Okay, right off the bat, loved the original, always have, but I'm going to play devil's advocate somewhat.
I saw the original in the late 1970s on tv, missing the entire first part before the sinking.
In the late 1980s, I would get the book in a second hand shop and read it.
It would be well into the early 1990s before I would finally send off for a copy of the original and was just enthusiastic to be seeing it.
I think I had a copy of the '79 sequel and had seen it several times (ABC used to show it more than once as a Sunday night movie) before I saw the original again or obtained the book.
Having read the book and then watched the original film, I was most stymied by Stella Stevens character.
I didn't remember Borgnine's wife being so hostile, or the villianess of the piece.
My impression from seeing the movie that first time was this is what made her death so poignant; that she was an unassuming lady, the character, not the actress.
Truthfully, in the original, her hostility and the subplot of her being a former hooker are kind of ridiculous. How likely is it that a former hooker will meet former clients on a cruise ship?
And what if they are on the ship, is she supposed to bed down with them or something?
Actually, this was played out on an episode of Love Boat with Caren Kaye and Jack Carter, of all people.
But back to original Poseidon, knock out Shelly's death and what is left of the movie? If you added up the originality from this movie, it would be the disaster (capsizing), the Christmas tree and the fat lady dying saving everyone, so the disaster and the Christmas tree were gone, what else was there if you took out Winters?
The sequel, tho ridiculous, did at least go for a father-daughter conflict (Peter Boyle and Angela Cartwright) and a blind man (Jack Warden) as well as their terrorist (Savalas) and even the salvagers (Caine, Field & Malden) so it was full of sub-plots to watch unfold.
The original had its day of being campy, as were all the 1970s disaster movies, tho now they are regarded as classics and fun to watch.
But the biggest thing about the original was there were no couples going off hand-in-hand.
Jack Albertson lost Shelly Winters, Borgnine lost Stevens and Pamela Sue Martin lost Hackman.
The movie tried to focus on a happily-ever-after with a quick hug from Red Buttons and Carol Lynley, but it seems the budget ran out, so that was all we could get.
Whereas in the sequel, the six survivors were all happily paired up together, like Noah's Ark.
But the sequel did at least take a different slant with a blind man on the ship. And they didnt have the survivors escape thru the same opening, they swam out instead, again, trying for a different outcome.
These remakes should have done something like that. They should have steered clear of the Christmas tree entirely and went another way, avoided Susan-Shelby stuck on a table on the ceiling, and had no swim from Mrs. Rosen.
The story was survivors on a capsized ship. That they used the same characters (whereas by comparison, each Titanic movie has touched on different survivors here and there, while also focusing on some of the major ones like Astor and the Unsinkable Molly Brown) was a mistake in my book.
They should have overhauled the characters completely and put different figures on there.
reply
share
18 years ago
[deleted]
richard.fuller1
18 years ago
It was ten survivors total from the first movie and the '79 sequel, and no, I never counted Caine and Field either, as they weren't passengers.
Linda Rogo in the book was a failed actress of some sorts, tho there was a bit her husband told about her being put out on the streets as a teen and having to work as a hooker. The movie simply emphasized it more.
I've seen the motion picture only once, but have ordered it and will see it again, but the characters weren't phenomenal breakthroughs of sorts as far as characterization goes, with Shelly Winters swimming and saving everybody.
Not that this should have been Dreyfuss or even Russell to do this act, but just something different from the whole sacrifice bit.
reply
share
EponineSabrina
17 years ago
The original movie didn't need to have a lot of action points for it to be a good movie. It fits into the adventure genre, where a group of people are forced to work together to survive. It's about the people, the events are just the setting. The remake seemed to try more to be an action film with lots of things going on and little characterisation. The problem is that being spread over two feature length parts, it's much too dragged out for an action film. The beauty of the original was it's simplicity, the way it focused on less and therefore seemed to have more effort put into what was there, while the remake tried to fit so much in that it didn't really do anything that well.
reply
share