Rumor Mill: TIME BANDITS Being Rebooted?

[Offender_Mullet]

Terry Gilliam's TIME BANDITS is, without a doubt, a classic children's film. We all know this. For one thing, there's a sense of actual danger in it, too rare in children's films these days. It trusts kids to handle thematically rough material. Most family films sugarcoat darker issues of death and loss. Not TIME BANDITS. It will definitely be on my YOU KNOW, FOR KIDS column, especially in light of this news.

According to Variety, we're getting the reboot for TIME BANDITS. Former Handmade Films execs Guy Collins and Michael Ryan are in talks with a Hollywood co-producer to redo the Gilliam film as, and I quote, "a bigscreen kids action franchise." I'm not quite sure how that works, as the original TIME BANDITS is already pretty much perfect as a standalone, but I'd imagine they'll have young Kevin traveling through the past with his merry band of little people, exploring the map and trying to escape Evil.

If they're going to reboot this, they better get Gilliam involved in some capacity, although knowing him he'll likely want nothing to do with this. Otherwise they'll have serious fan outrage. And if they're going to cast Evil, they better aim high if they don't get David Warner. He's one of the few actors who could sell a line like "Nipples for men!" with such contempt, and I honestly don't know who they could get to make that role work nearly as well. And they better cast real little people and not shrink them digitally. As Napoleon said, "That's what I like! LITTLE THINGS HITTING EACH OTHER!"

Link: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/49090

Original article link: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118034720

Look at what I made bold. That should say it all. Typical garbage. I can't wait to hear what Terry Gilliam has to say about this.

[goresnet]

Booooo! Down with remakes! Off with Hollywoods head! I love this movie. Have it on DVD and Blu!

[EricJ]

Terry Gilliam's TIME BANDITS is, without a doubt, a classic children's film. We all know this. For one thing, there's a sense of actual danger in it, too rare in children's films these days. It trusts kids to handle thematically rough material. Most family films sugarcoat darker issues of death and loss. Not TIME BANDITS. It will definitely be on my YOU KNOW, FOR KIDS column, especially in light of this news.

That was the whole point:
If you hear Gilliam on the Criterion commentary, he THOUGHT he was doing some "sick and twisted" Brazil-esque deconstruction, to cynically twist childhood dreams--
And yet, in the wake of Harry Potter (ooh, Kevin has mediocre suburban parents, how cynical! ), I know fellow kids' writers who wish they could write anything with as much kid-appeal as the Sean Connery segment.

Like Tim Burton, Gilliam tends to think he's a lot more "iconoclastic" than he might in fact have the necessary talent or creativity to be--
Case in point, an entire generation remembering the original Bandits as a "cool" 80's kids' film ("Let's remake this, and the Goonies!"), and not as a....uh...cynical satire?....Anybody?....

[motorheadache95]

You know what's an old movie? Taxi Driver. Why haven't they got around to remaking that yet? They can make it in 3D!













Oh crap, stop throwing stuff at me, I was just kidding! Ow!

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by EricJ

That was the whole point:Like Tim Burton, Gilliam tends to think he's a lot more "iconoclastic" than he might in fact have the necessary talent or creativity to be--
Case in point, an entire generation remembering the original Bandits as a "cool" 80's kids' film ("Let's remake this, and the Goonies!"), and not as a....uh...cynical satire?....Anybody?....

Maybe it was the "cynical satire" that made people think Time Bandits was a "'cool' 80's kids' film"? You never know what audiences are reacting to. Maybe they were in tune with Gilliam on this one.

Also, put me down as one who thinks that a remake of this movie would be a bad idea.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

You know what's an old movie? Taxi Driver. Why haven't they got around to remaking that yet? They can make it in 3D!













Oh crap, stop throwing stuff at me, I was just kidding! Ow!

And it could star Shia LaBeouf as Travis Bickle!

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

Maybe it was the "cynical satire" that made people think Time Bandits was a "'cool' 80's kids' film"? You never know what audiences are reacting to. Maybe they were in tune with Gilliam on this one.

Not unless you were sitting in the audience.
One review praised "This is what Raiders of the Lost Ark SHOULD have been!"...A bit hyperbolic, perhaps, in terms of fall-'81 currency, but does emphasize that the audience looked at it as a cleverly plotted kids film, and yes, the Harry Potter Of Its Day.
They liked the opening "dream" fakeout, they liked the cool big head chasing our heroes, they liked John Cleese, they liked Sean Connery

[Show spoiler](and when the three "tall" dancers turned into six short ones, you could hear the "oh, no..." of recognition)

, they liked the escape from Napoleon, and they liked the big battle with David Warner at the end.

While the whole brick-subtle fourth-Monty-Python-season Gilliam Satire gags at the beginning (like the parents talking about 30-second cookers, and wondering if dinner had "gone down yet") just seemed to lay there in a leaden heap, while we wondered just why the heck Terry was so belaboredly beating them into the ground.
Terry, you can do Harry Potter, or you can do Brazil, but you CAN'T DO BOTH...And when you try to, they turn in to "Adventures of Baron Munchhausen", spend more money than they need to baffling their audience, and fall on their face. In this case, 1981 audiences liked the Harry Potter half of it, and wished we could have that director back again.

[luwanda]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

And it could star Shia LaBeouf as Travis Bickle!

What the hell is wrong with these guys, seriously, i don't even like TB that much but there is no point at all on remaking it, they obviously runned out of ideas a long time ago, which is pretty sad to say the least.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

And it could star Shia LaBeouf as Travis Bickle!

THAT I would see!Talk about instant camp-classic

[P@t_Mtl]

Not a bad news for me, I do not like the style of directing of Terry Gilliam, never did. I gave up watching his movies years ago. I don't have a problem with someone taking a shot at the story in a new way.

[Agent Cooper]

Anhy chance this might be an aprils fool joke.... pleeease?

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Agent Cooper

Anhy chance this might be an aprils fool joke.... pleeease?

Well, can't find the original Variety article anymore, but the AICN is dated Mar. 31.

Harry may do a lot of goofy things, but he (ahem) doesn't get so fan-giddy for outdated 90's Apr. 1 Internet posts he posts them early...

(looks around to see if anyone knows who they are)

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Not unless you were sitting in the audience.
One review praised "This is what Raiders of the Lost Ark SHOULD have been!"...A bit hyperbolic, perhaps, in terms of fall-'81 currency, but does emphasize that the audience looked at it as a cleverly plotted kids film, and yes, the Harry Potter Of Its Day.
They liked the opening "dream" fakeout, they liked the cool big head chasing our heroes, they liked John Cleese, they liked Sean Connery

[Show spoiler](and when the three "tall" dancers turned into six short ones, you could hear the "oh, no..." of recognition)

, they liked the escape from Napoleon, and they liked the big battle with David Warner at the end.

While the whole brick-subtle fourth-Monty-Python-season Gilliam Satire gags at the beginning (like the parents talking about 30-second cookers, and wondering if dinner had "gone down yet") just seemed to lay there in a leaden heap, while we wondered just why the heck Terry was so belaboredly beating them into the ground.
Terry, you can do Harry Potter, or you can do Brazil, but you CAN'T DO BOTH...And when you try to, they turn in to "Adventures of Baron Munchhausen", spend more money than they need to baffling their audience, and fall on their face. In this case, 1981 audiences liked the Harry Potter half of it, and wished we could have that director back again.

I was a teenager when I saw Time Bandits in the 80's. I got the satire back then, and enjoyed it. That's what makes the film so funny to me. I'm sure children respond to the adventure aspect of the movie, but I'm just as sure their parents enjoyed the humor that went over the heads of their kids.

The humor is a big part of Time Bandits, so I can't see separating it from the movie and thinking of the film as the Harry Potter of its day. It was far more sophisticated and humorous than the latter franchise. It isn't an either/or thing; movies can have both exciting adventure and comedy. Maybe YOU didn't enjoy the satire and slapstick in Time Bandits, but I think you're being presumptuous to assume that audiences in general felt the same way.

[Offender_Mullet]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Well, can't find the original Variety article anymore, but the AICN is dated Mar. 31.

Harry may do a lot of goofy things, but he (ahem) doesn't get so fan-giddy for outdated 90's Apr. 1 Internet posts he posts them early...

(looks around to see if anyone knows who they are)

I have the original Variety link in my op.

[X400]

Originally Posted by Offender_Mullet

I can't wait to hear what Terry Gilliam has to say about this.

Originally Posted by Terry Gilliam

CHA CHING!!!

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

I was a teenager when I saw Time Bandits in the 80's. I got the satire back then, and enjoyed it. That's what makes the film so funny to me. I'm sure children respond to the adventure aspect of the movie, but I'm just as sure their parents enjoyed the humor that went over the heads of their kids.

Yes, it has humor, but point is, IF you can listen to Gilliam's Criterion commentary, he stack-of-bibles thought he was doing some angry, iconoclastic Brazil Jr.--
When John Cleese comes out playing Robin Hood "like the Duke of Kent" (and Cleese briefly on the commentary does a hilarious explanation of the joke), we just took it as the Python-meets-Mr.-Peabody gag of Cleese Being Cleese. But listen to Gilliam, and Terry's practically drooling over his bad-boy art twice as hard as Tim Burton does on his movies: "Ha, see, Kevin's about to find out his childhood hero is a fraud!--The kids'll never be the same after seeing that! Take that, Disney!...BWAHAHAHAAA!"


As has been pointed out, this higher satire seems to have been lost on the audience, who had their own take on the picture.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Yes, it has humor, but point is, IF you can listen to Gilliam's Criterion commentary, he stack-of-bibles thought he was doing some angry, iconoclastic Brazil Jr.--
When John Cleese comes out playing Robin Hood "like the Duke of Kent" (and Cleese briefly on the commentary does a hilarious explanation of the joke), we just took it as the Python-meets-Mr.-Peabody gag of Cleese Being Cleese. But listen to Gilliam, and Terry's practically drooling over his bad-boy art twice as hard as Tim Burton does on his movies: "Ha, see, Kevin's about to find out his childhood hero is a fraud!--The kids'll never be the same after seeing that! Take that, Disney!...BWAHAHAHAAA!"


As has been pointed out, this higher satire seems to have been lost on the audience, who had their own take on the picture.

I have the Criterion version of Time Bandits, and I listened to the Gilliam commentary awhile ago. It didn't seem to me that Gilliam thought Time Bandits was some dark, angry film. (What I remembered most about the commentary was Gilliam relating the tragic fate of most of the cast. It was pretty depressing, and I haven't listened to the commentary again because of it.)

The fact that the historical figures in the movie are presented in an unexpected fashion is part of the humor, so audiences who laughed while watching the film understood the satire. That doesn't necessarily make the movie an "angry" film. Time Bandits does have its moments of darkness, though. It doesn't shy away from putting its characters in jeopardy.

Also, Robin Hood is not portrayed as a fraud in the film. He still gives his stolen riches to the poor, after all. He's just a pollyanna who's clueless about the company he keeps. It's really the "Merry" Men who are portrayed in a negative light -- brutal and filthy, in contrast to Robin Hood's gallantry and cleanliness. If Gilliam really wanted to portray Robin Hood as a fake he could have presented him as nothing more than a common crook who never gave a dime to the poor, but kept the booty for himself. King Agamemnon is another historical figure who was portrayed in a positive light in the movie, though also in a way that surprised Kevin.