Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

The Lady Vanishes - 2012?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 22-12-2012, 09:39
LadySponge
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 629

I wondered if anyone knows if and when the 2012 remake of the Lady Vanishes is on?
LadySponge is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 26-12-2012, 03:57
LadySponge
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 629
Anyone?
LadySponge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2012, 04:26
mrblank
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,044
didnt know their was one
mrblank is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2012, 11:32
Motthus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,435
I didn't know there was one either!
Motthus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2012, 11:58
silentNate
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Council Estate
Posts: 33,411
Only started shooting late August so I'd presume it's not yet gone into editing or post-production despite the BBC stating that it would be shown over the festive period.

Looks good though

The 1938 version is on BBC2 during the day on Friday.
silentNate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2012, 13:24
RichardRees
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,551
It is finished, and has been shown at the BFI earlier this month as a preview. It is now due on BBC One in the new season, so I guess a month or two.
RichardRees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2012, 16:18
Straker
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 26,047
IIRC didn’t the director or producer slag off the Hitchcock version as part of the rationale for this new version? I somehow doubt he/she’s got anyone nearly as good as Basil Radford, Naunton Wayne, Margaret Lockwood and Michael Redgrave so it’s somewhat arrogant of him/her to pick holes in what most agree is a classic.

It’d better be a cut above the BBC’s limp and lacklustre Rupert Penry Jones’ version of The 39 Steps. 80 odd minutes of dullness foisted upon us several Xmas’ ago,
Straker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2012, 16:59
JeffG1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Newbury
Posts: 4,865
I don't see the point of remakes. What is wrong with the original?
JeffG1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2012, 17:08
Doghouse Riley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 17,505
I don't see the point of remakes. What is wrong with the original?
Exactly!

The original beats anything made since.

Re-makes I find, aren't usually much cop, they make 'em as they can't come up with a halfway decent original story line.

The same lack of talent is usually evident in the re-make.
Doghouse Riley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2012, 17:27
Killary45
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,462
The Lady Vanishes directed by Hitchcock in 1938 was not an original plot, but was based on a novel written in 1936.

Unless the BBC are going to use the Sidney Gillat and Frank Lauder script, rather like Gus Van Sant did to Psycho in 1998, then it simply false to say that they are doing a remake of the Hitchcock film. They are making an fresh adaptation of a 1936 novel.

I do not understand the argument that once someone has made a good adaptation of a book or play then nobody else should bother. So much excellent film and TV has come about because people have gone back to original material and given it a new treatment.
Killary45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2012, 17:28
LadySponge
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 629
IIRC didn’t the director or producer slag off the Hitchcock version as part of the rationale for this new version? I somehow doubt he/she’s got anyone nearly as good as Basil Radford, Naunton Wayne, Margaret Lockwood and Michael Redgrave so it’s somewhat arrogant of him/her to pick holes in what most agree is a classic.

It’d better be a cut above the BBC’s limp and lacklustre Rupert Penry Jones’ version of The 39 Steps. 80 odd minutes of dullness foisted upon us several Xmas’ ago,
Eh, I just like Julian Rhind-Tutt - and am a fan of the Angela Lansbury version too, which isn't exactly known for it's genius. I've also just read on the 1938 IMDb page that it is based on the book, which is why the director (presumably) had a problem with it.

Thanks for the information everyone!
LadySponge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2012, 17:36
Doghouse Riley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 17,505
The Lady Vanishes directed by Hitchcock in 1938 was not an original plot, but was based on a novel written in 1936.

Unless the BBC are going to use the Sidney Gillat and Frank Lauder script, rather like Gus Van Sant did to Psycho in 1998, then it simply false to say that they are doing a remake of the Hitchcock film. They are making an fresh adaptation of a 1936 novel.

I do not understand the argument that once someone has made a good adaptation of a book or play then nobody else should bother. So much excellent film and TV has come about because people have gone back to original material and given it a new treatment.
Very few re-makes in my opinion are as good as the original

I mentioned yesterday in another thread the 1948 film of the musical "One Touch of Venus." The 1987 "The Mannequin" more or less copied the plot and was dire compared with the original.
Doghouse Riley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2012, 17:56
Killary45
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,462
Very few re-makes in my opinion are as good as the original
You must have missed the part of my post where I pointed out that this is not a re-make. It is another adaptation of the original story.

There are numerous counter examples to disprove your suggestion that once one adaptation has been made very few new versions are as good.

Agatha Christie novels, plays and stories have been adapted for films and TV in many different eras since the 1930s and the Sherlock Holmes stories have been made into films since the 1920s, and TV series since the 1950s. Were the first films made of each story really the best adaptations?

Shakespeare plays are always being adapted, and sometimes the new results are spectacular as in The Hollow Crown this year.

The Lord of the Rings was first filmed in 1978, but many people would consider that Peter Jackson did something worthwhile in what you would presumable call a "re-make".

I could go on and on and on. The idea that you can only make a good film or TV if you use an original story is nonsense.
Killary45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2012, 18:46
Straker
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 26,047
The Lord of the Rings was first filmed in 1978, but many people would consider that Peter Jackson did something worthwhile in what you would presumable call a "re-make".
Correction - The first book was, not the entire trilogy and aside from the (still quite effective) rotoscoping of the live action parts most agree that it fell far short of everyone’s expectations so Jackson wasn’t exactly competing with a classic when it came to his version.
Straker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2012, 19:10
Doghouse Riley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 17,505
You must have missed the part of my post where I pointed out that this is not a re-make. It is another adaptation of the original story.

There are numerous counter examples to disprove your suggestion that once one adaptation has been made very few new versions are as good.

Agatha Christie novels, plays and stories have been adapted for films and TV in many different eras since the 1930s and the Sherlock Holmes stories have been made into films since the 1920s, and TV series since the 1950s. Were the first films made of each story really the best adaptations?

Shakespeare plays are always being adapted, and sometimes the new results are spectacular as in The Hollow Crown this year.

The Lord of the Rings was first filmed in 1978, but many people would consider that Peter Jackson did something worthwhile in what you would presumable call a "re-make".

I could go on and on and on. The idea that you can only make a good film or TV if you use an original story is nonsense.
Thanks for not doing that, you're welcome to your opinion, it won't change mine.

I didn't miss anything.

Whatever you call it, with The Lady Vanishes, it's a re-make of the same story, however you want to dress it up, no need to split hairs, is there?.
Doghouse Riley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2012, 19:26
RichardRees
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,551
The Lady Vanishes directed by Hitchcock in 1938 was not an original plot, but was based on a novel written in 1936.

Unless the BBC are going to use the Sidney Gillat and Frank Lauder script, rather like Gus Van Sant did to Psycho in 1998, then it simply false to say that they are doing a remake of the Hitchcock film. They are making an fresh adaptation of a 1936 novel.
It is a fresh adaptation of the original novel. The writer of the screenplay, Australian Fiona Seres, reckons that she hasn't watched the whole of the original film.
RichardRees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2012, 19:31
Doghouse Riley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 17,505
It is a fresh adaptation of the original novel. The writer of the screenplay, Australian Fiona Seres, reckons that she hasn't watched the whole of the original film.
But not a "fresh" adaption of the same plot.

I think the clue is in the title. "The Lady Vanishes" Unless of course she doesn't, that'd be "fresh."
Doghouse Riley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2012, 20:12
Killary45
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,462
Correction - The first book was, not the entire trilogy and aside from the (still quite effective) rotoscoping of the live action parts most agree that it fell far short of everyone’s expectations so Jackson wasn’t exactly competing with a classic when it came to his version.
So you don't agree with Doghouse that the 1978 adaptation of the Lord of the Rings was better than the Peter Jackson "re-makes"? Neither do I.
Killary45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2012, 20:14
Killary45
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,462
But not a "fresh" adaption of the same plot.

I think the clue is in the title. "The Lady Vanishes" Unless of course she doesn't, that'd be "fresh."
So you think that Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings was not "fresh" because there was still a Lord, Rings, etc in his version, just like in the 1978 "original".
Killary45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2012, 20:21
Doghouse Riley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 17,505
So you think that Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings was not "fresh" because there was still a Lord, Rings, etc in his version, just like in the 1978 "original".
Look, you've your opinion on The Lady Vanishes, I've mine.
Does it really matter?
No need to drag anything else into it.
Doghouse Riley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2012, 20:23
Doghouse Riley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 17,505
So you don't agree with Doghouse that the 1978 adaptation of the Lord of the Rings was better than the Peter Jackson "re-makes"? Neither do I.
I've no opinion on, The Lord of The Rings, never read the book or seen the film, it doesn't appealed to me.

Some people can get rather obsessive about particular stories.
Doghouse Riley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2012, 20:26
RichardRees
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,551
But not a "fresh" adaption of the same plot.

I think the clue is in the title. "The Lady Vanishes" Unless of course she doesn't, that'd be "fresh."
The plot is significantly different - and it is overall a lot more faithful to the original novel than the Hitchcock film.

If you don't like the idea of someone adapting a novel for TV that has been adapted for a film in the past - just make a note not to watch it.
RichardRees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2012, 20:27
Straker
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 26,047
So you don't agree with Doghouse that the 1978 adaptation of the Lord of the Rings was better than the Peter Jackson "re-makes"? Neither do I.
He hasn’t offered an opinion either way on Bakshi’s LotR. Your comparison is flawed, as I’ve already pointed out, because the 70s cartoon was only a third complete and didn’t really satisfy anyone so to cite it in the same breath as Hitch’s widely praised Lady Vanishes is chalk and cheese really.
Straker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2012, 20:30
Doghouse Riley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 17,505
The plot is significantly different - and it is overall a lot more faithful to the original novel than the Hitchcock film.

If you don't like the idea of someone adapting a novel for TV that has been adapted for a film in the past - just make a note not to watch it.
No need for notes, I've seen the original film of the Lady Vanishes(a few times, it's often repeated) and watched a bit of the 1979 re-make, but I thought it didn't compare with the original, which I won't be watching again. Don't want to watch another version of the story. But feel free to watch it yourself.
Doghouse Riley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2012, 20:40
Killary45
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,462
He hasn’t offered an opinion either way on Bakshi’s LotR. Your comparison is flawed, as I’ve already pointed out, because the 70s cartoon was only a third complete and didn’t really satisfy anyone so to cite it in the same breath as Hitch’s widely praised Lady Vanishes is chalk and cheese really.
My point is simple. Just because there has already been one adaptation of an original story such as The Fellowship of the Ring, that does not mean that there should not be others.

If that was the case then we would never have had David Lean's Great Expectations, because there had been at least two films made from that novel before 1946.

Just think how impoverished our TV and film library would be if the rule that you are advocating were followed, and how very silly it is to condemn a film that you have not seen just because there has been an earlier adaptation of the same original story.
Killary45 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.