This weeks remake...The Birds

humanji

Well the idiots that be have realised that none of Alfred Hitchcocks films have been defiled and so have decided to remake The Birds. From imdb:

Australian actress Naomi Watts has reportedly been offered the lead role in the remake of Alfred Hitchcock's 1963 horror classic The Birds. Armageddon director Michael Bay's company will produce the new version of the film. She would play the role of Melanie Daniels, which was played by Tippi Hedren, in the original, according to moviehole.net. The script is being re-worked by Leslie Dixon, who updated The Thomas Crown Affair for Pierce Brosnan and Rene Russo in 1999. The movie features a wealthy San Francisco socialite who follows a potential boyfriend to a small Northern California town where birds suddenly begin to launch vicious attacks on people.

Now there's every possiblility that it could be good, but just the fact that Michael Bay is involved (which he may not be directly), makes me feel ill.

J.R.HARTLEY

humanji wrote:

Well the idiots that be have realised that none of Alfred Hitchcocks films have been defiled and so have decided to remake The Birds.

while i agree with your sentiment, the great alfred hitchcock has indeed already been violated with gus van sants terrible 1998 remake of Psycho

joe_chicken

I'm not sure, but I think he was being sarcastic

There's a few Hitchcock remakes...
although the only other one I can think of was a remake of Rear Window with Christopher Reeves

I can't imagine a good Birds remake, all polished and shiney with cgi birds

And I can't imagine pitching it to a modern audience:

Film Promoter: "Look! They're birds, there's lots of em and they're scary"
Film Goer:"What's so scary about them, do they have weapons of mass destruction or lasers on their heads?"
Promoter: "Emm.. no"
Goer: "... are they dead? like as in Zombies or Ghosts or GhostZombies, and they live in your dreams and eat your soul?"
Promoter: "Emm... no"
Goer: "Not interested!"

humanji

J.R.HARTLEY wrote:

while i agree with your sentiment, the great alfred hitchcock has indeed already been violated with gus van sants terrible 1998 remake of Psycho

Oops, it was meant to be "defiled in a while"

c - 13

This saddens me.
I have always had a genuine love for this particular Hitchcock film. It wasnt because it looked great, it wasnt because it had great actors and it wasnt because it was a multimillion dollar production being shoved down everyones throats. I liked it because it was a great yarn. I liked it because it was different.

No remake can ever come close to making me feel the way I did when I first saw this film, and I certainly will not be going to see this one.

Classics remade for the new masses, dumbed down and diluted to suit society groups who dont like to or cant think for themselves, "No, No, No - that will make the audiences form an intelligent opinion for themselves, we need to cut that scene, lets replace it with a topless scene instead. The world can never have enough topless scenes".

Sorry about the rant.

Ph3n0m

c - 13 wrote:

This saddens me.
I have always had a genuine love for this particular Hitchcock film. It wasnt because it looked great, it wasnt because it had great actors and it wasnt because it was a multimillion dollar production being shoved down everyones throats. I liked it because it was a great yarn. I liked it because it was different.

No remake can ever come close to making me feel the way I did when I first saw this film, and I certainly will not be going to see this one.

Classics remade for the new masses, dumbed down and diluted to suit society groups who dont like to or cant think for themselves, "No, No, No - that will make the audiences form an intelligent opinion for themselves, we need to cut that scene, lets replace it with a topless scene instead. The world can never have enough topless scenes".

Sorry about the rant.

but isnt that what Hollywood is all about - not having anymore original ideas, so lets go fishing in Asia or start to remake classics?

Just wondering how long it will be before we get remakes of Gone With The Wind or Strangers on a Train or even 12 Angry Men

Hell, a small little gem I saw on TG4, called The Bad Seed has been remade for TV and now again for cinema, its almost disheartning. The original version (which I highly recommend) is very disturbing for cinema of its time (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048977/)

c - 13

I know Ph3n0m but at the same time its disheartening when all you see coming out is remakes - and usually bad ones at that. I'd say I can count all the good remakes on one hand.

Most remakes dont try to stick to the original so much as go off on a tangent, and I guess a lot of it is nostalgia kicking in saying "Whoa, Whoa what the **** is this ? This isnt right."
Now obviously in the case of the birds the two taget audiences will be different and as one poster pointed out already with the surge in horror releases with zombies and other magnificent creatures im a little frightened that the spin on this will be some sort of viral infected zombie killer birds, and thats best case scenario.

Reading over my posts I dont make a lot of sense do I ?

fade2black

Ph3n0m wrote:

but isnt that what Hollywood is all about - not having anymore original ideas, so lets go fishing in Asia or start to remake classics?

Just wondering how long it will be before we get remakes of Gone With The Wind or Strangers on a Train or even 12 Angry Men

Hell, a small little gem I saw on TG4, called The Bad Seed has been remade for TV and now again for cinema, its almost disheartning. The original version (which I highly recommend) is very disturbing for cinema of its time (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048977/)

Do you mean another remake of 12 angry men?

joe_chicken

Ph3n0m wrote:

Hell, a small little gem I saw on TG4, called The Bad Seed has been remade for TV and now again for cinema, its almost disheartning. The original version (which I highly recommend) is very disturbing for cinema of its time (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048977/)

I caught that on Sky Cinema lately on a Sunday morning.

That movie is pretty damn scary if you're hung over...

Some of the best child acting I've ever seen

(the original, I hasten to add )

Ph3n0m

fade2black wrote:

Do you mean another remake of 12 angry men?

sob! I just saw that on imdb a while ago, I was hoping I was just half asleep

fade2black

Ph3n0m wrote:

sob! I just saw that on imdb a while ago, I was hoping I was just half asleep

You should check that one out. It's not nearly as good as the original but the cast is decent.

humanji

Ph3n0m wrote:

sob! I just saw that on imdb a while ago, I was hoping I was just half asleep

In that case, you don't want to go here!

But then again. Wasn't " A Perfect Murder" a remake of of "Dial 'M' For Murder"? And that was pretty good, IMO.

Ph3n0m

humanji wrote:

In that case, you don't want to go here!

But then again. Wasn't " A Perfect Murder" a remake of of "Dial 'M' For Murder"? And that was pretty good, IMO.

Dear jesus nooooooooooooooooooooooooo

J.R.HARTLEY

in fairness remakes are nothing new, Hitchcock remade a film of his own, the man who knew too much.
The western director Howard Hawks remade his 1959 classic rio bravo as el dorado in 1966, the john carepenter remade rio bravo as assault on precinct 13 in the 70's before it was remade again two years ago.

ObeyGiant

c - 13 wrote:

This saddens me.
I have always had a genuine love for this particular Hitchcock film. It wasnt because it looked great, it wasnt because it had great actors and it wasnt because it was a multimillion dollar production being shoved down everyones throats. I liked it because it was a great yarn. I liked it because it was different

Could you explain to me why a remake is going to change the original? The original movie is still going to be just as awesome as it was the first time you saw it, regardless of how bad the remake is.

Seriously, a lot of needless caterwauling on this thread. People aren't even willing to give the movie the benefit of the doubt?

J.R.HARTLEY

ObeyGiant wrote:

Could you explain to me why a remake is going to change the original? The original movie is still going to be just as awesome as it was the first time you saw it, regardless of how bad the remake is.

i think one important point however is that when studios spend a fortune on remakes it can be harder to get your hands on the original, the remake will appear on tv more frequently for a few years and sometimes the original will not be released on dvd because different studios made the verisions. but all in all the remake if inferior will fall away into the background leaving the original standing tall. anyway like already said give it a chance first, sure even cecil b demille is guilty of remakes

ObeyGiant

J.R.HARTLEY wrote:

i think one important point however is that when studios spend a fortune on remakes it can be harder to get your hands on the original

This is crazy talk.

Seriously.

Can you please back this up? Because I'm at a loss to think of one instance where this has happened. In fact, I can only think of instances where remakes have encouraged the studios to go back and release a new DVD version of their movie - The Wicker Man (bad remake), Texas Chainsaw Massacre (good remake), The Grudge 1 & 2, the Stepford Wives etc.

lostexpectation

its a curious film, only watched it all the through there recently, the special effects on it all hilariously bad, even for then 'I think' the way the have the chidren running against a a projection of the scene ,and the stuffed birds.

J.R.HARTLEY

ObeyGiant wrote:

This is crazy talk.

Seriously.

Can you please back this up? Because I'm at a loss to think of one instance where this has happened. In fact, I can only think of instances where remakes have encouraged the studios to go back and release a new DVD version of their movie - The Wicker Man (bad remake), Texas Chainsaw Massacre (good remake), The Grudge 1 & 2, the Stepford Wives etc.

i stated in the above post that it can be, not that it always is. When Red Dragon was released on DVD i had to visit 8 different shops to get manhunter but their were plenty of Copies of Red Dragon, when i wanted to watch the original Heat (L.a. Takedown) it wasn't available the links on imdb to buy it don't even lead to the movie.
so as i was saying it can be harder to get some of the real originals just as it can also be easier a la pink panther and Charlie and the chocolate factory.

lodgepole

His films are ripe for remaking. I'm glad. They're fantastic stories and some of them would make great modern thrillers. The 39 Steps (in my opinion his best film) is also being remade in the near future.

Gus Van Sant's shot for shot remake of Psycho was not terrible, it was merely pointless. It was essentially every bit as good as the original.

lostexpectation wrote:

its a curious film, only watched it all the through there recently, the special effects on it all hilariously bad, even for then 'I think' the way the have the chidren running against a a projection of the scene ,and the stuffed birds.

The special effects were quite wonderful at the time. Some of the compositing was as advanced as has ever been done. It hasn't held up that well though, and it definitely effects the strength of that sequence.