Is A Successful and Good Doc Savage Movie Possible?

[Ranxerox]

Iron Man 3 director, Shane Black, has announced he is going to make Doc Savage film. This news leaves me asking is it possible today to make a Doc Savage film that is both good and profitable?

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trolling. I like pulp. I liked the recent John Carter movie and I like the TV series The Cape. However neither of those made money. The movie The Shadow and The Rocketeer also lost money. I suspect the new Lone Ranger movie will make money, but based on its trailer and comments made by its director, I have much less faith that it won't suck. Dreamworks which owns the movie rights to the Lone Ranger set certain rules using the Lone Ranger. The Lone Ranger must speak with perfect grammar, he can't kill anyone and he can't win against hopeless odds. Director Gore Verbinski see these rules as not things to be embraced but things to be gotten around. In the interview that I read of him, he was crowing about how by introducing an unreliable narrator he could skirt these restrictions. Not real inspiring. However, like I said the film will probably make money.

 

However, can a pulp movie and more particularly a Doc Savage movie that respects its source material turn a profit? Or is the audience for such films too small to support the budget that is necessary to do one right? What do you think, pulp fans?

 

 

[assault]

What are the key elements that would stop it being successful?

 

Setting and period? Could it be modernised? Should it? Indiana Jones and the Mummy films worked as period pieces, so Doc potentially could.

 

Special effects costs? Doc operates in a much more mundane world that, say, John Carter. An inflated budgets wouldn't be necessary. But, of course, the 3D fad pushes costs up.

 

Lousy marketing? A serious but uncontrollable risk.

 

Studio interference? Another uncontrollable risk.

 

A lousy script? Avoidable, but the biggest single risk.

 

Despite all of this, Doc Savage is basically an action film with an ensemble cast. This is pretty much the bread and butter of Hollywood.

[Sundog]

The problem is, the source material in this case just isn't that good.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the Doc pulps as much as anyone. But no one is going to say they're great literature. Now, you can say the same for most of the other pulps mentioned, but many of those have had successive treatments that really did surpass their contemporaries, and created a broad and deep mythology on which to base a film.

Doc...just doesn't have that.

On the other hand, this is not an insurmountable problem. It means, though that in order to create a good Doc Savage film, the director and sriptwriter will need to step beyond the pulps. They'll have to have the courage to jettison what simply doesn't work (either because it doesn't work on film or because it has become cliched and unworkable in the decades since it was written) while having the wisdom to maintain the good stuff and the flavour of Doc.

So, yes, I believe you can create a Doc film both good and profitable. But I don't think we're going to see it.

[Greywind]

The Lone Ranger will make money the first weekend off the Depp fans alone.

[Ranxerox]

What are the key elements that would stop it being successful?

 

Setting and period? Could it be modernised? Should it? Indiana Jones and the Mummy films worked as period pieces, so Doc potentially could.

 

Special effects costs? Doc operates in a much more mundane world that, say, John Carter. An inflated budgets wouldn't be necessary. But, of course, the 3D fad pushes costs up.

 

Lousy marketing? A serious but uncontrollable risk.

 

Studio interference? Another uncontrollable risk.

 

A lousy script? Avoidable, but the biggest single risk.

 

Despite all of this, Doc Savage is basically an action film with an ensemble cast. This is pretty much the bread and butter of Hollywood.

 

The key element that might potentially stop it from being successful that I'm worried about is just being too old fashion.

 

Indiana Jones and the Mummy are good counter examples of films that had a pulpish feel to them but were still successful. However, they both combated their old-fashion sensibilities with humor. Doc Savage has never been funny. The Fabulous Five can be funny, and it would be nice to make the movie about them, but ultimately Clark Savage Junior is always the center of a Doc Savage story. This works against efforts to modernize things by adding irony.

 

Yes, John Carter went way overboard on it's budget. It set itself up so that it needed to earn half a billion dollars just to break even. However, The Shadow and The Rocketeer were both made on what were at the time quite reasonable budgets. The Rocketeer even had a good script. Reasonable budgets and good scripts apparently aren't enough in and of themselves to save these films.

 

Just because ensemble action films are a staple of Hollywood doesn't mean that the specific type of ensemble action movie that sells doesn't change over time. What is hot at the moment rules Hollywood just as much as it does the fashion industry. I'm pretty sure you can't make Doc Savage some post-modern, ironic action movie and still have it be a Doc Savage. So how do you make it the exception that proves the rule?

[Ranxerox]

The problem is, the source material in this case just isn't that good.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the Doc pulps as much as anyone. But no one is going to say they're great literature. Now, you can say the same for most of the other pulps mentioned, but many of those have had successive treatments that really did surpass their contemporaries, and created a broad and deep mythology on which to base a film.

Doc...just doesn't have that.

On the other hand, this is not an insurmountable problem. It means, though that in order to create a good Doc Savage film, the director and sriptwriter will need to step beyond the pulps. They'll have to have the courage to jettison what simply doesn't work (either because it doesn't work on film or because it has become cliched and unworkable in the decades since it was written) while having the wisdom to maintain the good stuff and the flavour of Doc.

So, yes, I believe you can create a Doc film both good and profitable. But I don't think we're going to see it.

 

So what do you think needs to be jettisoned and what do you think is important to keep?

 

[Ranxerox]

The Lone Ranger will make money the first weekend off the Depp fans alone.

Somehow I can't imagine Johnny Depp playing the Man of Bronze. ;p

[Kaze9999]

Opinions will vary of course, but I personally loved the Doc Savage movie that I first saw in theaters in 1975...of course, I was 9 years old....

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072886/

[Ranxerox]

Opinions will vary of course, but I personally loved the Doc Savage movie that I first saw in theaters in 1975...of course, I was 9 years old....

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072886/

Me too!

 

I had no idea that it was trying to be campy though. At the time, I took it for a serious action flick. Now, I'm scared to watch it again for fear of destroying good memories.

[Sundog]

What to jettison - Doc's trilling (always seemed one of the sillier aspects even in the pulps), the polar fortress (yes, Doc had it before Supes - but only we know that), any science that's been seriously superseded. The rather clownish personas of various of the five - not make them super-serious, but show that these people are some of the finest minds in the world, and have them act like it. Humor doesn't have to be a brick through a plate glass window.

What to keep - Doc himself. A product of revolutionary levels of training and physical and mental stimulation, wealthy, and dedicated to the greater good of mankind, a true hero. If you can capture that essence, you're off to a good start.

Doc's possession of advanced technology, much of it his own construction. In fact, this is even easier to do today, with our greater knowledge of what does and doesn't work, and why. Have Doc's private aircraft use pulse-jet technology in the '20s. Let him and the Five use small, concealable walkie-talkies while everyone else uses either massive, backpack mounted stuff or even field telephones.

Make the villains believable. No, he doesn't want to take over the world - but his scheme to make millions will kill hundreds, and he doesn't care. The modern hero is defined to a certain extent by his opposition - so also make them quite palpably evil.

[Kaze9999]

Opinions will vary of course, but I personally loved the Doc Savage movie that I first saw in theaters in 1975...of course, I was 9 years old....

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072886/

Well, it is either the height of class or camp to have a John Phillip Sousa march as the movie theme...

 

Full disclosure, I loved the 1994 film version of "The Shadow" with Alec Baldwin too, and I can't blame that on being a kid at the time. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111143/

[Zen Archer]

The Lone Ranger must speak with perfect grammar' date=' he can't kill anyone and he can't win against hopeless odds. [/quote']

 

I don't have a problem with the first two of these. The third is negotiable.

 

However, can a pulp movie and more particularly a Doc Savage movie that respects its source material turn a profit? Or is the audience for such films too small to support the budget that is necessary to do one right? What do you think, pulp fans?

 

I think it's possible. I tend to agree with Sundog. I also think that Pat Savage should play a bigger part in any film that gets made, and that a lot depends on the casting.

[Ranxerox]

Opinions will vary of course, but I personally loved the Doc Savage movie that I first saw in theaters in 1975...of course, I was 9 years old....

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072886/

I liked it too.

 

Unfortunately, not enough other people liked it for it not to lose money.

[Ranxerox]

What to jettison - Doc's trilling (always seemed one of the sillier aspects even in the pulps)' date=' the polar fortress (yes, Doc had it before Supes - but only we know that), any science that's been seriously superseded. The rather clownish personas of various of the five - not make them super-serious, but [i']show[/i] that these people are some of the finest minds in the world, and have them act like it. Humor doesn't have to be a brick through a plate glass window.

What to keep - Doc himself. A product of revolutionary levels of training and physical and mental stimulation, wealthy, and dedicated to the greater good of mankind, a true hero. If you can capture that essence, you're off to a good start.

Doc's possession of advanced technology, much of it his own construction. In fact, this is even easier to do today, with our greater knowledge of what does and doesn't work, and why. Have Doc's private aircraft use pulse-jet technology in the '20s. Let him and the Five use small, concealable walkie-talkies while everyone else uses either massive, backpack mounted stuff or even field telephones.

Make the villains believable. No, he doesn't want to take over the world - but his scheme to make millions will kill hundreds, and he doesn't care. The modern hero is defined to a certain extent by his opposition - so also make them quite palpably evil.

 

Well, there is something cool about the road not traveled science. This could THE dieselpunk move. Unfortunately, that distinction wouldn't sell many extra tickets and could inflate the special effects in big way. So maybe it best to leave that road not traveled not traveled.

 

The recent DC Doc Savage comic did a very good job fleshing out and adding depth to the Fabulous Five. The movie could do worse than take cues from it for their portrayal.

 

One of the problems I can see the movie Doc Savage running into, is the desire to give him a motivation. Doc Savage's reason work to improve the world and to fight evil isn't explained. At the time, I guess people didn't feel a need explain why a person would want stop the bad guys and help those in need. I'm think now the desire would be to explain it. Show how his Uncle Ben died because of his self-centered behavior or some such. I'm not sure whether audiences really demand this or not.

 

[Ranxerox]

The Lone Ranger must speak with perfect grammar' date=' he can't kill anyone and he can't win against hopeless odds. [/quote']

 

I don't have a problem with the first two of these. The third is negotiable.

 

However, can a pulp movie and more particularly a Doc Savage movie that respects its source material turn a profit? Or is the audience for such films too small to support the budget that is necessary to do one right? What do you think, pulp fans?

 

I think it's possible. I tend to agree with Sundog. I also think that Pat Savage should play a bigger part in any film that gets made, and that a lot depends on the casting.

I think the third one is right. I seem to recall that in the TV series when the Lone Ranger found himself in an unwinnable situation he didn't win. He took the loss, persevered and found a way make the rematch winnable.

 

Your point about Pat Savage is a good one. Perhaps one of the Fabulous Five could be female as well. The notion that the best people in 5 different fields chosen in a sex blind manner would all be male isn't as natural an idea as it was back in the 1930s.

[st barbara]

Fabulous five ! I want a "fabulous SIX" with Pat in the mix as well !

[st barbara]

Damn ! "Zen Archer" beat me to it ! Well I second the motion !

[st barbara]

Perhaps we could have Doc and Co facing off against ruthless corporations who are misusing science rather than against some criminal genius who wants to rule the world ?

[st barbara]

Oh and the other obvious question could be "What has John Sunlight been up top lately ?"

[Zen Archer]

What to jettison - Doc's trilling (always seemed one of the sillier aspects even in the pulps)' date=' the polar fortress (yes, Doc had it before Supes - but only we know that), any science that's been seriously superseded. The rather clownish personas of various of the five - not make them super-serious, but [i']show[/i] that these people are some of the finest minds in the world, and have them act like it. Humor doesn't have to be a brick through a plate glass window.

What to keep - Doc himself. A product of revolutionary levels of training and physical and mental stimulation, wealthy, and dedicated to the greater good of mankind, a true hero. If you can capture that essence, you're off to a good start.

Doc's possession of advanced technology, much of it his own construction. In fact, this is even easier to do today, with our greater knowledge of what does and doesn't work, and why. Have Doc's private aircraft use pulse-jet technology in the '20s. Let him and the Five use small, concealable walkie-talkies while everyone else uses either massive, backpack mounted stuff or even field telephones.

Make the villains believable. No, he doesn't want to take over the world - but his scheme to make millions will kill hundreds, and he doesn't care. The modern hero is defined to a certain extent by his opposition - so also make them quite palpably evil.

 

Well, there is something cool about the road not traveled science. This could THE dieselpunk move. Unfortunately, that distinction wouldn't sell many extra tickets and could inflate the special effects in big way. So maybe it best to leave that road not traveled not traveled.

 

The recent DC Doc Savage comic did a very good job fleshing out and adding depth to the Fabulous Five. The movie could do worse than take cues from it for their portrayal.

 

One of the problems I can see the movie Doc Savage running into, is the desire to give him a motivation. Doc Savage's reason work to improve the world and to fight evil isn't explained. At the time, I guess people didn't feel a need explain why a person would want stop the bad guys and help those in need. I'm think now the desire would be to explain it. Show how his Uncle Ben died because of his self-centered behavior or some such. I'm not sure whether audiences really demand this or not.

IIRC, Doc Savage was basically raised by his dad and other scientists to achieve perfection in darn near everything and to fight evil and help people simply because it was the right thing to do. They did give him a motivation in the first book by having his dad killed off, though.

 

What will be interesting is if they address the whole issue of Doc's secret hospital, where he performed blatantly illegal operations on criminals that removed their criminal tendencies.

 

To address another point above, if Black intends to set his movie in the '30s, then he may to have to jiggle their backgrounds if he wants gender and racial diversity in the Five, since four of them were high-ranking US military men during WW1.

[Ranxerox]

What to jettison - Doc's trilling (always seemed one of the sillier aspects even in the pulps)' date=' the polar fortress (yes, Doc had it before Supes - but only we know that), any science that's been seriously superseded. The rather clownish personas of various of the five - not make them super-serious, but [i']show[/i] that these people are some of the finest minds in the world, and have them act like it. Humor doesn't have to be a brick through a plate glass window.

What to keep - Doc himself. A product of revolutionary levels of training and physical and mental stimulation, wealthy, and dedicated to the greater good of mankind, a true hero. If you can capture that essence, you're off to a good start.

Doc's possession of advanced technology, much of it his own construction. In fact, this is even easier to do today, with our greater knowledge of what does and doesn't work, and why. Have Doc's private aircraft use pulse-jet technology in the '20s. Let him and the Five use small, concealable walkie-talkies while everyone else uses either massive, backpack mounted stuff or even field telephones.

Make the villains believable. No, he doesn't want to take over the world - but his scheme to make millions will kill hundreds, and he doesn't care. The modern hero is defined to a certain extent by his opposition - so also make them quite palpably evil.

 

Well, there is something cool about the road not traveled science. This could THE dieselpunk move. Unfortunately, that distinction wouldn't sell many extra tickets and could inflate the special effects in big way. So maybe it best to leave that road not traveled not traveled.

 

The recent DC Doc Savage comic did a very good job fleshing out and adding depth to the Fabulous Five. The movie could do worse than take cues from it for their portrayal.

 

One of the problems I can see the movie Doc Savage running into, is the desire to give him a motivation. Doc Savage's reason work to improve the world and to fight evil isn't explained. At the time, I guess people didn't feel a need explain why a person would want stop the bad guys and help those in need. I'm think now the desire would be to explain it. Show how his Uncle Ben died because of his self-centered behavior or some such. I'm not sure whether audiences really demand this or not.

I'm not sure that modern audiences will find good because the was raised to be that way very compelling. I may be wrong about this.

 

I think operations to remove criminal tendencies might fit under Sundog's science that just doesn't work and as such something to be jettisoned.

 

Yes, they were for the most part high ranking military men but are they defined their military service or by their maleness. In some cases I think the answer is yes and other cases these seem to me to be more incidental characteristics. YMMV.

[Ranxerox]

Perhaps we could have Doc and Co facing off against ruthless corporations who are misusing science rather than against some criminal genius who wants to rule the world ?

The ruthless corporation that is misusing science seems like a rather modern trope for Doc Savage, and I have doubts that it will play any better with audiences than the criminal genius trope.

[Spence]

They could make Doc if they wanted too.

 

Here is my list of do NOT do's.

 

Do NOT tell an origin story. We don't need to know Doc's origin in movie #1. In the first movies of both the Mummy and Indiana Jones we were not subjected to 60 minutes of dirty diapers and tragedy.

 

Do NOT modernize. Captain America was a great show. They didn't need to re-imagine it as happening in Somewhere'o'stan.

 

Do NOT make it campy. The source material wasn't campy, don't try and make it campy. Green Hornet was a abysmal failure because they took a serious vigilante crime fighter and tried to go with idiot humor. The 60's kiddie Batman and Green Hornet kid shows were NOT Batman and Green Hornet, they were kiddie shows to sell toys to kids.

 

Do NOT go overboard with the tech. Use real world knowledge to guide Doc and the 5's super-science, but don't get out of hand. A turboprop engine in a plane instead of a straight or rotatry piston engine is a dramatic step forward, but a full leap to jet technology that is not common in 2013 would blow the feel. A hand-held standard sized two channel walky talky weighing in at a pound (similar to what many police carry now, except for the limited channels) instead of the 50+ lbs units of the time.

 

Do NOT beat the period mores issue with a sledgehammer to the forehead or try to make a social statement. A Doc Savage movie should be to entertain and is not a documentary. Cast the parts and make the movie. There were plenty of strong female characters in the old adventure stories, just cast Pat and treat the character as perfectly normal. Nothing to see here.

 

Do NOT resurect the dead horse and unbelievably BORING trope "evil corporation destroying [insert eco-cause of the minute]". Instead of trying to make the movies about a major event in history, just make the threat a criminal mastermind instead of a political mastermind.

 

 

 

[Ranxerox]

They could make Doc if they wanted too.

 

Here is my list of do NOT do's.

 

Do NOT tell an origin story. We don't need to know Doc's origin in movie #1. In the first movies of both the Mummy and Indiana Jones we were not subjected to 60 minutes of dirty diapers and tragedy.

 

Do NOT modernize. Captain America was a great show. They didn't need to re-imagine it as happening in Somewhere'o'stan.

 

Do NOT make it campy. The source material wasn't campy, don't try and make it campy. Green Hornet was a abysmal failure because they took a serious vigilante crime fighter and tried to go with idiot humor. The 60's kiddie Batman and Green Hornet kid shows were NOT Batman and Green Hornet, they were kiddie shows to sell toys to kids.

 

Do NOT go overboard with the tech. Use real world knowledge to guide Doc and the 5's super-science, but don't get out of hand. A turboprop engine in a plane instead of a straight or rotatry piston engine is a dramatic step forward, but a full leap to jet technology that is not common in 2013 would blow the feel. A hand-held standard sized two channel walky talky weighing in at a pound (similar to what many police carry now, except for the limited channels) instead of the 50+ lbs units of the time.

 

Do NOT beat the period mores issue with a sledgehammer to the forehead or try to make a social statement. A Doc Savage movie should be to entertain and is not a documentary. Cast the parts and make the movie. There were plenty of strong female characters in the old adventure stories, just cast Pat and treat the character as perfectly normal. Nothing to see here.

 

Do NOT resurect the dead horse and unbelievably BORING trope "evil corporation destroying [insert eco-cause of the minute]". Instead of trying to make the movies about a major event in history, just make the threat a criminal mastermind instead of a political mastermind.

 

 

No arguments here. All welcomed suggestions for making a good Doc Savage movie ... but still have doubts about it making a profit.

[csyphrett]

The Lone Ranger is tanking at this moment. It might make its money back. It might not

CES