remake, anyone?
-
devv1988 — 18 years ago(August 17, 2007 04:23 PM)
To Mr. Howell,
I have the utmost respect for what you've said here. Wells is easily one of my favorite authors, because he was a brilliant man well beyond his time. I am going into film school as of this fall, and have always dreamed of making Wells the way it was meant to be made: truthful to its original genius. Here's to making something worthy of Wells. -
-
tomlazer — 13 years ago(March 17, 2013 08:52 AM)
Eric Fulcher stars as Jack Griffin 'The Invisible Man' in Dark Star productions independent film. Co starring Edward Sacco, Lyle DeRose, Candace Maxwell, Blake Huber. Now filming in Denver and Akron Colorado.
-
bradford-1 — 19 years ago(May 30, 2006 06:58 PM)
To the screenwriter:
Will your version address how someone totally invisible can still see? I never read the book, so I don't know if Wells ever addressed it. I know Stan Lee sure didn't when it came to Sue Storm, the Invisible Girl! -
tomlazer — 13 years ago(March 17, 2013 08:44 AM)
The only things that do not vanish are his eyes which are pink from albinism. This is why he wears dark glasses or shades most of the time due to light sensitivity. So my answer is yes- it is explained in our movie.
-
Simon_Callahan — 19 years ago(June 20, 2006 08:31 PM)
Actually, the Shaw Festival in Niagara-on-the-Lake just opened a play version of The Invisible Man. The special effects are amazing (especially when he takes the bandages off his head) and the script is (IMO) much better than the 1933 version (mainly because it follows closer to the original book).
SPOILERSIn the play, James Griffin (not Jack Griffin like in the movie) gives an actual scientific reason for being invisible (removing all pigment from his body), and goes mad not from the drug that made him invisible but because he has so much freedom (the same principle used in Lord of the Flies, where the boys become feral because they can do whatever they want). He also speaks of an invisible cat.
The character of Millie (the mentally challenged daughter of the inkeeper) is given a bigger role, and becomes invisible, herself, at the end (she stole one of Griffin's potions).
Kemp lives at the end, and the play isn't much of a slasher like the movie is. In fact, there is only one death, and that is James Griffin himself as he commits suicide by jumping off a building. -
moviebuff109 — 18 years ago(May 10, 2007 06:43 PM)
I wanna remake but I want rly good acting and for it to be based really well on the book and not chanhged around to much
spoiers below dont reed if u didnt reed book
I didnt liek how kemp died in the movie and a few other things wrre changed around. I would love a movie 95% correctly based on originla book. -
rebeccadean935 — 18 years ago(September 03, 2007 06:59 AM)
I love and adore HG Wells book but for some reason I always remeber the Griffin from the League of Extraordinary gentlemen who does appear to give of more of whta Wells was getting at in that he has a morals and will betray anyone even those who would be his friends for greater gain..
Thtas also why I think of him as Hawleyunfortunately -
MacKrazy — 18 years ago(October 09, 2007 05:46 PM)
I think unfortunately the Invisible Man has been done to death, This original and John Carpenter's stand as teh best in my opinion.
It'd be a lot like Frankenstein, that's been done over and over, some get closer and closer to the original book and yet we all know the Universal original will always be the best. -
AlonzoTheArmless — 17 years ago(January 21, 2009 06:08 PM)
The key reason the remakes suck is because they don't have a talented eccentric director like James Whale. Sure, his Invisible Man is not a direct adaptation of the novel- but such a thing is not possible. Something called adaptation decay happens, and you just have to compensate for this with further creativity.
James Whale really made the film his own with the unique wit and humor attached to it.
"Eh, I wonder if there's beer on the sun."
-Rowsdower -
x_Designerfake — 16 years ago(May 25, 2009 08:32 AM)
It really annoys me that directors/ film companies these days find themselves
compelled
to constantly put their stamp on a readaptation of a classic. We saw what happened with the 1999 remake of The Mummy (Ardeth Bay and Imhotep as separate characters, are you fricking kidding me?), why should that happen here?
Sorry, it would be such a slap in the face to those who love the original to even
consider
attempting to remake it. You can't have the Invisible Man without Whale, without Rains, god, even Una O'Connor. The film doesn't need a "revamping", so really, some respect should be shown.
"He's my son and I'll break his neck any way I please!" -
msilva7-1 — 16 years ago(October 09, 2009 07:23 AM)
I AGREE. IT'S UNTHINKABLE TO ME THAT THERE AREN'T WRITERS OUT THERE WITH ORIGINAL MATERIAL. HOLLYWOOD SUCKS EGGS. IF THEY SIGNED ME UP I'LL BET I COULD WRITE FIVE TERRIFIC SCREENPLAYS A YEAR. THEN THEY COULD CHOOSE AT LEAST ONE PER YEAR TO PRODUCE. WRITING IS BECOMING A LOST SKILL. EVEN YOU READ IN HERE AND PEEPS CAN'T SPELL OR THEIR GRAMMAR IS LOUSY.