Day of the Triffids (film) - Sam Raimi

[Neil]

Killer plants. It's where I draw the line. Why? Genetically modified plants that exhibit some almost animal like charactericts, such as being able to slowly drag themselves along, are less believable than dead bodies walking around?

[Mike70]

Killer plants. It's where I draw the line. fair enough. everyone has a different line. my line is movies centered around or having children as one of the main characters. Hate 'em. that includes "the sixth sense", easily the most overrated "horror" movie of the last 25 years.

[shootemindehead]

Killer plants. It's where I draw the line. Actually, there are quite a few "killer plants" in reality. The most obvious being the Venus flytrap. The Triffids themselves were based on the Pitcher plant, that lures its prey in a sticky funnell and then disolves them slowly, over time. Fu*kin gruesome, if you ask me.

[Christopher Jon]

Why? Genetically modified plants that exhibit some almost animal like charactericts, such as being able to slowly drag themselves along, are less believable than dead bodies walking around? I don't have a logical answer. It's just one of those things that makes me think 'eh, that's a dumb idea. Just isn't for me. If the movie is ever made I'll still see it. I'll give it a chance to win me over.

[EvilNed]

I'm midway through the 80's version. So far, I have to say I far prefer the '09 version. This 80's one doesn't strike me as anything special, really.

[Danny]

I just watched the 2009 one on nextflix this week and dug it. it was dumb and the science was dogshit. However it was entertaining and the triffids themselves were very creepy, their shambling was almost zombie like and their alien nature as predatory carnivorous plantlife was really disturbing. Izzard is an actor i like but he was given the writing of a 50's villain so he fell kind of flat but was still an interesting example of how a callous opportunistic quick thinker can jump on such a situation for personal gain. It was flawed, but ultimately an entertaining experience. in an odd way it reminded me of danny boyles sunshine. dumb, flawed and making little sense in the end, but ride had some memorable moments that made it worth watching.

[Neil]

I'm midway through the 80's version. So far, I have to say I far prefer the '09 version. This 80's one doesn't strike me as anything special, really. Ban +1 It's far more apocalyptic IMHO. And also far more believable...

[EvilNed]

Well, maybe. But the production itself was really sub par, even for the standards of the day. The editing is awful, confusing the hell out of me several times. Characters come and go without any form of introduction whatsoever, and you're just supposed to guess who these guys are. As for it being far more believable, I have to say I wouldn't really say that either of them are more or less believable. I felt that Bill Masen's so called "expertise" on Triffids was really downplayed in the 80's one. He didn't seem to interact or apply his knowledge to the situation very much at all. Also, in the later half of the series he runs around with a super-silly sci-fi weapon that I can't even begin to guess what it's supposed to be. It's just details like that that throw me off it. Another part I didn't really like is the fact that much of the series doesn't really operate on the "show, don't tell" rule of thumb. Most of the time things are presented to the audience through dialogue. No doubt for budget concerns, but there's just way too much exposition at times.

[Neil]

Well, maybe. But the production itself was really sub par, even for the standards of the day. You realise you're talking of the same period as Blakes Seven? I think the production - given the limits - was actually extremely good! In many ways the lower budget is a blessing. Meaning more time for talking and simple seens rather than OTT stupid CGI effects. Lovely little touches like a blind man walking through the empty streets of London for example, now better equipped than everyone else. The editing is awful, confusing the hell out of me several times. Characters come and go without any form of introduction whatsoever, and you're just supposed to guess who these guys are. Example? I didn't have any problems? Also, in the later half of the series he runs around with a super-silly sci-fi weapon that I can't even begin to guess what it's supposed to be. It's beginning to sound like you were only half watching it as it was explained and it's just a blade launcher to sever the stem. Must admit being confused by the confusion here? As for it being far more believable, I have to say I wouldn't really say that either of them are more or less believable. I felt that Bill Masen's so called "expertise" on Triffids was really downplayed in the 80's one. He didn't seem to interact or apply his knowledge to the situation very much at all. His knowledge is of the triffids and he does often demonstrates this knowledge - He's even the one who repeatedly tries telling the London survivors of what a serious threat they are etc. And tries to ensure they take the appropriate weapons etc for them. Regarding "downplayed", I think you've hit something on the head there. ie: Believable characters who are not super duper ninja heroes who are all just in the right place at the right time. Consider the new one, where Izzard, our super villain, not only survives a plane crashing into a city, but just happens, in all of the country, to land exactly ontop of the heroin of the story too! The character of "Torrence" in the 1981 version is very subtle. No plane crashes, just a nasty (more believable) piece of work! And as for believable, see my list of issue with the recent version on the previous page in #7... Very daft writing! The classic (ignoring surviving crashing planes) is driving people tens of miles, just to shoot them, only to be snatched by ninja triffids, handily hiding and waiting up in trees! Second comes the idiotic generic baddies at the end of the new one, who, even protected by a fence, walk close enough to it to allow themselves to be got by the triffids! Is anyone on the planet this idiotic? I'd suggest only people concocted by bad writers! BTW, this is not meant to be a I'm right and you're wrong post. And I apologise if it appears to be. And I'll openly admit to having a soft spot for the 1981 version as I loved watching it when I was a teenager. But that side, I've watched it a number of times over the many years since then, and I'm always impressed by it. Hence my solid defense of it The new one could have been epic, but instead it got carried away and lost the subtlety of the story, and instead decided to glitz it up with silly effects and over the top story changes.

[EvilNed]

You realise you're talking of the same period as Blakes Seven? I think the production - given the limits - was actually extremely good! I disagree. The sets felt like sets, shot from one angle only. Felt very cheap. Example? I didn't have any problems? Yes, actually. When Bill finally finds Jo towards the end, it appeared to ME that she was staying all by herself. Then she threw away a line about somebody called "Mary" about to give birth. Who's Mary? I can only GUESS that it's the woman who shows up in a scene a bit later on, sitting around a table with Bill and Jo eating soup. Oh, and I'm guessing that the guy next to her is somehow her husband. It also turns out that this guy is blind. Or so I learn through dialogue when there's five minutes left of the final episode. These two characters were never introduced or presented in any way. They just "show up". Would it have been so hard for Jo to introduce these characters to Bill, and thus, also the audience? It's beginning to sound like you were only half watching it as it was explained and it's just a blade launcher to sever the stem. Must admit being confused by the confusion here? I must've missed that. To be honest, the special effects of when it shot it's laser, or blade, were so bad that I just gave up trying to figure out what it was. His knowledge is of the triffids and he does often demonstrates this knowledge - He's even the one who repeatedly tries telling the London survivors of what a serious threat they are etc. And tries to ensure they take the appropriate weapons etc for them. Given the apocalyptic setting of it, I felt the desperation emanating from the '09 Bill much more so than any form of feeling coming from the '81 Bill. Bill, being a Triffid expert, should know or understand the implications of letting the Triffids wander wild as they do. To me it seemed as if he dropped it quite quickly and instead went out looking for Jo. Also, the love between Jo and Bill evolved rather quickly, I'd say... But it was probably no better in the '09 remake. I won't say anything about Eddie Izzard's gang of villains in the '09 version. I didn't much care for them, and the airplane thing was silly. But I much preferred the '09 one in mood and atmosphere over this one. The characters seemed more fleshed out and the '81 one feels very, very cheap.

[Neil]

Yes, actually. When Bill finally finds Jo towards the end, it appeared to ME that she was staying all by herself. Then she threw away a line about somebody called "Mary" about to give birth. Who's Mary? I can only GUESS that it's the woman who shows up in a scene a bit later on, sitting around a table with Bill and Jo eating soup. Oh, and I'm guessing that the guy next to her is somehow her husband. It also turns out that this guy is blind. Or so I learn through dialogue when there's five minutes left of the final episode. These two characters were never introduced or presented in any way. They just "show up". Would it have been so hard for Jo to introduce these characters to Bill, and thus, also the audience? Again, it appears you missed bits of the story for some reason? Or you weren't listening/paying attention? On the first evening Jo and Bill meet, they hold up in a flat (up from ground level) and discussion what they should do. Bill declares they really need to leave London because it's going to turn into a diseased mess, and should stay somewhere they can be self sufficient but be near to towns for supplies etc. Jo then mentions the South Downs (?), where her friends Dennis (?) and Mary live. She even mentions they're DIY freaks with a wind turbine etc etc... If I recall, Bill is servicing a triffid gun, demonstrating the technical knowledge you suggested he didn't demonstrate

[EvilNed]

I was paying attention all right, and that was a throw away line 2 or 3 episodes before those characters even turn up! Are you seriously suggesting that's a "character introduction"? I'd have to disagree with you big time there. As for Bill demonstrating his scifi gun, I can't recall any scene like that. If I had missed one scene or so, it's definetly that one. Overall kind of a messy series, editing and writing wise. Walking away from it I'm not really impressed by anything. I don't feel that this one brings something to the table that the '09 version doesn't. I'm not saying that one was great, but I had a good time watching it but I'm usually more attracted to older stuff. Not in this case, though. I'm thinking it's probably a bit of nostalgia hitting you here, Neil...

[Mike70]

evilned and neil may need one shot pistols and seconds here in a moment. may i suggest a deep exploration of the bbc show "tripods" as an alternative to violence?

[Neil]

I was paying attention all right, and that was a throw away line 2 or 3 episodes before those characters even turn up! Are you seriously suggesting that's a "character introduction"? Well there you have one difference between good and bad writing maybe. How many times have you been watching something and they've highlighted something such that you just know it's of importance, and you'll be seeing more of it later? With good writing things should be subtle and believable. Good script writing? Jo says, "how about the South Down's? I've got friends down there. Mary and Dennis are real DIY freaks and there's plenty of land down there". Bad script writing? Jo says, "how about the South Down's? I've got friends down there. Mary and Dennis are real DIY freaks and there's plenty of land down there". There's then a cut scene to them, showing them working outside their farm/house. We cut back to Joe again. "Yes, Mary and Dennis' farm is definately where we should go later in this drama. Ok viewers? It's Mary and Dennis, and they're in the South Downs, so remember that's where we'll be heading later on. Remember, Mary, Dennis, South Downs!!" It's not meant to be a character introduction. It's meant to be a plot, which developes rather than simply providing the entire story on a platter for you. The BBC in the 1980s was pretty good at the writing aspect, not so good at the budget. It's why the other series such as the 1970s Survivors was so superior to the modern remake. The writing/plot/script was simply better and required a little more thinking, instead of just trying to fill the void with frilly effects, explosions and over the top plot ideas... Or to put another spin on it. The writers of the 1981 version wouldn't have dared including the plane crashing nonsense we saw in the 2009 version. They would have realised how daft, unbelievable and unecessary it was and binned it. But it's interesting the same could not be said for the 2009 writers, who instead felt compelled to put such nonsense in their version for the sake of "action"? Anyway, I guess the major difference between the 1981 version and the 2009 one, is the original is more survival based, where as the newer one is more action based. I personally like seeing the human survival element. So maybe that's why it's more my cup of tea. I also really hate over the top unbelievable characters and action, which the new one certainly did have more of. -- -------- Post added at 10:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 PM ---------- may i suggest a deep exploration of the bbc show "tripods" as an alternative to violence? Ahhh! Great series. Shame about the terrible acting, but still great fun. Shame that final (3rd) series was canned! And the theme tune/intro was almost as good as "The Triffids"...

[EvilNed]

Neil, you're missing the point. The introduction of those two characters was an example of sketchy and incoherent editing. What you call "subtle", I call just plain bad. The characters were never properly introduced, leaving me as a viewer with a bunch of question marks. Although, to be fair, this happened so late in the series I was kind of used to this kind of lazy editing / writing (I don't know if they never wrote a scene presenting the characters, or if they cut it out, the result was nonetheless the same). I'm glad you had no problem remembering a throw away line two or three episodes back regarding two characters who were still far off from being presented in a very non-spectacular way, but I did. And I even watched the thing back-to-back, which I'm sure viewers of 1981 did not. Overall, the pacing and editing was very weird, wasn't it? When the military came up in the final episode and their quick escape with an almost instant "Roll End Credits" left me equally confused. I didn't really connect with any of the characters or the plot points because of all this. I'm glad you see this as "subtle" rather than poor. I disagree on almost every account, except for the plane which I agree was stupid. But on matters of pacing, characters and overall presentation the '09 version was superior to me. Sorry you don't agree. "Poor" writing doesn't equal "Require more thinking". Also, see the "Show, don't tell" argument I brought up earlier. That's not good writing.