better then 1986?
i see the 1986 version, but not this one, can anyone tell me if this one is better then the 1986 version?
shareFor camp value, yes, this one is better than the 1986 version. Both versions have a lot of dramatic value to them, but in terms of emotions and how the situations affect the characters and everyone around them, the 1986 version beats that. When dealing with gore, definitely the 1986 version. All in all, the 1986 version tops the 1958 film.
shareI thought the 1958 version was much better done. The relationship with the scientist and his wife (David Hedison and Patricia Owens) was much more real than the one between the Jeff Goldblum and Giana Davis for example. In comparison, Goldblum's and Davis' relationship was pretty superficial. The relationship was a focal point in both movies.
The remake also had a huge gaping plothole in which the transporter would merge any two living things into one living thing because every human body is teaming with bacteria. The 1958 version could be argued to have the same plothole though as well but I thought the remake made it more obvious when Goldblum specifically stated that it was the fact that two *living* things were in the chamber caused the accident because the transporter didn't know how to deal with two living things simulatenously. In the 1958 version, the accident had nothing to do with the fact that both he and the fly were living, but that the transporter simply had problems with it.
Another complaint I had with Cronenberg's film was the slow pace of it.
Actually I would say that the 1986 plot works out just fine.
Bacteria are not "living things" as such, as they are not multiple cell organisms, nor do they have nervous systems or organs. Therefor one could say that they are merely parts of the human itself, rather than a second lifeform. The only two living things in the teleportation chamber was the scientist and the fly. Perhaps if the scientist had had lice or something it might have made another point, but then he would just have morphed/mutated into a man/fly/lice-thing instead. =)
Bacteria ARE living things as such, it´s just that in this particular case they are in symbiosis. But i guess it´s not a plot problem, since we can think he had already thought about it and made the machine take them just as part of his body. after all he´s supposed to be a brilliant scientist, ain´t he?
A man/fly/lice thing, mhh, that would have been nice...
Who knows if you still have the same email as 2004 , but here's my theory :
Surely it's simply about 2 SEPERATE organisms being in the teleporter. It would copy a human , bacteria & all , then rewrite that. It got confused because there was a fly elsewhere in the cubicle .
That which does not Kill me makes me Stranger . . .
"The remake also had a huge gaping plothole in which the transporter would merge any two living things into one living thing because every human body is teaming with bacteria."
Is it possible that Brundlefly also contained the genes (if bacteria have genes)of the bacteria. Maybe the primative 1986 or older computer was not precise enough to identify anything but the Seth and the fly.
Bacteria have genes, but their DNA is quite different from ours. Theirs is just one circular strand, while ours is linear and divided into chromosomes. So, it could be somewhat easy to tell one from the other.
share