I always found the end of the original installment a bit disturbing, the way Snake Plissken decided to plunge the world into a new Dark Age. I sort of got that he was a good lookin' loner who lived by his own rules, but still, Snake, seriously?
Won't stop me hanging out, no doubt hopelessly, for a remake, somehow connected with Gerard '300' Butler and the producers of the Lethal Weapon, Die Hard and Predator series. Unlike Screen Crave, where I read of the redo, I'm not even that fazed by the idea of a three parter, with the first installment being an origin story. Snake: The Making of a Bad Ass.
I figure there'd be more than enough splodey and witty quips to plaster over any paper thin plotholes.
Oh, and while I'm at it, Kurt Russell, most underrated actor of the 1980s. Snake Plissken and Jack O'Neill? Plus that big thing in little China film that the ladies like? Just retrofuckingspectively give him all the Oscars and be done with it.
One prob, which arises with the possibility of an origin story prequel, is letting some know nothing film school grad screen writer get all jammed up worrying about a remake as a dialogue driven character study. Not just no, but hell no.
As Screen Crave says:
What’s been lost more recently in mainstream movies is the sense of events over people. Snake Plissken is not the ideal choice, but he’s all they’ve got. In Die Hard, John McClane is just dealing with the situation. The best recent example is probably Attack the Block. By building a trilogy around the character, they will be robbing what made the character interesting. Audiences may hate or love Snake Plisken, however they feel about him, it doesn’t change what makes the movie interesting.
In fact, this makes me wonder wether the time is upon us for a remake of the original Stargate movie.