Whip Basics. The Forum

A movie, based on a novel by Michael Crichton. Directed by Robert Wise. It was one of the first *real* science based SF movies ever. This time no slimy aliens or monsters from the sea. It is about a probe which crash landed in a very, very small village - Piedmont, new Mexico. I think the inhabitant count was 56. Really small...

The movie is about a crisis in the US biological warfare. No explosions, no shoot outs. But extremely interesting and nerv wrecking. It's one of the most intelligent SF movies I ever saw. I won't tell you too much about it, because it would probably be a good idea to watch it. That movie premiered 1971 at March 12. But is lost not a bit of the actual meaning in it's warning about biological weapons.

Oh - in 2008 there was a remake... Of course everything had to be modern. In the original movie the main character was called "Dr. Jeremy Stone". A scientist in his 60s. The remake had a Dr. Jeremy Stone in his early 30s. Divorced, two children, full of problems. In the original movie there was a woman - Dr. Leavitt - she was ugly, smoking all the time and she was looking like a toad. But - she was absolutely authentic! In the remake Dr. Leavitt was a model in her 20s. Sexy looking, black glasses to make the "Doctor of Science" believable and every now and then she had to open her hair... And a lot of explosions, guns and cops. You see the difference?


And now the main question - does anyone of you know about that movie...?

Robby

I recognize the title and I know it's a Crichton story. But I haven't seen it yet.

About the remake, why must they always change certain details of the characters in remakes? Do they make the characters more interesting? Or is it simply, to give the character more appeal with the modern audience?

If the latter, why would the original not be good for modern audiences?

Now, I don't want to speak about all the modern remakes, there are a few good ones, but some remakes strike me as a simple money grab and with no regards of the original.

I'll see if I can watch it, the original that is.

Sven

I acutally did see it when it came out.

Being only 17 it was a very realistic and frightening as to it's message and meaning.
I have not seen the new one, and I probably will but I have found that remakes are what Sven stated they are money making attempts, or a directors ego thinking "I can make it better, because I am a better director'.

It's like someone trying to repaint some masterpieces... 'The Mona Lisa is worth milliions.... I'll just repaint one and I'll be rich."

Ron

I'm not usually a fan of science fiction, but saw 'The Andromeda Strain' years ago, and loved it!

I have yet to see this. Its on my list, but its a very long list of movies. With a review like that, I will be sure to check it out.

I will look and see if I can find a copy of it. I think I've seen part of it when I was younger.

I like the movies with real people in them much better than the slicked up models. People don't really look like that except in hollywood, maybe. And, in the new version, a 20 something scientist???? A professor??? That's too funny. Because I have yet to meet an early 20 something person that would be doing that... These days.
Lots of smart people and hard working people, no doubt. But they would be lucky to have a position as an intern. New movies. Better?
Ha.......
No.
Just my opinion.

I've seen both and would have to agree with Robby's assessment. I'm generally not a fan of remakes, but I have enjoyed some of the reboot movies (the newest Star Trek movies, for instance). The difference for me is that a reboot is telling a different story, as opposed to re-telling the same story over again. I have often lamented that all of the good movies must have already been done, because the script writers can't seem to come up with anything new.

I remember seeing this years ago, and have read the book many times. I found the book and the movie to be very well done and totally kept my attention. From what I remember out of the 56 inhabitants only a newborn and an old drunk survived the initial outbreak, and they couldn't figure out why.

I don't recall the remake.

I find that older SF books and movies are better.

Ooh! I have to see this now. I have to ask, but without spoilers- is the movie faithful to the book? I have not read it yet, but I am a Michael Crichton fan. When a movie is based on a book, I often prefer to watch the movie first so I can just watch it without mentally comparing it to the book. I read Jurassic Park about a year and a half before the movie came out, and when we went to see it I remember being annoyed at some of the changes they made, even though I enjoyed it overall. I will come back to this after I've seen it

Of course!
Read the book, seen the (original) movie. Liked both. One of those sadly rare movies where the real action is inside your head.

Crichton's speciality is stories based on medical/biological science. (Check out the story behind "Jurassic park"!)

Another creepy Crichton-based thriller is "Coma". As you can probably guess organ trade is an element.

Lasse Carenvall wrote: One of those sadly rare movies where the real action is inside your head.

The 'action inside your head' films are far more exciting than those with any number of explosions, car-chases and shoot-outs.

Robert Gage wrote:

Lasse Carenvall wrote: One of those sadly rare movies where the real action is inside your head.

The 'action inside your head' films are far more exciting than those with any number of explosions, car-chases and shoot-outs.

How many remember the parts in Jurrasic Park where all you saw was a quick glimpse of a dinosaur, an eye, or a claw, and lots of bushes shaking. Its not what you saw, but what you didn't see, or thought you saw out of the corner of the eye, that was frightening! That makes for good movies.

Jeff Roseborough wrote:How many remember the parts in Jurrasic Park where all you saw was a quick glimpse of a dinosaur, an eye, or a claw, and lots of bushes shaking. Its not what you saw, but what you didn't see, or thought you saw out of the corner of the eye, that was frightening! That makes for good movies.

Absolutely right, Jeff! And the same goes for films which have nothing to do with 'fright' of that kind - for example, that wonderful 1946 film Brief Encounter, with Celia Johnson and Trevor Howard. Seriously understated by today's standards - but far more powerful than 99% of anything being made today.

The film sounds very good, I'll have to watch it! I'm in agreement, Lasse, laying everything out visually or expositionally ruins the emotional impact of a film.

Yes, I've seen it many times. Crichton has done a number of good books/films along the same lines.