The Fly 1986 - Not As Good As You Remember?

Considered one of the few times a remake is better than the original along with Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) and The Thing (1982), David Cronenberg's interpretation of The Fly is remembered as a modern classic but is that reputation deserved?

Firstly, the main character Seth Brundle is only able to use his teleportation device on inanimate objects until he gets the idea to make his computer "crave the flesh" What does that even mean? It's never explained how he programs a computer with something as abstract as to "crave the flesh". It's a pretty lazy way to hand wave the plot moving forward.

Secondly, once Brundle uses the device himself his DNA is fused with a fly which accidentally entered the teleportation chamber with him combining their DNA. However, we are constantly covered in tiny mites on our skin & microbes in our stomachs etc so shouldn't that test baboon have also come out as some hybrid ape/amoeba monstrosity?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?time_continue=53&v=GxlPYspn1B8
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Really makes you think

stop nickpicking on shit, the story, the characters, the themes and the execution are good thats whats important if you start nickpicking any little detail every sci-fi movie has plot holes and shit

You probably shouldn't be watching cheesy bodyhorror b-movies if you have autism. It tends to trigger it a lot.

>stop nitpicking
where do you think you are?

Is this YMS?

and speaking of bodies and autism are we really supposed to believe that a buff & tanned Jeff Golblum is this autistic scientist who's been holed up alone in his warehouse loft for 6 years?

I rewatched it recently and it was as great as I remember. The teaching the computer to crave the flesh was just how he felt it need to be explained to a woman. A little cheesy but it didn't spoil anything for me.

in movie world some scientist can be buff

I believe teaching a computer to crave the flesh works something like this
>initiate what is love.exe
youtube.com/watch?time_continue=53&v=GxlPYspn1B8

yo' dude why does the monkey never makes any noise around the lab? monkeys are loud as fuck.

PLOT HOLE THIS MOVIE FUCKING SUCKS

he was a TRAINED monkey.

I liked Fly 2, one of the best monsters of the 80s.

how is it different than Brundlefly? It's been awhile since I've seen it.

Why don't they remake more 50's b movies?

honestly that's something Hollywood doesn't get. They shouldn't be trying to remake great films from the past they should be trying to remake films that had interesting ideas but were deeply flawed and try to improve upon them. That's how we got Body Snatchers, The Thing and The Fly, not like now how we're getting Ghostbusters: Answer the Call etc.

KEK

> they should be trying to remake films that had interesting ideas but were deeply flawed and try to improve upon them

This, pretty much. Say, what movies from the 50's would make up for some sweet remakes?

I don't personally know many movies from the 50s which fit that description because I wouldn't be born for another 30 years so have only seen the films which stood the test of time like Forbidden Planet but what do you think would happen if Hollywood tried to make a good version of Plan 9 From Outer Space?

Being fit takes like 4 hours a week.
A tan takes 10 minutes.
It really isn't hard to get/stay fit.

this really takes me back holy shit
thanks user

maybe for Asian manlets like you but the rest of us need to put in more effort than that.

Lmao try again, I'm 6'3 220 and white.
Eating big is honestly the hardest part.

It sounds like you've got it down

I've been getting compliments on getting buff from my friends, collegues and family non-stop for a couple of months now. Little do they know it just fuels my insecurity and propels my self-loathing to new lows.
Fitness ain't hard, really wish more people would just get at it honestly.

>Teleporting only inanimate matter
Your first criticism can be answered as follows:
In a modern remake Seth would explain with something like: "The algorithm has problems dealing with organic carbon bonds. The complexity of the bonds has simply overwhelmed its processing ability. But I discovered a mathematical shortcut to simplify it. Now it craves the flesh as it were!"
>microbe monstrosity
Second criticism, Seth's modern lamentation: "You see the machine's algorithm discards distinct DNA patterns below 10 micrometers. In my haste to perfect the algorithm I did not anticipate another distinct living multi cellular creature in the pod with me greater than 10 micrometers. Oh the hubris!"
...
Remember OP, it was a simpler time back then and audiences didn't need the technical explanations that we demand today.

But what if he teleported flubber?

Because that's how it happened, user. We don't know if it would have happened differently.

So it would recreate him on the otherside without his intestinal microbes? that wouldn't be good either. He would need a poop transplant.

No it would not fuse the DNA. It would only transport carbon molecules smaller than 10 micrometer.
...
Also remember this: I wrote: " But I discovered a mathematical shortcut to simplify it."
In 2054 the criticism will be: Impossible! Any high school kid knows that Heisenfrauer showed in 2032 that predicting carbon DNA sequences above the 4th order is impossible. Total hogwash.
...
People are getting smarter.

>people are getting smarter
Autistic people aren't regular people and the average person only knows tons of dumb pointless shit while they can't do basic tasks like cook a meal

then why are autistic people always so fat?

>people are getting smarter
Scientists have known about this for decades.
See: The flynn effect

either it's transporting his symbiotic good n plenty which is established to fuse into a single entity by the rules of the in-film universe or it doesn't REEEEEEE

Because they also can't cook meals, but it isn't because they are dumb, just retarded

Let me try to explain again:
In the modern retelling distinct patterns smaller than 10 micrometer are only transported not fused. Here are the following simple programming rules:
1. Can you identify a distinct repetitive DNA pattern within cellular boundary limits?
2. Is the total mass of the distinct carbon pattern smaller repetition than 10 micrometers?
If both are 'yes' transport.
Incident:
1. Can you identify a distinct repetitive DNA pattern? YES
2. Is the total mass of the distinct carbon pattern smaller repetition than 10 micrometers? NO
This means its the main carbon entity mass. Transport entire mass.
Wait second distinct DNA entity detected bigger than 10 micrometers.
What do? 'else if' ERROR HANDLING
Revert to AI algorithm. May be part of original organism. Fuse at genetic level.
...
I'm done now.

MartinFly was a fully functioning giant humanoid Fly, Brundlefly was more like a walking piece of turd in comparison.

In the first movie, the AI is really fucking confused about the situation and decides that the current body (Brundle) is only an intermediate step towards the final product (Brundlefly), so it has this human body undergo a clumsy metamorphosis by making shit literally drop off of Brundle while other things change.

However, the AI does look at the gametes (semen and the precursor germline) and decides that if it were going to gestate in a human host, you'd want to be genetically compatible with it (MartinFly is 3/4 human, 1/4 fly). You'd also have the opportunity to go through cocooning and such as this tiny fertilized egg grows up, so it says "Yeah, I can really spit and polish THIS one."

So, MartinFly looks much more evolved than the crude BrundleFly partially because it is more human, but partially because the AI has more "room" to plan over the MartinFly's growth period from being the size of a pinhead to a full human(oid).

My personal remake fodder?

1) Carnival of Souls.
2) The Seventh Victim.

Both too-short, flawed movies with a lot of potential if they were given a little room to breathe. Note that they're both under eighty minutes.

This is how I always interpreted it.