MovieChat Forums > Moby Dick (1956) Discussion > Why a remake? This movie stands up just...

Why a remake? This movie stands up just fine.

posted 15 years ago by BigShoe62
30 replies | jump to latest

Somehow I have managed to miss seeing this movie all these years... I finally got to see it today and really loved it! it is currently in the rotation on the "THIS TV" network.

I found it to be engrossing, visually and "historically" interesting, and just plain fun. I loved the pastel creepy look to the film -- appropriate, dreamlike and memorable. I also thought the use of miniatures was more-or-less sparse and pretty cleverly done. Those artisans that created special effects back before computers deserve our respect. Back when special effects was more than clicking the mouse and tapping the keyboard...? Anybody...?

Anyway, in my opinion there is no need to remake this movie, it stands up just fine. Why do people think everything must be remade?

I was born when she kissed me. I died when she left me. I lived a few weeks while she loved me.

[–] Xparasite 15 years ago

Because people can't enjoy anything that isn't stuffed with cgi, explotions and other special effects.
This is one of my all time favourite movies and there is no way any remake kan ever toch this one.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Bob_Rohrer 15 years ago

There's no harm in filming different versions of any literary classic, but I don't think anyone could improve on Huston's. I first saw it the year it was released, and I've always felt that Peck is perfect as Ahab.

"You gotta start off each day with a song ... even when things go wrong ...."

[–] wrfarley 15 years ago

roberthrohrerjr, I'm impressed you saw this film in 1956. It was a real event, and a sad disappointment at the box office. Do you remember how you felt seeing MOBY DICK so early in its life?

The problem with the Huston version is not Peck or the miniature whale; it's the night scenes that were obviously shot in daylight. Of course, this is due to the fact that film stock and lenses were not fast enough in those days to capture an outdoor location image in anything less than broad daylight. With the ultra fast films and lenses of today, you could almost get a crisp image in moonlight. Of course, what you sacrifice is the special vision of John Huston and Ray Bradbury, the very capable work of Gregory Peck and other members of the cast. This remains the definitive version.

[–] Bob_Rohrer 15 years ago

I was 10 years old, and my father took me to see it at a second-run theater (the screen seemed as large as those I remember from first-run theaters in Atlanta, but who knows; everything seemed large when I was a kid). Though I was familiar with the general outline of the story (not, I'm sorry to say, from the novel, but from a "Classic Illustrated" comic-book adaptation), the film knocked my socks off. I was intimidated by Peck's Ahab -- not quite frightened, but aware that the captain wasn't the sort of person I would want to be around -- awestruck by the whale, and shocked by the graphic depiction of the fate of the crew (especially the cabin boy, probably because I was about his age).

The day-for-night aspect went completely over my head; I knew nothing about the technique. The film still strikes me as being terrifically suspenseful, even through the sequence in which the Pequod is becalmed, probably because Huston & Bradbury managed to suffuse the story with semi-supernatural dread (a couple of years later, a friend would introduce me to Bradbury's horror stories in the collection titled THE OCTOBER COUNTRY, and Bradbury would become one of my favorite writers).

I was shocked a few years later to read criticism of Peck's performance (in an SF magazine, I think, in defense of Bradbury's script); I rarely find no merit at all in others' opinions, but I've never understood the negative reactions in this case.

"You gotta start off each day with a song ... even when things go wrong ...."

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] someinsomniac 15 years ago

Quite frankly, I have no problem with the CONCEPT of remakes. There is nothing wrong with multiple interpretations of the same story. Not only does it give us as viewers the freedom to pick and choose our own "definitive" version, but it also compliments the richness of the source material. Moby-Dick is one of those novels that is so richly complex that there is plenty there for a fresh adaptation of it.

The problem with remakes nowadays is that they bring absolutely nothing new to the table. They are literally carbon copies of the original, but with better special effects. If you have nothing to add except better CGI, then I agree, the remake is pointless.

[–] incu-ry9 14 years ago

Yeah, the concept of remakes is pretty old hat by now. But my question to you is, would you rather have another remake of a '70s TV show or a remake of a classic novel if it's done right, for example: Daniel Day Lewis as Ahab. I know Day-Lewis has done that "crazy man" role before, but I could see it being a really great remake if it's done right.

[–] VaticanAssassinWarlock 12 years ago

Wow, DDL would be perfect.

[–] rockk_th 14 years ago

I hate CGI. It lakes SOul. you can feel the emptyness of the movie stuffed with CGI... i m not that old, i was born in the 80 s , i used to love computers and all that *beep* but now i learned to realize the MAGIC of these movies, so much feeling and SOUL IN it.

no cgi ever could compare to this. respect to real actors, real directors and REAL movie makers everywhere.

I dieing specie.

join us www.server.lineage2media.com

[–] joe_538 11 years ago

I'd say Jurassic Park and Independence Day's CGI could compare. The awe shared by the characters of seeing the dinosaurs, or the feeling of dread when spaceships blot out the sun are both emotional moments created by CGI. But, it has to be done sparingly, be used only when appropriate, look good, and fit the story.

For that matter, there are a lot of older movies that relied too heavily on miniatures, rear projection, and stock footage the same way CGI is abused today.

[–] knightwind88 14 years ago

Telling Hollywood not to do remakes is like telling a Shakespearian theater group not to put on another one of the Bard's plays.

Moby-Dick is now being remade as a TV movie (again) and from what I've seen of previews it looks clunky and undoubtedly stretches over more than one night's showing. I think that's where the strength of the 1956 version lies, in brevity. Its a simple story that can be told in two hours and doesn't need to keep going on and on and on à la Lord of the Rings.

John Huston knew what he was doing. If I was a director/producer I would take Huston's script and simply reshoot 90% of it as it stands, making a few changes here and there but keeping the basic model mostly intact. I would make Moby Dick more realistic, film a real sperm whale swimming at the surface and only use CGI to change it's color from brown/black to white/off-white.

I'd even keep Ahab's Lincoln beard and formal quaker attire too, which many critics have panned. The new TV version with Hurt has Ahab dressed in simple working man's clothes of the 19th century; in other words, like a bum.

[–] TCMer 14 years ago

I also thought the use of miniatures was more-or-less sparse and pretty cleverly done. Those artisans that created special effects back before computers deserve our respect. Back when special effects was more than clicking the mouse and tapping the keyboard...? Anybody...?

I agree 100%. I thought the SF guys did a fantastic job given the available technology. They and Huston knew how make $100,000 look like a million bucks. Nowadays, it seems like most directors know only how to do the reverse.

"What I got don't need pearls." -- Linda Darnell (1923-65)

[–] ProffessorMarvel 14 years ago

Don't worry, I don't charge extra for the jokes!

"Professor Marvel never guesses - he knows!"

[–] wrfarley 14 years ago

"John Huston knew what he was doing. If I was a director/producer I would take Huston's script and simply reshoot 90% of it as it stands, making a few changes here and there but keeping the basic model mostly intact."

Agree with this completely Ray Bradbury turned over an ace script for this (with Huston's contributions). No need to write a different version.

The only problem with the F/X in the 1956 version is wee see TOO much of the whale, which gives the audience the chance to see the weakness in the model work. A few more judicious cuts and it would be perfectly acceptable to a modern audience.

[–] smakar 14 years ago

I remember as a child watching this movie each year with my parents; it was a big event which I appreciated more on each viewing, and has continued to this day. But it it isn't just Ahab (Peck) and the whale that I love; it's also the other characters (Stubb, Starbuck, all of the crew in fact, and Elijah, who differed from the book to the better), and the images of the people on the shore as the Pequod left on its' berth. It's especially the images of those people on shore that remain in my memory the most, and no advances in special effects could improve on them.

[–] [email protected] 13 years ago

I've always thought that the reason we see so many remakes is because hollywood is void of new ideas...They have either forgotten how to craft and tell good stories--like so many movies of the 40's and 50's--or they believe "shock and awe" technology replaces good story telling. But in fairness, the 1956 Moby Dick was also made in the 20's or 30's, so it's a "remake" also. I just believe it happens to be the best version made and will never be topped. Certainly not by the 2011 version I am currently watching with William Hurt as Ahab.

[–] wrfarley 13 years ago

Hey, how is that William Hurt version? It got decent reviews, but I'm skeptical.