Metropolis

RancidInsanity · Post by **RancidInsanity** » Fri May 29, 2009 10:54 pm

Another day in paradise...

So I was reading about metropolis on wikipedia...and it said Thomas Schuehly has gained the rights to make a remake.

So if it ever gets remade...who would you cast? (I know a lot of people would say they wouldn't cast anyone) so let me say, Who would you cast, if you were FORCED to cast?

I've never actually seen the entire film...but if I had to cast Maria/Robot, I would seriously consider using one of the following, Eva Longoria, Kristen Dunst, Mariah Carey, or maybe even Jessica Alba.

I don't know, I'm a noob when it comes to this.

noidguy · Post by **noidguy** » Sat May 30, 2009 7:30 am

Gained the rights? The film is over 80 years old, I didn't think there were any rights to gain.

As for the Maria lead......Lots to choose from. How about that woman from The Surrogates, or maybe Monica Potter. Has to be somebody with a sweet face.

Keizo · Post by **Keizo** » Sat May 30, 2009 8:05 am

I'm eagerly awaiting the restoration of the original complete film!

Rotwang · Post by **Rotwang** » Sat May 30, 2009 10:06 am

Maybe a better idea would be a docufiction about the making of the movie. I nominate the girl who played Hitler's secretary in Der Untergang for Brigitte Helm.

ANNA · Post by **ANNA** » Sat May 30, 2009 3:17 pm

i agree with Keizo on this one. I nearly cried when they discovered that print in south america. I have been waiting ever since.

as for a girl... meh they will choos someone dumb they always do.

Rotwang · Post by **Rotwang** » Sat May 30, 2009 6:04 pm

If anything Maria will be most likely reemagined as a fierce and independent revolutionary chick, trying to bring down the system. Freder will be an arrogant and spoilt "fils a papa" who for some inconceivable reason will fall in love with Maria and have a major change of heart.

Slim will be a hired killer, while Fredersen is played as a complete psycho by Dennis Hopper. Rotwang will be a geeky scientist working for Fredersen, using biocloning techniques or whatever controversial science to duplicate Maria and if you still care at that point, you have a stronger stomach than me.

Baron · Post by **Baron** » Sun May 31, 2009 12:24 am

noidguy wrote:Gained the rights? The film is over 80 years old, I didn't think there were any rights to gain.

As for the Maria lead......Lots to choose from. How about that woman from The Surrogates, or maybe Monica Potter. Has to be somebody with a sweet face.

Do a spot of research into the backstory behind the Kino restoration, Noid; the main rights to the film are still very much active - and are NOT open for "re-imagineering license," as Giorogio Moroder found out the hard way. Kino got the green light mainly because of their technical restoration efforts, and seems likely to be involved with the re-discovered Argentinian print restoration once the details are worked out.

Any remake involves - what else - remake rights; a totally different animal than overall rights. Basically, the overall rights-holder of the original {in this case, Fritz Lang's Estate} has final say on any changes, story-alterations, etc. Considering the number of people who to this day claim that Lang's multi-hour original cut is still the paradigm {convoluted plot and all}, there's a good chance they'd nix anything that strays into "Stepford 2004" territory.

As for casting the leads, why not be a little silly / obvious: Christopher Lloyd as Rotwang; Michael Douglas as Freder; Robert Downey Jr. as Fredersen; Niel Patrick Harris as Josphat {"It'll be a LEGENDARY train-wreck," plus I'd like to see him going nuts at Yoshiwara's}; John Goodman as Grot; and finally - either one of the Deschanel sisters {Zooey's a bit hotter than Emily, IMHO} or Sandra Bullock as Maria / Futura. For me it makes more sense to put a relatively "unslutty" actress in the role so that the contrast between the human and the robot is more pronounced. I mean, if say Pamela Anderson got the nod the dynamic is not only reversed - it gets shattered. She's less believable "unslutty" as opposed to "slutty," in other words. And if the original story is followed, the slut gets the hot stake in the end as reward for her programmed efforts. The key is playing against type, which is easier if it truly is the opposite of the actor's established persona, unless an unknown is used for the role - as Brigette Helm was for that exact reason.

noidguy · Post by **noidguy** » Sun May 31, 2009 8:28 am

Strange, indeed. I thought copyrights run out on films after 75 years, and if that's true I don't understand why there would be separate 'remake' rights. Kino of course should have rights to whatever product they produce, as it is different from whatever has been floating around for 80 years, and they put a lot of work into it. Dunno. I'll have to read up on the Kino situation.

Casting for the new one....

I really only care about the Maria role. Please, please, no Angelina! Like I wrote earlier, somebody with a sweet face that can play good and evil. And preferably a blond. Anna Farris? Noooooo!

Baron · Post by **Baron** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:55 am

noidguy wrote:Strange, indeed. I thought copyrights run out on films after 75 years, and if that's true I don't understand why there would be separate 'remake' rights. Kino of course should have rights to whatever product they produce, as it is different from whatever has been floating around for 80 years, and they put a lot of work into it. Dunno. I'll have to read up on the Kino situation.

Casting for the new one....

I really only care about the Maria role. Please, please, no Angelina! Like I wrote earlier, somebody with a sweet face that can play good and evil. And preferably a blond. Anna Farris? Noooooo!

First off, I need to make a small but crucial addition to my original post - the FW Murnau foundation, as well as Lang's Estate, control the overall rights to the film. Copyright law has been revised about twice per decade since at least the 1920's; coinciding with the rise of radio and motion pictures. Of course all the mediums invented since then have kept the pot boiling to this day, too. For the sake of brevity, the copyright situation with Murnau/Lang is an "in perpetuity" situation, meaning that the copyright itself can be passed down through generations, and thus never really expires - provided the heirs understand, accept, and occasionally renew. It's a way for a producer or director to ensure the integrity of their work is maintained. Lang/Murnau's copyright protection clauses rubbed off on a lot of people - Chaplin, Orson Welles, Hitchcock. These and others {like Howard Hughes} in turn influenced later generations and genres, ranging from Prince to Ted Turner {who admittedly bought nearly all of the overall rights he owns}. Thus, we're not likely to see sanctioned remakes of "Citizen Kane," "Modern Times," or ""Purple Rain" any time soon, unless special circumstances are arranged.

This is where things get tricky. In the 1920's, "overall rights" meant just that - the rights covered every medium, in every spot of the globe. In the early '30's, this was thrown out - although it was still possible to secure total control, one had to do it now on a nation-by-nation / region-by-region basis {and soon after, a medium-by-medium basis as well}. This is why the first film adaptation of Bram Stoker's "Dracula" was titled "Nosferatu," and contained as little "overt" content as possible {which atually didn't amount to much, save for some name changes; the basic plot's the same}. Stoker's widow was still alive, and still controlled all the rights. By the late 1950's, the revised {to the point of losing "blanket" coverage} rights to Metropolis had expired in the US, leaving a theoretically clear way for re-issues, remakes, etc.

Although it took about another decade for the first re-issues to appear, Murnau's Estate and Lang realized the shouldn't have revised their original rights to keep up with the new laws, as standing arrangements made prior to the later revisions were still valid - and honored as such. Despite not having "blanket" coverage, they nonetheless made sure to secure their legacies as best they could thereafter. Although Moroder and others squeezed through some loopholes, the only "sanctioned" version of Metropolis available today is the Kino resto-job. All others are technically bootlegs, and the loopholes have finally been shut tight. Therefore, it's reasonable to suspect we won't see an authorized remake at least until the original has been fully restored. Although Murnau died in 1931, and Lang in 1976, their heirs still retain most rights.

rabiator · Post by **rabiator** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:40 pm

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf gives a nice overview about the situation in the USA. Which might be relevant for most readers of this forum.

Short version:
Before 1978, copyright would last 28 years and lapse unless you put in an renewal claim during the last (28th) year. That would last another 28 years. Since 1992 renewal is (for most purposes) automatic. The duration of copyright has been repeatedly increased. For works created and published before 1978, it is now 95 years.

So if the FW Murnau foundation has not forgotten the renewal, Metropolis is still under copyright until 2022.

Metropolis

Metropolis

Duration of copyright