I’m a bit younger but was mad for all the spy stuff. James Bond, Get Smart, I-Spy, etc. In grade school I had the The Man From U.N.C.L.E. lunch box. I wonder whatever happened to it.
This will be pretty much an original idea as I’m pretty sure that the only thing they are borrowing from the original show is the name and the American/Russian collaboration. The story/plot/characters remain wide open.
So what’s next? A Car 54, Where Are You? remake? 
I generally loathe remakes for many of the reasons given (If you’re going to change everything, why not just change the name as well?), but I’m going to give this one a try. It looks to be somewhat clever in the trailer. Maybe they’ll put a good spin on the material. Plus, I’m not a big enough fan of the original to get totally upset.
The exact opposite of my reasons above is why I have never watched, and never will watch, the Star Trek reboots or The Wild Wild West movie.
How about It Takes A Thief? That one actually has a lot of potential. It could be a period piece, or take place now.
It’s set in the '60s. I had thought that maybe the success of Mad Men and the nostalgia for the cool 60s style got the movie to go forward, but apparently a movie has been in the works for a long time, just it’s had issues with getting a director and stars and everything worked out. The posters and trailers look good; I’m expecting it to be a fun popcorn movie.
I’m not a huge fan of Hollywood remaking everything, but if there are going to be remakes, I do like remakes of different stories, instead of remaking Spiderman or something again. And I like that it’s a period piece.
That’s a good point. Ocean’s Eleven and Man from U.N.C.L.E. have more name recognition than an original project, but it’s not going to get huge crowds based on fans of the original.
I don’t know if you ever saw Maverick (1994) but I think it’s the gold standard of a big screen treatment of an old TV show.
See what I mean? There are so many remakes, you can’t keep track.
Your Mother gave it to Goodwill.
The art work reminds me of Mad Magazine.
Ooo Ooo. Good idea. 
Except they will probably make the heroes get involved in some big comedic action sequences, which would ruin the whole feel.
To match the original concept of this whatever, the protagonists should be from current foes, America has long made it’s peace with [del]USSR[/del] Russia since they finally duked it out in the '90s and, having given Russia a good thrashing and left it for dead, such knockdown fights clear away any bad blood as they always do, and since, everyone has been the best of friends.
So, prolly either Iran or ISIS. With maybe a Chinese control. The American agent will have to be female of course, small, able to beat up any man thrice her size, computer genius, speaking 15 languages *, beautiful, skilled with guns and nuclear weapons, brilliant in every way; whereas the Islamic bloke just has to be dark-bearded and fanatic, with a sardonic wit. Maybe an expert cryptographer who enjoys throwing people off roofs.
Together they can fight whatever ( crooked Texan millionaires ? Polish nazis ? Serf Efricans ? ) whilst engaging in witty banter and high intellectual concepts of morality and power.
“Women are just as good as men !”
“No, they are not. Women are weak inferior creatures, created for man’s pleasure.”
“Are not !”
“Am so !”
“Are not !”
“Am so !”
“Are not !”
“Am so !”
ad infinitum.
*
Plus the sexual tension.
“My old Pappy used to say…”
“I never said that!”
It is set back in the '60s, but the original (which I watched when I was 13) took after the James Bond SPECTRE model and made the villains not tied to any nation. Fleming introduced SPECTRE when a thaw in relations with the Soviets made Smersh being the villains a problem.
I don’t recall Illya ever working for the Russians - he and Solo worked for UNCLE.
I loved the show. My wife loved the show. Then we got the first season on DVD and discovered that our memories failed us. Unlike Danger Man/Secret Agent, which was even better than I remembered.
So I’m beginning to think that the movie won’t be true to the original premise of the show. What bugged me about Mission Impossible was that it was clear from the show that the IMF was a private force. Phelps selected the team in in fancy apartment, and the Secretary would have a hard time disavowing the work of a government agency. Making them government agents (and making a major plot point of the first movie turn on that) screwed up the fantasy for me.
That’s because it’s by iconic Mad Magazine (and Playboy, and TV Guide, and…) artist Jack Davis.
Saw a preview over the weekend - here’s what I remember.
Definitely set during the 60s.
Enemy is an evil NGO with lots of nukes. I don’t think they actually called it “Thrush” though.
The main characters are named Solo and Ilya. They’re a US and Soviet agent, forced to team up. Their first meeting immediately descends into a brawl.
At some point, don’t know if it’s at the beginning, middle, or end of the mission, they’re told “You work for a new agency now. It’s called UNCLE.”
So they’re basically making this movie as the origin story of the TV show.
I think a couple of the episodes of the original show were bundled together and released theatrically.
No, it was clear that IMF WAS a government agency (or at least had the full logistical support of the USG). They got their orders from…somebody, somebody who knew what was going on in the world, where the hot spots were. The episode Nicole had the titular character specifically ask if Phelps got his orders from “section 11*”.
They were government, but they were officially “off the books”. They were given huge leeway in missions (no oversight - something that fits well with the plot point in Rogue Nation) but they did work with, and were recognized as having the authority to do so, other agencies (see the episode Ultimatum, where they are working with a huge multi-agency task force).
If something went bad, the Secretary (of State I assumed?) could claim they were lone wolf operators. No one who mattered would believe it of course. The fiction just gave “plausible deniability”, with the added fact that the USG would never negotiate for captured IMF agents (which is why Barney ended up spending 10 years in some third world prison).
Families of killed IMF agents likely got pensions, but it was low key. Most likely they only hired people without families (orphans, maladjusted young men, who give little thought to sacrificing others in order to protect country). Less problem with dealing with mission failures, and no none to use as leverage against the agents.
*or somesuch section number. I forget
Very cool. Thanks for that.
Now I’m really mad at my mother.
They still re-make Dracula, Frankenstein, and Sherlock Holmes after over a century. And Shakespeare and Greek mythology after multiple centuries.
The question is not “Are remakes good or bad?”, but “Is this particular remake going to be good or bad?”
After seeing the trailer, I am not optimistic. The movie’s version of Ilya Kuryakin seems to be less kulturny than the TV show’s version. But, maybe someday someone will get it right.
Hell, I had a nuclear submarine lunchbox!
:dubious:
I’m just disappointed that Robert Vaughn and David McCallum aren’t doing cameos in the new movie…
Exactly. Hollywood folk are lazy. Why create something new when you can recycle something for half the work? And probably make the same profit, or close to it. Plus, it’s tried and true, so less risky.
