Day of the Triffids (film) - Sam Raimi

[Danny]

eeh, im gonna lean on the 'nostalgia tinted glasses' side neil, 1981's version is really not much better at all, even for the time. hell, this was literal decades after quatermass so being older doesnt excuse it as much as it could be argued for doing so. To be honest both are cheese fests, but the modern one had atmosphere the 81 version lacked. pic related i suppose.

[Neil]

eeh, im gonna lean on the 'nostalgia tinted glasses' side neil, 1981's version is really not much better at all, even for the time. hell, this was literal decades after quatermass so being older doesnt excuse it as much as it could be argued for doing so. To be honest both are cheese fests, but the modern one had atmosphere the 81 version lacked. pic related i suppose. Note: Once again, can I say this isn't me attempting to say I'm right, and you're wrong. It's me arguing my corner for what I see as big problem with modern production. Too much importance is put on visuals and 'big action'. Interestingly you seemingly use 'visual quality' as your definition of 'atmosphere'. Even though the 1981 Triffids are obviously big models with little men in, rather than nice slick CGI effects. I prefer the 1981 renditions. Why? Not because of the way they looked, but simply because what they did. The 1981 triffids are the shamblers we so love in zombie flicks, whereas the 2009 triffids are the dinosaur roaring, contact wearing, ceiling climbing modern zombies we now can get. Had the 2009 versions been nice and slow, and not been ninja quick, and even able to hop up trees, they would have been far more believable. But alas ninjas they were, and as such, too unbelievable... Your brain rings more and more alarm bells because these CGI renditions can achieve anything the writers want them too, and don't seem to abide by any fair set of rules, so you disconnect - they are now not so believable and ultimately no so scary! The 1981 renditions for all their low budget production values, were simple and didn't 'cheat', so were ultimately far more believable, no matter what they looked like. I guess we may be coming from different directions here. For me plot/script is king. Visuals and acting are important, but for me that take second place to the overall script/plot and ultimately atmosphere. For example, Blakes 7 has pretty poor effects and some dire acting at times, but Terry Nation's scipt and plot are wonderful, and the episodes are thoroughly enjoyable because of this. This applies (for me) to the triffids. The 1981 version is obviously dated - it's 30 years old - and production styles and values have changed. But that said, it's far darker in tone, more human in context and ultimately more believable on content. For me this wins over superior CGI effects and bigger & bolder less believable action. And I'll repeat my opinion that a number of the story line elements in the 2009 version simply would have been thrown on the floor by the writers of the 1981 version as rediculous and unnecessary (which they were). Such writing breaks the deal of believability between writer and audience. If the writer expects such ludicrous leaps of faith from the audience, then the audience knows the rules are not fair, and ultimately almost anything can happen at anytime simply because the writers deem it so, rather than it being good common sense. The BBC made exactly the same mistake (?) with the recent remake of Survivors. They went for over the top writing, introducing unecessary action and elements, and in doing so missed the most important aspect of the original series, the simple human drama. Anyway, we've all learned something. If you're in two hundred tonnes of metal, flying through the air at two hundred miles an hour, and crashing into a city, a dozen plastic bags is the answer! Quick, get on the phone to NASA Seriously - Terrible writing! Now, if he had just climbed into a fridge instead to survive...

[EvilNed]

What is interesting is not so much the fact that you (Neil) prefer the older version, I get that. I can understand a differing in opinion. But I don't get how you can view the 80's as superior in plot/writing? None of these versions were good, but for different reasons. Whereas the old one was incoherent and confusing (either thanks to script or editing, I don't care the result is the same) and lacked some of the established CORNERSTONES of MOVING IMAGES such as "character introduction" and "show and tell", the newer one was silly and ridiculous at times. But I think Danny makes a damn good point with his picture. THe '09 version is definetly more moody and atmospheric and that picture sums it up quite nicely. Neil, please don't simplify it to a "you guys just care about special effects" argument, because that's not what Danny's trying to say. The visuals are part of the experience. And Danny wasn't even referring to special effects. The '09 version is on the whole a way more cinematic experience than the '81 version. For budget reasons and technological advances no doubt, but the '09 version also avoided unnecessary voiceovers (Bill Masen' writing letters to nobody really, just for the sake of voice-over) and had way more night scenes. And there is an atmospheric difference between night and day. Also, the sets looked very cheap. Even for it's day. I could go on, but I guess what sums it up is: The production value for the 81 version were low, even for it's time. That includes script. The production value for the 09 version were quite good for it's time. Therein lies the difference.

[Neil]

The '09 version is definetly more moody and atmospheric and that picture sums it up quite nicely... Fair enough... We clearly have different views on what makes something moody and/or atmospheric but I guess what sums it up is: The production value for the 81 version were low, even for it's time. That includes script. The production value for the 09 version were quite good for it's time. Therein lies the difference. Production values mean little to me, as I've stated a number of times. It's the story and also how believable it is that counts for me. It's the same reason I prefer "The Omega Man" over the recent "I Am Legend". The newer one urinates over Heston's version from a great height for production values. But "The Omega Man" for me is darker and simply more believable. The moment we witnessed super CGI'd bouncing infected in "I Am Legend" the damage was done. The script/writers had gone too far and the believability bubble had been broken... The over the top, unnecessary and unbelievable writing in the 2009 Triffids achieved the same. The 1981 version kept both its feet firmly on the ground, and for that I find it a far more believable and horrorfying experience; even for all its lack of huge explosions, and ninja triffids the writers deemed 'necessary' in 2009. Basically I see the 2009 Triffids as a missed opportunity. It of course is not a bad production, but it simply could have been sooo much better had the writers not decided to go all 'Hollywood' and daft with it. We didn't need it 'sexed up'. It didn't need big plane crashes, super fast ninja triffids or super villains. The (simple) story itself should have been enough!

[Danny]

Interestingly you seemingly use 'visual quality' as your definition of 'atmosphere'. Even though the 1981 Triffids are obviously big models with little men in, rather than nice slick CGI effects. I prefer the 1981 renditions. Why? Not because of the way they looked, but simply because what they did. The 1981 triffids are the shamblers we so love in zombie flicks, whereas the 2009 triffids are the dinosaur roaring, contact wearing, ceiling climbing modern zombies we now can get. Thats because the triffids are a predator, they hunt, they stalk, and like all plants they spread wherever they can, even creeping up other trees. The 1981 versions dont shamble they straight up wobble. One is a creeping predatory carnivore that is slow, methodical and utterly without anything like emotion as we know it., the other is a reject from troll 2. its all part of the atmosphere, lighting, music, overall mood. the 81 version doesnt have that. it feels like one of those 5pm cbbc produced kids mystery shows with just as small a budget being catered to adults. Its not bad, its just nothing special.

[Neil]

Thats because the triffids are a predator, they hunt, they stalk, and like all plants they spread wherever they can, even creeping up other trees. The 1981 versions dont shamble they straight up wobble. One is a creeping predatory carnivore that is slow, methodical and utterly without anything like emotion as we know it., the other is a reject from troll 2. its all part of the atmosphere, lighting, music, overall mood. the 81 version doesnt have that. it feels like one of those 5pm cbbc produced kids mystery shows with just as small a budget being catered to adults. Its not bad, its just nothing special. a) It seems daft to me a Triffid(s) climbing up a tree. It's too heavy etc etc and prefer soft surfaces etc etc... And indeed why even do it other than to facilitate a writers goal? b) It seems daft to me a Triffid(s) would be up a tree handily waiting for our characters to be driven ten miles to be shot just under aforementioned tree, other than to facilitate a writers goal. c) It seems daft the triffids up trees also knows to keep nice and quiet and still, when necessary, other than to facilitate a writers goal. Again, it doesn't bother me that the 1981 version were obviously practical effects/models, and that technically the 2009 version were slicker and more clever. I don't care if the practical models wobble a bit as the men inside lurch forwards - Maybe that's how a triffid should move? Quite simply, the writing for the 2009 version had them do things seemingly only to contrive elabourate unnecessary situations, whereas the 1981 versions really were just simple killing machines. And not only is this issue true of the triffids but across the entire story line. eg: Plane crashes, people standing by fences solely to be grabbed by triffids, even after they've seen their colleagues grabbed, etc etc etc... I seem to also recall some silly contrived nonsense going on at the church/hostel too? But all this aside, I feel if the 2009 version had been toned down, and the writers had gone less 'Hollywood' with it, the result would have been more believable, and therefore more enjoyable. On a side note... I wonder if this partly comes down to a generation gap. I grew up with 80s productions, so I'm used to and happy with it. I wonder if younger folks are simply not OK with it because they weren't 'subjected' to it all those years ago?

[Danny]

On a side note... I wonder if this partly comes down to a generation gap. I grew up with 80s productions, so I'm used to and happy with it. I wonder if younger folks are simply not OK with it because they weren't 'subjected' to it all those years ago? considering everyone here is a fan of a certain gory horror series that started in black and white in the 60's id say the 'you kids werent there, you dont understand' opinion is a bit moot

[EvilNed]

First off; I count the story/script towards the production value aspect. I don't think either of the series had that great of a script, but at least I could follow the '09 one without being confused. Second off; I agree with the assessment you made of The Omega Man. But I will say that I believe that The Omega Man had good production value for it's time. Very good. So did I Am Legend, but that didn't save it from being a shitty film, and yeah the effects sucked balls.

[Neil]

considering everyone here is a fan of a certain gory horror series that started in black and white in the 60's id say the 'you kids werent there, you dont understand' opinion is a bit moot I'm not saying that Just exploring the matter! Points have come up a number of times criticising production values (set quality, model quality), which I don't see as an issue in a 30+ yr old production, but clealy others do - Hence me seeing if theres a rationale for it.

[Christopher Jon]

Now I'm curious. Are either or both of these available online anywhere to watch? I found this, Yeah. I'm retarded and can't figure out the youtube embed.

[Neil]

No, neither of the two BBC adaptations are online. ps: EDIT your previous post and you'll see how I embedded the youtube video for you.

[Knighty]

Another day another adaption or update or reimagining, don't see why Raimi couldn't take inspiration or ideas from the series/films and books and simply come up with something original instead. As for the T.V series I am with Neil, I've always been a big fan of the original. The 2009 series was all style over substance and had Izzard as a comic book villain ( pretty much over the top like his Mystery Men character) , I'm not a massive fan of his acting anyway but it was bloody awful from the beginning. As the series progressed it just became dull much like the update that spawned this one, Survivors. The Survivors update had even less going for it, terrible stereotypical characters in a world that should have had so much going for it but just meandered into the usual cliched storylines, oh and shoehorn in a big bad company for good measure. The original Triffids series had some terrific and memorable scenes and the plant props themselves were used to good effect and are still memorable and well executed in my mind, rather than the CGI used for the update. Heck I even like the film as it has that Sunday afternoon end of the world chic to it like many of the sci-fi films of the same era do.

[Neil]

The 2009 series was all style over substance and had Izzard as a comic book villain ( pretty much over the top like his Mystery Men character) Indeed, it would appear to me that some of the actors were employed solely as marketting exercises rather than a true attempt to improve the story telling process. But that said, maybe they thought they truly needed a comedian to pull off some elements of the script (eg: plane crash). As the series progressed it just became dull much like the update that spawned this one, Survivors. The Survivors update had even less going for it, terrible stereotypical characters in a world that should have had so much going for it but just meandered into the usual cliched storylines, oh and shoehorn in a big bad company for good measure. Absolutely agree! And you'll see making similar comments previously in this thread about that very series! It failed in the same way the 2009 Triffid did. Unnecessary over the top story lines, therefore, (a) missing the more interesting and simpler human story, (b) making it generally less believable. The original Triffids series had some terrific and memorable scenes and the plant props themselves were used to good effect and are still memorable and well executed in my mind, rather than the CGI used for the update. I seem to remember the 1981 triffids were actually developed with the help of botanical experts? As for a new film by Raimi, I'm all up for it. BUT the triffids need to be super slow and cumbersome creatures, NOT tree climbing ninjas. ALSO, the story needs to be kept simple and dark. We don't need super villains, or huge explosions and crashes. Keep it simple and realistic! I do fear it will be ever more rediculously over-the-top than the 2009 version though as Hollywood thinks this is what audiences want/expect/require - Prepare yourself for dinosaur screaming triffids throwing tanks around! -- -------- Post added 08-Mar-2012 at 05:43 PM ---------- Previous post was 07-Mar-2012 at 08:24 AM ---------- Ewww! The (2009) script takes even more of a nose dive in my opinion. Not only does Izzard survive the plane crash by using a bunch of plastic bags, and not only does - of all the world/county/cities - the plane crash land in London, but it even nearly hits the very hospital Bill is in. It even blows the very window in, he just happens to be looking through the very moment he's just taken his bandages off. Riiiiiiight! How many leaps of faith balanced on top of each other do these writers expect us to swallow?