Remaking Weird Science in 2013 is Logically Impossible

Keep Houston Press Free
I Support
  • Local
  • Community
  • Journalism
  • logo

Support the independent voice of Houston and help keep the future of Houston Press free.

Recently it was announced that Hollywood had literally, officially, 100 percent run out of ideas and would be remaking the 1985 John Hughes flick, Weird Science.

If you are unfamiliar with the movie, please run to your video store right now and rent the VHS (or downloaded it or whatever). The movie is about two nerds who decide to create the perfect woman and that woman is Kelly LeBrock. Through a series of misadventures, LeBrock finds a way to instill a sense of confidence in the pair and they eventually don't need her anymore. They get real girlfriends and become, inevitably, cool.

While it was never considered one of Hughes' best films, it is quite unique and kind of amazing in a pure 1980s type of way. For anyone to think that this movie could possibly be remade is completely illogical and deserves to suffer the consequences, which will ultimately be box office failure.

Why can't you remake Weird Science but other '80s movies such as Footloose or Red Dawn could be remade, albeit really poorly? I'll tell you why - nothing in Weird Science would make any sense in 2013.

We understand now that computers aren't magic.

In 1985, when the original movie was produced, computers had an unspoken aura to them. They were new and untested and who knew what power the possessed! In the '80s a kid with a computer could start the third World War or be sucked inside a technological universe where everyone wore neon. In Weird Science, the boys use the power of gigabytes to create a human being. They load in body part descriptions through their floppy drive and when they don't have enough power they tap into the government's mainframe computer.

In 2013, we understand that this is impossible. Sure, you can hack into the government's Twitter feed but that's not going to make a hot chick manifest out of thin air. Even the most implausible of technological doings in movies are not that absurd. You may be able to hack into the stop lights in New York City and make them all turn red at the exact same time while shutting down the world's air conditioning and setting off an atomic bomb, but there is no way you make a lady from of your Mac Book Pro.

Nerds don't exist anymore.

In the 1980s there was a clear division of power in high school - nerds and the other kids that weren't nerds, sometimes really poor kids fit into the nerd category. That doesn't happen anymore. For one thing, people who wear thick-rimmed glasses and are, by and large, outcasts are called hipsters and they are cooler than you. Even really smart kids with few friends do well; they are named Mark Zuckerberg. In movies, in particular, we don't see the stock character of "nerd" much at all. The Millennial nerd is now called a "wallflower" or a "wimpy kid," or McLoven, who was quite badass in the end.

Weird Science has to be about nerds who are big enough losers that they spend their Friday night wearing bras on their heads and making a girl that they could never get on their own. I cannot even think of two current actors to play these roles? Zac Efron with glasses is not going to cut it.

No one can remake the Weird Science theme song.

Half of what made Weird Science so "bad it was good" was the bizarre, far-out Oingo Boingo theme song of the same title. Say what you want about this song, but it's not good at all; it is, however, catchy as hell and unique to this movie. It just works. If you remake the movie it is expected that the theme song will be remade as well. Who in their right mind would want to cover that horrible song?

My guess would be your standard "indie" rock band, already producing crap with dumb names like Gauntlet Hair or Blouse, would be down to cover Oingo Boingo. But a big name producer would never let something like that happen because they would want a popular band like Mumford and Sons or Ke$ha to record the cover and then it would have to feature Flo Rida and Pitbull and then... that is just plain awful to even think about.

They would use a Bratz doll instead of a Barbie.

In 1985 product placement in movies and commercial tie-ins were small-time, and now it is paramount in films. In the original movie the nerdy duo use a Barbie doll in conjunction with their computer magic to create LeBrock's likeness. I can just imagine the backroom deals that will (already) be made between Weird Science 2.0 and Bratz dolls. Have you seen these dolls? They look like alien versions of human females, and they dress like sluts.

Who could they even get to portray a mortal incarnation of a Bratz doll? Nicki Minaj is the only living person who resembles a Bratz doll and she is no man's "perfect woman."

Keep the Houston Press Free... Since we started the Houston Press, it has been defined as the free, independent voice of Houston, and we would like to keep it that way. Offering our readers free access to incisive coverage of local news, food and culture. Producing stories on everything from political scandals to the hottest new bands, with gutsy reporting, stylish writing, and staffers who've won everything from the Society of Professional Journalists' Sigma Delta Chi feature-writing award to the Casey Medal for Meritorious Journalism. But with local journalism's existence under siege and advertising revenue setbacks having a larger impact, it is important now more than ever for us to rally support behind funding our local journalism. You can help by participating in our "I Support" membership program, allowing us to keep covering Houston with no paywalls.

We use cookies to collect and analyze information on site performance and usage, and to enhance and customize content and advertisements. By clicking 'X' or continuing to use the site, you agree to allow cookies to be placed. To find out more, visit our cookies policy and our privacy policy.