What, Are the Birds Going to Explode upon Impact?

Before I get into the inevitable rant, I've been trying to access the Dr. Horrible website all morning, since the first part of the epic supervillain musical is supposed to be posted today. The site has been clogged by too much traffic ALL MORNING. I guess rabid Joss Whedon fans (Whedonites? Whedonians? Whedes?) are all flocking in droves. DROVES. Can't say I blame them, really. I've been pretty consistently trying to get on since I remembered the first act was going to be posted today. Ah well, I'll see it eventually, and probably geek out over it here.

On to more pressing matters. It has recently come to my attention that a particular movie, which I enjoy highly in its original form, is being remade. That's right, Alfred Hitchcock's avian thriller, The Birds, is being remade. Guess who's the Executive Producer? Go on, take a guess. Give up? MICHAEL BAY. Yeah, Mr. Let's Sacrifice Plot Development so we Can Have Big Explosions and Improbable Action. This is the guy that RUINED the X-Men franchise for me, because he changed the whole tone of the series, making it more about action and less about the social issues, which is the heart of the X-Men series. Just because it's a comic book doesn't mean you can gloss over what Stan Lee actually wanted to say with the series. GOD.

And now I'm terrified. It's bad enough that Roman Polanski's Rosemary's Baby is being remade (yeah, by Mr. Bay again as Exec Producer), but why do you have to mess with Hitchcock? Isn't he the great standard many filmmakers aspire towards? Why would you mess with perfection? CGI does not, in fact, make everything better and more realistic.

I am making a big deal over this now, because I just recently watched The Birds, and loved it. Hitchcock dealt in times where visual effects were pretty nonexistent. He had to be inventive with camera angles and real bird wrangling and puppetry and use of the generally newish green screen technology. The part that made me believe that thousands of birds were attacking a small coastal community was the incredibly impressive acting as well as the suspense Mr. Hitchcock was so wonderful at producing with his cinematography and editing. I was on the edge of my seat worrying about these people (I admit, I'd never seen it before, and purposefully never spoiled myself so I'd be surprised). That's a good movie.

Michael Bay does not deal in movies of this sort. He goes for crazy action and cheesy scripts. I'm concerned. And, who the hell is going to be the leading lady in this movie? If it's Lindsey Lohan, I quit. The reason that I wanted to see The Birds is because I read a favorable review of The Happening once, which compare it to The Birds. After watching Hitchcock's movie, I concluded that the reviewer hadn't actually seen The Birds. The beauty of Hitchcock is he doesn't explicitly show violence happen, thereby creating a certain tension with an individual and heightening imagination. He's also SO VERY GOOD at dragging suspense out, and torturing his audience. By not showing anything graphically(or very little), Hitchcock allowed audiences to work for it more, thereby getting more involved in the story and the characters. For me, The Happening did the exact opposite, which I've already ranted about previously.

This should be a lesson to filmmakers, since I feel like I'm in a position to give filmmakers advice, of course. Just because you can do it does not mean you should do it. CGI should be used to enhance plot points, not replace them. I feel like that's where lots of people go wrong, and get too excited about showing ridiculous special effects. It's one thing if the movie is merely meant to be fun and a mindless adrenaline rush (like Wanted), but The Birds has already been done well, and I just don't think it's a movie that's worth redoing, especially since I doubt it'll be more interesting than the original.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe these remakes will rock. I just wish Hollywood would go back to being original and interesting. I miss that.