The Best Movies Never Made

In the wake of the acclaimed documentary 'Jodorowsky's Dune' hailed as perhaps the greatest cinematic masterpiece never made, I went down the memory lane about other great movie projects that unfortunately never materialized or when they did it was nowhere near the promise of the original vision. These are just a few:


Isaac Asimov's I, Robot the 2004 abomination that crawled to theater screens starring Will Smith not only did not resembled the original source, the classic science fiction masterpiece written by Isaac Asimov, but was the sellout version the studio came up after it discarded the original screenplay written by scifi legend Harlan Ellison. Not only Ellison's screenplay respected the book, it also enhanced it by adding more scope within a utopic futuristic setting and fleshing out more the characters. The rejected screenplay became sort of a legend of its own in Hollywood and then it was published as a book which became a bestseller. Sadly the shoot 'em up version the studio delivered is all that comes to mind for worldwide audiences.


The Time Machine 2 George Pal the legendary producer who made the original 1960 version of The Time Machine was trying to get his sequel project financed before he passed away. He had already made storyboards and had outlined the story. The movie never got off the ground and years later someone made a badly written novel out of the movie premise.

James Cameron's Spiderman Cameron had already a screenplay, storyboards and was looking for the right actors when the studio pulled the plug due to the legal tangled the character was involved. After like a year of waiting for the courts to settle the rights, Cameron gave up and went on to do 'Titanic'. Still his version could had been more kick-ass than the Sam Raimi version that finally was filmed.

The Sandman based on Neil Gaiman's popular comicbooks this could had been an epic journey into surrealistic world of dreams and nightmares. After it seemed like it was going to be finally made in the 90's the project was shelved deemed as 'too weird, not very commercial'.


I, Claudius in 1937 producer Alexander Korda (The Thief of Bagdad, The Jungle Book) halted the filming of the Emperor Claudius life when his director quit since he hated so much the main actor Charles Laughton. Korda couldn't find a replacement for the director's chair to tackle this epic production after Laughton also walked out. The film remained only half made, but it has build a reputation as one of the greatest epics never completed.


Finally 1975 Universal Pictures The Legend of King Kong project was killed when Dino DeLaurentis effectively blocked in court the rival production in order to release his stupid version first. The court ruled that Universal could release their version a year later after the release of DeLaurentis version or just keep the rights for a theme park ride. Universal opted for the theme park after after the Italian mogul's version apparently bombed at the boxoffice creating so much hatred in the public that Universal saw their chances for their version disappear. And that was terrible because of the two dueling Kong projects it was the Universal the one with true pedigree: screenplay written by the Academy Award winner of 'One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest', directed by Joseph Sargent (The Taking of Pelham 1,2,3, Colossus: The Forbin Project), starring Nick Nolte as Jack Driscoll, Peter Folk as Carl Delham and Susan Blakely (Rich Man, Poor Man) as Ann Darrow. Nolte was replacing Robert Redford who was initially attached, but walked out when the legal battle started. The special effects were going to be done by Jim Danforth, the stop-motion master of 'The Seven Faces of Dr. Lao' and 'When Dinosaurs Rule The Earth". The Universal film was going to be set in the 1930's and employ prehistoric creatures to battle Kong. While ultimately this version saw the light of day 30 years later when Peter Jackson filmed his revisionist take, it remains a cinematic loss that in 1976 audiences were treated with an inferior version that became a big joke for decades.

 

what was that going to be about?opcorn:

 

That film must be a disaster. Apparently Jerry Lewis altered the whole script and fucked up the story. Nobody dared to release it because it was a mess (the production, not the original script).

 

I thought the Dino DeLaurentis version of King Kong was aces. It's way better than that lump of shit Peter Jackson came out with.

 

You must be the only human being with that opinion.

 

Other still unmade film projects that have being in Limbo for way too long:

Childhood's End - based on the 1953 novel by Arthur C. Clarke it has been announced a few times since 1957 that it will be filmed, but it has never materialized. The book concepts have been ripped-off so many times by other films (from 'Village of the Damned', "Alienation", "Independence Day', "District 9', etc that if made now will look like an imitation of those films. Only thing is that the main plot is ten times more powerful than all those films combined).

Rendezvous with Rama - another Arthur C. Clarke story lingering in development hell.

Marvel's The Black Panther - the movie adaptation of the comicbook character has been aborted so many times that I lost track. The most promising one was the failed attempt by director John Singleton (Boyz n the Hood; Four Brothers) in the 90's to direct Wesley Snipes as T'Chala.

Hannibal -not Lecter, but the Carthagian general who battled the Roman Army. At one point Denzel Washington was going to star. Then it was announced that Vin Diesel will take the title role. Then nothing else was done.

 

The Satanist: In the 70's, Hammer Films was supposed to make film versions of 3 Dennis Wheatley 'Black Magic' books, The Devil Rides Out, To the Devil a Daughter, and The Satanist. They made the first film, The Devil Rides Out, and it was excellent, one of Hammer's best, but by the time they got around to making To the Devil a Daughter, Hammer Films was a mess, and the film ended up being nothing at all like the book, and because of several changes to production staff during the filming, they rushed together a different ending which was piss poor, and ruined what was otherwise a decent film. Wheatley was furious at the changes, and thought the film was obscene, especially because of a full frontal nude scene starring Nastassja Kinski, who was only 14 at the time. Wheatley refused to allow Hammer to film The Satanist after that.

It's a shame though, as The Satanist was easily the best book of the 3, and would've translated well to the big screen.


TFK

 

In the 70's George Pal unsuccessfully tried to get the major studios interested in financing one his pet projects: a film adaptation of the novel 'The Disappearance'. The premise is that one day all around the world both male and females woke up separated in parallel worlds. All the men in one Earth all the females in another similar Earth. The screenplay was going to explore the problems this will cause and how society will change knowing that the human race was doomed without the opposite sex. By the end the two main characters from each parallel universe, who previously were a newly wed couple, are able to get in touch again via transcendental meditation and out of the body astral projection while the rest of the people are revolting to barbarism and violence. This was a fascinating story, but no studio would touch it since it was deemed too controversial due to explicit homosexual sex scenes (transvestites and transgenders were highly sought after on each one of the two earths). Roger Corman was going to film the project with George Pal being the producer, writer and creative consultant, but once Pal died so did the project.

 

Well seeing as I prefer good dialogue, pacing, and story over outstanding CGI effects you're probably right. On the other hand there is no proof that people actually prefer this new way of movie making of style (CGI, 3-D, great visuals) over substance (good story, pacing, dialogue). That new King King was a piece of shit. I mean don't get me wrong I enjoyed a lot of the CGI visuals as much as the next guy and actually enjoy seeing them several times over. However when it comes to sitting through the whole film I simply can't do it. As an overall film, it failed IMO, but the outstanding action sequences saved what would have otherwise been a horrible remake of the King Kong story. Not one single character other than King Kong managed to connect well in that film.

 

I think the character of Ann was well developed. In fact the first hour was all about her struggling in New York and jumping aboard that ship toward an unknown destiny just out of desperation. If this wasn't a creature feature that alone was good drama IMO. On the other hand this first hour was what most people complained about: they wanted to see Kong, not the misadventures of Ann Darrow. Because it took an hour a half to get the first glimpse of Kong, this generation of short attention span moviegoers didn't gave the film much love. Once the characters get to Skull Island it was like a rollercoaster theme park, thrills a minute action-adventure. The New York scenes were great too. I love the original, hated the 1976 version with its high camp approach, but I love this new remake too. It has layers of hidden meanings, has great details in every shot and it pays homage with respect to the original, something that the Dino DeLaurentis didn't bother at all to do.

trivia do you know that while in preproduction for the 1976 version the producers offended minority groups when they were searching for male blacks to put the gorilla suit? After a little uproar, they scrap those plans and asked Rick Baker, the make-up artist who built the suit who had zero acting experience, to don the gorilla suit just to appease the public outcry.

 

"LEMMON THE LOSER- the story of a Jamaican, no British, no I mean Canadian who plays chess, gets knocked out and still managed to become a champ"

 

Yeah, all that was fine. Where it failed was the dialogue. If any of the main talking parts were even just kind of interesting the film would have been a hit with me. But for the most part the dialogue was just terrible and I believe it's that reason rather than the "short attention span" of the viewers that had them bored during the non Kong scenes.

 

Hmmm I thought that the dialogue was solid according the characters environments and settings and personal issues (Carl Denham trying to film a movie that will pay his debts and make him rich and famous, Jack Driscoll's deadbeat writer doing something he didn't had passion for until he meets Ann, Ann Darrow's daily struggle to survive during the depression era unemployment and hunger, etc. On the other hand, the 1976 version had the most atrocious dialogue ever put on film. Even some critics joked that Lorenzo Semple Jr. gave the story to his underage children and they wrote the screenplay since it was so awful. 'Dawn' asking a mad Kong what is his zodiac sign is? Dawn stating she survived a shipwreck because she was the only one who walked of a screening of 'Deep Throat'? Dawn calming down Kong saying 'come now, good monkey, good monkey..." The Charles Grodin character yelling (referring to Kong) 'he tried to rape Dawn!' ff:The Peter Jackson version dialogue is Citizen Kane material in comparison to the Dino DeLaurentis movie dialogue.