Maybe they didn’t want it to get confused with U.N.I.T.
And now I want a Man From U.N.C.L.E./Dr. Who crossover.
Arguably when he played Clyde Tolson (J Edgar Hoover’s right hand man)?
But, yeah…his most famous role is as the Winklevoss twins in The Social Network, and looking through his filmography, the closest I can find aside from Tolson is his character in Blackout being mistaken for a thug.
(I’m also struck by how often he’s played real people…his filmography’s barely a dozen titles, but he’s already got 4 real people across 3 films?)
I’m guessing by this that you are unaware of the 1998 Avengers movie starring Ralph Fiennes, Uma Thurman and Sean Connery.
If so, I envy you your ignorance. So very, very much.
Aware, but didn’t watch. I think it’s worth another try, but then again I think they secretly achieved it with Kingsman.
No, this one.
Why remake this mediocre show, a shameless attempt back then by TV to jump on the (far superior) Bond bandwagon? It’s a good question and I think the answer is what it always has been - the paucity of original ideas in Hollywood. Let’s face it, most of these people have never read a book in their lives. Where else are they going to go for material but comic books, TV shows and other movies?
Hence Vacation.
Because Mission Impossible has already been remade?
There were a ton of shows trying to get on the Bond Bandwagon. I, Spy, It Takes a Thief, MI, Wild Wild West, Get Smart, The Avengers, Callan (which some could say was “remade” as The Equalizer, which itself was remade as another horrible movie) and if we go into the 70s you could add Hunter (the OTHER one, with James Franciscus and Linda Evans) and Search, and probably a ton more I’ve forgotten about. Some were good, some were not.
What would be interesting, is if they remade one old show as another. Since the Mission Impossible movies have nearly nothing in common with the TV show (which was not an action show, but really all about the big con) then maybe someone should remake an action show, say, Danger Man as a show about the big con.
I was not happy with the villain in that.
I thought Robert Vaughn was dead, but go figure. I was impressed by something on his Wiki page. Although he was already a known star in the 60s, he continued his education, earned a phd in Communications, and published his dissertation in 1972.
I don’t think it’s necessarily the result of a lack of ideas, but rather risk management. Sequels are known commodities. They have a certain amount of built-in audience. Marketing is easier because people ‘get’ the basic concept - even people who have never seen the show, but hear what it’s about from others.
And the population is older - All the boomers remember Man from U.N.C.L.E, and the boomers still have major economic clout.
The problem with Hollywood is that it now has to make movies for a global audience. That means less nuance, more explosions. Less gray, more black and white. And global marketing is hellishly expensive, which drives Hollywood towards making big ‘blockbuster’ movies, or recycling old concepts that are easier to market.
That’s my take on it, anyway. I rarely go to movies anymore, because premium television is generally much better and there are still lots of shows to catch up on when I have time to just relax. We’ll see movies like the new Mission Impossible or Star Wars. Movies like TMFU don’t make the cut unless they are reviewed extremely well.
No kidding. I don’t know why they thought they “had” to do that.
Otherwise a fine film. At the time it was released, I considered it nearly the best Bond movie made.
It is all marketing. There are a lot of generic action movies that can come out. You need to get your movie talked about so people will know about it and want to go see it. The remake formula starts the buzz going. If this movie did not have the hook back to an old beloved show it would just be some action movie and it would not have a thread on this board.
I don’t think so. Check the threads on Kingsman. (Sure it was based on a comic, but it wasn’t like Batman that it was known outside of comic circles. Not like Man From UNCLE or MI or ST or…)
Or Snowpiercer. Or…pretty much any movie out that are based on new ideas (they do exist!).
Okay, but not clear from the show - the UN was a reasonable establishing shot for their neighborhood.
Amusingly at the time the UN was a spy agency - a Russian spy agency, where a good chunk of Russian employees worked for the KGB. The Russian Assistant SG who wrote a book after defecting said he was always fighting with the KGB to get these people to pretend they were working. My father was on the promotion board, and got into trouble by refusing to vote for promotions for Russians who never showed up.
</hijack>
That’s just the point. If they make remakes for people like us, it is stupid since we don’t go to the movies anyway. But I think the reason they get remade is that it is seen as safe. I’m not sure that another reason is that the concept is simpler - these are not difficult concepts - but that the creators/writers seem to think that they are incapable of coming up with characters settings better than those from musty old TV shows.
And they are probably right.
Which was kind of my point. The TV series was not a Bond ripoff (unless you consider any spy series one) but a reaction to the realization at the time that the CIA couldn’t do anything right. The IMF was a competent CIA. The plots were intricate puzzles working around a team - definitely not what Bond stories are.
And yet this is going to be the second movie I will have seen this year. (Age of Ultron was the first.) This is the kind of gimmick that brings us back to theaters.
(Where, seeing the price of popcorn, we will immediately begin grumbling, and not stop until some time in 2019, when we repeat the experience for a new Addams Family reboot.)
As I recall, the enemy in TMFU was an entity known as “Thrush”-they had their bird logo displayed on their equipment. Where did “Thrush” come from, and who funded it?
I agree about the criticism-the TV show has been off the air for so long, i doubt anybody remembers it. plus, it was a 'Cold war" era show-it made at least a little sense then. today, the premise is pretty absurd.
Never stated in the show, not even what it stood for. The novelizations said it meant “Technological Hierarchy for the Removal of Undesirables and the Subjugation of Humanity”, implying it was a creation of a Dr. Evil type rather than governmental.