• Huggybear
    Great news!
  • ogb
    That movie scared the crap out of me as a kid.

    If they CGI the effects it would ruin the movie. But with Cronenberg behind it, I have faith.
  • Wickamo
    Why do you guys make comments like that. Why would cgi be bad. Did cgi ruin Jurassic Park? Sarwars movies? Matrix trilogy? How about a lower profile movie like The Host? The answer is NO. I admit that special effect like those in The Thing and Fly are something special and have a definate place in my heart. Yet put the sceens of the fly next to the T-rex or Host beast and I'm sorry the fly comes across looking like a puppet. Yes bad cgi is bad, but good cgi is great. I just don't get making a statement that a film will be bad before youve seen it because of cgi...thats just ignorant.
  • michael
    why oh why are they making another fly movie? boring boring.
  • ogb
    Wickamo

    It's not ignorant. Yes I was generalizing about CGI. But CGI did ruin a few movies for me, or at least the action scenes. Spiderman, for example, just doesn't work for me when in one scene we see an awesome (real life) spidey costume and then we see him swing through new york, looking like it's a playstation 2 videogame.

    Movies like Evil Dead, The Thing, The Fly, they all used "puppetry" and make up to achieve the most memorable special effects I've ever witnessed. THOSE are the movies that people remember.

    CGI can be done right, but that takes A LOT of talent and A LOT OF money. Usually, at least one of those is missing in movies today. T2, Cameron showed his talent with "liquid metal", an effect that is still relevant in today's world. He also brilliantly used puppetry and make up to give Arnold's Terminator an amazing sense of realism.

    Goofy CGI can be good when used in the right context. Del Torro achieved this in Hellboy and Blade 2 with the whole "cgi to real life" action scenes where he made those transitions smooth and seemless.

    Point is, bad CGI or too much CGI can absolutely ruin movies.
  • John "Kahless" Taylor
    I'm with Wickamo (except the whole ignorant rant). I like good CGI; movies like Star Wars, Transformers, Matrix, etc... were entertaining because of the CGI. Goldblum's The Fly was great, as well as The Thing, but I wouldn't mind some awesome CGI in this unnecessary remake.
  • You guys are off using Star Wars as an example. The first 3 films were all puppets and practical effects (except for the lasers and what not). Compare Yoda from the 1st trilogy to Yoda of the 2nd trilogy. Sure he kicked some major ass but something was missing from all his scenes. A soul if you will.

    I'm not anti-cgi but if the only reason to remake this film is to make a cgi creature then I'm not interested. Thanks for calling me ignorant though Wickamo...right kind of you to pass judge in favor of a remake movie you just heard about this morning.
  • Josh Rose
    I have to disagree with Wickamo, and by extension, Taylor.

    Yes, Jurassic Park was amazing. It still looks fantastic today. No argument there.

    However, the CGI absolutely ruined both the original Star Wars re-releases and the prequel trilogy.

    And while The Matrix's CGI doesn't hurt the film at all, it's terribly dated already. You can tell whenever we switch from real Keanu to CGI Keanu because the animator's forgot to put folds in his clothing (completely ruins the Burly-man Brawl for me).

    Fact is, studios these days don't want to spend the time, effort, and especially money, to make the CGI good anymore. Just look at the dinosaurs in Land of the Lost compared to Jurassic Park.

    And the sad part is, the ONLY reason to remake a movie like this is to modernize it with CGI effects, and it's not even going to look half as good.
  • John "Kahless" Taylor
    You're right, CGI isn't what makes a film good. Heck, look at the remake to Day the Earth Stood Still. But what would Transformers have been without the amazing effects?

    And Josh Rosh, Land of the Lost was abysmal, IMHO. I can't believe I actually spent money on that.

    @Paul
    I had that same argument about how Yoda looked in the prequels. I think I read somewhere that Lucas did that on purpose to make him look more toy-like or something. Thanks a lot Mr. Lucas (NOT!)
  • ogb
    Josh Rose, do you have a brother by the name of Joel ?
  • The practical vs CGI debate can be fascinating at times, but leave Jurassic Park out of it, unless any of you wants to admit that Jurassic used puppets, models AND CGI.

    Look I liked the remakes of The Fly (and Carpenter's version of The Thing) as much as the next filmgeek. Both are well done without the use of CGI...and I'd much rather Cronenberg update Videodrome myself (imagine THAT in CG, people!) ...

    But I don't see a problem with CGI where it might be needed-and it might not always be needed except in ways that are not always so obvious.
  • The Pitt Man
    I'm more interested in Eastern Promises 2!!! That's great news! That Russian Thug is Viggo's best work (yes, even better with aragorn.)
  • JayWicky
    Just to be clear : normally, I would have been in the "No CGI" bandwagon. Most of the time, CGI is just the reason why I can't stand most Sci-Fi movies of that decade. Because most of the time, it's used for its own sake, not to accomplish stuff that other time-tried techniques would do as well, or for budgetary reasons.

    Now, that being said : check out Neil Blomkamp's District 9. That's Walas' Brundlefly and bits of Tippett's ED-209 rolled into one and made into CGI... and CGI done *right*. And once again, that's from someone who mostly hates the hemorrhage of CGI out there.

    I'm more concerned about the very notion of remaking The Fly once again. But since it's Cronenberg at the helm, I'm at least curious to see what else he has to say on the subject.
  • Sophie
    My goodness; in the frenzy of reboot hysteria I typed 'The Fly Reboot' into google, just to check - and lo and behold!
    For me, The Fly is a film so wonderful, yet so disgusting that I am compelled to put myself through the nausea of watching it. Even reading about the steps Chris Walas undertook doing the make-up makes me shift in my seat.

    The wonderful balance between Jeff Goldblum, so perfectly cast, Walas' skillful transformation and Croenenburg's attention-to-the-nasty-detail way of addressing this story, emotionally and visually, well, it worked fantastically.
    I can only hope that this potential reboot will be as difficult to watch, for all the right reasons.
    As far as CGI, it's a wonderful blending element, superb for vast landscapes and the like, but I think when it comes to people, and especially body horror, we need to see something real there, something tangible that can make us look at it, reflect it upon ourselves and believe it.

    Love The Fly...Fly 2, well, the mutilated dog had me crying, but the make-up didn't have me squirming. Shame.

    Please don't mess it up dude!

    xx
blog comments powered by Disqus