We’ve all been there: sitting at a picnic, enjoying an egg salad sandwich and some watermelon. You turn your head to look for a napkin and when you turn back around, without fail, there is a nasty little fly trying to grab a free meal. BAH! The whole sandwich is ruined now; doesn’t matter if you only saw it sitting on the very top corner, you’ll have to throw the whole thing away “just in case” it had time to trod its dirty little fly feet all over your sandwich. No sir; no one likes flies!
Unless of course said fly is Jeff Goldblum in a remake of the Kurt Nuemann 1958 sci-fi classic, The Fly. David Cronenberg directed the 1986 remake with Goldblum as inventor/scientist-turned-fly, Seth Brundle, although neither director or star would return for the sequel three years later. For years, Cronenberg insisted he did not want to be involved with any sort of reboot of The Fly but has now changed his mind. He is currently in the process of developing a Fly reboot and there is a chance he will both write the script and return to the director’s chair.
|
|
Cronenberg has had some recent successes directing Eastern Promises and A History of Violence, both starring Viggo Mortensen. Which makes me wonder if Viggo could be the next BrundleFly? That is of course if Viggo is still making films. Last we heard he was, but we have no way of truly knowing until he signs on to another project. Actually, I think Viggo would be a good match to play the scientist doomed to hover around garbage.
Funny, Creepy, Bad (A fly has teeth?)
The 1958 original Fly was all campy sci-fi, starring the master of horror, Vincent Price. It was everything you would expect from a low-budget science fiction movie of the time – very cheap effects, creepy dark story, even darker humor sprinkled throughout and a man in a suit with a giant fly shaped head. Cronenberg’s remake, however, went with more of a Fangoria-style effects setup. Goldblum transforming into the BrundleFly remains, to this day, one of the creepiest things I’ve seen on screen. It’s up there with John Carpenter’s The Thing effects from 1982.
We have Chris Walas to thank for those great special effects. He did the creature effects for The Fly (but also helmed the terrible sequel, The Fly II). If Fox Studios truly does get this project off the ground, then I hope they bring Walas back on board FOR F/X WORK. If Fox and Cronenberg go the CGI route with the effects (which everyone seems hell bent on doing these days), then consider me not interested in this reboot.
Not word yet as to how soon The Fly reboot could happen, since Cronenberg recently talked about helming Eastern Promises 2. As always though, Screen Rant will keep you up-to-date with the latest information as it happens.
What do you think about seeing David Cronenberg rebooting The Fly? Excited or are you singing “Shoo Fly! Don’t bother me?”
The Fly reboot is still in the larva stages and has no metamorphosis date.
Source: Risky Business Blog
Loading ...
12 Comments
Great news!
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.
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.
why oh why are they making another fly movie? boring boring.
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.
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.
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.
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!)
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.
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.)
What's your opinion? Leave a Reply!
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!