Sydney Sweeney is your new Barbarella
Euphoria's Sydney Sweeney will star in and executive produce a new Barbarella for Sony
Aux News Barbarella
Hailed as “the most beautiful creature” of the future, Barbarella is returning to our time. And as we all know, Barbarella is a “five-star double-rated astronavigatrix Earth girl” played by Jane Fonda in the 1968 film, but who should play her today? Why, Sydney Sweeney, of course. Per Deadline, the Euphoria star will lead and executive produce a remake (or reboot or legacy sequel or whatever they’re making these days) of Barbarella for Sony.
Based on the French comic by Jean-Claude Forest, Barbarella follows the aforementioned astronavigatrix on a “wingdinger,” traveling from planet to planet “doing her thing”—ok, we’ll stop quoting the incredible trailer for the ’68 movie. But the plot of the original sees Barbarella go from planet to planet, being groovy while trying to stop the mad scientist Durand Durand from taking over the galaxy with his Positronic Ray.
Of course, what made the original so iconic was Jane Fonda dealing with
all these cheap, late 60s science fiction props, costumes, and sets.
It’s a ridiculous movie, which could make for a fun Sydney Sweeney project if handled correctly.
There has been no shortage of people trying to make a new Barbarella in the last fifty years. In the 2000s, Robert Rodriguez tried to get a Barbarella movie going with Rose McGowan, but Rodriguez left the project after the budget exceeded $80 million.
“It was a real bummer,” Rodriguez told MTV at the time. “We had all this artwork and screen tests of what it would look like. It was a really cool, R-rated, sexy—almost like that [1981 animated] movie, Heavy Metal—version of a Star Wars movie. Something that no one ever could get to see. It was gonna be really great.”
In 2012, Amazon announced a TV series pilot written by James Bond scribes Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, who worked on the Rodriguez project and directed by Nicolas Winding Refn. Ultimately, Refn dropped out to make The Neon Demon.
“I don’t own Barbarella, the estate does, but I decided to be more interested in the The Neon Demon,” Refn told The Playlist in 2016. “Plus there are other television things that caught my attention. I actually enjoy designing it from the beginning. […] Certain things are better left untouched. You don’t need to remake everything.”
Who knows. Maybe Sydney Sweeney will prove him wrong.
50 Comments
I too would like a very horny burlesque Star War.
You may have missed this from 39 years ago
I am very well aware of Carrie Fisher’s contributions to cinema. But I’m looking for more of a heightened steady state of horny throughout the film, not one peak of horny in the first act of an otherwise non-horny film.
“Comments…mmphf! Stop it now!”
Ornella Muti in Flash Gordon (1980). You’re welcome.
Find yourself a copy of Flesh Gordon. Soft-core porn that tries too hard but still is silly amusement.
“THANKS XPDNC”
Way ahead of you there! The DVD is high on my shelf.
I think Valerian was an attempt at this, but it couldn’t seal the deal. It’s pretty great in small doses, though it’s ultimately not that great a film.
Valerian was PG-13. It’s hard to buy into the idea of a movie being intentionally sexy/sensual when it’s rated PG-13.Plus, and this is my own personal tastes, I wouldn’t try and craft something sexy around Dane Dehaan and Cara Delevigne.
True, that’s why I said they didn’t seal the deal. The potential was certainly there.
Finally!
Dầu gội kích thích mọc tóc tốt nhất nam và nữ đều dùng được
I hope she’s able to make a better life for herself with this paycheck.
I dunno. Is Sydney Sweeney comfortable with the requisite level of nudity required?
The last time I read an article about how she was just getting comfortable with the nudity in whatever she was doing at the time, I clicked over to Reddit immediately afterward and scrolled through post after post of her being naked (or damn close to it) on social media. I guess she was more comfortable with it than she thought..
That is a supremely gross fucking comment. Like what she does in her private life has any bearing on her professional one? Like there’s no difference there, she doesn’t have any agency? She may be sexually active too, does that make her a hypocrite for then refusing to be in a porno? Wtf kind of disgusting logic is that?
Fuck off.
Fucking Christ you’re gross.
Nope. Just honest. Our ‘personal’ lives do have a bearing on our professional lives, especially when our ‘personal’ lives are put on display for all to see by our own hand. ‘Personal’ lives barely even exist anymore, especially for those looking to make a buck off of them.
While a bit risque for 1968, there was very little nudity in the original version. The most problematic portion of the film and comic tend to be the tendency for the character to get sexually assaulted by various robots, villains and machines.
All part of her never ending quest to be taken seriously as an actor!
Hey she restored her own classic truck, and looks like she does, if that doesn’t scream sex appeal nothing does. As an actor I think she has done quite well so far.
Right? The original isn’t exactly famous because it showcased Jane Fonda’s acting chops. Her other “talents” were the focus.
For everyone just now learning about this film, yes, that character name is the source of the band Duran Duran. The only better band name origin is Steely Dan.
“Junkie flips through Naked Lunch at random” isn’t that great of a story
Lots of dorky New Wave ‘80s kids hunted down Barbarella (which was much harder back then) just because of this. Not that I was one of them or anything. *cough*
Thanks, pretty-pretty.
I know this is usually something horny old racists say to attack modernity but like, you just can’t make Barbarella todayLike, the original has a scene where a mad scientist stuffs the heroine in a pipe organ that fucks her, and he jams out some new wave to fuck her into submission but she’s so horny that she fucks the pipe organ until it explodes so he slut shames herNo mainstream studio today would allow JUST THAT SCENE out the door, and they would be right to not do so
What I’m getting at is that whatever doubtlessly awful movie they make, it’s just going to be a generic piece of claptrap with a bunch of sanitized token nods to the filthy stupid original, and it will be worse for the association and comparison. It’s like if Hollywood decided “ay yo let’s make a Legend of the Overfiend movie, who’s gonna play horny demon Hitler?”
Of course, what made the original so iconic was Jane Fonda dealing with all these cheap, late 60s science fiction props, costumes, and sets.There are two things missing from that list.
I can’t wait to masturbate to this.
Done, done & done!
I dunno, the original is so sexy and charming partly because of those cheesy 60s effects. The movie is a product of its time that doesn’t take itself too seriously, and I think a modern version with a bunch of big-budget CGI will miss out on the fun and trippiness. I also think Jane Fonda is a singularly stunning woman that no recasting can match.I think it’ll end up like those live action remakes of beloved Disney cartoons: bigger and flashier but lacking the soul of the original. And I do think Barbarella has a lot of soul. Despite all the snarky comments, I think there’s more to it than space boobs and a sci-fi city.
After this, I hear she’s going to visit Vietnam, and now your one crazy Uncle won’t stop sending you chain emails about it.
Except that even in the 60s, Fonda was as far from good looking as one be. She’s a mutt, head to toe.
A movie whose key deliverable to the audience is certain visuals can’t be successful. You won’t need to watch this movie to see every “outrageous” costume, and that’s the whole commercial premise of Barbarella.
Especially these deliverables. Which are already available everywhere.
All snickering aside I can’t think of anyone at the moment better suited for taking on the role. She’s uninhibited, seems to have a sense of humor and is game so why not?
Two things you forgot to mention.
Everyone else already has but really those things aren’t specifically what the original role was remembered for. Look at me taking the high road lol….
So, either the people behind this don’t get why it became a cult classic (because the sexy babe angle is only part of it) or they do and they’re going to try to manufacture campiness. Which NEVER works. Either way, this doesn’t bode well. (Though I would say that is pretty good casting.)
Eh, I think it could also work non-campily as just a straight treatment of the original premise.I mean the basic premise is “hot babe in the future fights bad guys and fucks a lot.” And that’s definitely a premise that a lot of people are into. Atomic Blonde being a a recent example. Just instead of a slight undercurrent of feminist resentment of the patriarchy due to being set in the past, it would instead be a celebration of a future where women can and do just fuck because they want to and don’t have a patriarchy to resent.Of course they’ll fuck it up and suck all the joy out of it, but one can hope.
Atomic Blonde was set in the past.
I know. I said that.
Everybody knows Barbarella because of Jane Fonda pics of the time, but I watched the movie, and it mostly makes no sense in typical French comic book style. Sure, the main titles with Fonda are cool, and there’s surprisingly very little nudity, but that’s about it, and I really wanted to like this movie. Hope a new version has a better plot.Anyone seen Flesh Gordon? That’s the feel this movie has, with less nudity.
who will they get to play Anita Pallenberg?
What an incredible fu#k bunny she is!