Nicolas Cage in 1986 Fly Remake?

[slickwilly13]

Yall read right. Here's a link. http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/8300

[MinionZombie]

Ah geez, another remake?! Cronenberg's "Fly" was only 21 years ago!!! Even I am older than that movie ... and nobody's remaking me! :lol:

[LouCipherr]

Thank God! :lol: (just kiddin', MZ)

This was one movie I don't think needs to be remade for what, the 3rd time now? sheesh...

[capncnut]

What is wrong with Hollywood? Every time I hear about a remake it makes me want to go all GG Allin on their asses. This has to be the darkest and most unoriginal period in cinematic history. :mad:

[_liam_]

:rockbrow: wtf?
deary deary me. i hope creepy cronenberg molests the people responsible...

[DVW5150]

They have given up on making horror or any kind of original movie it seems . Its a tragedy because there are alot of talented writers that are capable of originality to offer the industry ...

[Debbieangel]

They have given up on making horror or any kind of original movie it seems . Its a tragedy because there are alot of talented writers that are capable of originality to offer the industry ...

You took the words right!
:p

[slickwilly13]

I just don't take Cage seriously in certain roles. For example, remember the rumor of him playing Superman years ago?

[Danny]

What is wrong with Hollywood? Every time I hear about a remake it makes me want to go all GG Allin on their asses. This has to be the darkest and most unoriginal period in cinematic history. :mad:

hey, britain got stale in the 60's now its happened to hollywood, independant really is were its at nowadays, becuase no budget either means piece of crap so good its bad exploitation cinema. or pieces with geniune heart in em, and becuase of the creative freedom you can get away with bloody murder:elol:

[capncnut]

independant really is were its at nowadays
Couldn't agree more, 99% of them have original scripts for starters. Take note Hollywood. :D

[jdog]

why would they want to f*** with the fly? just so they can ad a bunch of ****y CGI to it. give me a break hollywood, and nic cage? shounds horrible already.

[Danny]

yeah he couldnt do it better than goldblum anyway.

and a cgi fly? BARF!:barf:

[coma]

remakes used to be made becasue a good film was dated or the original was a good idea but a misfire.
The 1986 Fly is neither.
And you can remake Invasion of the Body snatchers a million times, the 1956 version is still the best by a mile.

[capncnut]

And you can remake Invasion of the Body snatchers a million times, the 1956 version is still the best by a mile.
Mmm, I dunno. The 1979 remake of Snatchers was pretty creepy.

[coma]

Mmm, I dunno. The 1979 remake of Snatchers was pretty creepy.
I liked it too, and Body snatchers too. Abel Ferrara I think. What I meant was the original stands up very well and has not been topped.
The 86 Fly topped the original though

[bassman]

The 86 Fly topped the original though


I know what you're saying....Cronenberg's version is the sh*t, but you really can't compare it to the original. They're both really different films if you think about it. There's greatness in both.

As far as the original: "Help me! Help meeeeee!" Creepy....

Oh, and two words. Vincent. Price.

[coma]

I know what you're saying....Cronenberg's version is the sh*t, but you really can't compare it to the original. They're both really different films if you think about it. There's greatness in both.

As far as the original: "Help me! Help meeeeee!" Creepy....

Oh, and two words. Vincent. Price.
Vincent Price was great. I love Last Man On Earth.
The original Fly was great. Scared the hell out of me as a kid. The remake took alot of the great things about it and added a lot of the benefits of modern film and loosened censorship .Thats what a remake should be.

[bassman]

Vincent Price was great. I love Last Man On Earth.
The original Fly was great. Scared the hell out of me as a kid. The remake took alot of the great things about it and added a lot of the benefits of modern film and loosened censorship .Thats what a remake should be.

Yeah, I think the main differences between the two are that the original had to rely more on psychological horror because they didn't do the whole metamorphesis thing and it was a quick change for Andre. The remake has that same psychological horror, but it also has the benefit of the slow, disqusting changes that the audience witnesses happening to Brundle.

I consider the remake more of a commentary on AIDS rather than the "Laboratory mishap" of the original. Plus, the physical effects in the remake are awesome. The rotating room thing, the monkey:lol: , the attack on Stathis, the final transformation. All very good stuff.

This new one is probably going to try and up the gross factor to ridiculous levels(the changes that Brundle has in the first remake seemed believable and not TOO over-the-top), throw in the typical "something runs across the screen but isn't a threat", and basically do the exact same thing as all these other "horror" films out there today.

Is the 1986 remake even dated? Excluding a few hair-do's here and there, Cronenberg's film is still great by today's standards.

[coma]

Is the 1986 remake even dated? Excluding a few hair-do's here and there, Cronenberg's film is still great by today's standards.
No its not dated. There is no cluncky "they only talk like that in movies" dialouge. And you could never top the FX. They are perfect. The Brundlefly eating scene is one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen. Youre whole prediction is probably totally on the money.
The things and the fly were 2 50s movies that were much loved by fans and the respective directors. That is not at all the case with all the recent remakes. It seems like they make everything for ignorant young teenagers who don't know **** about what came before their brief lifetimes.
I think marketing people must be exterminated with extreme predjudice

[capncnut]

The 86 Fly topped the original though
Yeah totally but both versions are completely laughable nowdays.


give me a break hollywood, and nic cage?
At least it saves on make up fx costs. :D

[bassman]

Yeah totally but both versions are completely laughable nowdays.
:D


I could see the original flick being laughable, but you think the 1986 remake is?.....

[coma]

Yeah totally but both versions are completely laughable nowdays.
= :DI disagree completely, ecspecially the 86 one. I just saw it again a month or two ago and I was surprised how nasty it was.

[Danny]

i gotta disagree to, though wasnt the 86 version really about terminal illnes?, that was the vibe i got from it, it had a kind of integrity you wont find in a revamp of it, i mean whats next, a remake of the thing (the kurt russel one), screw cgi those effects were the ****!:cool:

[capncnut]

When I say laughable, I do not mean it in a disrespectful sense where I don't take the movie seriously because I think it's awesome. I just thought the way Jeff Goldblum behaves during the Fly transformation is hilarious. Probably intentionally. It just adds to the overall laughability of the movie. I would agree that the tone is pretty dark and gloomy though.

I saw Fly II not so long ago and was howling with laughter when the Stoltzster put his dog down. :lol:

[LouCipherr]

Holy sh*t, I disagree too. The 86 remake was fantastic, and still to this day creeps me the hell out. As someone mentioned, the 'eating' scene with Brundle-fly was one of the nastiest, scariest things I ever saw as a kid. It was just like a severe car accident: gross, nasty, and not something you want to see, but you just... can't.. take.. your.. eyes.. off... of.. it. :lol:

Not to mention, I really like Jeff Goldblum's acting. My favorite movie with him in it was "Framed" - but I like almost all of his movies. :D

LC

[coma]

When I say laughable, I do not mean it in a disrespectful sense where I don't take the movie seriously because I think it's awesome. I just thought the way Jeff Goldblum behaves during the Fly transformation is hilarious. Probably intentionally. It just adds to the overall laughability of the movie. I would agree that the tone is pretty dark and gloomy though.

I saw Fly II not so long ago and was howling with laughter when the Stoltzster put his dog down. :lol:
Yeah, Laughable is like "Bush's mangling of the language is Laughable" while Dave Chapelle is hilarious. It was intentionally funny. I think without humor it would have been almost unwatchable. It was just too beiievable.