This has gone too far. Someone's going to have to assassinate this guy:
http://joblo.com/index.php?id=7286
I think I'm going to vomit.
His remake of THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE was going too far; this is serial.
*puts gun in mouth, turns off safety and pulls the--
Who would NOT want to hear "Turn Turn Turn" done in modern technopop?
Oh, wait. Wrong "Birds" (I know, spellin...).
Really, this guy must have a major masochistic streak to try to remake Hitchcock. Or an awefully BIG ego.
I can't wait! Giant exploding birds that explode when shot.
Cheecky - why not just put the gun in Michael Bay's mouth?
Remaking The Birds....
...pointless.
Eirik wrote:
> Cheecky - why not just put the gun in Michael Bay's mouth?
His foot is already there. (:
"His foot is already there. (:"
I suppose putting it in his ear would work just as well. There'd be some justice in it too, considering how many ear drums Michael Bay is responsible for blowing out.
Who Cares? If you don't like his work, don't watch it. Go back and watch the Hitchcock version and enjoy it. If he can convince people to pay to make it and convince people to watch it and people enjoy it, then great for him. If you think you'll like it, watch it; if you think you won't, don't. Life goes on...but it's too short to get worked up over what someone else wants to do with their money that's not hurting me, and way to short to wish ill for someone else's
Oh stop being a voice of reason. (:
We enjoy beating up on Bay just for the fun of it. (heh..heh)
At least the one he chose to remake is one where the original is pretty flawed for Hitchcock. That Locusts movie actually reminded me of the birds a little bit. A lot of the destruction the birds wreak only works if a bunch of stuff goes just right... Was it supposed to be scary when that guy sprayed gasoline all over the place while smoking and then a bird came after him and the gas station blew up? I mean, should that even count as one for the birds? What if someone catches syphilis from a hooker, and then a bird distracts the doctor so he dosen't get diagnosed properly and dies from not getting it treated? OK, I'm ranting now. If I was more familiar with Bay I'd probably be pessimistic, but there is room for improvement in The Birds, IMHO.
But consdiering that Hitchcock's PSYCHO was remade back in 1998 (at least that's the year I remember), who wouldn't have thought a remake of THE BIRDS was long in coming. However, we must also consider that the PSYCHO remake was a box-office flop much to the "suprise" of director Gus Van Saint, so in the long run I don't see THE BIRDS becoming a box-office smash. The REAL QUESTION is why must Michael Bay turn into a remake extroadinare?On the one angle, he is probably trying to make a go-around as an upcoming producer: his directing days are pretty much finished and has had a semi-successful run with the remakes of THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE and THE AMITYVILLE HORROR, both of which, while not huge moneymakers, have indeed made their money back. But as a producer, he is just digging way to deep in the remake bin.
Looking back at THE BIRDS, I do remember the film being flawed in a few departments, yes. And yet, despite the few flaws in it's ploting and other mischelaneous items, the film still had enough going for it. I just don't see why the original can't be re-issued in theatres instead of being remade.
Oh well, that's another movie I don't have to torture myself into watching.
Well think about it this way, by remaking other films, they expect at least some people who are interested in the original will show up.
Then when you remake the birds, how are they going to deal with it?
Will they explain the evil birds are just infected with a virus making them angry or something equally stupid?
If they explain the birds behaviour, forget about it; the whole tension is that noone really knows what the deal was.
Also, a bunch of cgi birds on screen? Oh that's really scary...
bloody hell i hate Michael Bay. Though I really liked the Rock...
If they want to make it way different than the Hitchcock, they should base it more closely on the original short story.
"Also, a bunch of cgi birds on screen? Oh that's really scary..."
Well, someone mentioned that The Birds was weak for Hitchcock and I couldn't agree more. I've always attributed it to this undisputable fact - CGI, real, claymation, or puppets: seagulls and pigeons just aren't scary. I put myself in the shoes of the people in the movie and I am overwhelmed with the urge to shout: "They're JUST BIRDS! Swat 'em away for Pete's sake."
I like to think Hitchcock was sitting in a bar somewhere and bragging about how he could make a scary movie about ANYTHING, and a couple of his buddies huddled up to think of a challenge and said: "What about pigeons and seagulls, Al? I bet you couldn't make a scary movie about pigeons and seagulls." And I think they got him on that one.