Day of the Triffids (film) - Sam Raimi [Archive]

Neil

01-Mar-2012, 10:44 AM

I've only seen the 2009 version and I quite liked it. But after your post, I'm gonna give the 1981 version a go. To be honest, I wasn't all that fuzzed about the triffids per say. More the apocalyptic setting.

The 2009 was pretty poor IMHO. Even down to the comical survival of Eddie Izzard in the plane crash, just by putting some vests around him, and walking out with trousers in tatters and covered in smoke - Aweful! And don't get me started on those stupid ninja CGI triffids!

The 1981 version is far closer to the book, much darker in tone, bleaker, more believable and IMHO far more enjoyable!

The 1981 version's triffids are much slower and - putting their low budget BBC special effects aside - much more believable!

Rottedfreak

01-Mar-2012, 02:35 PM

shootemindehead

01-Mar-2012, 02:45 PM

Oh no.

Mike70

01-Mar-2012, 03:38 PM

Neil

01-Mar-2012, 03:59 PM

By 2013 the film The blinding is released by Neil Cross featuring one Bill Mason who wakes up in a New York City hospital and discovers the entire population has been blinded. He tries to calm people down and faces dangers of blind mobs, jumpers and sighted people who try to flee the city. Eventually New York City is being gutted by fire and Bill must make his escape....
"WHAT THE F*CK HAPPENED TO DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS?!" Fans scream at the credits where a epilogue shows a alien space craft land and robots begin planting a unique crop.
'To be continued'....Huh? What?

-- -------- Post added at 03:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 PM ----------

Just found my comments on the first episode of the recent (daft) BBC remake:-

thought it was average at best...

- Eddie Izzard waking up... Doesn't ask a single question about why the plane is in trouble - "oh dear"...
- Just gets into a cubicle full of inflatable vests - "oh dear"...
- Happens to crash land (in all the world) right next to/ontop of the lead characters - "oh dear"...
- In a crazy moment equalling Indiana Jones surviving an a-bomb by jumping inside a fridge, Izzard comes out of a plane crashing into a city at X hunderd miles an hour, alive, with stupid looking comedy character clothes in tatters and trouser legs missing - "OH DEAR!!!"...
- Then news lady comes out of the underground, wonders around for a minute or two before bumping into our hero and proclaims, "I thought I was the only one"? What in the 2 minutes you've looked love? - "oh dear"...
- Our hero and news lady go to the Triffid farms, and off they go into the middle of the farm for no reason other than to risk their lives - "oh dear"...
- At the triffid farm where X hundreds/thousands of triffids were. They have escaped, killing everyone there. Not a SINGLE triffid was still there just by random, or sitting by the person it had killed, feeding - in the end that's why the Triffids kill, they then sit there feeding for X days or weeks... But no, these new Triffids have other agendas, like getting out of the way of our heroes so they don't appear in the episode too soon - "oh dear"...
- And then we have ninja tree triffids attacking swiftly from the air and scooping folks up...
- Why cart Mason and Coker mile and mile away to kill them? What's wrong with a back alley? Other than to allow the Triffids to get involved?

Silly ill-thoughtout weak writing!

And what the hell is the point of Eddie Izzard? We need some other protagonist in a world where virtually everyone is blind, dieing, the world is crumbling and the triffids are on the rampage? Is that backdrop not enough for the writers to work with? When did we lose the ability to write good solid sensible scripts where the events and characters have some thread of common sense and realism to them?

It's akin to the new BBC Survivors series. The new one rushes around and they feel they need to add some big bad organisation to maintain interest? Why not like the original concentrate on the characters and the simple day to day events which in themselves are more than interesting (& realistic) enough? We don't need helicopters with soldiers flying around to maintain our interest, if the script is good enough.

Also why the need to throw a big name into every major role? Put unknowns in!

Christopher Jon

01-Mar-2012, 04:08 PM

Mike70

02-Mar-2012, 02:19 PM

Day of the Triffids published in 1951, Blindness published in 1995.

i was simply pointing out that this is one of those ideas that has been used many, many times before in scifi. like body switching (my most hated plot device of all time), time travel, invisibility, etc.

Christopher Jon

02-Mar-2012, 03:10 PM

i was simply pointing out that this is one of those ideas that has been used many, many times before in scifi. like body switching (my most hated plot device of all time), time travel, invisibility, etc.
I'll agree with that.

I don't even think Day of the Triffids is a good idea for a film. Rami should do what everybody else does and take the ideas he likes, dump the rest, and make his own post-apocalyptic film.

Neil

02-Mar-2012, 03:37 PM

I don't even think Day of the Triffids is a good idea for a film.
What's wrong with it?

Rottedfreak

02-Mar-2012, 04:37 PM

Day of the Triffids 2009
Jo emerges from a train wreck finding everyone blinded, she escapes a blind group who demand she helps them and drives a car into another, a policeman gropes the window and she emerges "Oh thank god! I..." then realises to her surprise.... HE'S BLIND!!!!!!

The bit with using a ex night watchman as a watchman for when the group grab supplies from a supply store really took the piss.

Mike70

02-Mar-2012, 05:41 PM

I don't even think Day of the Triffids is a good idea for a film. Rami should do what everybody else does and take the ideas he likes, dump the rest, and make his own post-apocalyptic film.

maybe Raimi should make a remake of snyder's dawn remake, this time with zombies that hop like either kangaroos or bunnies. some of the them could be smart zombies, some could have their willy's wonkaing for human females, hell, some could even stick to ceilings (oh wait that's already been done). at the end of the movie, Ash falls into the flick out of nowhere and proceeds to save the world, break the 4th wall and say "hail to the king", then run off and try to find a bigger part in a spider man movie.

oh, and two of the zombies could be engaged in a never ending gunfight (wait that's been done before too - well doesn't matter in hollywood). i've never said this before on here but MULDOOOOOOOON!

Christopher Jon

02-Mar-2012, 06:08 PM

What's wrong with it?
Killer plants. It's where I draw the line.

Mike70

02-Mar-2012, 06:34 PM

Killer plants. It's where I draw the line.

even the segment of "dr. terror's house of horrors" where killer plants are conniving to take over the world?:D:p

Neil

02-Mar-2012, 06:55 PM

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

02-Mar-2012, 08:49 PM

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

03-Mar-2012, 12:17 AM

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

03-Mar-2012, 09:10 AM

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

05-Mar-2012, 12:45 AM

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

05-Mar-2012, 01:05 AM

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

05-Mar-2012, 09:17 AM

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

05-Mar-2012, 11:40 AM

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

05-Mar-2012, 02:29 PM

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

05-Mar-2012, 03:00 PM

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

05-Mar-2012, 06:09 PM

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

05-Mar-2012, 06:28 PM

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

05-Mar-2012, 09:22 PM

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

05-Mar-2012, 10:50 PM

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"...

3AmykynKhMw

EvilNed

06-Mar-2012, 12:20 AM

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.

Danny

06-Mar-2012, 01:19 AM

Neil

06-Mar-2012, 08:38 AM

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.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/khazrak/triffidcomparison.jpg

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...

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/12/21/article-1237568-07AD15CB000005DC-954_634x358.jpg

EvilNed

06-Mar-2012, 10:41 AM

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

06-Mar-2012, 10:53 AM

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

06-Mar-2012, 11:19 AM

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

06-Mar-2012, 11:35 AM

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

06-Mar-2012, 12:08 PM

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 :lol:

EvilNed

06-Mar-2012, 12:12 PM

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

06-Mar-2012, 12:51 PM

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 :lol:

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

06-Mar-2012, 03:05 PM

Now I'm curious.

Are either or both of these available online anywhere to watch?

I found this,

NelNuhJl0kI&ob

Yeah. I'm retarded and can't figure out the youtube embed.

Neil

06-Mar-2012, 08:26 PM

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

07-Mar-2012, 12:00 AM

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

08-Mar-2012, 05:43 PM

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?