Remake of Cherry 2000

[mr.tobor]

Not sure if people have seen this, but there's a rumor that they will be remaking Cherry 2000 and Melanie Griffith's daughter may reprise her role:

http://www.showbiz411.com/2011/06/06/me ... 2000-redux

[Baron]

Wish I shared your enthusiasm, Kishin.
To me, it's a sorry sign of the times when the good ol' "Fun Factory" decides to remake a pretty cheesy cult film. I mean, come on - the original was so bad it sat on the shelf for almost 2 years before it was releaed. Straight-to-VHS, as I recall. Granted, Pammie Gidley's meltdown is a classic gynoid vignette, but like so many other instances it is still just a vignette; hardly enough to carry the whole movie, as it were {I know, I know - Cherry's malfunction drives the main plot, but it's also the sum total of true robotic trappings in the entire flick}.

I dunno - maybe I'm forever traumatized by the butchery visited on The Stepford Wives in 2004, but I just don't see this as something to sound the trumpets about. A "faithful" remake would still result in merely some fresh cheese; whilst a "re-imagineering" a-la TSW would be certain disaster, unless by some miracle it turned into a tweaked re-work like The Raven.

I ain't holding my breath for that to happen - I'm still waiting for the "New & Improved" Westworld to be sprung from developmental limbo............ and be better than Jurassic Park.............

[Asato]

Well I hold the naive and optimistic view that no gynoid themed remake could be as awful as the 2004 Stepford Wives.

I really want to believe that somehow modern SFX and soundtrack wizardry will help make even something as cheerfully goofy as Cherry 2000 a new gynoid classic for our shelves.

But...yeah...reality probably is...it will stink worse than a fish left in your car over a Summer weekend.

Still...I'll pay to see it!

You know the point of the original Stepford Wives was to replacing humans with mindlessly obedient machines was creepy and evil.

[jolshefsky]

I mean, come on - the original was so bad it sat on the shelf for almost 2 years before it was releaed. Straight-to-VHS, as I recall.

I'd rather see someone breathe fresh life into something that's bad (but could be fixed) rather than someone trying to take something good and ... well, I don't know ... prove something?

Stepford Wives was an excellent metaphor and a rather solid movie. The remake was an absolute disaster, removing all elements of social commentary and replacing it with Hollywood shit. Cherry 2000 was a pretty bad movie with a few scenes that appeal to our crowd. It's not like people looking for Cherry 2000 are going to say, "well, I saw the remake and it was really bad, so I think I'm going to skip the original." That's the kind of damage a bad remake does.

It's like music. Why do people insist on tackling good songs? Good songs are good because they were made as good as they could possibly be. Worst is someone who thinks they can duplicate the exact chemistry of the original with a little tweaking here and there. It's like putting an aftermarket suspension kit on a Porsche.

But sometimes lousy songs had good lyrics or a good melody and just need some talent to make them work. Same with movies ... same with a 1987 Chevette.

So here's hoping for Cherry 2000. If nothing else, we can hope for some screen shots of a factory or something. Worst case would be a bland movie that we wouldn't care to see – and in that case, so what?

[rickdrat]

Well I hold the naive and optimistic view that no gynoid themed remake could be as awful as the 2004 Stepford Wives.

<-----Rocking back in forth in the fetal position with hands over ears.... "it never happened...it never happened...it never happened...nah nah nah da da da...going to my happy place"

[Baron]

Addressing both Kishin and joshefsky: Don't let my pessimism stand as the definitive judgement, please!! My niche as the board's Critic Emeritus gave me the habit of going for the kill straight away, even with rumored projects like this one. I'd love to see them get it right for once, but given their track record over the last 15 or so years, I just don't see it happening.

With the "mainstream" studios, that is.

And indie-venture just might have possibilities, however. Since the original had minimal SFX, there's really no need to load down a remake with 'em. Re-direct the money saved from that expense into crafting a good, solid story - with old-school SFX, if necessary - and pay attention to the cast {how about Eliza Swenson as a true "Cherry?"}. It's hardly rocket surgery, and if they're careful with it, a new Cherry 2000 could be the next Little Shop of Horrors for the techno-sex crowd. No need to re-invent the wheel, or inject some tired, "post-everything" social commentary into the script. Be respectful of the original's strengths {all three of 'em }; chart new ground with a bit of care, play up the robotic elements a little more, and All Shall Be Well.

[Asato]

No I didn't like it. But the original was supposed to be a horror movie, not fetish fuel.

[dale coba]

But the original was supposed to be a horror movie, not fetish fuel.

It was both. The first, more than the second.
Both, right?
("supposed to" is not defined by "the advertising campaign used").

Ira Levin was a serious writer, and his works were chosen for adaptation because their sophisticated narratives are provocatively paranoid, and perfect for film and for their times. Voyeurism and the fetishism of seeing and being seen are deep within the heart of cinema.

- Dale Coba