I’m a long time fan of Doc Savage, and I read where producer Michael E. Uslan announced he’s working on a new Doc Savage movie. The last time it was Frank Darabont to direct a Doc film starring Arnold. At that time I started thinking about what I thought would make for a decent Doc Savage movie. I’ve recently put those ideas together at http://oldpunks.com/DocSavage.htm
If you have a Doc Savage movie, you really need to include his crew. At the very least you need Monk and Ham. And if you put in Monk and Ham why not include Renny? After all, Brad Garrett isn’t getting any younger.
"You people don't understand. I'm not locked in here with you, you're locked in here with me!"
Who would you get to play them? I see you mentioned Brad Garrett, and I'm seeing Jackie Earl Haley as Monk (if he changes the pitch of his voice), plus Billy Crudup as Ham...
I rather liked it. I think you changed around more stuff than you needed to, but you pretty much held on to the basic idea Doc Savage is built around.
I agree that there are a lot of characters for a movie, and you don't need to throw in everybody who ever appeared in a Doc Savage book. Pat is somebody I'd like to see, but she can be introduced in a sequel. She needen't be there from the beginning (she wasn't in the books).
I do think we need more of Doc's training regimen. Not clip after clip after wearying clip of it, but we need to see him doing push-ups while extracting square roots, or something like that.
I don't know if it's good to plan out the first movie based on what happens in sequels, as if that's a done deal when the very idea of a new Doc movie has been in development hell for years, along with hundreds of other films. It'll be a tough enough fight just having all six major characters be major characters - if there at all.
Xeno, I hope we get to see a new Doc Savage movie together if it comes out, so don't get mad when I say that this line made me smile:
"I do think we need more of Doc's training regimen. Not clip after clip after wearying clip of it, but we need to see him doing push-ups while extracting square roots, or something like that."
If you're going to do a parody of Doc Savage you'd have him exercising all the time in eccentric ways. It quickly becomes OCD or narcissism. In a film you only need to see Doc do a Doc thing once, and you can't have every Doc Savage quirk on display because then he'll come across as even more kooky than he does already. Like trilling. It’s intense only if you love the books. Test audiences would fall over laughing over trilling.
Doc fans have to realize the novels can be goofy beyond belief, and that the character portrayals are not only all over the map, they often present the assistants as ugly and unlikeable. Doc is either a god, or, in some of the later books, a Freudian nutcase. His height goes from 6’ to near 7’, and it’s a mystery if he even has a human personality.
As a movie, Doc Savage is all about the potential of the characters and the best elements of the various novels. If I wanted to interest a studio in making a Doc Savage film I wouldn’t push the novels as written in stone as far as what has to be. The books (I’ve read most of them twice) are fun, cheap fiction and god love ‘em. I’m not promoting Doc Savage as high concept only, but it has to be made palatable to investors and not just a tiny sliver of fanboys.
I agree that we can't count on sequels. We'll be lucky to get even the one movie. And I agree with your reason for not having Pat in the movie. I'm just saying that IF we get a movie, and IF it's any good, then there could be sequels. And IF there are, I'd sure like to see Pat in one of them.
As much as it pains me to say (being a notorious "stick to the book" sort of guy), I agree with you on trilling. In fact, I'm not sure just how you would do it if you were to include it. Subtle but awesome. Seems to come from everywhere and nowhere. Just how do you DO that? Best not to try.
About the exercise... I think we agree in principle, but not in degree. You say that "you only need to see Doc do a Doc thing once," and I agree. But your treatment didn't show us Doc doing this most Doc of Doc things even once. We were basically given a chance to see that "oh, he has a gym; he must work out." We need to SEE some of it, just once. Just a one-minute montage or something like that. Then make it clear that he does this every day (circumstances permitting), but absolutely do not SHOW us him doing it every day. This isn't Getting Fit with Doc Savage, this is a Doc Savage movie.
[this post has been deleted because it could no longer keep its anger in check]
What I wrote was a series of random thoughts that sometimes run in order. I'm the first to admit I have no idea what's good or not, and I expect no calls or money from anybody making a Doc Savage movie. My idea with that one scene was to show a room filled with martial arts kind-o weapons and gymnastics equipment - anything but free weights. I was imagining the camera slowly coming towards the blurry figure of Doc as he's assuming acrobatic positions that denote even froma blurry distance incredible strength and coordination. From this one set-up the audience should get all the information they need to know about training. The rest of the film would then be Doc demonstrating his abilities.
I lift like clockwork but if I'm going to help a friend move all day I wouldn't take a break to go to the gym. That's obsessive. I imagine a Doc movie where you see the training right away and then he's off on an adventure that doesn't leave him time to do much of anything else but work the adventure. A Doc movie would do well being fast-paced and complex. I saw the remake of Casino Royale and almost fell asleep when they showed Bond falling in love and writing his letter of resignation. A Doc movie should be on-stop something/whatever. A lot of the Doc mythology should be shown through action and not exposition.
I've tested various trilling ideas on different audiences. Have you?? Used well, it went over quite effectively. The problem I found with what I read is that it was pretty subjective and a lot of your personal theory involved, but no evidenre to really back it up. From my two film treatments and various test videos I've made, as well as some other test ideas concerning Doc as a viable film property and introducing the character of Doc, a lot can be gleamed from the original pulps, many things around, going on the time they were written, if handled properly, respectfully. And it is a massive undertaking because there is so much to gleam from. Peace.
I would be interested in seeing your film treatments. Are they posted anywhere?
I'm also happy to have trilling if it can be made to work. I have my doubts about it, but if you can stick to the books and have it work well, and that means proving me wrong, then I'm happy to be wrong.
This post has been deleted because it could no longer keep its anger in check
Regarding Doc's trilling: I think it could be pulled off under the right circumstances. If Bruce Lee can keen and Robert B. Parker's Hawk character can whistle "Sweet Georgia Brown" through his teeth while fighting, I don't see why Doc couldn't make a noise indicating intense concentration. Maybe it could be some obscure martial arts technique designed to ensure proper breathing. I suspect it could be a habit other characters comment on occasionally, but accept as a quirk, only to have it assume greater importance as the story progresses.
In Fortress of Solitude it's stated that he learned it from "Oriental wise men," so the idea that it is related to either martial arts or some technique to "balance the mind" or some such makes sense.