Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

The Birds - REMAKE - From Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

The Birds - REMAKE - From Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes

Old 10-19-06, 10:25 AM
  #76  
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by SteveJKo
You got that right, look at the remake of "Psycho".

I think my distaste for remakes comes from the waste of resources. They could have spent this money on something original and instead wasted it reproducing something that, in this case, was perfect the first time around.
That, to me, is a legitimate gripe. That Hollywood is so empty of original ideas that they have to remake things like Bewitched and The Dukes of Hazzard instead of creating something entirely new.
Old 10-19-06, 12:06 PM
  #77  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A remake of The Birds makes sense, as long as it's not an exact replica of Hitchcock's version, the way the remake of Psycho was. The concept has some gas, so hit it. Birds attacking people! Why not do it again? It isn't really sacred territory.

I'm also pretty repulsed by the 'film fans' in here that think Hitchcock's version sucks. Hitchcock built a masterpiece out of spit and chewing gum: This was 1963. They didn't have technology to make perfectly convincing effects, and so true genius had to be employed. It's the true craft of filmmaking.
Old 10-19-06, 12:13 PM
  #78  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 71,383
Received 122 Likes on 84 Posts
Originally Posted by Ethan VanSciver
Hitchcock built a masterpiece out of spit and chewing gum: This was 1963.
Incorrect. Psycho was made on spit & bubble gum. The Birds was a big-budget Hollywood film.
Old 10-19-06, 12:34 PM
  #79  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,147
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Maybe this time, it will explain why the birds are attacking. Did the 1st one even attempt this? All I could guess was those birds somehow got every bird around go go nuts (evil telepathic birds?). Add more variety to the birds attacking also. Pelicans, humming birds & an Andes Condor!!
Old 10-19-06, 12:58 PM
  #80  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Groucho
Incorrect. Psycho was made on spit & bubble gum. The Birds was a big-budget Hollywood film.
Not "made ON", made OUT OF. It doesn't matter how much money you have in 1963, without CGI it is almost impossible to get convincing FX on the screen. Hitchcock was able to tell the story using very practical and ingenius special effects tricks, which instructed and informed almost every film maker from then on. To make fun of them now is to completely miss the point.
Old 10-19-06, 01:08 PM
  #81  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Right now, my location is DVDTalk, but then again, you should already know that, shouldn't you?
Posts: 6,364
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by resinrats
Maybe this time, it will explain why the birds are attacking.
You're right, it probably will--another important reason why this remake should be avoided.
Old 10-19-06, 08:17 PM
  #82  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,150
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Ethan VanSciver
Not "made ON", made OUT OF. It doesn't matter how much money you have in 1963, without CGI it is almost impossible to get convincing FX on the screen. Hitchcock was able to tell the story using very practical and ingenius special effects tricks, which instructed and informed almost every film maker from then on. To make fun of them now is to completely miss the point.
I don't think anyone here is criticizing the effects. Most of us are criticizing the story, which is pretty thin, especially for Hitchcock. Of course, how could it not be? The birds attacking in that film is basically a non-sequiter to what's actually happening in the rest of the movie.
Old 10-20-06, 07:48 AM
  #83  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
I don't think anyone here is criticizing the effects. Most of us are criticizing the story, which is pretty thin, especially for Hitchcock. Of course, how could it not be? The birds attacking in that film is basically a non-sequiter to what's actually happening in the rest of the movie.
Is it any thinner of a story than Night of the Living Dead? It follows that plotline fairly closely (or vice versa) except it spends the time in the first act creating characters that are actually likable. Calling the birds attacking a non-sequiter is an interesting way of looking at the movie though. I think I agree with you, but not to the extent that I think it hurts the movie.
Old 10-20-06, 12:29 PM
  #84  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Johnny Zhivago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Korova Milkbar
Posts: 5,435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fuck Michael Bay.

Next...

edit - Oh, I see that there's two threads in the movie forum devoted to this celluloid abortion... In that case, fuck Michael Bay X 2.

Last edited by Johnny Zhivago; 10-20-06 at 12:32 PM.
Old 10-20-06, 01:02 PM
  #85  
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Johnny Zhivago
Fuck Michael Bay.

Next...

edit - Oh, I see that there's two threads in the movie forum devoted to this celluloid abortion... In that case, fuck Michael Bay X 2.
Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.
Old 10-20-06, 06:09 PM
  #86  
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,718
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Groucho
I'll say it: the first movie ain't that great. It takes forever to get to the bird attack, and when the attack does happen most of the effects are ridiculously laughable, even by 1963 standards. There are some great individual sequences, but overall the movie doesn't work for me.
The movie never explained the reason why the birds were attacking, and I've viewed it repeatedly trying to understand. This was the most important element of the film that was omitted. Or did I missed something?
Old 10-20-06, 06:16 PM
  #87  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Next stop, Earth.
Posts: 3,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm not the biggest fan of The Birds either (LOVE Hitch though) but have to say:

No More Goddamn Remakes :grr:

Get an original idea for once, please!

Last edited by porieux; 10-20-06 at 06:26 PM.
Old 10-21-06, 05:52 AM
  #88  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Pacific Northwest
Posts: 3,422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by SINGLE104
The movie never explained the reason why the birds were attacking, and I've viewed it repeatedly trying to understand. This was the most important element of the film that was omitted. Or did I missed something?
Yes, you missed something. It's not supposed to be a straight-forward rampaging animal movie like Jurassic Park or Anarchnophobia; its more metaphorical than that. For instance, it's no accident that "bird" in the British lexicon is a term for young women. The character interactions between Melanie and the Brenners (and Annie Hayworth, Mitch's scorned ex), isn't just overly long exposition preceeding the horror of the bird attacks; the two are intimately interconnected. If you go in for a purely surface reading of the film, you completely miss all the subtext and thus the two stories seem oddly disjointed.

And as for the prospect of a Michael Bay remake (God, those words make me shudder), I'd say it will end up proudly assuming its place - in huge piles - next to all the unsold copies of Phat Girlz and Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector in the Used Bin at every local video store in America.
Old 10-21-06, 08:21 AM
  #89  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Posts: 17,134
Received 814 Likes on 569 Posts
I'm not a fan of remakes either, but I find it interesting that people seem to hate the idea of this being remade and yet have no problem with Scorsese doing a remake (The Departed).
Old 10-21-06, 09:04 AM
  #90  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Right now, my location is DVDTalk, but then again, you should already know that, shouldn't you?
Posts: 6,364
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Scorsese...Michael Bay...Scorsese...Michael Bay...think about it, Coral.

Not to mention that a remake of a film most people have never heard of is a different animal altogether than a remake of a classic. When Scorsese remade CAPE FEAR, he got plenty of grief (though, for most of us, he thankfully was able to prove the naysayers wrong)...
Old 10-21-06, 10:42 AM
  #91  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Posts: 17,134
Received 814 Likes on 569 Posts
Originally Posted by Filmmaker
Scorsese...Michael Bay...Scorsese...Michael Bay...think about it, Coral.

Not to mention that a remake of a film most people have never heard of is a different animal altogether than a remake of a classic. When Scorsese remade CAPE FEAR, he got plenty of grief (though, for most of us, he thankfully was able to prove the naysayers wrong)...
It has nothing to do with the talent... some are complaining about films being remade and that Hollywood lacks originality. It seems that some directors get away with it, while others don't. And to me it doesn't matter if the original film was popular or not... a remake is a remake.
Old 10-21-06, 11:08 AM
  #92  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Seattle,WA
Posts: 1,247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by resinrats
Maybe this time, it will explain why the birds are attacking. Did the 1st one even attempt this? All I could guess was those birds somehow got every bird around go go nuts (evil telepathic birds?). Add more variety to the birds attacking also. Pelicans, humming birds & an Andes Condor!!

Credits End

(Screen fades to black)

The camera pulls back to reveal a black, reflective disk. [blinks]

Camera zooms out further to reveal two budgies in a cage.

Continues zooming, revealing the cage next to a bank of computer screens displaying random numbers and DNA strings. Men in lab coats work in the background. Some sort of government bio-weapons lab.

Last edited by Panda Phil; 10-21-06 at 11:12 AM.
Old 10-21-06, 11:47 AM
  #93  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Right now, my location is DVDTalk, but then again, you should already know that, shouldn't you?
Posts: 6,364
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Coral
It has nothing to do with the talent... some are complaining about films being remade and that Hollywood lacks originality. It seems that some directors get away with it, while others don't.
Because a few (a very few) directors are masterful enough to bring originality to an unoriginal premise.

Originally Posted by Coral
And to me it doesn't matter if the original film was popular or not... a remake is a remake.
I disagree, because much of people's distaste for remakes is that the films being remade were already done perfectly the first time. If we're gonna have remakes, why not remake film's with great premises but poor executions?

Last edited by Filmmaker; 10-21-06 at 11:49 AM.
Old 10-21-06, 12:38 PM
  #94  
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Filmmaker
Scorsese...Michael Bay...Scorsese...Michael Bay...think about it, Coral.

Not to mention that a remake of a film most people have never heard of is a different animal altogether than a remake of a classic. When Scorsese remade CAPE FEAR, he got plenty of grief (though, for most of us, he thankfully was able to prove the naysayers wrong)...
Michael Bay is not directing. His production company is producing it but it will probably be directed by some new director.
Old 10-21-06, 05:36 PM
  #95  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Pacific Northwest
Posts: 3,422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Filmmaker
I disagree, because much of people's distaste for remakes is that the films being remade were already done perfectly the first time. If we're gonna have remakes, why not remake film's with great premises but poor executions?
Old 10-21-06, 07:53 PM
  #96  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well, they mentioned in the movie about some of the birds possibly being sick. I just figured they all got some form of bird rabies or something...

I love the movie, but near the end with her in the room...thought it was pretty cheesy. She's a total goof during that part. Instead of peeking, she just walks in, then she can't seem to open the door...good grief...
Old 10-22-06, 12:39 AM
  #97  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,150
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Ethan VanSciver
Is it any thinner of a story than Night of the Living Dead? It follows that plotline fairly closely (or vice versa) except it spends the time in the first act creating characters that are actually likable. Calling the birds attacking a non-sequiter is an interesting way of looking at the movie though. I think I agree with you, but not to the extent that I think it hurts the movie.
That's actually an excellent comparison on the surface, but Night of the Living Dead puts The Birds to shame. Night has a gritty documentary feel (helped by the almost non-existant budget) that The Birds, as a major Hollywood production, completely lacks. The Birds feels like a big production, whereas Night of the Living Dead is a frontal assault. Furthermore, in The Birds, there was almost no defending against the animals, whereas in Night, success, however unlikely, was possible. The only reason anyone survives in The Birds is because of pure blind luck, whereas the people in Night live and die by their decisions. So I would say, on the surface, the two seem somewhat similar, but Night takes it to a completely different level.

Edit: Also, let's face it. Zombies are scarier than birds.
Old 10-22-06, 01:23 AM
  #98  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Pacific Northwest
Posts: 3,422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Actually, I disagree. I think the comparison to Night of the Living Dead is very apropos. Both are deceptively subtextual films with the monsters meant to serve more as metaphors than just as simple straightforward menaces. They do differ in their technical approach and execution, but conceptually speaking, they are very similar. One is meant as a social commentary about racial tensions, the other is more of a psychological study about sexual tensions. I would say George Romero is heavily indebted to Hitchcock at least in his thematic approach, if not in his cinematic style. That said, I do agree that The Birds is not an absolute masterpiece. I'd say it's one of his better efforts, but still not at the level of Psycho, Vertigo or Rear Window.
Old 10-22-06, 02:05 AM
  #99  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,150
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
I guess then I'm arguing that where Romero departed from Hitchcock's blueprint made for a better movie.
Old 10-22-06, 02:18 AM
  #100  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,306
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by dx23
I think my thread should be merged with this one.
agreed

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.