{TB EXCLUSIVE} LIVE-ACTION “INSPECTOR GADGET” REBOOT ON THE WAY FROM “LEGO MOVIE” PRODUCER DAN LIN
MAY 22, 2015 [4:22 pm]
The iconic cartoon character is getting another live-action film treatment
Everybody’s favorite bumbling cyborg policeman is making his return to the big screen via Lin Pictures and Disney. Dan Lin will produce the INSPECTOR GADGET reboot, which sources confirm will be another live-action interpretation of the beloved cartoon classic. The film is expected to wash away the existence of the 1999 Matthew Broderick outing, as well as the subsequent follow-up with French Stewart. Classic characters Gadget, Penny, and Brain are expected to appear, once again battling their unseen enemy, Doctor Claw. Lin Pictures’ president of production Jonathan Eirich will oversee development alongside Mark Bauch.
Inspector Gadget intitally ran from 1983 to 1986, but remained in syndication into the late ’90s. The series followed a dimwitted half-robotic policeman who could summon nearly limitless amounts of useful, and often useless, gadgets by saying “Go-Go-Gadget,” and then inserting the name of the item. Though his gadgets almost regularly malfunctioned, Gadget solved capers and crimes with his niece Penny and dog Brain in tow, often thwarting the schemes of the nefarious Doctor Claw and his diabolic agents working for the evil M.A.D. syndicate.
A live-action adaptation loosely based on the series was released by Disney in 1999, starring Matthew Broderick, Michelle Trachtenberg, and Rupert Everett. The film was generally poorly received, but still led to a straight-to-DVD sequel starring French Stewart as the titular hero. The character returned in an updated CGI-animated series, which just recently premiered in the U.S. on Netflix this past March.
Lin Pictures most recently produced Warner Bros.’ massive animated hit The Lego Movie. Other credits include the Robert Downey Jr./Jude Law Sherlock Holmes series and the Josh Brolin/Ryan Gosling pulp-crime outing Gangster Squad. Lin is currently in development on an impressive array of high-profile projects, including the third Sherlock Holmes and The Lego Movie sequel and spinoffs.
(...)
Clark Allen | Associate Editor
I don't know what to say. In fact, right now, I have pretty much nothing to say, except I don't think it's a good sign that Disney is involved with this thing. The only good-sounding part of the press release (if it is a press release - that part feels unclear) is the sentence, "...expected to wash away the existence of the 1999 Matthew Broderick outing, as well as the subsequent follow-up with French Stewart." So much the better, obviously. Both of those movies were trainwrecks, with absolutely no respect for their source material and riddled with terrible writing, direction and acting. But is it really to be expected that the same, big Hollywood corporation - today much bigger, with all the buyouts that has taken place over the past decade - will do a more respectful and (not least) better adaptation this time around?
From what the news piece says, of course, Disney will not be doing it just by themselves this time. Dan Lin of Lin Pictures is set to be the producer, which I'm guessing might mean that his company will be handling most of the actual production, with Disney co-financing and distributing the film. That is at least my theory for the moment. But I can't say Dan Lin as a producer makes me feel more optimistic, either. The Lego Movie was wonderfully fun and entertaining, but that's clearly a testament to the film's directors, not its producers. Plus, several years ago Dan Lin was heavily involved with developing a CG/live-action movie of another cartoon series, Tom and Jerry. That whole concept sounded quite awful... and in the end, thankfully, nothing came of it (although Warner is currenty developing an all-animated feature with the cat and mouse instead).
To that end, we should remind ourselves that this new Inspector Gadget movie is only in the earliest stages of development. Any information given now is subject to change. If you check The Tracking Board's tag list for 'Inspector Gadget', you'll find a link to an "Inspector Gadget (Sales)" site which teases more information about the film; though you have to be a registered member of the site to see it. But it doesn't seem much more info is available yet anyway, judging by the sentence next to the "In Development" thumbnail picture: "Kept under wraps, but pitched as another live-action interpretation of the beloved cartoon classic about the dimwitted cyborg policeman."
Some other sites mentioning the project are also worth noting. AceShowBiz, in addition to a May 23 piece quoting The Tracking Board, lists the film in its movie section with a tentative "2018" as the release year. I don't know if that's an assumption by AceShowBiz or sourced from the "Sales" site behind The Tracking Board's subscription wall. Meanwhile, Sci4Me has a news piece posted on the same day as The Tracking Board's article, but with partly different information. I especially found the following interesting:
While [the 1999 Disney live-action film] spawned a live-action straight-to-DVD sequel starring French Stewart, the two films weren’t as popular as hoped, and the franchise faded away. Recently, an updated CGI series premiered on Netflix, paving the way for a new version to hit the big screen.
And I'm pretty sure that last sentence is true, too. We already know that the reboot series has been doing well in ratings, so this makes sense to me. But it's interesting: very often with franchise reboots of this kind, a big-screen movie paves the way for new animated productions. It happened with Garfield, it happened with Alvin and the Chipmunks. It even happened with Gadget, 16 years ago. The (purely commercial) success of Disney's 1999 film paved the way for a new TV series, Gadget & the Gadgetinis, as well as two direct-to-video animated films.
In this case, however, it's the other way around. A new animated TV series gets made - not because of any live-action movies, but because the original show performs strongly in reruns and instant video; and a 2010 mobile game closely based on it becomes a surprice hit. Teletoon Canada, which already has the 1983 show airing around the clock on their Teletoon Retro network, orders an updated version for their main channel. Following the reboot series' global launch in early 2015, a big-screen movie enters development. The chronology of events is clear... and undoubtedly the clearest sign yet of the new TV series' success, not to mention the lasting success of the 1983 original.
ANYWAY. What matters most of all here is whether the new movie, should it get produced, will be any good. But I think its producers would do well to realize the chronology of events I just described, and realize that the cornerstone of Inspector Gadget's popularity is still, after all these years, the original 1983 series. The two Disney movies are largely forgotten today, and for good reason: they were awful. If the new live-action reboot could manage to actually be a good movie - one which works to capture the spirit and essence of the 1983 series, rather than do everything to steer away from it - Lin Pictures and Disney could have a long-term franchise hit on their hands.
Whether that will happen is impossible to say right now, and I can't say for certain how closely I'll be following this project, either. It will depend on how much it interests me... right now, not too much.
But who knows. That one sentence with "wash away" does provide a tiny glimmer of hope. Plus, there's nothing inherently wrong with the sentence immediately following: "Classic characters Gadget, Penny, and Brain are expected to appear, once again battling their unseen enemy, Doctor Claw." Good so far.
Final question: why do these Hollywood adaptations of cartoon shows always have to be live-action? Why not do an all-animated Inspector Gadget theatrical feature?
OMG * ____ * I did not expect something like that, I must say that the first live-action film terrified me and I still horrifying, there is nothing I like that film, had a Gadget as a clumsy hero, a horrible Dr.Gang that did not look like nothing, absolutely nothing original, really, I hated to do that with all the characters, and Sophie buafghst one that looked nothing like the caricature, or in terms of appearance, personality. and best not to mention the awful script ... But now, my humble personal opinion so many discreparéis me ... The second movie ... I must say that this delivery if I liked (aside to G2 * ___ *) Dr. Gang stood with his dark side and being perversely evil as in the series, Sophie is captured by agents of Mad (I disagree when Gadget will save) But please is an adaptation to real life !. Sophie follows her uncle and investigate what happened besides getting evidence Gadget stays with his clumsiness (Although it is not a naive DISAGREE). Well, I also enjoy music, well, I was pleased with this issue that is a little closer to the show, but no doubt it is not a good fit to the series, since changing different things, but anyway ... it is a Disney product, they like Heroes. And I'm not talking about G2, because I think the most terrible of all the movie, but I like yeah, it's a good movie, it remains in certain respects as in the series. If you want my opinion Mesterius, I think about a new live-action movie, because I tell you directly that does not seem a good idea to adapt this wonderful character to a real world. Even if they take into account everything that went wrong in the first 2 deliveries ... maybe something decent out ^^
ReplyDeleteGreetings and excellent articles!
Hi Daniel! Heh, I had a feeling you were gonna defend Inspector Gadget 2. :P But I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you...
DeleteTo me, Inspector Gadget 2 is not "a good movie". It's one of the worst movies I've seen in my life. Some very superficial details may be closer to the cartoon than the 1999 film, but the tone, atmosphere and storytelling doesn't even begin to resemble the original series. The script, the direction and even the design and color choices... the whole film is one cheap, tasteless creative decision after another. As for Dr Claw... it doesn't help that we dont see his face, because everything else about him is completely off. I hate the way he looks (the filmmakers reveal everything about his appearance except for the face, which is idiotic), and his personality and voice felt nothing like Claw in the 1983 show either. It's been a few years since I watched the film, but I still remember shaking my head in disbelief at how bad it got.
"If you want my opinion Mesterius, I think about a new live-action movie, because I tell you directly that does not seem a good idea to adapt this wonderful character to a real world. Even if they take into account everything that went wrong in the first 2 deliveries ... maybe something decent out ^^"
I feel sceptical too... and as I said at the end of this article, I'd love to see an all-animated theatrical feature instead. The Inspector Gadget universe does feel better suited to animation. But we'll just have to wait and see. On the plus side, technological advancement during the past 15 years has made CGI special effects in live-action films look a lot more integrated and natural... so I think the gadgets could probably be pulled off more convincingly nowadays. And with a good writer and director, it shouldn't be utterly impossible to capture the spirit of the original series. The execution will make or break it.
...I'd like to think that the first "Gadget" was _set_ to be a good movie, but as always, the executives butchered it in production.
ReplyDeleteThe whole problem is, it's of its time. Back in the late 90's, "deconstruction" was all the rage. The "Scream" movies deconstructed the slasher genre; "Austin Powers"deconstructed the "fun tuxedo-and-martini" spy genre by putting its hero and his foe out of time and watching them try to struggle through in the more no-nonsense 90s.
You have to remember, both of these made a lot of money. "Gadget," of course, is a fondly-remembered cartoon from the 80s, so it would make sense for Disney to follow the trend.
Except...there's not a lot to deconstruct. There's a running thread of Scolex/Claw trying not to be a cliche villain (it's more prominent in the novelization), and there are constant digs at being "A Disney Movie (TM)."
Somebody forgot that a parody has to work within its own reality in order to be funny. "Gadget" is just plain annoying for how much it ridicules itself. "I think somebody's been watching too many Saturday-morning cartoons."
That "deconstruction" point is an interesting theory/analysis. I'm not sure I follow you, though, on the part about Disney's Inspector Gadget being a good movie at the first stage, before the script/screenplay was ruined by executives. Sure, it probably was at least a little bit better in terms of story structure and plot coherence (I've heard stores about what a mess the production was). But I can't get myself to think that even the first drafts of the script were necessarily very good, or interested in respecting the spirit of the source material. Not that "respecting the source material" is in itself a criteria for quality, but...
DeleteThere's another big trend of the 90s that should be taken into consideration, one that the 1999 Gadget film is clearly a part of. At the time, Disney had already produced live-action films of several other animated properties that they didn't originate themselves, "Mr. Magoo" and "George of the Jungle", both released in 1997. From what I remember, those films didn't respect their source material much, either. Disney's "Inspector Gadget" was obviously following in the footsteps of those productions (and like "George", but unlike "Magoo", it made a lot of money at the box office).
"Somebody forgot that a parody has to work within its own reality in order to be funny. "Gadget" is just plain annoying for how much it ridicules itself. "I think somebody's been watching too many Saturday-morning cartoons."
I agree that the cheap "parody" laughs the movie goes for are painfully unfunny. When it comes to that "Saturday morning cartoons" riff, the biggest irony for me personally is that Inspector Gadget *wasn't* even a Saturday morning cartoon. It was produced directly for syndication, as a "daily strip"; so when it premiered in the United States in the fall of 1983, it aired in the afternoons, Monday through Friday. But of course, noone involved with the live-action movie would have cared about that historical nit-pick. Inspector Gadget is *perceived* by most people as a Saturday morning cartoon. That's all that matters.
Well, there's not much behind-the-scenes stuff _available_ out there, but I'm going from bits and pieces I've picked up along the way, from when the project had bigger-deal names attached to it.
DeleteI'm also looking at the novelization, which seems to have a lot of characterization from earlier drafts that was left out at the editing stage. Little things, like establishing the "spring-loaded pen" trick and the "Can this [artificial] heart be broken?" exchange between Gadget and Brenda.
Of course, "Gadget '99" is also trying its hand at a kiddie version of "Robocop" (the irony is that the good inspector debuted years before Robo did). Never mind, of course, that the erstwhile Alex Murphy WAS ALREADY A POLICE OFFICER before his demise. (I was very nearly about to go off on a tirade about this, but I answered my own question: Gadget starts out as a mascot, a promotional gimmick. It makes sense to give him a hat and trench-coat, because it's a more easily recognizable image. So much for subtlety, Nick... *dope-slaps self*)
Wasn't there a 30-minute behind-the-scenes documentary on the American DVD edition of the 1999 Inspector Gadget film? I honestly haven't felt interested enough in this awful movie to ever seek out or watch that doc myself, but I seem to recall reading about it.
DeleteAlso -- which bigger names are you thinking of exactly? (And did earlier versions of the Disney film actually have bigger actors attached to it than Broderick or Everett? Or bigger writers/directors?)
Admittedly, I don't remember enough from the movie's mess of a storyline to see the differences between the movie and those things you mention from the novelization.
I actually remember thinking, after watching the first "Robocop" movie from 1987 a few years ago (great movie, by the way!): "Hey, the basic plot here kinda feels like a dark, adult version of Inspector Gadget!"
"Of course, "Gadget '99" is also trying its hand at a kiddie version of "Robocop" (the irony is that the good inspector debuted years before Robo did). Never mind, of course, that the erstwhile Alex Murphy WAS ALREADY A POLICE OFFICER before his demise."
And so was Gadget of the 1983 series -- according to official press synopses used to advertise the series at the time, telling the brief story of him being an ordinary police offiser until he slipped on a banana peel and scientists installed gadgets in him during a complicated operation to save his life. For my money, the one and only true origin story of Gadget's gadgets.
"(I was very nearly about to go off on a tirade about this, but I answered my own question: Gadget starts out as a mascot, a promotional gimmick. It makes sense to give him a hat and trench-coat, because it's a more easily recognizable image. So much for subtlety, Nick... *dope-slaps self*)"
Is it embarrassing to admit that I don't quite understand what you're getting at here? :P
I must confess I quite like the 1999 film. There, I've said it! ;)
ReplyDeleteI went to see it with a friend when we were both 19 - embarrassingly we were the only "adults" in the cinema unaccompanied by children. I went in not expecting to enjoy it at all - I'd seen the trailer before another film and had snorted at the things that seemed wrong, i.e. seeing Claw's face, the singular "Wowser!", a talking Gadgetmobile etc. However, nostalgia + slow afternoon = a trip to the cinema!
As it turned out, we both enjoyed it, although it probably helped that it played very well with all the kids around us. At 78 minutes it didn't outstay its welcome, and moved so fast that I didn't have time to dwell on its shortcomings. And there are many!
Inspector Gadget 2 is bloody awful, though. Ditto Last Case & Biggest Caper Ever. I suspect any future film will be awful too.
Ha ha! :P Despite the shock upon reading that first sentence, I do appreciate honesty. ;) Daniel, who commented above here, is also a huge Inspector Gadget fan -- first and foremost of the cartoon series, but he likes Inspector Gadget 2 as well! As you can probably tell from my reply to him, it's difficult for me to understand how anyone can like that film (or the first one, for that matter), but at the same time, I don't expect him to change his mind about it. Some things we'll just have to disagree on. ;)
DeleteI can see how nostalgia played into deciding to watch the film (though seriously, age 19?? :P). And yeah, the short run time of the movie must have been a plus -- the original cut was actually 110 minutes, but that version of the film was (I believe) deemed so terrible by Disney that they cut it down to 78 minutes right before release.
Maybe there's also something to watching such a movie on the big screen, if you ARE going to watch it. (My one and only watch ot if years back was on a computer screen.) The special effects and visual gags probably looked quite good at the time.
Now that I've been doing this blog for a few years, I'm beginning to realize that nostalgia is a rather important factor in my love for the 1983-85 series too. I didn't think so at first, since I've been a fan consistently ever since age 11, but it's gradually becoming clearer. The most revealing sign is probably that most of the animated series that I start watching these days are pretty different from Gadget in terms of style and story structure. Series like Gargoyles, Avatar: The Last Airbender, Nadia: The Secret of Blue Water (awesome anime from the early 90s) etc... all of these are darker and have more continuity both for the story and characters, which makes it exciting on a whole different level to sit down and watch the next episode. As a contrast, when I sit down and rewatch a classic Inspector Gadget episode (something I did more often before, admittedly), it does feel a bit like revisiting my childhood... even though I watched it in Norwegian back then.
All that said, I still love the original Inspector Gadget series, and not *only* for nostalgia. I find it a very charming series. I love the characters, as written and voice performed in the first season (even though I'd also love to see what could be done with them in a slightly darker, more complex, continuity-based show). I love the music by Shuki Levy. And I continue to appreciate the animation quality in many of the first-season episodes -- even today, some of it rises above the standards for television animation.