Stepford Update

andoroido · Post by **andoroido** » Mon Nov 17, 2003 7:49 am

Maybe I've missed it. but...

Have there been any reports of any SFX or CGI involvement in this film at all? Have any SFX photos been leaked or released to any of the film magazines or SFX fan zines? Has a script been leaked with clear scenes of gynoid action? Any interviews with actresses complaining about special makeup or prosthesis?

Basically, is there any actual evidence that there'll be the stuff we want to see in this movie? I really don't want to set myself up for disappointment.

andoroido

noidguy · Post by **noidguy** » Mon Nov 17, 2003 10:27 am

The only thing that I've seen which would indicate some good effects is the fact that the people at http://www.tippett.com are working on it. You can see examples of their previous work on that site. I keep checking it for new info on Stepford, but so far...no luck.

kb7rky · Post by **kb7rky** » Mon Nov 17, 2003 8:27 pm

Just as a "hope it happens" sort of thing:

How much you wanna bet "we" (that is, this site) get a nod or a mention in some way in the film?

A long shot, at best, but still, something to hope for.

Doug

keraptis · Post by **keraptis** » Tue Nov 18, 2003 8:02 am

Svengli wrote:"Getting Stepford-ified can happen fast when you spend a day in a town where there are 100 women in blond bouffants, fake eyelashes, tight-fitting flowered Lilly Pulitzer dresses, both strapless and backless, dashing across the street in strappy high heels - and they're escorted by 100 men, paunchy, graying and balding, and all wearing ensembles ranging from just plain to just plain awful. "

Sound like fun!

Sounds like the Spanish channel!

Seriously, nobody has mastered the art of getting ridiculously hot women to pretend they love fat, balding middle-aged men than the people of "Sabado Gigante" and all those other shows.

Svengli · Post by **Svengli** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 9:16 pm

Scanning Altavista news instead of google news, I got this.

Stepford style: Retro rules for the well-dressed cyborg
http://www.greenwichtime.com/features/s ... -headlines

"Because she's been programmed by her husband to dress to please, her shoe wardrobe would be more about heels and less about comfort and cutting-edge trends. 'I wouldn't, for example, ever put her in our short, high-heel Mizrahi lace-up boots, even though they are fun and very current,' says Wright. 'They are too trendy for her.' "

S

keraptis · Post by **keraptis** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 9:04 am

You know, the more I think about this the more I'm convinced that the most unrealistic part of the entire Stepford Wife concept is the part where the husbands have to dress them. Geez, most men can barely dress themselves!

Picking out dozens of little suits and pantsets and shoes and jewelry for her to wear? WAY too much work. All that had better be part of her programming 'cause there's no way the husband's going to do all that shopping so she can have a complete wardrobe for daytime, evening, formal occasions, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Frankly, if I had a robot wife, the only clothing I'd be interested in her wearing isn't the kind of stuff people typically wear outside the bedroom!

Svengli · Post by **Svengli** » Sat Dec 06, 2003 1:18 pm

There's article by the author of the novel.

Fashion for Dummies
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/magaz ... bc&ei=5062

"There's a certain irony in this transgendered Stepford appearing in a fashion layout, because more than anything else, it was the costumes in the movie that set my teeth on edge.
"At a lawn party on a summer afternoon, the men are in jackets and ties, the women in floor-length dresses. In Stepford? The event would be a softball game, the men dressed like slobs. The women, bringing the beer, would wear hot pants and low-cut blouses. Or maybe wet T-shirts.
"And that final scene in the supermarket! The cart-pushing wives in picture hats and, again, floor-length dresses! William Goldman, who wrote the screenplay, explained the absurdity in his book ''Adventures in the Screen Trade'': one of the featured wives didn't have the figure for the proper Stepford gear -- and since she also happened to be the wife of the director, all the wives were costumed accordingly.
"Now another ''Stepford'' is on the way, a remake starring Nicole Kidman. She has the figure; I just hope she's dressed right. "

--- Not that much info but it's interesting to hear how the author sees things. You might even see some interest in our fetish.

S

Baron · Post by **Baron** » Sat Dec 06, 2003 7:50 pm

This likely won't happen, but wouldn't it be nice if Nicole Kidman's Robo-Joanna looked like this:

Hey, she'd be closer to Levin's original concept!!!

dubhdanaidh · Post by **dubhdanaidh** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:28 am

Baron · Post by **Baron** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 11:10 am

dubhdanaidh wrote:I can't view the image.

Try this:
http://home.hpphoto.com/sessions/511091 ... 8257lg.jpg

dubhdanaidh · Post by **dubhdanaidh** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 11:44 am

Baron · Post by **Baron** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 1:42 pm

dubhdanaidh wrote:I still can't view the image. I takes me to a login screen. When I login it redirects me.

Strange.

Does this work?
http://home.hpphoto.com/servlet/LinkPho ... 18d8&size=

dubhdanaidh · Post by **dubhdanaidh** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 2:09 pm

rickdrat · Post by **rickdrat** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:17 pm

Found this blurb on the FNC web site;

'Stepford' Shoot Goes on Forever

It's not the longest shoot in history, but it's getting there. Believe it or not, "The Stepford Wives," a remake by Frank Oz, is still in production at Kaufman Astoria Studios. The Paramount feature started pre-production in March – that's right, March, nine months ago – and began shooting in New York and New Canaan, Conn., in June.

Now I'm told that the Scott Rudin production is not ready to wrap quite yet. They're scheduled to be at Kaufman "through Christmas." They still have a set built at a studio in Yonkers where more shooting takes place.

One of the stars, Glenn Close, said yesterday that it was the longest she'd ever worked on a film. Her part of it wrapped last Friday. But other members of the cast have been shuttling back and forth for further work, including Christopher Walken, Bette Midler and Matthew Broderick. The only actor who seems to have escaped the nightmarish part of the work is Nicole Kidman, who finished quite a while ago.

Why is "Stepford" taking so long? There have been many reported problems with the cast not getting along, not behaving and not taking direction. Of course director Oz has come in for a lot of blame. Bette Midler is also a prime suspect, although one set insider told me, "Bette's stand-in is even worse than she is. You should hear her scream at people." The same source said that when fresh faces arrived in recent weeks, they were afraid to ask too many questions.

There's also said to be quite a lot of trouble among the actresses, especially in the makeup room. "They're working hard to make them look ugly before they get Stepford-ized," said my source. "And none of them wanted to do it."

As for the runaway production: "No one talks about the cost or the time anymore," they said. Another source said: "There are a lot of special effects. They just got creative as they went along."

New indications are that the principal production will wrap at Kaufman next week, but more shooting with a second unit is said to be scheduled for "after the holidays."

"The Stepford Wives," a remake of the 1975 film, is set for a June 2004 release.

Svengli · Post by **Svengli** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 10:23 pm

Interesting. The comedy question is what looms large for our interest in the Stepford Wives. Will the beauty of these ladies be mared by cheap bathroom humor or similar Hollywood stunts?

Really, the description and the teaser-trailer so-far seems to say no. I'm starting the think they made the movie, describing it as a comedy but without realizing that there isn't comedic theme there after all. But now they'll leave it is as a puff or fashion movie with bits of both horror and comedy. That could be exactly what we'd want.

Recent small quote from Nicole:
"'I just finished The Stepford Wives,' she says, 'which we hope is a comedy. I tell you, comedy is a lot harder. I was exhausted when I finished that.'"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3321583.stm

Vic · Post by **Vic** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 9:34 pm

The trailer to the Stepford Wives is now online

http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2004/ ... he/teaser/

noidguy · Post by **noidguy** » Thu Jan 01, 2004 9:09 pm

Found this on the internet. It's a photo of Bette Midler as Bobbie Markowitz in the Stepford Wives remake.

Let's hope this is a "before" shot!!

keraptis · Post by **keraptis** » Fri Jan 02, 2004 7:31 am

It's probably "before," but without the aid of some serious freakin' CGI I'm not sure how good "after" can really be ...

Svengli · Post by **Svengli** » Fri Jan 02, 2004 11:49 am

Hey,
I saw that picture a while back. I would've posted it but I knew you guys would just bitch.

Obviously, this is a before shot. Her cheeks are puffed out to make her look worse. If you've ever seen supermarket tabloids, you should know that even actresses that look hottest on screen can look pretty bland in person, unmade-up.

One report describes Bette as wearing a body to change her shape for the Stepford version. With CGI, the Stepford Bette could be quite acceptable. She probably will look fake - but that's the point, right?

I found a cool picture of Faith Hill from the set. I'll post it later.

S

noidguy · Post by **noidguy** » Fri Jan 02, 2004 6:47 pm

Svengli wrote:I found a cool picture of Faith Hill from the set. I'll post it later.
S

I found one, too! I'll show you mine if you show me yours. (But I'll bet they're the same).

noidguy · Post by **noidguy** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 12:51 pm

I've read articles mentioning Faith's heavy workout schedule during filming. They say she's trying to look 'buff'. I can only think of two reasons why she would need to do that: 1. She has lots of strenuous stunt-work to perform and needs to be in shape to handle it. 2. She shows a lot of skin at some point and has to come across as the image of the perfect woman. There's also a third possibility, that this is all just hype to get a rise out of us.

5 months 8 days and counting.

kb7rky · Post by **kb7rky** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 11:00 am

keraptis wrote:It's probably "before," but without the aid of some serious freakin' CGI I'm not sure how good "after" can really be ...

I don't think there's enough CGI in the world that can take on this challenge...but I'd be willing to spend my $10 to go see the movie

Granted, The Divine Miss M is, in her own right, a remarkably beautiful woman...

Doug

kb7rky · Post by **kb7rky** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 11:03 am

noidguy wrote:There's also a third possibility, that this is all just hype to get a rise out of us.

What a horrible pun... :guns: :cussing: :borg:

Doug

noidguy · Post by **noidguy** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 1:42 pm

Small photo and a bit distant, but she sure looks better here.

Sega-boy · Post by **Sega-boy** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:28 pm

noidguy wrote:Found this on the internet. It's a photo of Bette Midler as Bobbie Markowitz in the Stepford Wives remake.

Let's hope this is a "before" shot!!

"Oh no! It's Bette Midler!" -Snake, The Simpsons Episode 9F19; Krusty Gets Kancelled
#

Stepford Update

Re: And more stuff

And more...

Article By Ira Levin

Cannot View Image

Re: Cannot View Image

Still Can't

Re: Still Can't

It Works Thanks

Fox News Tidbit

The Comedy Question

Scary photo

Yeah

Re: Yeah

Faith Hill photo

Re: Faith Hill photo

Fair to Midler

Re: Scary photo