Over the weekend, the internet outrage du jour was a story originating with the Hollywood Reporter that TriStar had closed a deal with the Jim Henson Company to mount a remake of the fondly remembered 1980s fantasy film Labyrinth, with Guardians Of The Galaxy screenwriter Nicole Perlman handling the script.
Well, turns out folks may have been overreacting somewhat. Perlman has taken to twitter to clarify the news somewhat.
Not "rebooting" anything, guys.
— Nicole Perlman (@Uncannygirl) January 23, 2016
Henson Co & I started talking in late 2014, so the timing of these rumors is so upsetting. I would never seek to profit from Bowie's death.
— Nicole Perlman (@Uncannygirl) January 23, 2016
Labyrinth is my favorite film from childhood, so I share your concerns that any continuation of the world be handled with love and respect.
— Nicole Perlman (@Uncannygirl) January 23, 2016
Guys, please don't fall for all the clickbait. No one is remaking "Labyrinth." That movie is perfect as it is.
— Nicole Perlman (@Uncannygirl) January 24, 2016
Taken collectively, I think we an infer a few things.
First off, whatever this film project is, it will not be a remake of Labyrinth so much as it will be a continuation or some sort of sequel. At the time of the original report, the Hollywood Reporter was unclear whether the film would be “a re-imagining of the story or a sequel.” But if it is not a remake or reboot, that leaves us with the conclusion that it is some sort of continuation. How that will work, of course, remains to be seen. Will the character of Jareth, the Goblin King some how be involved? If so, that may be a non-starter for many fans who consider David Bowie’s performance in that role in the original film sacrosanct and fans would be hard pressed to accept another actor in the role. And if the character of the Goblin King isn’t involved, what makes it worth being a continuation of the first film and not just being its own, original story? Aside from the obvious marketability of a film linked to the original Labyrinth, of course.
But Perlman also notes that her discussion with Henson have been in the works for over a year and notes that the timing of the news going public was “upsetting.” So I guess the onus here is on the Hollywood Reporter, who broke the news just ten days after Bowie’s passing. Should they have sat on the news for a time out of respect for the singer/actor’s passing? There are some who could argue that they were being opportunistic in publishing a story they knew was going to draw a lot of traffic coming at the time that it did? But did they do so with the base idea of the generated traffic in mind as their sole reasoning to publish when they did? Debates, perhaps, for journalism ethics classes in the future. In the meantime, we’ll keep watching for more news as to what form this project will ultimately take.
