MovieChat Forums > The Day of the Triffids (2009) Discussion > who makes these movies + why?

who makes these movies + why?

posted 11 years ago by didid-1
3 replies | jump to latest

I've always been wondering why these movies are made. I was also wondering who wrote this silly plot. I mean, I was imagining a guy trying to sell his plot, with a straight face, "ok so it's the future, carnivorous plants are being cultivated, suddenly the sun shines too much and everyone goes blind, and then the shrubs escape and start eating people", and the listener to go "Wow nice plot! How much do you need?".

..but ok, I see it's a story from 1950 - that explains it. That explains the story, that is, but that still doesn't explain why money is wasted into movies like this. I know, actors need to eat - is it the UK's government who put money into it?

The thing is, the movie is either too silly or not silly enough. I like Doctor Who and I would admit that most of the plots aren't much better than this, BUT Doctor Who isn't made to be taken seriously, there's always humor in it. This however is acted seriously, there is zero humor, well sometimes you smile when you see an actor playing being scared in front of a shrub, but it's still not bad enough to be fun.
It's ok to remake movie, but when there is no budget (although I don't know what this movie costed, it's still too much) you do with what you have, you do a comedy, or something really bad on purpose (like, Kung Pow), or something really really bad not on purpose (a random obscure kung fun movie), or something funny on purpose (Monty Python).

And who watches movies like this? I would only advise this movie to whoever has seen all of the good movies out there, AND all of the worst movies out there.

[–] greg-233 11 years ago

In Gene Wright's book Who's Who & What's What In Science Fiction there is a short synopsis/review of the 1963 adaptation of The Day of the Triffids:

Based on a famous novel by John Wyndham, Triffids walks a tightrope between SF-horror spectacle and unintentional hilarity.

Though not as bad as an Ed Wood movie, it was a lot less faithful to the source material than the BBC miniseries made in 1981. (Which remains the definitive adaptation. I can't think of anything unintentionally hilarious in that.)

I guess this 2009 version was made to bring an old, familiar story to a new audience while updating the concept for a post-Cold War world. They did that with the 2000 remake of On the Beach. However, this version of Triffids was a bit underwhelming. After the 1981 version, it didn't really need to be remade.

[–] x1nd0lent 7 years ago

I think that there are two big problems here:

1. "supposed to be" - It seems quite hard for many people to watch something and decide for themselves what it is, instead of having the creators hold their hand and spoon-feed to them what to feel about it. This can be most easily seem with genres such as comedy and horror which viewers look to almost like a drug to make them feel a certain way. That pretense of what it is "supposed to be" factors more significantly than what they actually saw. Like when somebody dismisses a "serious" movie as "laughable" - but might also dismiss a "comedy" because "I didn't even laugh once". Many viewers live in their expectations.

2. lack of imagination - Television shows and movies function basically like photographed plays. Through the story, writing, and acting it is usually fairly easy to understand what is being depicted. But especially since the late 70s with Star Wars special effects have been used not for artistic effect, but to suspend disbelief. And as a consequence many productions become too conservative, too timid, to attempt stories which will appear "unrealistic". Well, why should they be realistic? As an art/entertainment medium, if video was made to be more stylized there would be more originality and creativity. Instead people seek simple immersion, the illusion of being fooled by what one is seeing.

So my solution is to give up on expectations and realism, there are simply more possibilities with this approach.

[–] huwdj (4562) 5 years ago

It's a good story based on a good book (by one of my favourite writers). I think the best version is the 1981 BBC series but my favourite version, despite its many flaws, is the 1963 film - possibly just because it costars Janette Scott.
But why make this particular version - I don't know. I suspect it's a reasonably cheap way to fill a schedule plus it's one of those stories that guarantee's at least a little interest plus with cheap CGI you can sell it as full of scary monsters that look better than the last time they remade it.