« Thieves of Baghdad, a lite Iraqi War film | Filmstalker | Thurman in school shooting »

Promotion


Hitchcock's Birds remake continues

TheBirds_Poster.jpgOh I really had thought that the planned remake of The Birds had died, unfortunately though it hasn't and the latest reports are that the Studio are still trying to move forward with it.

As I wrote about a long time ago, this isn't a remake as such but it's a return to the original short story from which the film is based. The author, Daphne Du Maurier, reportedly was never happy with the Hitchcock film version.

According to Bloody Disgusting through Sci-Fi Wire, the story is somewhat different than the movie:

Du Maurier's story, by contrast, was set in Cornwall in the United Kingdom and tells a story of birds' becoming hostile after a harsh winter with little food. She was said to have been unhappy with Hitchcock's film version.

Oh dear, that sounds like total b-movie fodder to me. Hardly sounds like the thriller the original is.





Promotion


Comments

Oh come on, remaking a Hitchcock? Did they not learn from the fatal Psycho 1998 remake?

Because the author wasnt really happy about Hitchcock's version.

*sigh*


Wasn´t that Gus van Sant? What a genius. At least, this remake won´t be as pretentious.

I missed it deliberately Peter, thank goodness!

Actually, I'm reading du Maurier's "The Birds" right now with my ninth grade English class. The story starts on December 3, and several characters comment on the fact that the weather has NOT been hard up until the night of 12/3 when it suddenly turns cold; the birds can't be attacking because they're hungry as there is plenty of food for them in the bare fields.

There are many differences between Hitchcock's adaptation and du Maurier's original story. If the new movie is to follow her story, it won't really be a remake!

Well then there lies the question - are they really going to follow the novel?

So many remakes we've seen say that they are going to follow source works and seem to turn out just as the first film.

I don't know, I think the issue is that there's no need to make another Birds film. The book would have to be radically different from Hitchcock's film.

Promotion


Add a comment

Tagline

Site Navigation

Latest Stories

Partner

LOVEFiLM.png

Vidahost image

Latest Reviews

Promotion

Filmstalker Poll

Promotion

Subscribe with...

AddThis Feed Button

Windows Live Alerts

Site Feeds

Subscribe to Filmstalker:

Filmstalker's FeedAll articles

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedReviews only

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedAudiocasts only

Subscribe to the Filmstalker Audiocast on iTunesAudiocasts on iTunes

Feed by email:

Contact

My Skype status



SkypeTwitterPlurkFacebookMyBlogLogLinkedInIMDB

Help Out


Feedback

Site Information

Creative Commons License
© www.filmstalker.co.uk

Give credit to your sources. Quote and credit, don't steal


Movable Type 3.34

Wadsworth: But he was your second husband. Your first husband also disappeared.
Mrs. White: Well, that was his job. He was an illusionist.
Wadsworth: But he never reappeared!
Mrs. White: [admittedly] He wasn't a very good illusionist.
Clue