Stepford Update

droidlvr · Post by **droidlvr** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 4:44 pm

Like I said

I simply didn't think at all that they could possibly recreate TSW in this "modern age" at all. Never ever ever!! And contrary to what that reviewer, myself and some others may hope for I'll be at least well received, because it like much of media is aimed at a certain segment of the audience.

kb7rky · Post by **kb7rky** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 4:55 pm

Rotwang wrote:http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17299

Good find, RW!

Doug

Svengli · Post by **Svengli** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 1:03 pm

The full stepford preview is now officially online. It's the same as the ET footage, just without the ET woman's narrative. The URL is really long

http://www.moviefone.com/features/featu ... ome%2emain

Since the ET version isn't online, this might help some folks.

S

psychojester1978 · Post by **psychojester1978** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 4:09 pm

well I just went to see The Whole 10 Yards and they showed The Stepford Wives Trailer...it seem like a really good movie so far...I love the part where Bette Midler (after the transformation) starts going in a malfunctioning loop and starts repeating and waving "Good-Bye" until someone smacks her in the back of the head and finishes her statement.

andoroido · Post by **andoroido** » Sat Apr 10, 2004 6:43 am

There MUST be someone linked to the movie staff who has
at least looked into this forum, and maybe even continues
to watch it.

Hopefully, some of our ideas were incorporated.

IF nobody from the movie has even thought to look for this community,
then my hopes are not high at all.

Whichever way, I guess we all know we shouldn't get our hopes up.

(if anything the most astounding feat of makeup and special effects would
be to somehow make certain 50-something female co-stars of this movie look sexy... as far as I remember the original Stepford Wives were of the young upper-20-something variety.. which is the way it WOULD be if men could build their own robot wives)

andoroido

noidguy · Post by **noidguy** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 6:57 pm

Like it says, Stepford Wives poster on eBay...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 18479&rd=1

kb7rky · Post by **kb7rky** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 8:08 pm

noidguy wrote:Like it says, Stepford Wives poster on eBay...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 18479&rd=1

Yeah...if the friggin' movie ever comes out...

Doug

13 posts and counting...

dubhdanaidh · Post by **dubhdanaidh** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 1:31 am

droidlvr · Post by **droidlvr** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 6:01 am

Uhhh, I don't know if how "pretty" the "gynoids" makes for a better movie. If I had a choice, I'd immediately settle for average lookers if there is good and plentifull robotic action,sounds and dialogue. Oh and uh a lot less of the misandry quite evident in the trailer(s) of the film.

Svengli · Post by **Svengli** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:56 am

Hmm,

I agree that the looks of the androids is only one variable for how stimulating a film is. Still, the Faith Hill picture that's posted there seems really cool to me since she's both beautifull and just *robotic* looking. I'm sure some folks really love the robotic motion/wires/malfunction thing. I personally prefer subtle hints that show the android as almost fully able to simulate humanity yet not all human at the same time. Thus, just the right dazed look can be better than a whole malfunction scene or face-plate removal - FOR ME.

Also, I don't mind at all the husbands of Stepford being characterized as insecure, inferior men who wanted to control their women. I like the whole plot line of roboticizing being by men to get women they wouldn't otherwise "deserve". It makes the scenario more compelling - if the men were so powerful they could live with acheiving spouses, why would they do any robotizing.

Anyway, different strokes for different folks,

S

Svengli · Post by **Svengli** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 9:45 pm

I guess I'm already harping on the subject but I found a moderately interesting puff piece on The Stepford Wives:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,5-2004173331,00.html

Nothing new but it has good captures many good scenes from the trailer (the online trailer seems to give ugly, fuzzy caps but these are crystal clear). I also like the attitude of article.

Anyway, I'm looking forward....

S

Svengli · Post by **Svengli** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:21 pm

It seems like I'm the only one updating this thread. Still, what the heck, here's the latest:

"Weeks after "The Stepford Wives" remake was test-screened, its crew and power cast -- Nicole Kidman, Bette Midler, Matthew Broderick and Christopher Walken -- are headed back for "additional scenes," as the studio calls them, reports The Philadelphia Inquirer. The latest turmoil for the June 11 film comes after the $90 million Frank Oz-directed pic ran two months behind schedule. Oz, the voice of Yoda and Miss Piggy (top that on your resume), wants Kidman for three days of reshoots, though she's working on Sydney Pollack's "The Interpreter" in her native Australia. "Frank's sense of detail can just be insane," says one set insider. "He's used to puppets." Aren't we all? "

from http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Apr/04282004 ... 161424.asp

It seems obvious that the "perfecting the last detail" part is just a cover. All the reviews describe how the movie just didn't hold together. Hopefully, they have a clue and will move it closer to the plot of the original - dark and with the women just plain robots. But who knows at this point.

The best thing that can be said is this shows they've invested too much into the thing to let it just die.

S

keraptis · Post by **keraptis** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 7:34 pm

Svengli wrote:The best thing that can be said is this shows they've invested too much into the thing to let it just die.

Not releasing the movie at all can't possibly be an option at this point, can it?

I don't have high hopes for any film that gets this much retooling. I still think it's obvious (?) that the only hope they have for marketing this film successfully is to try to make it appeal to a female audience. And that frankly is very unlikely to be what the people on this board (or fans of the original movie) want to see.

But I guess we'll know for sure when we see it.

Baron · Post by **Baron** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 9:55 pm

keraptis wrote:
Svengli wrote:The best thing that can be said is this shows they've invested too much into the thing to let it just die.
Not releasing the movie at all can't possibly be an option at this point, can it?

I don't have high hopes for any film that gets this much retooling. I still think it's obvious (?) that the only hope they have for marketing this film successfully is to try to make it appeal to a female audience. And that frankly is very unlikely to be what the people on this board (or fans of the original movie) want to see.

But I guess we'll know for sure when we see it.

It's an old story - the investors in the project want to make DAMN sure they get some profit out of their investment!! Yoda Grover

might be a perfectionist, but I'll bet the real reason for the delay is that the $$ behind the scenes is howling to high heaven, now that they've seen what they invested in!!

This is not an isolated incident, either. Cherry 2000 sat for over a year, before going direct to video release. Same thing with Robo / Cyber Chic (which also boasted two noticeably DIFFERENT women in the lead role), and I believe that Cyberzone also never made the big screen (or at least more than limited distribution).......

And there is also the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" aspect, with regards to a remake - a near-perfect Xerox (as in a scene for scene remake - think "Psycho" with Anne Heche) can fail just as easily as a "re-imagineered" version (think that the original is only used as a loose point of reference, with liberties taken freely).

I don't know what will happen with SW, but I'm leaning towards a limited (and short) theatrical run, with more marketing emphasis on the DVD release..........

Baron · Post by **Baron** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 9:58 pm

Svengli wrote:It seems like I'm the only one updating this thread. Still, what the heck, here's the latest:

Your efforts are GREATLY appreciated!!

(well, I originated this thread!!

)

ButchyBoy · Post by **ButchyBoy** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:03 pm

Paramount just pushed it's OTHER big summer movie "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow", back to September 17!!!! I'm afraid SW may be headed that way

Svengli · Post by **Svengli** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:18 pm

I know little about mechanics of Hollywood releases.

I could imagine that pushing film back would actually make them more eager to release TSW on time, since another delay gives them less for the summer, an important time for movies. Also, in a thread on a different BBS,

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0327162/board/flat/8026421

Rob Hahn implies that things are right on schedule ("don't read too much into the sharpen storyline thing. It's not really a big deal... "). Seeing as he's listed as being in charge of cinematography, that could mean something. But naturally, I'd imagine all this is very changable.

Best

S

ButchyBoy · Post by **ButchyBoy** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 11:21 pm

Funny you shoud mention Mr. Hahn......I just sent him a message inviting him here

barakuda · Post by **barakuda** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 1:04 am

Yeah I hope they make movire fit together better. If has read earlirt the ending seemed tacked on thats like a lot of movies. the ending just drags on to make the ending end happy. Or what about the dream scinereo where watch the whole movit then the main charater wakes up from his day dreaming thoughts to make the rigt decision and the movie ends dofferently. the dark ending to original was unique Different and one of the reasons besides the gynoud conrent that the original worked. The other problem i have is that on E.T. inter veiw the the cat never really watched the original. So how could they possible know what worked the first time. I think if they saw the first they would realize the comedy aspect wouldnt work. The happy ending wouldnt work. Thats why i think this movie will bombb. the original was supposed cult hit. Now you change it. annoying the fans original while not make anything unique to gain new fans. Hopefully the additonal filming will clean it up and make wotlk k out.

Barakuda

fection · Post by **fection** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 8:14 am

I've been following this thread pretty well and I don't THINK anyone has posted this before......

http://www.impawards.com/2004/stepford_wives.html

It's a teaser poster for the Wives. Check out her spookily 'dead' eyes!
I really REALLY hope they re-think the brains-in-bots idea. Even so, it will be interesting to see Ms Hill malfunction, I think.
fection.

kb7rky · Post by **kb7rky** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 2:57 pm

Baron Latos wrote:And there is also the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" aspect, with regards to a remake - a near-perfect Xerox (as in a scene for scene remake - think "Psycho" with Anne Heche) can fail just as easily as a "re-imagineered" version (think that the original is only used as a loose point of reference, with liberties taken freely).

Think: the first "Inspector Gadget" movie...

Doug

tully · Post by **tully** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 5:37 am

Not releasing the movie at all can't possibly be an option at this point, can it?

Not really...but they can do the next best thing and put it in a closet for an extended period.

However, there is quite a bit of star-power in this flick. From the director to the supporting cast (not to mention the principals), I doubt any of these people would be happy with the release being delayed too much past target.

Recall, this movie has also been trumpeted as:

-Faith Hill's "debut"
-The Divine Miss M's first comedy in years (after a struggle to get her on the picture)
-A "breakout" comedy role for Kidman
-A Frank Oz film, period
-Lots of publicity about Glenn Close being brought on

Given all of this, the publicity blitz that the studio began...we'll see it this summer I'm sure.

Baron · Post by **Baron** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 11:56 pm

tully wrote:
Not releasing the movie at all can't possibly be an option at this point, can it?
Not really...but they can do the next best thing and put it in a closet for an extended period.

However, there is quite a bit of star-power in this flick. From the director to the supporting cast (not to mention the principals), I doubt any of these people would be happy with the release being delayed too much past target.

Recall, this movie has also been trumpeted as:

-Faith Hill's "debut"
-The Divine Miss M's first comedy in years (after a struggle to get her on the picture)
-A "breakout" comedy role for Kidman
-A Frank Oz film, period
-Lots of publicity about Glenn Close being brought on

Given all of this, the publicity blitz that the studio began...we'll see it this summer I'm sure.

And by fall, the home version will be in the vid stores:

(My apologies, for those of you who have seen this image before)

andoroido · Post by **andoroido** » Sat May 01, 2004 1:16 am

Where did you find this fake poster?

keraptis · Post by **keraptis** » Sat May 01, 2004 5:33 am

I don't get it. Marlon Brando is in the movie now?

Stepford Update

Like I said..........

Re: Aint it cool review

its on

Stepford poster on eBay

Re: Stepford poster on eBay

Faith Hill. Excellent Gynoid? How So

Uhhh, I don't know.......

Different Strokes

And more

And further....

Re: And further....

Re: And further....

Re: And further....

Stepford poster

Re: And further....

Re: And further....

Re: And further....