Secret Of NIMH remake...?!

R

rahul s

New member
http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=27714

darth_vader_nooo1.jpg
 
Well, it's not really a remake, it's another adaption of the book. It's not intended to replace the Bluth film any more than Jackson's Lord of the Rings was meant to replace Bakshi's. They're by different companies.
 
While I'm not against the idea of another NIMH adaption, I have a sinking feeling that whoever attempts it will fall into a trap where the tone would be too light, in order to keep it contemporary.
 
I don't know the tone of the book (never read it), but if this new version strives to be as dark as the Don Bluth movie, I'll at least be interested in seeing what they do. Otherwise, I'll stick with the original, which was a major childhood favorite. (Though I can kind of already see it, Angelina Jolie as Mrs. Brisby and Will Ferrell as Justin. :ack: )
 
In all fairness, this film isn't technically a remake, as it's not meant to take the place of Don Bluth's film; it's merely another adaptation of the same story. Keep in mind that Bluth didn't conceive the original story; it was merely a film adaptation of the book Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of N.I.M.H. Bluth doesn't have a lock on the story, so it's not like he's the only one who's permitted to do a movie based on it.

However, depsite all that, you know people are still going to be prejudiced against this version and will constantly compare it to Bluth's version, only because his came first. I hope people will at least try to view this adaptation with unbiased eyes and an open mind, though I know that's mostly a pipe dream.
 
Don Bluth's "The Secret of NIMH" diverged significantly from the content of the book, adding many mystical/supernatural elements that just weren't there to begin with. Another adaptation could indeed take an even much darker tone than that earlier movie. My greatest apprehension would be any attempt to further kiddify the story. The novel was written for a child's reading level, but there were lots of scary elements.
Lab experiments were done on wild-caught rats and mice (lab-bred animals being too stupid/inbred to be suitable for the experiments), and the politics and treachery when the rat colony escapes the lab and forms their new society.
 
I know I will. That said, what concerns me more is whether or not this will be another "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" case. That is, will it be true to the original book, or will it just be one person/entity's personal vision of the story?

Also, because this will be another adaptation, it will likely use the original title of "Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH". I hope it does anyway. Were they to use the title of the 1982 MGM version, the movie would likely be guaranteed to fail. IMHO, the movie will have some fighting chance if they use the book title. That being said, I hope the makers of this new adaptation will be able to use the "Frisby" name. See, The "F" had to be altered into a "B" because Hasbro (through their "Wham-O" division) originally owned the trademark on the name "Frisbee", and thus MGM and Aurora (the latter being the producers of the movie; Bluth just animated it) wanted to avoid any copyright infringement accusations. So you see, even using the "non-infringing" name could put the movie "at risk" so to speak.

In any event, while I want it to be true to the book, I also hope they don't make the plot completely devoid of hope. I'm really not into all that "there's no hope, we're all going to die" type of dark melodrama. I also hope it doesn't get too political either. It is my hope that this movie will truly be a "family" movie, and not just something for the parents to entertain their families with in the short term (Dreamworks already makes enough of that as it is, but I digress), or otherwise "biased" towards to the "older" viewers in some other way, shape, or form. It's like the old saying goes: "You can only fool some of the people some of the time".

In the meantime, I hope everything goes as planned, and that the movie turns out "right"...
 
*buries head in hands*

It's going to be CG, isn't it? It's a live-action/animation hybrid, of COURSE it's going to be CG, they're going to look HORRIBLY photo-realistic...
 
Well, if it's a live-action movie, they should look more or less photo-realistic... right?

Like I said before, if it's a live-action movie of the book including the necessary CGI, it could definitely work. It wouldn't be the first time there was an animated movie of a book and a live-action movie of the same book, both successful for different reasons. Take away the animation and the magical stuff that was added to the Bluth version and you've got a pretty different movie.
 
I think that this is an interesting idea at least with some nice potential. If they are closer to the book than the original animated film, then that could help make the new adaptation stand out for itself. The CGI designs could be done well, so I'm waiting until more information about the storyline and the character designs come out before I make any kind of firm judgment on the film.
 
I dont think Don Bluth has anything to do with this but personally I think its very uncalled for. But before I burst into swearing and negativity is this going to be 100% true to the book? I do like Don Bluth's take of it but however some parts he clearly missed out on that were not in the movie.
 
Back
Top