MovieChat Forums > Fatherland (1994) Discussion > Wow, an astounding movie - time for a bi...

Wow, an astounding movie - time for a big budget remake?

posted 15 years ago by Bullus-1
14 replies | jump to latest

(A bit of spoiler here, but I didn’t start it huh)

I can’t believe this movie was made so long ago, it’s totally ageless! Does anyone need any more proof that WW2 was the seminal conflict of the modern age – every plot, conspiracy, fact, theory, every piece of trivia is riveting (is it any accident that books or movies which include the dreaded swastika on the cover immediately sell a million more copies?) this movie is no exception.

It has a totally believable scenario: a collapse at Omaha beach may well indeed have focused the Panzers to mop up the others, left Eisenhower to resign (in real life he had already drafted the letter on the eve of D-Day) and the Americans to pull back Stateside; the plucky Brits, pretty much spent after Dunkirk and the Blitz could have folded after a steady diet of bangers and mash, Churchill banished to Canada to a dismal exile (well not that dismal, he may have moved to Vancouver) and the rest of the Empire to wander around leaderless, pretty much the way they did after 1947 anyways, particularly in the antipodes.

Now Germany could probably not have sustained a long term domination (factors like population and Gross National Product would have precluded such an eventuality, in spite of their genius for organizational structuring) but they certainly could have attained the stage they were at in this movie, with an aging Fuhrer attempting to inveigle some kind of a détente with the US, even permitting a modicum of Beatlemania (as someone suggested earlier, like totalitarian China today) especially since the Fab Four had such an evident affinity with the war battered Hamburg in real life.

The final culmination, the revelation of the terrible secret of the Holocaust, was handled convincingly within the context of the movie, echoing somehow the real life unwillingness of so much of the world to face those awful facts, not to mention the outright denial of a few. Heavy as this topic is, I do hope it was not the reason Nichols failed to get funding for his original feature. Since the date of this movie there have been many other dealings with the topic, Schindler’s List etc. and the world should never shrink from dealing with its reality.

[–] MaximusXXX 15 years ago

There should be a film made, centered around one man who was a child during the Second World War and grows up during the Nazi regime.

Film ends with his death, maybe he lives from 1935-2015?

Those foolish enough to move from canada to america increase the average I.Q. of both countries

[–] Fleischmandoes 10 years ago

There should be a film made, centered around one man who was a child during the Second World War and grows up during the Nazi regime.

Film ends with his death, maybe he lives from 1935-2015?

I rather like that concept.

[–] Bullus-1 8 years ago

Well Fleisch, as that WW2 kid who dodged the Blitz in London, I'm glad to report I also skipped the 2015 deadline and continue to rollick up the good life in Vancouver!

Maybe we don't need to remake this movie after all, the Germans appear to have morphed into genuinely compassionate champions of refugees in Europe today, who woulda thought?

Why, when Angela took a holiday in Poland recently,the border guards didn't recognize her and asked Name? She replied "Merkl" They asked Occupation?
She said "No, Just visiting this time.."
Heheh.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (8072733) 15 years ago

It's a decent film. What exactly would the 'big budget' add to it?

[–] Ricky-V-Valentine 15 years ago

I agree with Mark James: it's good enough as it is

[–] PenelopeLane 15 years ago

I think what the OP meant by big budget was to give credit where it's due. The movie was TV movie, limited by TV budgets. So if it's a feature film, then there's more freedom with everything--like location spots, special effects (Speer's Berlin) etc.

I personally would love to see a remake of this film. I'd also love to see some of the plot (ESPECIALLY the end) adhere more to the book. I thought the TV movie was extremely rushed when it came to the ending--and a little bit dumb. (Rushing the evidence to Joe Kennedy just to watch him wave his drive on? And Hitler looking embarrassed and hurt? Please.)

So yes, I'm ready...come on, Mike Nichols!

[–] mikeyg24 15 years ago

I agree with the preceeding posts that this is a good movie in it's own right but I agree the book would be better served with a big budget remake IMHO.

Awe Skinny, you got blood all over my trousers!
Jeez I'm real sorry Frank.

[–] Clifford04 14 years ago

I happened on see it on TV and I was really astounded. I would agree with those who see no need for a more costly Hollywood production, since that would probably turn the whole thing into a costly Hollywood production. As it is, despite flaws one could mention in the basic alternate world scenario, the film is very real in an everyday sense despite the fact that it takes place in an alternative history. I have always liked both Miranda Richardson and Rutger Hauer – and the special effects were so well done, mostly, that one did not really see them as special effects. Well, I didn't. And that is praise. In the movie the romance between the two was rather severely understated, one had to sort of figure it out for oneself until the little kiss towards the end, but to build out that would have made it a two-part series – that I wouldn't have minded, incidentally. If new movies should be made it would have to be some real talent taking on Philip K. Dick's classic The Man in the High Castle. That would make for one of the strangest movies ever. There are also other great books in the past on the theme, such as Ward Moore's Bring the Jubilee, in which the South has won your American civil war. That too would make a nice series of 2-3 90 minute episodes. As for the Holocaust itself I recommend more documentary books and movies. The Nazi State of this movie is implausible in that it manages to present a rather friendly face. Documentary materials from the thirties provide a much different picture, that would have been very hard to gloss over. Anyway, the movie is quite good as such, and I also wish to emphasise the ten year old (I guess) who played 'Rutger's' son – he was a truly memorable young actor.

[–] PeterSouth 14 years ago

The problem with remaking this film, using a bigger budget, is that it will most likely lose depth and become a typical shallow "action 'till you drop" hollywood flick. Especially if they hire Tom Cruise to play March :-)

[–] jwhawk1971 14 years ago

I'd rather stick my d*ck in a blender than have this film remade. Remakes are beyond old at this point. Way too many way too often.

[–] Bullus-1 8 years ago

Whereas d*cks in blenders is always a jolly idea hahaha!

[–] thatguy_78757 13 years ago

I dont see the point in a remake

but perhaps a "special edition" fixing some of the now dated computer effects

[–] samd51 13 years ago

I saw this film in my english class after we had to read the book. I have to say that after reading the book, i was heavily disappointed in the film. It was as if all of the good parts of the book were not present in the film. So as far as a remake of this movie, no. If someone wanted to do a completely new adaptation of the book with a big budget then I would be very excited since the book is fantastic.

Not to mention Christoph Waltz would be perfect as Xavier March, and the book just screams the word FINCHER the whole time i was reading it.

[–] unificus_was_taken 11 years ago

So much this. The made for TV movie was alright but if it were to be put on screen again they'd need to go back to the drawing board. Rereading the novel right now and the 1994 TV adaptation maybe got 10% of the foreboding "32 years into the 10,000 year Reich setting right."

Orly's future wife lol!