Your email was sent. Thanks for sharing HitFix!

Close

Cannes Film Festival 2013

David Cronenberg is remaking 'The Fly' remake by David Cronenberg... again

Check your calendars, 'cause it feels like 1986 to me

<p>Jeff Goldblum's work in 'The Fly' should have gotten him Oscar-nominated, but now a new actor is stepping into the teleport pod for director David Cronenberg</p>

Jeff Goldblum's work in 'The Fly' should have gotten him Oscar-nominated, but now a new actor is stepping into the teleport pod for director David Cronenberg

Credit: 20th Century Fox

Full disclosure:  about four years ago, I went in and took a series of meetings about possibly rewriting "The Fly."  At that point, the original short story by George Langelaan was Fox's main interest.  They wanted to start there and then build something that was radically different than either the 1958 film or the 1986 film.

So of course, today, in an effort to guarantee that they don't do anything remotely similar to either of those films, they hired David Cronenberg to direct the new version.

I'm not automatically opposed to the idea.  I think Cronenberg is one of the greatest directors who ever worked in the horror genre, a fiercely independent voice whose 1986 version of "The Fly" is a tremendously affecting horror film and also one of the greatest AIDS-era movies about living with someone as they deteriorate before your eyes.

I guess I'm a little confused, though.  Cronenberg has always seemed downright hostile about another remake of this story.  He recently toured the world with an opera version of the story, co-written with Howard Shore, and I figured that was his last word on it.

Now I'm reading that technology is a factor in getting him to sign on for another version, and that just baffles me.  Really?  CGI is what's going to get Cronenberg to saddle up again?  Somehow, that doesn't seem right.

[more after the jump]

The thing about that short story is that no one's done it on film yet.  Not the original movie.  Not the sequel to it.  Not the remake.  They've barely touched the source material.  And there's still a lot of greatness in there if they go digging.  Or if Cronenberg has a brand-new angle that he thinks makes the material relevant again, I'm interested.  This isn't the sort of film I want to dismiss over some knee-jerk reaction.

But it's been a discouraging month for me on the movie side of things, and I am reaching a point where I really truly actively hate our business.  I love individual movies as much as I ever have, but the industry right now is a rancid, bloated corpse, and Hollywood keeps poking it with a stick, hoping it'll explode and just hoping none of it ends up on them.  We are eating our tail, and when an artist as singular and personal as David Cronenberg ends up remaking a movie HE ALREADY REMADE, we are truly in the end days.

Can't get enough of Motion/Captured? Don't miss a post with daily HitFix Blog Alerts. Sign up now.

Don't miss out. Add Motion/Captured to your iGoogle, My Yahoo or My MSN experience by clicking here.

Not part of the HitFix Nation yet? Take 90 seconds and sign up today.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    MediaFiend

    Now maybe we'll finally get Scorsese's remake of RAGING BULL "...with a real skinny guy" that he promised us.

    September 24, 2009 at 9:05AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Bantonio_talkback_profile

    BantonioAnderas

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053390/

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092991/

    September 24, 2009 at 12:39PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Bill Gibron

    NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I HATE REMAKES!!!! I HATE HOLLYWOOD!!!! Any filmakers out there at least TRYING to do their own material???? Cronenberg drop your head in shame!!

    What's all the stupid homage, remake, sequels, prequels crap????

    Depressed.

    September 24, 2009 at 2:06PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Justin

    Damn, Drew. If there is ONE director I'd have a little faith in to say some shit like this, it's David Cronenberg. I don't think it's a good idea necessarily, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe, like you said, he's got an all new angle for it.

    But I am complete agreement about the 'technology' quote. CGI and 'body horror' will never work.

    September 24, 2009 at 4:59PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Spectreavatar-lrg_talkback_profile

    Banshee

    This is stupid. Cronenberg or no, the 1986 Fly was a perfect film.

    The only reason to do a remake is if you can make it better. I don't see that happening here.

    September 24, 2009 at 7:28PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Sruli Broocker

    Let's not forget that Hitchcock remade "The Man Who Knew Too Much." "Evil Dead II" is really a remake of the first. And the remakes were superior. Cronenberg's always been a non-conformist, and this case he's not conforming to the "indie rule book." I can't imagine him making a more horrifying or affecting film than his '86 version (by the way that is THE film of my childhood nightmares), but maybe the Prawns in "District 9" inspired him to revisit the material CG style. As for all of the remakes and sequels going on - Hollywood hates taking risks. Tried and true is unfortunately how Tinseltown runs.

    September 24, 2009 at 8:48PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Vern

    It would be silly to doubt Cronenberg. The guy has never come within 100 miles of selling out and is on an incredible roll with A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE and EASTERN PROMISES. Not only that but the idea of remaking his own remake is exactly the kind of unexpected move you want to see out of a guy like this. To me this is thrilling news. I can't wait to see what the hell he comes up with.

    September 25, 2009 at 1:32AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Sruli Broocker

    Brad Bird's comments about sequels and reboots: "It’s also worth noting that (Wall Street) analysts are always bullish about any studios whose production slates are loaded with sequels, remakes, and “re-boots”. This particular poverty of imagination is absolutely mainstream thinking when it comes to businessmen, who are all about recognizing patterns of success that they assume are repeatable… no matter how often that very approach fails. They always try to copy the original THING rather than the CONDITIONS that allowed the original thing to come into being."

    September 25, 2009 at 12:53PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    washington

    My initial reaction to this was WTF?, but I think DC has earned enough cred over the years to do something like this. Plus if he casts Viggo in the lead, it could be very interesting.

    September 25, 2009 at 7:46PM EST Reply to Comment


  • Cronenberg has always said this story is NOT an AIDs analogy. Why are you stating otherwise?

    October 11, 2009 at 2:09AM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew Because the artist doesn't get the last word. I know what Cronenberg says, and I love and respect him as a filmmaker, but there was no way to watch "The Fly" in 1986 without thinking about what was obviously a huge part of the cultural conversation at that point. Watching the person you love degenerate in front of your eyes is a basic, primary fear, and at that moment, a huge population was living through it.

      October 11, 2009 at 6:41AM EST
    • Gizmo_bigger_talkback_profile

      dan And Bob Dylan has always shied away from calling himself a political songwriter and an activist and has said that "Masters of War" isn't meant as a grand attack on the military industrial complex. But he is and he is. And it is. Sometimes authors feel pretentious saying what their work is about. Sometimes authors want to leave it for people to find meaning on their own and prefer that their work is not tied down to a single interpretation. And sometimes authors make something that's so completely of a time that whether they intended to or not, something is in the water and the meaning makes its way anyway. Cronenberg is smart enough to know all of that and he knows as well as anybody that "The Fly" *is* about AIDS, but he also wants it to be about *any* generation's version of AIDS, he wants the allegory to be evergreen. So it'd be no fun if he came out and said, "Yes. That's what it's about. That's all it's ever been about." -Daniel

      October 11, 2009 at 5:24PM EST

Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web