shaken & stirred

welcome to my martini glass


unsure how to feel

Since this didn't come from the Cinetrix, it's probably not true, but who am I to pass by a rumor about an '80s movie remake from The Guardian?

A sequel to Pretty in Pink will reunite original stars Molly Ringwald, Andrew McCarthy and John Cryer, according to US internet reports. The cult '80s John Hughes movie told the story of kooky high school student Andie and her crush on a new student. The sequel will be a straight update, revealing how the characters' lives have changed since entering the adult world.

No True Bill, where I snagged this link, notes the timing of the appearance of this tidbit coincides with April Fool's Day. Still, we can dream/dread/hope/fear, right?

Updated: Her Trixieness has weighed in, in inimitable fashion. I really, really, really, really want a copy of this fabled novelization where Duckie wins. (CVR, hush.)


  • At 1:00 PM , Blogger Chris McLaren said...

    With the obvious exception of The Last Picture Show / Texasville, has that kind of thing ever been pulled of successfully?

  • At 1:00 PM , Anonymous Darice said...

    Duckie! She should have ended up with Duckie...

    (Actually, in the movie novelization, she DID end up with Duckie. I read the book first and was really confused when I saw the movie...)

  • At 1:12 PM , Blogger gwenda said...

    It gives me great comfort to know there is a universe where that was the outcome. Mr. Rowe, however, has a long-standing hatred of Duckie that I just don't understand.

    Speaking of Mr. Rowe and of novelizations, he has a pretty good story about discovering that there were "sanitized" versions of novelizations sold to schools that differed from the ones at the supermarket. Extreme boredom caused him to buy and read these different copies of the Poltergeist adaptation, uncovering the fact that anything relatively adult had been snipped from the school version.

  • At 1:43 PM , Blogger Christopher said...

    It wasn't boredom, really. The movie theater in Columbia was closed most of the time I was growing up, so novelizations were the only way I had to "see" a lot of movies. I either got them through the Troll Book Club at school or off the spinner rack at the Convenient on Jamestown Street when I had all their comics already (this would be on Thursday afternoons, when Granny had her hair done at the Glamor-ette, as she does to this day and has had for something like forty years).

    Anyway, Thursday afternoons were the only time I got to hang out in town--I grew up on a farm a few miles north of Columbia, KY--and during the time she got her hair done, I'd hoof it to the library for Tarzan books, then cut through the cemetary to Junior Foods and get the comics they carried, then over to Convenient for comics and/or paperbacks. This Thursday afternoon route, by the way, is why some people in Columbia still refer to me as "the kid who reads while he walks." Anyway, one time I forgot or something and bought the Poltergeist novelization after I'd already ordered it at school. At some point, for some reason, I read both of them and found that the scene where the parents smoke a joint in the movie is rendered pretty much literally in the "Convenient version," but in the "Troll version" they smoke a cigarette.

    Fave novelizations? Buckaroo Banzai and the pilot of Mork and Mindy (that channel didn't come in very clear--and there was a lot more detail about planet Ork).

  • At 3:23 PM , Blogger gwenda said...

    Nice side-step of the whole Duckie issue there, sweetie.

  • At 4:16 PM , Anonymous Darice said...

    Like Chris, I read novelizations more than saw movies (my hometown had -- and still has -- no movie theater). And a friend of mine actually collects movie novelizations.

    I seem to remember reading Return of the Jedi before actually seeing the film, too, because there are scenes I remember that aren't in the movie. Of course, now that Lucas has tinkered heavily with the movies, I can never be sure...

  • At 10:28 AM , Blogger Karen said...

    Sorry, Gwenda (and all the other Ducky fans), but I'm with Rowe on this one. It's not that the Andrew McCarthy character was such a catch; he's pretty much a spineless nonentity, and while I can see why she'd be drawn to him, I don't think it'd last long. But Duckie... jesus, no. I blame it almost entirely on Jon Cryer, because I think the character as written has every potential to come across as a true and loyal friend that I should and would root for. But Cryer plays him as too much of a pest, with strong undertones of stalkery, angry desperation that make me want to run like hell.

    Cryer does get the vulnerability down well enough that you feel bad for the guy, and even like him. But god forbid you should ever date him and then try to break up. No, he's a nice guy to have as a friend at safe arms' length, and I think Molly's character takes advantage of his adoration, but that doesn't mean she owes him the goods just because he wants her.

  • At 10:37 AM , Blogger gwenda said...

    Actually, I'm mostly just kidding. The stalker element bothers me as well. I guess it's more what Duckie is supposed to represent -- that should be more valuable than what McRichKid represents. (Plus, Andrew McCarthy -- ew!)

    On an equally disturbing note regarding Jon Cryer, did anyone else ever watch that terrible movie where he pretends to be a high school kid to avoid prosecution of some kind and becomes terribly popular?

  • At 11:09 AM , Blogger Karen said...

    I saw about five minutes' worth. Death on wheels.

    And I agree, in theory I'm all about the symbolic choice of having the girl pick the underdog, but not this underdog.

    The popularity of Andrew McCarthy with his mean, watery little eyes is one of the great mysteries of the 80's.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home