Ok, here's my remake of Phase IV(well, the cast anyway)
James R. Lesko -Keanu Reeves
Dr. Ernest D. Hubbs-Patrick Stewart
Kendra Eldridge-AnnaSophia Robb
Mr. Eldridge-Unknown
Clete-Unknown
Mildred Eldridge-Unknown
Director-Joss Whedon
Writer-Joss Whedon
Meh ---- I don't like your cast choice.
Phase IV deserves to be a thought provoking movie that doesn't exactly care if the audience "gets it" - as opposed to some sort of CG enhanced thriller. If you book Reeves and Stewart, that's what you're going to get.
They should use a bunch of unknowns that look like "real" people
Actually, if they can remake it in a similar style as the movie "Andromeda Strain" except different (as in -- not a clone), that would be kinda cool. Ants + intelligence + really technical science + solution discovered through fictional (but realistic) research FTW.
Dude, it's going to be a CGI enhanced thriller anyway if it is remade, and it will probably have some big names doing the movie-the movie is a horror flick, which means that they will spend a lot of coin to make it.
And making it into a movie similar to The Andromeda Strain with its happy ending, defeats the purpose and intent of the original: that the ants win, and Man has to change! That's what it all about, baby!
Gotta say I agree -- I think the best way to make such a strange movie is to be as strange as possible. It's a cult movie from a cult movie idea.
I wouldn't go as STRONG as, say, David Lynch, but if I were picking a director, I'd pick someone who would not buckle from making a weird movie WEIRD.
-
http://www.Guerrilla-Productions.org/
"Been there, shot that."
A remake of Phase IV sure will have massive CGI ants and effects. This will make a remake worthless because a very important point of the movie is the use of spectacular real-ants-shots. Nobody today will take the time and trouble to do so if it is possible with CGI.
Sadly, i say!
Well, no, it doesn't have to. I think if it's remade, it should be remade with as much live footage as possible -- just no two ways about it. The live footage is what made it so damn creepy and poignant. And of course, the live footage was brilliant.
I think the acting across the board could be improved a lot, though.
I'd ask someone with a LOT of presence to be Hubbs. My first thought, actually, was Leonard Nimoy (assuming he was game). He can pull of the intensity and the quiet madness of Hubbs. If he was playing Hubbs, you can have WAVES of ants washing in and if he stares at you and tells you it'll be okay, you actually won't move. That's how good he'd be at that part.
As far as Lesko and the others, I think once you have someone like Nimoy as your lead, that'll raise the bar for everybody else to at least solid acting.
There's a lot to be said for bringing in unknowns for the roles, but I think if there are actors with a bit of a catalog who are normally expected to "survive" a scary movie, then those are the ones I'd consider for the role.
I think whoever plays Kendra would do an especially good job the younger they looked, because then the contrast at the end would be exceptionally terrifying.
Leonard Nimoy is retired from acting, and doesn't intend to do any more acting roles, with the exception of the new Star Trek movie (he's mostly concerned with photography these days).
Time lapse photography will still work, but so might a little CGI as well.
As for the other actors, the ones I've mentioned are just right for the role (AnnaSophia Robb would be old enough to play the part of Kendra at this point), although there are others that can portray the characters as well.
"Leonard Nimoy is retired from acting, and doesn't intend to do any more acting roles"
Well, yeah, other than the ones he does. 8) But still, there might be others who could pull off the quiet intensity.
I would not immediately think of Patrick Stewart for quiet mad intensity. I'd cast a heavy, such as Javier Bardem, or Peter Stormare (I think the Coens can pick a heavy who isn't ALSO a parody). Hugo Weaving (thinking of Keanu Reeves got me thinking of Hugo Weaving) could pull it off, too.
For Kendra, I'd go young, scandalously so. To pull a big name out of the hat, consider Dakota Fanning (assuming she's be game for weird horror). Here's why -- first of all, you'd freak out the audience at the end, because she's only fifteen, so that's instant Weird Indy Cred. Secondly, think in terms of an ant. They might want a human that is as young as possible, but still, er, useful. Ants are pretty much ready to go as soon as they're born (depending on their function), so the idea that the ants would choose to preserve a woman younger than we would consider socially acceptable drives home more strongly the idea that they just think differently. They are totally alien.
Lesko's a toughie, because he can't be stronger/bigger than Hubbs, but he still has to seem like a very smart guy -- the kind of egghead that WOULD spend years using game theory to talk to whales. The closest Reeves has come to that sort of role might be Chain Reaction. I'd try Lou Taylor Pucci, maybe, who has all the charm and prettiness of Reeves, but I think could actually pass for a brilliant and reclusive egghead, or maybe Benjamin Bratt (roughed up a lot). If I wanted to really squick my audience, though, I'd find someone to play Lesko who is suficiently old enough, or funny-looking enough, such that when we realize they've been paired off with a young girl, it makes us squirm uncomfortably in our seats. So, maybe I'd take one of those fellows, but arrange for him to have had some disfiguring scar across his face as a youth (driving him to egghead work, say...).
Just off the top of my head.
Re Rainer's post: You have a point.
I was watching the movie the other day, and was reminded of how cool that part was. There was an awesome amount of detail in all the "close up lens" shots. The little ant tunnels were also kinda neat.
Admittedly, I think there are a couple of aspects that would benefit from a remake. The ending was a tad.....uh........well, you can definitely tell there's a bit of a 1960's LSD aspect to it LOL.
There was something missing in Dr Hub's line of reasoning. He was obviously supposed to be one of those "revolutionary/push conventional boundaries" type scientists, but his methods seemed too random to be believable. For example - there needed to be more of an explanation (even an irrational one) as to why he believed "provoking" the ants was preferred over other methods of study.
They also need to explain how the ants communicated using frequencies (since they communicate using chemicals)
This film doesn't need a remake; it's fine the way it is.
I'm a totally bitchin' bio writer from Mars!