needs new remake with CGI whale - Moby Dick (1956) Discussion

I wouldn't mind a remake, as long as they do it faithful to the book. Daniel Day Lewis would be a good Ahab.

reply

I just started reading the book for the first time ever, and I agree. This could be a fantastic movie if redone today (not that the original isn't good). Day-Lewis would be an incredible Ahab, and I can see somebody like Peter Weir, Wolfgang Peterson, or Ridley Scott making a version that is balances the adventure and action with the deeper character development and drama.

Frankly, I'd be quite surprised if it wasn't on some studio exec's desk as we speak, considering all of the remakes and adaptations we see these days. I wonder how difficult it would be to market a movie with the title "Moby Dick" to today's movie-going public though. They'd probably change the name to something like "Ahab" or something.

Another good Ahab could be Ed Harris.

reply

[–] lars7576 16 years ago

"amp up the action"

This film is perfect the first time around, it does not need a remake, it certainly does not need to amp up the action, perhaps you would like Michael Bay to attach himself to the remake.

reply

[–] bok602 16 years ago

CGI is evil.

However I did want to add that with all the ballyhoo and anecdotal stories about the giant whale prop used in this film which allegedly broke loose and -according to at least one version of the story- became "a menace to navigation" you actually only SEE the thing for about minute, minute and a half at most.

You see the full-size whale for the first time when Ahab climbs aboard, again when he makes his "hell's heart" speech and again briefly when Starbuck lobs a harpoon a while later.

These may have been shot outdoors, but they're all done in very tight close-up that it's impossible to tell if it's in a tank or on the ocean.

The rest of the time when you see the whale it's clearly all a miniature in a water tank.

Kind of like the infamous Robo-Kong from the 1976 remake of King Kong.

Incidentally, the full-sized whale gets much more screen time (and you see more of it) in the 1930 version with Barrymore as Ahab.

"If you don't know the answer -change the question."

reply

[–] edwardboyko 16 years ago

CGI is *beep*

reply

[–] bok602 16 years ago

Agreed. Whole-heartedly and unreservedly.

CGI should only be used only as a special effect, not as a central character.

"If you don't know the answer -change the question."

reply

[–] Vaderules 16 years ago

CGI should only be used only as a special effect, not as a central character.

I guess I thought that Kong in Peter Jackson's remake was incredibly realistic and conveyed very convincing emotion. Certainly a whale wouldn't be more challenging than a gorilla.

But, regardless of HOW they did it, I think a remake would be a worthwhile project with the right people on board.

Read: NOT Michael Bay (not as the director, anyway).

reply

[–] bok602 16 years ago

Again...CGI should not be used to replace central characters.

A digital Kong may have allowed for the display of more realistic facial expression, but it also opened the door for much un-necessary "action" which actually distracted from the central point of the character.

To my mind, O'Brien's stop-motion Kong twiddling at Fay Wray conveyed more emotion and was much more direct in it's dramatic impact than all of Jackson's tree-swinging, knuckle-walking and gorge-jumping hystrionics.

Similarly, Barrymore and Peck's rubber whales, by their very monolithic IM-mobility (relatively speaking), pack more primiordial dramatic impact than, say the CGI version of Jabba the Hut (in the re-doctored version of New Hope) did over the animatronic puppet version in Return of The Jedi.

"If you don't know the answer -change the question."

reply

[–] Vaderules 16 years ago

Jackson's remake certainly did over-indulge in the action sequences, but when it comes to the actual character of Kong, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Regarding CGI in general, it's just a different form of make believe. Compared to stop-motion, the movement of CGI is much more natural and realistic, but the weight of the actual figures is less convincing.

Pros and cons to each, in my opinion.

reply

[–] bok602 16 years ago

I will agree to disagree, but allow me to fire one more shot across your bow.

I see by your screen name that you are, most likely one, of those Lucas-ites raised and accustomed to over-indulgent CGI effects.

Let me then cite you a case in point to which you can relate. The light saber fight between Obi-Wan and Vader at the finale of A New Hope was much more intense and personal than the three-ring circus CGI performance it became between Dookoo and Vader in the Third film.

Imagine how tragic it would have been if Errol Flynn and Basil Rathbone had been CGI-ed in their famous swordfights.

"If you don't know the answer -change the question."

reply

[–] Vaderules 16 years ago

My screen name definitely outs me as a Star Wars fan, and I grew up with the originals. Yet, despite that, I actually do have a hard time watching the "battle" between Vader and Kenobi in A New Hope these days.

Personal? Certainly.

Intense? Hardly.

The ante has simply been upped with modern movies in the intensity department. And I actually found the showdown between Dooku and Anakin in Episode III quite thrilling, and very personal. I'm not defending the use of CGI when it might not be necessary (but simply easier), but I guess I'm willing to live with it.

I think you are using the word tragic with just a tad too much hyperbole as well. Then again, I'm not a devotee to the swashbuckling classics.

Back to the original topic, I don't care if they use CGI or animatronics in a remake of Moby DIck. I'd just like to see an epic-style treatment of the story.

I'm of the opinion that a remake cannot destroy the value of an original, so I don't see the harm.

reply

[–] wrfarley 16 years ago

I don't necessarily agree about the CGI treatment for MOBY DICK. In fact, looking at the '56 version a couple of weeks ago, I think the one problem in that one is we see TOO much of the whale (which calls attention to its artificialness). The few spectacular shots of the white whale stand up quite well on their own without the padding of passing shots where the whale looks like a lump in the water.

reply

[–] Vaderules 16 years ago

This isn't exactly the team I would have liked to see take this project on. This will not be received well.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117992634.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&nid=2562

Yuck.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] palindromicevilolive 16 years ago

Daniel Day-Lewis would make a great Ahab. But I shudder to think what a remake could be like. A less brooding Ahab? Perhaps Moby-Dick should be less of a whale, or the Pequod less of a boat.

reply

[–] Byzantine15 16 years ago

Hollywood will most likely invest in only one version of MD every 50yrs or so and it looks like we're going to get stuck with this "re-imagined" POS. Maybe our grandchildren or great grandchildren will have better luck.

Lions and tigers and hippopotami

reply

[–] narnia4 15 years ago

I'd say Will Smith as Ahab, and they could have... idk... Nicole Kidman as Ishmael? That would be a nice twist!

And CGI is the way to go... why even have a set? Might as well do away with character development as well, that stuff is boring as heck

I love remakes.

reply

[–] eimb1999 15 years ago

They already did a remake using a CGI whale. It was that awful, wretched abomination with Patrick Stewart.

Miniatures have their limitations, especially with water, but CGI would look far worse as shown in the mentioned Jackson's King Kong. It has it's good points, but nothing looks more realistic than an actual real object, even if it's a miniature. The best thing to do would be to use miniatures with today's technology and materials (we can build 'em a lot better now) and use the CG to simply enhance the model's shortcomings, like to help scale the water down etc.

Properly built lit and photographed miniatures still look more realistic than CGI by a longshot.

reply

[–] debiler 14 years ago

I don't know. A whale is a pretty static object, so CGI could work really well here. I wouldn't care if it was a miniature or CGI, as long as the result is fine.

Concerning the cast, I have some intriguing ideas:

Ahab - DDL is the obvious choice. He'd be great, no doubt about that. But some other candidates for me are (just for discussion's sake)
- Russell Crowe
- Gary Sinise

Ishmael
- Ethan Hawke
- Matt Damon

Starbuck
- John Goodman
- Paul Giamatti

Queequeg (or whatever ;-) )
- can't think of anybody. But he'd basically just have to look badass and stone-cold. Not much voice talent needed here.

___________________________________
I didn't like the Godfather, so what?

reply

[–] suicidea 12 years ago

I don' expect any movie whale in this century to be anything but CGI.

Yet I must say that for any fan of the John Huston version, or for lovers of the book, or for any movie lover in general, the whale in this movie should be the last concern in a remake. This is the story of Ahab and Ishmael, the whale is a minor character.

Never be complete.

reply

[–] murdoch1111 10 years ago

@ suicidea » Thu Aug 30 2012

You remark, "This is the story of Ahab and Ishmael, the whale is a minor character."

I reply, "The whale is the most important creature in the film, as he is in the book. The fact that he appears briefly in both the novel & the various films based on it does not detract from his importance. If anything, it increases it."

You may know that the 1998 Patrick Stewart film has a CGI whale that many people who post on the IMDb dislike.

HERMAN MEVILLE'S MAGNIFICENT NOVEL CANNOT BE FILMED SATISFACTORILY.

reply

[–] notorious918 10 years ago

I would settle for a redubing.

Only this time do it in English!

I can only understand one out of every ten words.

What a shame. I had to shut it off.

reply