I love how whenever anybody does a remake, sequel, TV adaptation..... people on IMDB loose their minds and yell 'blasphemy!'
But when a classic is actually left alone all they can say is 'do a remake!'
t-Andrew:
I think most of the folks demanding a remake of this are doing so only because they are imagining the possibility of their favorite current beautiful actress (whoever that might be--Mila Kunis, Kristen Stewart, Jessica Alba, etc., etc, etc., fill in the blank) doing an entire film completely in the nude.
But it can't be done, not in the way Lifeforce was, anymore.
Lifeforce, though a commercial failure when first released, WAS nevertheless released, with a big production budget and to many theaters.
Now, today, would a big-budget English-language film with a wide theatrical release where the major female character was completely nude in virtually all of her scenes even be possible?
Absolutely not.
Any remake of this film aiming for wide theatrical release today would be grossly watered-down and a major disappointment.
The actress might have a few very fleeting scenes where she is totally nude, but otherwise would find a cloak and would be wearing it for the rest of the film (and not throwing it off like Ms. May did during Railsback's dream sequence, her beautiful breasts swaying over him).
There might be a tiny group of people out there who want the film remade because the dialogue was so cheesy and the acting so bad, but then that would defeat the purpose of the other reason this film is so popular--"it's so bad it's good."
I love the innuendo in this film that wasn't originally intended as innuendo--as when Railsback's character says "What's five miles long?"
Who would want to "fix" cheesy gold like that?
And besides, if somehow they did manage to pull a remake off, with full nudity and all, the "space girl" probably wouldn't be some natural beauty like Mathilda May, but someone with breast implants and all kinds of other body augmentation/"decoration" (read tattoos) that everyone seems to think is hot these days.
No, just leave this film alone.
It's fine just the way it is.
--Todd
probably two different types of people. Same reason there are those of us (yes, I'm one of them) who despise remakes and yet these remakes makes loads of money and produce sequels, even when the original had none- those are the "other" people.
To be honest, I'm more of a "take a bad film of a film that failed and remake it" so I'm not against remakes per se. Lifeforce would qualify as a possible remake in my book because it did fail at what it set out to do. Another film I love but believe should be remade is Reign of Fire. I think both films have great premises and were both really enjoyable, but both have a larger potential and may have been a bit ahead of their times.
[deleted]
It's not a classic. It's a good idea, executed relatively badly. Therefore, a remake might not be a bad idea.
shareThere's been so many remakes people have pretty much accepted that any remake could be inevitable. So they discuss what they would want ahead of time.
If this was ever remade, I'd say stay closer to the book. Just for something different.
http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/
I'd watch a remake even if it's PG-13 with no nudity. For one, it would be very difficult to top the looks of the original actress. They'd undoubtedly cast some skeletal breastless actress with no hair down there in the remake so why bother with nudity? And second, modern PG-13 gore effects can be really good like the stuff in The Walking Dead.
DISPLAY thy breasts, my Julia!
You know, at some point two TV series were announced:
- In November 22, 2013, Ringleader Studios announced the acquisition of the rights to develop a TV Series based on Colin Wilson's The Space Vampires.
- In May 5, 2015, Chiller TV announced a TV series based on the movie that was supposed to be out by the end of the same year.
So far, there are no new updates in either project. I can't only hope this doesn't mean that both adaptations fell into development hell.