probably ignore the book completely AGAIN.
FEMALE lead? Wtf Why??? Just because "diversity"???
What about the SOURCE MATERIAL? You know, that which this remake gets its NAME from?? HELLO???? There was not a female lead in the source material called "LOGAN'S RUN" WTF
WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF is wrong with this planet??
from 2018, folks: https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-logans-run-remake-just-got-a-director-who-may-be-wo-1823474752
oh no the women be gettin all uppity again!
christ , theyll want equal pay or some shit next ...
The name of the book is LOGAN'S run. The movie is called LOGAN's run. "Logan" is a man. Logan is even a man's name. I'm not against women in ANY way. But, recasting gender like this the latest most asinine thing. Just staaahp. If they are making LOGAN's run, make LOGAN's run. If not, call it something else and let a female lead it. But, call it LOGAN's run, if it is not all about LOGAN and HIS RUN. How f'n stupid we've become.
And we know for diversity sake, that movies with women leads are always successful (sarcasm for the obvious truth opposite of that)
My niece is named Logan. My son-in-law is *also* named Logan. So there goes at least half of your misogynistic argument.
Next time, try not to be such a moron.
Yeah sure. nice lies on the internet. Woohoo. Your name calling invalidates your existence. Next time, don't try. (sigh) gotta love the internet
Hey, here's an idea: let's upgrade the game called baseball. We'll call it baseball, but replace the ball with a round puck, and play it on ice. Love the new BASEBALL!!
He never saw the movie or read the book. Logan's Run is about ageism--has nothing to do with gender. The main character's sex has no relevance or bearing on its message about a society that kills off anyone over 21.
shareThat's a big ol' bingo, atomicgirl. His ignorance of the source material is showing. Also, he sounds like he's wallowing deeply in a pit of misogyny.
shareoh good lord. I know exactly what the source material is like owning and reading all 3 books, and the movie on laser disc, dvd and blu-ray. yes, it is about ageism in politics.
Now...
had you guys known the source material, you would know Logan is a MAN, plane and simple. It's a book following HIS exploints and what happens to HIM and Jessica, but it is not called Jessica's Run.
The book was about a MAN named Logan. It really can't be any clearer than this.
If they plan to rewrite it, it is NO LONGER "Logan's Run". Accpeting idiotic rewrites makes us all look stupid and spineless.
" Logan is a MAN"
yeah yeah. Logan has black trousers on - would you be so apoplectic with rage if they changed his trousers to grey?
.
In case you dont see my point its this:
The sex of the protagonist is as relevent as the colour of his or her trousers.
What if they changed his hair to black?
gjb2074 said
If they are making LOGAN's run, make LOGAN's run. If not, call it something else and let a female lead it.
http://www.babynamescience.com/baby-name/Logan-girl
shareSay, did you know that in both the original novel, and the silly offshoot movie called "Logan's Run", that Logan was a man? Did you know that? Just letting you know in case you didn't know about that.
shareSay, did you know that in both the original novel, and the silly offshoot movie called "Logan's Run", that Logan was a man, BUT THAT IT WAS IRRELEVANT TO THE PLOY? Did you know that? Just letting you know in case you didn't know that THE BOOK AND FILM ARE A STATEMENT ABOUT AGEISM, and not one tiny bit about gender. This is especially true considering that open sexuality of every stripe is one of the plot points.
Go peddle yer bullshit somewhere else.
Lemmy, why you gotta be all "peddle your bullsit"? Can you not discuss a topic like an adult? How old are you?
shareLol, you know for a fact that a new story with a new character will fail harder than this gender swap will.
shareOP, why pretend that you saw and read the book and therefore care that the main character is being replaced by a man?
The book/movie was about a dystopia in which people beyond a certain age are killed. So, the movie was a statement about 1960s youth culture at the time, which demonized anyone over 30. Can you explain what relevance the main character being a man has to do with this story?
did you mean WOman in your first sentance?
Relevance: the entire book is based on what happens to a guy named Logan, that's what the story follows. It can't really be any MORE relevant than that. About HIM, not society. It's not called "Future Society's Run". It can't be any plainer. It's a story about a man, not a woman, not a little boy or girl, a gay, a trans, a rock, a bird, a tree, a door, a cat... a man. His name is on the cover, in many pages of the book. HE is the protagonist. Why is this so difficult to grasp?
The moronic "fluid gender" lies BS is infecting an entire culture into inane stupidity. There should a be a sci-fi about that: society unable to fathom reality of Gender. :D I don't care who you prop up as hero, just don't swap characters in a known piece of work.
Hey, let's make WONDER >>WOMAN<< a Gopher! yeah! There's nothing remotely idiotic about that. :D
I'd be down for a movie about Logan the rock.
shareyou guys do recognize that this whole gender swapping, diversity adding political game is ONLY about trying to find more money, you know this, right?
It's not a happy happy joy joy practice of making things "fair" or inspiring more people, its fear based jumping at strings - ANY strings for better profits, nothing more. It has nothing to do with ADVANCING ART, it's always been and forever shall be about money, not humanity.
Wake up and look behind the curtain once in a while.
Don't fall for it, stop supporting it. I guarentee you, we all lose in the end that way.
Apparently the new breed of society is too stupid to really get what I am saying. If you read it back - like a normal human being in 2019 - you will understand EXACTLY what I have been saying all along...
not veiling with whatever fluid gender, feminist triggering, social justice warrior of the minute, society clap trap is being spewed while IGNORING the entire premise of what I am saying in the very first post...
THE POINT IS DON'T CHANGE THE ORIGINAL, OR IT IS NO LONGER THE SAME STORY. If you're too dumb to understand that, and feel EVERYTHING in life is surrounded by some "statement" or an "agenda" that needs pushed, then you don't belong in this conversation. Go to some rally and protest or something.
If you don't understand PLAIN ENGLISH about why it's wrong to change major portions of a STORY, this thread is not for you.
Enjoy your slippery slope of $#!t when everything you like because opposite land: Superman becomes a story about a tree, Gone With The Wind is reedited to be politically correct, Passion Of The Christ remade about a boy who befriends a fire fly. If you can't follow what I am saying, please don't reply. Go push your "agenda" else where. No one reading this gives a crap about whatever you are typing. (actually, nobody gives a crap about ANYONE who pushes any agendas ever. We ignore you and wish you would all STFU) Just more hot air.
Oh, and have a nice day. :)
Don't change the original story, or it is no longer the original story. Sorry, I can not DUMB IT DOWN FOR YOU any more than that.
They don't get it. They never will get it. Even if you argue with sound logic they still won't get it.
shareEh, not a big deal. There's no reason there can't be a female Sandman who decides not to go quietly into that good night. And there's no reason she can't be named "Logan" either; either it's her last name, or the first name has made the switch from male to female over time. That happens, "Ashley" and "Florence" used to be men's first names.
The big deal is going to be figuring out how to fit the story into the modern zeitgeist! When the original book and film came out the "generation gap" and the youth culture of the sixties were huge, and "never trust anyone over thirty" was a popular saying. Now it's the age of the Helicopter Parent and parents and children are claiming to be each other's "best friend", and the filmmakers are going to have to think of a completely different reason for life to be cut off at 30.
If they are going to change it at all, why make it? It is no longer THAT original story. It saddens me that people accept all of these pointless updates.
The REASON behind how this weird future society can work well looking at today's politics: a bunch of old farts running everything into the ground. That main plot point still exists.
They do have to change things up a bit during movie remakes, both to appeal to the sensibilities of the current zeitgeist, and to keep people from just watching the old film instead of paying to see the new one. That's unusually true of this story, as the whole "generation gap" that inspired the pi original story has gone the way of the antebellum south.
As for saying that the old generation fucked up the world - that won't work. The new politics coming out of today's colleges are even stupider than the old, something I didnt believe was possible.
They cold dial into the zeitgeist via "death panels" that are a sad part of health care.
As for the gender swap: I am a huge fan of the original and don't want them to make the change but then again, I won't be happy with anyone who isn't as much like York as possible. To me, it's not the gender, it's the Yorkyness. I would actually like to see some lady Sandmen, just not Logan 5. I expect lots of changes (like not living in an 80s mall) but I hope they keep the Sandman uniforms essentially the same.
It's true, York was the best thing about that movie... and most of the movies he's in!
But since an under-30 Michael York is no longer available, we'll just have to get used to the idea of someone else in the role. And yeah, the sex of the next actor is going to be far less important than the lack of York-ness!
It was a cheap movie that succeeded within its era and effects standards. It (and especially York) took itself seriously and thus lives on from its dated foundation. They would have to change things drastically and that will ruin it. It cannot be remade IMO. I think that no matter what they do, they will make a dog's breakfast of it. There is a bacteria that only exists in the boiling, mineral rich waters of deep sea volcano flues. It can only live there at that high pressure, dark, hot, depth. Logan's run can only live in that exact year it came out. Perfect in its imperfection and relativity.
Casting is only one of 100 ways they will torpedo it. I see them casting Rhianna as Logan and Del Toro directing it. I feel dirty saying that.
Why does the gender matter? When something is remade/ rebooted/ reimagined, it's interesting to see new spins on the material. It makes sense to keep the core elements-- those things that define the material-- but the rest is fair game for change. Logan's gender is immaterial. If they decided to make Logan a dog, or a child, for example, that would be problematic, but the story of Logan's Run is that of a society where people are killed when they hit 30. As long as that remains the same, or similar, and Logan is trying to escape that fate, I think we're okay.
sharesee? This is what I mean. Why do people accept all these changes that aren't even needed?
If I go to see a movie about a BOOK, it should follow the book as best it can. I want to see what I read come to life. Not get all changed up for whatever this minutes political agenda happens to be... just stick to the book. If the book is good enough to make a MOVIE out of it, then make a movie out of IT, and not some offshoot money grab trying to cash in on the title --- having nothing to do with the book.
Maybe people don't realize it was a BOOK first?
Do you think that a film based on a book needs to follow every last detail of the book? That doesn't make much sense to me. When a book is adapted for the big screen it's important to convey the main thrust of the book, but not very important to deliver every last detail. Characters and side plots can altered be omitted, plot points can be changed to create a better finished product, and basically anything ought to be fair game with the goal being to deliver an entertaining and thought-provoking movie.
I can think of many, many films that were adapted from books where major changes were made, and the resulting film was great. Maybe don't get caught up in something so immaterial as gender-- after all, how does that change anything at all? It isn't as if changing Logan from a male to a female changes anything at all, and you could still end up with a to-the-letter adaptation of the book you love so much.
I don't care about the GENDER. (modern society is shoving that agenda on everyone right now so it is all that seems to be triggering this conversation) I ONLY CARE ABOUT THE CHANGE. >>THE CHANGE<< It's just dumb. Probably the reason this has been in development hell for 2 decades. Let it RIP.
We still have the book... we still have the funny 70's movie (yes, totally changed, but I wasnt there whining on the internet when it came out)... so that's all that is needed. Not yet another triggered SJW feminazi LGBTQXYZ diversity based money grab. Don't we have enough of those? My God, why do people keep supporting this stuff?
Not gonna fix all the stupid (not you film buff) in this world. It will eventually fix itself after it hits rock bottom :D
SO BASICALLY WOMEN TERRIFY YOU...MUST SUCK FOR YOU NOT BEING BIG BOSS OVER ALL THESE GIRLS.I BET YOUR LIFE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE SO AMAZING..BEFORE THE DAMN GIRLS WRECKED IT ALL.
share'Kowalski', why are you on moviechat.org? Are you familiar with what a "movie" is, and is English your main language? I'm not sure you understood all the words I typed, just checking.
shareYEAH...NOT ONE WORD YOU TYPED HOLDS ANY WEIGHT...POOR GUY,ALL THE MEAN LADIES AND NOW MY CAPS HAVE TRIGGERED HIM.ITS OKAY CHAMP...CHIN UP!
shareno, you're just not making any sense at all. But I know you won't understand what I mean.
shareYOU KNOW THATS NOT TRUE...YOU UNDERSTAND EVERY WORD OF MY ENGLISH FIRST TYPING.FOR WHATEVER REASON YOU HAVE CHOSEN BROKEN UNINTELLIGIBLE TYPING AS THE 100% NOT TRUE DIG TO HANG YOUR HAT ON WHILE COMMENTING TOWARDS ME...END OF THE DAY....YOURE MAKING SHIT UP AND HAVE SOME PERCEPTION ISSUES WHEN IT COMES TO THE WORLD AND YOUR "STANCE" ON FEMALES,FILMS AND MANY OTHER TOPICS,IM SURE.
shareWhen you want to discuss something rationally, come back. Maybe like after you are 18.
shareITS THE CAPS RIGHT? ANOTHER WEINIE THROWING A BITCH FIT OVER BIG LETTERS?CAUSE QUITE FRANKLY I HAVE BEEN RATIONAL THE WHOLE TIME...MEANING,YOU AND YOUR IMPOTENCE IN THE PRESENCE OF CAPS IS THE IRRATIONAL BEHAVIOR BEING DISPLAYED.
sharesomeone tell me if it is still here. "IGNORE" works so easy to trim the worthless fat :D
shareI'm a woman that appreciates female empowerment but I do not see the need to replace every male character lead remake with a female. There's such a thing as overdoing it and lately it has been ridiculous..
I liked the original as it was (a bit cheesy but good fun). It's not like Jenny Agutter didn't costar and give females their share of screen time...so I don't disagree with you. It is a senseless change.
It doesn't make you misogynist...unless that's the only thing that bothers you these days.
Thank you! Glad to hear some people on Earth still THINK. :) I'm not misog at all. But, I am anti-senselessness. :)
share"If I go to see a movie about a BOOK, it should follow the book as best it can."
That only applies to popular books, dear, like the "Harry Potter series and "Lord of the Rings" series. And since the "Logan's Run" books has been out of print for like fifty years, and you're the only person who remembers its existence, well.
There's no money to be had in making a movie that pleases nobody but you, because you probably won't go anyway.
If they are going to change it at all, why make it?
[deleted]
I guess you could say Logan could be any gender because it isn't important for the story and I don't mind it as such. But taking into account how common this has become and why, one really must be a fucking tool to defend this choice. It has almost become a joke at this point.
share