawndude said:


> It would be hard to replace Donald Pleasence as the bad guy.
> 
> Always played a fantastic role as a slightly crazy, evil, cold hearted bad guy. His characters were always kinda wimpy, withdrawn, cowardly, not a viable threat to anyone until he sprung his trap which would ultimately be unsuccessful. Back in the day I didn't like him personally because he did such a great job being bad. Today I really admire his work.


At the time Donald Pleasence was not that well known in the U.S., so the audience didn't peg him as the spy right away. He had some interesting rolls when he first came to Hollywood.

David.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

kdaracal said:


> How could their shrunken lungs utilize "full-size" air molecules?????


How do bacteria use full sized air molecules?
Ha!


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Chrisisall said:


> How do bacteria use full sized air molecules?
> Ha!


Good point, buddy! :thumbsup:


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

Even at their shrunken size, I would think that molecules are still very teensy.


----------



## edward 2 (Oct 6, 2010)

Krel said:


> At the time Donald Pleasence was not that well known in the U.S., so the audience didn't peg him as the spy right away. He had some interesting rolls when he first came to Hollywood.
> 
> David.


true he's most known for his parts in the bond films.
and in a lot of movies after that, as a bad guy and good ?


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

scotpens said:


> In the movie, it was a flotation tank, not a breathing air tank, that started leaking and losing pressure, but refilling the tank with normal-sized air still wouldn't work.


Derp. Sorry. That was a kid memory!! But yea, agreed.


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

Chrisisall said:


> How do bacteria use full sized air molecules?
> Ha!


I'll bacteria you....:tongue:


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

terryr said:


> Even at their shrunken size, I would think that molecules are still very teensy.


That's it. I'm gonna get a microscope and see....:thumbsup:


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

Back on topic: This movie so NEEDS a good remake. I love the concept, love the book, (Hated "Honey, I shrunk the Kids"). A modernized, but similar Proteus would be the best. Last I saw, Raquel Welch could play a good, older scientist.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

kdaracal said:


> Back on topic: This movie so NEEDS a good remake.


I disagree. However, in the right hands, it could be great.
The 'right hands' part is where it gets problematic....


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

Chrisisall said:


> I disagree. However, in the right hands, it could be great.
> The 'right hands' part is where it gets problematic....


I used to think Spielberg could do it right. Then I saw Crystal Skull....


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

kdaracal said:


> Then I saw Crystal Skull....


I enjoyed that for the mess it was, but Spielberg's glory days are sadly over.
Give it to Joss Whedon.:thumbsup:


----------



## DCH10664 (Jul 16, 2012)

I think a remake of this movie is totally pointless. And I don't really see how they can improve it. As my Grandfather used to say, "If it ain't broke. Don't fix it".
As with most remakes, all I expect is for them to put a "slight" twist on the overall story line. Then redesign some key elements, such as the sub. Add a healthy dose of CGI to it. And then call it a new movie.


----------



## spawndude (Nov 28, 2007)

This is one of those movies where you have to suspend your ideas about real science and just enjoy the movie. Trying to rationalize what happens in the movie to real science is impossible, more in the realm of fantasy.


----------



## electric indigo (Dec 21, 2011)

The basic premise of the story, a journey through the inner realms of a human body, is still very promising. Given Cameron's affection and experience with deep sea diving & filming, and the potential of current CGI to turn this into an exciting cinematic visuals, I'm actually looking forward to this remake.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

'Innerspace' benefited from great leaps of SFX technology although still pre-CGI. It showed the interior of a human with spectacular visuals and ignored the whole 'keep the body motionless' deal. Unfortunately that movie attempted to be funny and it just did not work for me.
There is no doubt Cameron can make a wonderful movie with this subject, the question is how far he will take it from the original. One of the best remakes I think is John Carpenter's 'The Thing'- it kept true to the original novel and honored the classic moments of the original film.


----------



## DCH10664 (Jul 16, 2012)

Richard Baker said:


> 'Innerspace' benefited from great leaps of SFX technology although still pre-CGI. It showed the interior of a human with spectacular visuals and ignored the whole 'keep the body motionless' deal. Unfortunately that movie attempted to be funny and it just did not work for me.
> There is no doubt Cameron can make a wonderful movie with this subject, the question is how far he will take it from the original. One of the best remakes I think is John Carpenter's 'The Thing'- it kept true to the original novel and honored the classic moments of the original film.


I have to agree with you about the remake of "The Thing". It was one of the few remakes I really enjoyed. And even the prequel they made of it was worth watching.
But still there are some classics that just don't need re-made. I would much rather they did this movie as a sequel. I think it would work better. Maybe a story line like the technology was somehow lost for many years. Then somehow discovered again. Along with the original sub. Of course being so old, they need to update the inner technology. While still keeping the outside basically the same. And then create a new story for why they need to use it. Just a thought,.....


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I mentioned earlier in this thread that I also felt a sequel would be far better. I love the design of the Proteus but two things would alter it in a sequel- it was totally destroyed by the white blood cell and it had been drafted from the navy for this mission but had not been equipped with everything it needed for the mission. A new sub based on the good points of it's design (large glassed cabin, dorsal navigation dome, all control surfaces tucked it so as not to snag and water jet propulsion) but created all new with a mission like this in mind. The debriefing of the crew after the first mission would be valuable for the upgraded version.
Have an original story- you still have to travel inside and do delicate surgery but for a different reason. The time limitation being circumvented was supposed to be the big secret the original scientist had (at least in the novel), but coming up with a new motivation should not be too difficult. If the time limit for how long to be shrunk/expanded is no longer valid, some other time pressure could be- something like if he is not alive and functioning by such and such a time a nuclear weapon may detonate in an unknown city...


----------



## DCH10664 (Jul 16, 2012)

Richard Baker said:


> I mentioned earlier in this thread that I also felt a sequel would be far better. I love the design of the Proteus but two things would alter it in a sequel- it was totally destroyed by the white blood cell and it had been drafted from the navy for this mission but had not been equipped with everything it needed for the mission. A new sub based on the good points of it's design (large glassed cabin, dorsal navigation dome, all control surfaces tucked it so as not to snag and water jet propulsion) but created all new with a mission like this in mind. The debriefing of the crew after the first mission would be valuable for the upgraded version.
> Have an original story- you still have to travel inside and do delicate surgery but for a different reason. The time limitation being circumvented was supposed to be the big secret the original scientist had (at least in the novel), but coming up with a new motivation should not be too difficult. If the time limit for how long to be shrunk/expanded is no longer valid, some other time pressure could be- something like if he is not alive and functioning by such and such a time a nuclear weapon may detonate in an unknown city...


I really need to watch this again,....I had forgot that the sub was destroyed !! :freak: But I like your ideas. :thumbsup:


----------

