Apologies if this has been mentioned before. Looked around and didn't see anything about it.

Seems as though a remake of Ray's "Something Wicked this Way Comes" is in the works. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say that another adaptation of the novel is in the works. Seth Grahame-Smith is set to write and direct. Grahame-Smith write "Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter" (both the novel and the screenplay) as well as Tim Burton's "Dark Shadows." It seems this is a project he's passionate about and has chosen it to be his directorial debut.

As with any remake, I'm cautiously optimistic. It is always a bit worrisome when the words "updated for a new audience" get thrown around, but I'll take a wait and see approach. I actually like "Vampire Hunter" a great deal more than I'd expected. Haven't seen "Dark Shadows."

Here's the link to the story:

http://blogs.indiewire.com/the...remake-road-20140313

Dark Shadows was a disaster, especially as a remake of a well established cult series with a lot of devoted followers.

I thought the existing "Something Wicked" movie was pretty good, very eerie, and I think Ray liked it, too.

I enjoyed Burton's Dark Shadows, but was particularly surprised by how much I liked Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter.

Looking forryward to this project.

Oh, no...if Johnny Depp is picked to play Mr. Dark, and if he plays it anything like he played Willy Wonka and Barnabas Collins, I am absolutely not...not watching! Both those movies, by the way, spoiled shows which were done right in the first place! I do have some objections to the original movie of Something Wicked This Way Comes, but don't want to see it done worse! It's not even so much that I don't think Depp couldn't do it right, so much as, given his recent track record, he wouldn't.... And the best thing about the old movie was its incredible Mr. Dark!

Not that I trust the Internet Movie Database, but anyone know of a 1972, 72-minute British version? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2174151/?ref_=fn_al_tt_3 Many actors are given, but none of the names tell the characters they played, so no way to check whether it is, as they claim, based on Ray's story.

Hi dandelion, I've never seen that 1972 production, but I know (slightly) someone who was involved with it. I gather that it was a SCHOOL production, not a true professional film.

It was made by Forest Hill School Film Unit, which is (was) based in London. There isn't much information around, but it is listed as a production company on the British Film Institute website: http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/organisation/199588

And there is a picture of the man who ran it (and who I think directed the SWTWC film) here: www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/n...t-news-photo/3258829

I don't know for sure, but I imagine that the Forest Hill unit was similar to the Children's Film Unit, a non-profit organisation which used to give British kids the opportunity to work on a film: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Film_Unit

This message has been edited. Last edited by: philnic,

Further to the above, I have spoken to the person I know (slightly) who was involved with it, and the 1972 film was indeed a school production. It was made with Bradbury's blessing, under his standard proviso for that type of film: you can make it, but you can't do anything (commercial) with it.

The film survives in a single print on 16mm film.

Thanks, Phil! Isn't it funny that such a film was included in the Internet Movie Database! Yes, Bradbury told me that same thing when I told him of some people making a version of Dandelion Wine for film school. (Which I don't know is in IMDB or not.)* They remarked that they "heard from a lot of people who thought we were making a real movie and wanted to be in it"!

*Not, but there is one categorized as "in development"!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dandelion,

quote:

Originally posted by philnic:
Further to the above...

I like that the British say "further to the above".

quote:

Originally posted by dandelion: Not, but there is one categorized as "in development"!

That would be the one my friends Natasha Shliapnikoff and her husband, Rodion Nahapetov have under option, or, as Ray called them, "the Russians"! Nice people. They're working hard to get the film made.

quote:

Originally posted by dandelion:
...Isn't it funny that such a film was included in the Internet Movie Database!...

Unfortunately, IMDB is only slightly better than Wikipedia. Anyone can add to it, so it tends to accumulate less-than-helpful information.

quote:

Originally posted by Doug Spaulding:
I like that the British say "further to the above"...

I like that, presumably, Americans don't say it.

And why are we "the" British, but you are not "the" Americans? Ah, language.

We are the Americans in other countries, not always very nicely said.

quote:

Originally posted by philnic:

quote:

Originally posted by Doug Spaulding:
I like that the British say "further to the above"...

I like that, presumably, Americans don't say it.

And why are we "the" British, but you are not "the" Americans? Ah, language.

Aren't we "the Americans"?!

I think you are "the Americans" only when you arrive somewhere en masse. For example, "On D-Day, the British and the Americans began the liberation of France".

I think you are "Americans" (without the "the") in other circumstances. For example, "We walk on the pavement, but Americans walk on the sidewalk."

Interesting linguistic exchange!

How about these very last lines from a book we are all really quite familiar with...

"The Martians were there - in the canal - reflected in the water.
The Martians stared back up at them for a long, long silent time from the rippling water . . ."