ALL SCI-FI Forum Index ALL SCI-FI
The place to “find your people”.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The Fly (1986)

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Sci-Fi Movies from 1970 to 2000
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17016
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2016 4:49 pm    Post subject: The Fly (1986) Reply with quote

_____

Jeff Goldblum is totally convincing as a brilliant scientist (just like he was in Jurassic Park), and Geena Davis is delightful as the reporter who finds out about the greatest invention of the 20th Century.

In spite of all the differences between this one and the classic original, the tragedy from the first film is firmly intact in this remake, the story of a man who wants to change the world in a wonderful way, but who himself is horribly changed by the invention he wanted to give mankind.

The concept is ambitious, and it was a tough sell for the audience — the idea that the atoms of a man and an insect could be taken apart and reassembled to create something living, hideous, and unnatural. But this movie pulls off that aspect of the story even better than the original.

The climax is necessarily grusome and downright disturbing, with parts that are hard to watch. But you knew it was coming, and you can't say you weren't warned. After all, it had to top the original from 1959, and that amazing film put poor David Hedison under a hydraulic press and made his wife smash him to death.

This version dials that idea up a notch and leaves us all google-eyed and slack jawed. Shocked

Enjoy this terrific trailer.


______________________ The Fly (1986) Trailer


___________

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:52 pm; edited 6 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Skullislander
Solar Explorer


Joined: 13 Jul 2016
Posts: 74

PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2016 6:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I saw frames from the excised scene with a stop-motion animated baby that sprouts wings!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17016
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

I posted a fan-made trailer for The Last Starfighter (1984) on the thread for that movie, and the trailer had this amusing message at the beginning.






I wondered just how true the claim at the bottom was, so I made a list of 1980s science fiction films that I thought were good, just to see if that decade really did produce a significant number of “the best” sci-fi movies.

This movie is on the list I made. I know what I like about the film (and a few things I don’t like), but I’d like to hear the pros and cons from the rest of you folks.

So, what do you think, guys? Cool

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bogmeister
Galactic Fleet Vice Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 574

PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2019 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

____________
_______________________

This remake of the fifties sf/horror version is Cronenberg's own masterpiece of horror. Sure, he had original, unusual ideas before this (The Brood in '79; Videodrome in '83,etc.) and branched out into other genres after this, so it's odd that a remake is his ultimate effort.

But it's here that all the elements of horror came together in a nearly perfect mix.

Many of the scenes, particularly in the 2nd half, are uncomfortable to watch, and this may be why many viewers do not rate this film higher — it's just too disturbing to view. A lot of this has to do with the likability of the two main characters, played by Jeff Goldblum & Geena Davis.

Goldblum as Brundle especially comes across as a slightly goofy, harmless eccentric in the early scenes. His charm works on Davis and also on the audience. We certainly don't want anything bad to happen to him. But you already get that sense of dread very early, when he first unveils his macabre-looking pod teleporters. You sense he has some bad times ahead of him — you just don't know how bad. The horror is so effective because it gets really, really bad — just so much worse than you could have ever imagined.



The other aspect to the story, the progress represented by a scientific breakthrough, is another element which, rather than a potential science fiction premise, becomes subverted into a tragedy of horror.

Usually, a concept such as teleportation, successfully accomplished, is cause for celebration (see the Star Trek series & films for a brighter version of such technology). Here, progress such as this should probably be avoided at any cost.

But, the real tragedy is Brundle's horrific bad luck, falling prey to his human failings, notably impatience. If only he'd waited another day. If only he noticed that fly. If only he'd placed some safeguard to prevent his machine from performing a function it was not intended for.

The machinery here becomes a dispassionate godlike creator of monsters; the machine is not so much demonic as remorseless and unfeeling. It's a most disquieting argument against the supposed benefits of escalating technology.

____________
____________
____________
____________

Or maybe it should be termed evolving technology. Brundle's rapid evolution after he first steps into the teleporter touches on some of the most primal fears associated with modern mankind: death and disease.

We watch him seemingly devolve after he first voices our primary concern ("Am I dying?"). A cancer-like affliction cripples him, and it looks like he'll fall apart into nothing. Only later do we realize this was only a transitory step and further horrors await our eyes as Brundle changes, changes.

By this point, many viewers may want to turn away or turn it off. It's really slow death we're seeing and, unless one has sadistic tendencies, there is no compelling reason to watch. Well, unless it's to feel grateful we will never fall victim to something like this.

Or will we?

BoG's Score: 9 out of 10


__________________ The Fly (1986) - Ending


__________



_____________ The Fly - Deleted Baboon Scene


__________



BoG
Galaxy Overlord Galactus


Last edited by Bogmeister on Sun May 19, 2019 11:56 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17016
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2019 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

Thinking Outside the "Plot"!
________________________________

After reading Bogmeister's review, I started wondering about something which the climax of this movie suggests.

By the end of the film, Seth Brundle's body has apparently been almost completely restructured into something with the physical attributes of the fly with which he teleported . . . but he still possessed enough intelligence to complete the three-pod gene splicer, and to operate it to accomplish his final goal.

He also demonstrated intelligence and even morality by the way he silently begs to be destroyed by Gena Davis when he pulled the barrel of the shotgun against his head.

So . . . was Seth Brundle's conversion complete — and if so, how much longer would he have lived? However, a more interesting question would be, could he have continued to work towards a solution to his tragic problem if he hadn't been destroyed?

The sequel, The Fly II, actually addresses this, and the son that Gena Davis gave birth to actually found a way to cleans his own tainted DNA with a modified version of his father's machine. The boy was brilliant, and he remained brilliant even after his full conversion into an insect-like creature.

Based on that, it would seem that Seth Brundle could have "cured" himself if he'd been given time and assistance by qualified people.

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:02 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Spike
Astral Engineer


Joined: 23 Sep 2014
Posts: 266
Location: Birmingham. Great Britain.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you stay I will hurt you.

Seth Brundle is a brilliant but eccentric scientist, working for the Bartok company he has invented something that will change mankind for ever. Upon meeting journalist Veronica Quaife at a party he takes her back to his home to show her his invention, Telepods that can transport objects thru space from one place to another. Tho reluctant to not tell this amazing story straight away, Veronica agrees to let Seth finish his work to finally achieve the ultimate success of sending a human being thru the Telepod system. Things are further complicated when Seth and Veronica start to fall in love, after Veronica is forced to go and see her ex boyfriend, Seth, drunk and jealous, decides to go thru the Telepods, unbeknown to him a fly also went thru with him and the computer, confused to find two matters in the system, spliced the gene codes together, the result is the terrifying birth of Brundlefly.

Remaking an old and much loved horror classic was something that director David Cronenberg tackled with relish, sensing the opportunity to update it with 80s set paranoia's, he managed to not only splice many meanings in his picture, but also to create one of the best horror films of the modern age. Where do you start as regards The Fly's heart? In essence it's a tragic love story, a modern disease riddled Beauty and The Beast, but Cronenberg is not just content with that, he manages to play on mans fears of disease {an 80s AIDS metaphor is hard to get away from}, death and of course change in general.

Cronenberg pictures have generally suffered for poor casting and tiny budgets, but here he gets full license to unleash the devilment and astuteness at work in his mind. Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis put in excellent work as our two main protagonists, both putting in career best work in the process, a chemistry pretty much unrivalled in the horror genre post the Motion Picture Production Code demise in 1967. What is a major plus in The Fly's favour is that there is no camp veneer to the story unfolding, Brundle's metamorphosis is slow and adroitly paced, we follow each step as Brundle's body and state of mind changes, and of course we have to witness Veronica clinging on to the love she has for Seth, even as he monstrously evolves into Brundlefly.

Drink deep, or taste not the plasma spring

Some sequences are truly vile, I remember vividly people leaving the cinema during one particularly gross moment, the horror elements in the piece do not disappoint the genre faithful. But really it's the intelligence and crafty nous that lifts The Fly high above many of its contemporaries. Many of Cronenberg's early supporters frown at The Fly for its big budget awareness and mainstream success. Stupid really because it's one of his most accomplished and professional pictures, dripping with goo and seeping with cranial splendour, right up to the final shattering climax that is as unforgettable as it is emotionally wrought.

A candidate for greatest remake ever? Definitely. And come the end credits as your stomach starts to settle and the ache in your heart begins to wane, comes the realisation that Seth Brundle, without the intrusion of a common house fly, really could have changed the World as we know it! 10/10

_________________
The quality of mercy is not strnen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17016
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

Thinking Outside the "Plot"!
________________________________

My previous TOtP post addressed the question of whether or not Seth Brundle could have fixed both himself and his amazing device if he hadn't been killed.

However, this post focuses on how his invention would have changed the world. Obviously his device would have been both the salvation AND the damnation of the human race.

~ A Question for the Members: How many ways can we describe that would have been both good and bad for mankind if we possessed instantaneous transportation of matter from one point on the planet to another?

~ My Theory: The list is endless. Here are just a few examples.

~ Food could be transported to areas in which people were starving.

~ Starving people could transport to areas with plenty of food — quickly causing over population.

~ Medicines could be instantaneously sent to regions suffering from an epidemic.

~ Victims of an epidemic could transport to other areas where medical facilities where not overwhelmed — and soon cause those areas to be overwhelmed as well.

~ Peacekeepers (soldiers) could be sent to areas victimized by terrorists.

~ Terrorist could transport to areas not equipped to deal with terrorism.

~ DEA agents could teleport to the sites of South American drug lords.

~ Drug traffickers could diversify so completely that no central location would exist . . . and they could transport their merchandise to any point on the planet, making it impossible to prevent them from flooding the world with drugs. Shocked

~ FBI agents could locate criminals and close in them in seconds.

~ Kidnappers could snatch their victims and transport them to any point on the planet, making it impossible for Federal agents to find them.

Folks, I could do this all day! Confused

And I'm sure there are other members who can offer their thoughts on this subject. After all, it's the very essence of science fiction, and it's a subject that mankind might have address in the future! Shocked

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:10 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 2940
Location: Buffalo, NY

PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The entire question of "teleportion" is troubling.

As portrayed in THE FLY and indeed even in all STAR TREK versions it requires the destruction of the subject at the original point and the re-construction and reconstitution at the destination point. In other words it makes a "copy" of the original before it destroys it before recreating it and then "transmitting" it either to another device or "place".

This is only a science fiction device like time travel to the past that is SO far beyond the laws of physics that it can really be termed impossible. Therefore any speculation regarding it is as valid as any other. The closest real science concept is quantum entanglement or what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance". QE to be effective would require more computing power than all the energy output of the Universe and therefore is also an impractical solution.

One idea that I think could really work is this....and it's the same as I could envision for FTL travel. An individual, (or freight pod.) is fitted out with a warp device that puts the subject into a "null space" that envelops the subject in a bubble that can travel to any other point in real space where it can come out virtually "teleported".

Still....The whole concept can either just be accepted as stated or you can blow your mind trying to come up with a way it could REALLY work!

_________________
There comes a time, thief, when gold loses its lustre, and the gems cease to sparkle, and the throne room becomes a prison; and all that is left is a father's love for his child.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Krel
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The gizmo in the movie isn't really a teleporter, it's a matter transmitter. There is a difference.

We talked about this once before, but I can see a matter transmitter being a legal quagmire if used on a person. I can see court battles on whether or not the person that was transmitted is the actual person, or just a very close copy. People would claim that they should get their inheritance because that is not the real person. The real person died in the transmitter, and what came out of the transmitter was just a copy. Marriages would end using the same argument. It wouldn't just be greed, some people will genuinely be horrified that the transmitted loved one, is not REALLY their loved one.

I can see a big moral dilemma not just for the loved ones, but for the person who underwent transmission. When you are transmitted, what happens to your soul? Does it transmit with you? Doubt will set in and i can foresee suicides as an end result.

I can see some religions banning their members from traveling in the device.

Or transmitted objects. It that transmitted Picasso, the REAL Picasso or a copy? Is that a real Stradivarius Violin, or was the real one destroyed in the transmission? The same for jewelry and any other art object. What will that do to their value?

Can you claim the value of a transmitted object from your insurance company, because the original was destroyed? Can you do the same with your loved one's life insurance? How long woulld it take the insurance companies to make it where if you or an insured object are transmitted, that voids the policy?

David.
Back to top
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17016
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

__________________________________________________

This is shocking and disturbing post! Shocked

Everything David said it inarguable . . . or at least highly debatable. Claiming that objects or people which were transmitted definitely are the original and not a copy is as impossible to prove as the existence of God.

And the question of souls in regard to this is twice as hard to resolve. First of all, do souls even exist — and second of all, do souls tag along the transmitted body or do the head back to heaven because the person has actually died?

David very wisely raised a question about valuable objects being transmitted. Art collectors are adamant about the value of original artwork, and they maintain that even the most accurate copy is not worth much more than a framed photo of the original.

David is also dead right when he suggested that many religious groups would strictly prohibit their believers from using the transmitters.

All these highly emotional concerns would, as David described, effect not only the people who would-or-would-not use the transmitters, it would also effect the people who opposed their use. A new form of bigotry would arise; the people who used the transmitters would be prejudiced against the people who used them.

I never would have thought of any of the concepts David proposed. Confused

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Sci-Fi Movies from 1970 to 2000 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group