Flight of the Navigator Remake On Deck
Posted by Rodneyon 26. 05. 2009in News Chat
Disney is digging in its vaults to introduce a new generation to the films that made the studio such a powerhouse to begin with. We have already been given an updated Race to Witch Mountain, and now the next classic to blow the dust off of will be Flight of the Navigator.
Brad Copeland (Wild Hogs) is writing the remake, but no director is currently attached.The 1986 original told the story of a 12-year-old boy who is abducted by an alien spacecraft in 1978 and reappears eight years later, still the same age and with no memory of what happened. NASA scientists discover a connection between the boy and a downed spacecraft and try to exploit the boy, who ultimately escapes with the ship and attempts to reunite with his family.
It starred a young Sarah Jessica Parker and Paul Reubens as the voice of Max, the robotic pilot of the alien ship.
Now I am not going to go off on some knee jerk rant claiming they are “raping my childhood” or even care that they are doing a remake. If remakes were so bad, no one would go to them, and films no one goes to stop getting made (see: Serenity). I am not even going to be like every other whiner claiming “Hollywood has no ideas left” because remakes might hit the top of the publicity pile, they are in the minority of scripts and projects in production, and just as hard if not harder to make.
So again we get to play the TMB Rules of a Remake game.
1) The original has to have a good story
Absolutely. The original had a whimsical charm and sense of wonderment that was unmatched in that day. The Magic of the Mouse reigned supreme and this film is a shining example as to why.
2) Majority of current audience hasn’t seen the original
This film seems to have a near cult following. It doesn’t instantly leap to the forefront of anyone’s memory but still holds a special spot for a lot of people (myself included) but it still manages to elude a lot of people’s library. Also, this remake will likely be aimed at kids to young teens, while remaining family friendly for adults too (just as the original was) and even though I take educating my kids on movies I loved, they still haven’t seen this one.
3) Original has to be at least 20 years old
The film turns 23 this summer. Check.
4) The story would benefit from a modern telling
The story still stands. This would be my only issue here is that despite its clear cultural references to the mid 80s, and that certain feel of family films of that time, the movie still holds up. Is there anything that could benefit by making this a 2009 setting? Not really. The effects maybe, but the Almond (what we called the ship) was pretty amazing back then. I have no doubt they could make a cooler looking ship, but I don’t think it NEEDS that as much as it would just be cool to see.
Overall I think this passes the test. It stands to benefit a great deal from a remake, and revisiting the story could be a lot of fun for kids of all ages.
I look forward to seeing how it shapes up and if it stands a chance against the whimsical charm of the original.
This post was written by :
Rodney who has written 8899 posts on The Movie Blog
visit author's website | Contact the Author
Yeah I actually agree with a remake of this film. Not that its old enough but that I’m not sure how much of an audience it reached the first time round. Everyone remembers E.T. but Flight of the Navigator did slip under the radar a bit.
Let’s hope its not TOO cheesy.
The original is a first-rate kids’ movie that’s entertaining for adults, as well. It’s pretty good science fiction, too–with the hero’s lack of aging due to his faster-than-light joy ride. The pathos and sadness of a child gone missing for years (and the corresponding aging of the parents) was nicely rendered. And the excitement of his return and impossibly young age still gives me goose bumps. Just a well-crafted little film. I’m glad they’re remaking it and I bet it’ll be even better than the recent Witch Mountain redo (fun movie, but hokey science fiction).
This is making me not want to visit this site anymore. because it seems that all thats being posted is fuckin remake news. i know that theres nothing i can do about it, its just i’d rather not hear about it.
Then go live under a rock.
Or just skip that article. I wrote 3 times as many today alone that had nothing to do with remakes.
Just like people assume “there are no new ideas in hollywood” you are making the assumption that because you heard a lot about remakes today, that is all we write about.
I know this isnt all you write about i’ve been coming to this site religously since it first started up. i didn’t mean to offend, Rodney, i know you’re just doing your job, it’s just that i dont get to thrilled when i open up the movie blog and the first thing i see is (in my opinion) lame news of remakes. But that was an early morning cranky post and i’ll just try to accept the fact that there are people who get a boner over this type of stuff and ignore it.
Wasn’t Flight Of The Navigator a Disney film?
If so, I’m not surprised they dusted this one off.
Rodney, with all do respect, this is ONE potential remake which no one can possibly say they are raping anyone’s childhood. Unless in the remake, the kid hits the wrong button and blows up the planet.
But in my view, the only reason why there’s moans and groans is that a “remake” is announced almost once a week. Most of the pictures will never get made, and it seems the majority that do…fail. This is because most of them are simply cashing in on the brand name and don’t live up to that brand name, or overestimating the “followers” of that brand name.
I don’t see that problem here.
Not to mention that If I’m right and it was a Mouse House property…we most likely won’t see it on the big screen anyway.
It’ll probably be a made for cable movie (Disney channel)
Wasn’t the first line of the post saying Disney was digging in their vaults? Just sayin.
Most remakes fail, but they don’t have to.
There have been some good remakes that were quite successful. I think its the approach to remakes that fail.
They seem to count too much on the marketing the title and premise will bring and pay less attention to the quality. People will still go see it in droves.
Hollywood is fast catching on that you can remake good ideas and still have them be good ideas.
I wonder what the hot chick at the base is going to be listening to if not Twisted Sisters! I hope they keep the line in the movie “Oink.. oink! To many cookies!” Loved the movie as a kid, and yes I still think of the movie today. I’d like to see what they can do with a modern adaptation of it.
meh, Jonas Brothers.
I love this movie and therefore have no desire to see it re-made.
I’m still undecided on remaking this film. As you say the original craft was a cool design and not sure how you could improve on its elegant simplicity.
How could they improve the story? That’s the big question. We shall have to wait and see.
Thanks for the link by the way.
“Disney is digging into it’s vaults to introduce a new generation to the films that made it such a powerhouse to begin with.”
Many people don’t know this but, prior to the 1980′s, Disney was a tiny company that could barely make ends meat, until, that is, they introduced their HUGE blockbuster “Flight of the Navigator”. Which made $18 million dollars, an unfathomable number considerring “E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial” barely raked in $790,000,000 world wide, only four years prior.
Also, Rodney, I find it odd that someone who claims to love movies so much can get so easily annoyed with people for wanting Hollywood to try more new ideas. Your constant anti-anti-remakeisms are every bit as redundant and annoying as the constant rants against remakes posted in the message boards of sites like this one. Also, the “if remakes were so bad, no one would go see them” comment is rediculous. To act as if the human race only pays to see good movies is an insane idea.
Did you get a little zero happy up there?
Nope, you didn’t. I don’t see what your point was there, though. What was your point in comparing the two?
The point of recognizing Disney as a powerhouse was that it churned out lovable films on a regular basis. Navigator wasn’t the turning point nor was it one of their biggest hits, but it was part of what Disney was in the business of doing back then.
It seems they lost some of that magic. You used to be able to trust that ANYTHING with Tinkerbell flying around was instantly a classic.
And if you want to compare numbers, ET made $11m on its opening weekend. Impressive as that was, the $790m number includes its theatrical re-release as well as its record setting stay at the boxoffice. Doesn’t even apply to the whole methodology of what Disney was doing at the time.
And Hollywood DOES have new ideas. You narrowly assume that if they do a handful of remakes that instantly there are not a thousand films a year coming out of Hollywood.
@ Jeremy K.
I was just being sarcastic. My only point was to show that I felt that the word “powerhouse” seemed misused. I assumed Rodney was referring to box office take, rather than charm factor, which he cleared up above.
@ Rodney
I definately agree with that, Disney does seem to have lost some of their magic as of late.
Are you sure the $790m includes the rerelease? I thought it didn’t, I’m not positive though. I am uncertain what you mean by “the methodology” of what Disney was doing at the time and how E.T. is so far removed from that though. They seem very similar in a lot of aspects to me, I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
And I never said that Hollywood doesn’t have any new ideas, I am completely aware that they do. I never said that I thought because they make a few remakes that a thousand different movies aren’t made a year. YOU “narrowly assume” that I must fall into this category of thinking. You’re putting words into my mouth, now. Maybe you fancy yourself a mind reader, but I assure you that isn’t my mind you are reading.
Old school! I remember this film really well.
For two reasons, I question the whole sentence; “If remakes were so bad, no one would go to them, and films no one goes to stop getting made (see: Serenity).”
First, I don’t think the words you use after the second comma contain proper grammar. I can’t quite parse out what you were trying to say about “Serenity”. Maybe you misplaced an entire word. Like “and films no one goes to WOULD stop getting made.” Adding the would turns that pile of language into a proper sentence, but I am only guessing if that is the correct improvement.
Second, I don’t think audience attendance validates quality. People go see “Epic Movie” and “Saw IV”. These movies are not considered to be great films, but are still supported by the unwashed masses. 1,000 idiots could go see “Ow my balls: part 4″ and I would still line up with the 10 people going to see “Moon”.
Attendance DOES have something to say about the quality and public desire to see a certain type of film.
I think the current drivel of spoof films is an embarassment, but you cannot argue that people want to see that stuff. I think its crap, but clearly people wanted to see it, and a lot of their friends went with them.
The “quality” is a matter of perspective, and something Hollywood could care less about. Fans of those genres keep paying for the films, so they get made. They just want your money.
Remakes draw crowds, so they make them. Those crowds all seem to like them at some level, so they make them.
If they were so bad that they couldn’t appeal to ANY market of reasonable size, they wouldnt make them. If the quality was as poor as you (or even I) suggest, then they will die out on their own.
They make remakes because they expect that the movie could draw a crowd, but this is only a guess. If they could accurately predict the audience, then movies would always be well attended because they would make the ones that would get poor attendance. Just because they expect attendance does not mean the movie is good. Plenty of movies that are consistently and overwhelmingly reported as bad have higher than deserved attendance. “Meet the Spartans” is categorically awful. There is no excuse for it. It has a 2% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 2.4/10 on IMDB. It is rubbish. The damn things still grossed $38,233,676 in the United States and Canada and grossed $45,787,889 Internationally. $84,021,565 for dreck. I completely agree that the studios are making these remakes and other bad movies because they expect them to make money. But I don’t think they believe the movies are good, and I don’t think that being able to make money is a yard stick by which to measure if a movie is good. Good and financially-viable are completely unrelated. I agree that remakes aren’t automatically bad. My only disagreement with your original sentence that the idea that they must be good because they wouldn’t make them if they were bad. Good or bad never enters into it. They make them because they expect to make money, regardless of the quality.
But your assement is that people DELIBERATELY go to bad movies?
I agree that Meet the Spartans (and all other spoof movies of the recent trend) are horrible films, but you cannot deny that they made money.
If the movie was universally bad to everyone, no one would go. Clearly people went. Lots do.
Just because you or I think its a bad movie doesn’t mean it doesnt have a market.
The quality of those movies are precisely what that market wants to see, and they will keep making them. When that market dries up and people stop going to them, they will stop making them.
The quality of the film is going to reflect directly at who they are marketing the film to. You don’t see trailers on TV for Dance Flick during 60 Minutes, but you will during WWE Wrestling.
Your preference is what you are clouding as quality. They do a fine job making a good quality film for people who find entertainment quality in their own farts and think that a kick in the balls is the funniest thing imaginable.
I enjoyed the original and am curious to see what hollywood makes of this
this sucks. the original was a classic. i hate when they ruin classics with their “hollywood” remakes.
Who says they will ruin it?
I don’t have an issue with a remake. It actually came up in a discussion a few months back, that also included the possible remake of The Last Starfighter (of which seemed to fit the category of discussion), which we discovered wouldn’t be remade, but quite possibly see a sequel, which we could somehow see, if done right. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1196243/