Due for a remake using CG
-
Gabe1972 — 13 years ago(September 02, 2012 09:05 AM)
Absolutely not. Remember, this film is geared toward and age group that doesn't care about graphics. It's a wonderful movie the way it is, and you know as well as I do, almost all movies that are remade for better graphics, updated music, or whatever the reason, are almost always awful compared to the original. Look at Footloose, The Karate Kid, A Nightmare On Elm Street, Total Recall, etc. The remakes were all vastly inferior to the originals, because IT IS THE STORY THAT MATTERS, NOT THE GRAPHICS. A good story is just that, and the stories themselves almost always get lost in a remake in favor of a better look, which sometimes itself is even inferior.
Nope, this film is just fine the way it is. No need to sully the name.
If your nose runs and your feet smell, you were built upside down. -
Mr_Garak — 13 years ago(March 08, 2013 04:19 AM)
It'd still make it look fake and artificial.
Leave the film alone, it doesn't need to be remade as it's fine the was it was made in 1982.
A sequel would be nice made in the same tradition as the original, but no to a remake and no to CGI.
The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination - Elim Garak "Improbable Cause" -
Chris_TC — 11 years ago(April 30, 2014 01:15 PM)
It'd still make it look fake and artificial.
The film had a lot of cool animatronics, but the two main characters in particular (the Gelflings) were horribly animated. They looked and moved like emotionless wooden puppets, which took me out of the film many times while watching it. I loved most of the other creatures, but even those don't show the range of expression hat a modern digital model has.
To conclude that a CGI version would look fake and artificial where the original film does not? I strongly disagree. Just compare Dobby from the Harry Potter movies to the Gelfling. They are worlds apart, and not in favor of The Dark Crystal. -
Humphrey_Fish — 12 years ago(March 05, 2014 03:33 AM)
What, like how CGI was used to "perfect" the animatronics of "The Thing"? Just leave the computers to editing and compositing. The rest can be done in-camera.
Quien es mas macho?Benedict CumberbatchORicardo Montalban -
Gprime1318 — 12 years ago(June 18, 2013 11:39 AM)
Seriously dude, beep you. Thats WHY The Dark Crystal stands out to this day it tells a fantasy story set in a fantasy land using only puppetry and practical effects. To me, the effects in Dark Crystal work so well because everything you see really was in front of the camera- unlike CGI they were effects you could touch, created in the same way and fitting into the world every bit as well as Jin himself. Update it with CGI? Sure, if you think "OZ the Great and Powerful" was the classic Wizard follow up we've all been waiting for. However, if you're hoping for a film that even attempts to re-capture the magic of the original, then hope the filmmakers go back to basics and not to the nearest computer screen.
I'm sellin my soul to the Devil in you -
redorc — 12 years ago(August 12, 2013 09:27 AM)
you can not remake this movie. It is what it is and that's why we love it. and it is brilliant because of the way it was done.
Leave this movie alone. Free your mind. Make a new one if you want to and then ask people if they like it.
Stop comparing things that cannot be compared.
Stop thinking that bringing more 'realistic' or 'latest' CG will make a better movie. It does not matter which tools you use, it only matters that you put your heart and soul into it, to bring everything to life. Technology is only a tool. Quality does not come from the tools you're using
And that is why in recent years we have heard so many times about promising movies and then were disappointed big time watching them.
I am sick and tired of hearing "The Wilhelm" !