DARK CITY RETURNS
share
Dark City was the perfect stand-alone idea: it does not need a sequel, a prequel, or a TV series. It's sad when creators have to appropriate their own ideas from 23 years ago to help pay the bills today. The justification to make it will be, "There's still avenues to explore in this world," but I guarantee if it's actually made it will end up being NOTHING like the movie.
Here's another article:
https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/why-now-is-the-right-time-for-a-dark-city-tv-series/
I agree with you absolutely. So often a wonderful work is inevitably diminished by sequels, spinoffs, prequels, reboots, etc. DARK CITY is perfect as it is. Nothing more need be or should be added to it. Let the viewing experience remain whole & complete in itself, leaving the viewer with fascinating ideas & questions to ponder afterward.
shareI can't say I completely get the hostility to all remakes and other extensions. Yes, many of them have been awful, but its not like it can go back in time and change the original film that was already made. Dark City will still be as good as it ever was.
The problem with Dark City is that its narrative is kind of finished and that specific setting doesn't have much of a continuation. I'm not sure a prequel would make much sense, either, although it would give a lot of room for providing a backstory to the beings controlling the city/ship.
All this being said, I can see where the ideas in Dark City could be interesting and how the story could be told in a different way or in a slightly different setting. I think the original narrative could be re-told in a HBO-style 8 or 10 part series that would allow better character development and some interesting exposition. Maybe the setting is changed to not be on a space ship, but a phenomenon occurring on Earth.
Think of "Westworld", which has managed to take a pretty schlocky 90 minute 1970s science fiction movie and turn it into a pretty interesting series of at least 4 seasons (3 aired, one in progress, and potentially one more), greatly expanding on the ideas in the original film, ideas which were only marginally addressed or just used to drive action.
I think there's no shortage of films, maybe particularly science fiction films, which have really interesting ideas but which can't do them justice in 90 minutes (or even 190, if you're Christopher Nolan) or lack the budget to attract the talent and production values to do them justice.
Then there's the question of films with great ideas and maybe even good execution which wind up terribly dated. Maybe still interesting as a historical document, but that lose a lot of their luster because the setting is unrelatable or has elements that no longer are believable.
You make some good points.
My concern is if you expand on ideas that were only hinted at in the movie, eventually it becomes something entirely different. Then fans of the movie (and this movie has a passionate following) will find themselves saying, "This isn't what I think of when I think of Dark City." To the best of my knowledge, Westworld did not have an outspoken fanbase demanding its return. The name was revived simply because the creators knew it would have name recognition for certain people of a certain age. Why not just come up with something new, and label it, "From the creators of Dark City"?
Remember Battlestar Galactica? It started as a 1978-79 upbeat kids show, and then the name was revived 20 years later for a new show that become something entirely different. Today, there are 2 different fanbases for 2 entirely different shows with the same name.
I guess I ask "who cares what the outspoken fanbase says?"
I think this weird, religious-like reverence "the fanbase" has for some shows really doesn't require anyone to genuflect to them or respect the little universe they've created through their fandom. The original work they based their fandom on isn't going to change, and they're free to ignore remakes or reboots.
It only pisses off the fanbase because they are engaged in some fantasy fulfillment about being the arbiters of whatever work they are fans of and are worried that a new fanbase will crop up, eroding their "legitimacy" or their little universe will be overrun by people with more allegiance to the new concept than the old.
I think "fans" need to take a cue from Shakespeare. There's dozens and dozens of reinterpretations and new spins on his plays. If the "fanbase" model were applied here, the only real interpretation would be performances directed by Will himself in the early 17th century.