FotP 1965-2004 -- Spoilers. Count on it.

There were a number of significant differences with regard to the 1965 and 2004 versions of Flight of the Phoenix.

Maybe it's just that I've only seen the original once, but I never got half their secondary characters sorted out. The only woman appeared in a mirage-dream-hallucination, and there was a monkey, for some inane reason. I'm of the opinion that any pets in the remake would've been on the buffet by the end of the third reel.

Jimmy Stewart...I'm usually fond of him, but here, I don't find him terribly likable. He and his co-pilot bicker more than Quaid and Gibson, and it's realistic, but gets old after the first hour. They killed off Ernest Borgnine's character early on. Big surprise there---this would've been the Scott Michael Campbell part, sort of. The accountant-type Ianesque character was the one who christened the plane "The Phoenix" in this version---but had no golf clubs. (Indeed, the only real character trait he showed was, he wore a hat through the whole thing, until it blew away during take-off.) George Kennedy, who was something of a name actor in his day, had damn-all to do. The rest had moments, but never really pulled together and convinced me.

Yes, there was a carefully calculated ethnic diversity in the recasting; isn't it nice that we've moved beyond homogeny? There was a lot more back-story to the newer version, which I, being the Back-story Whore that I am, absolutely adored. The class of '04 is considerably younger and hawter---and that includes 40-something Hugh Laurie.

There WAS a 1965 variation of the "hopes and dreams" speech. The pitfalls of trying to walk out of the desert was done, although not quite as elegantly as the "Have you ever seen a compass dance?" business. (I really missed Rady, who was an interesting guy.) There WERE raiders; the results were about the same, but with a lot less dramatic tension. And the soundtrack, such as it was, was a yawner.

That said, one thing I think they accomplished better in 1965 than the more recent version was to show the physical effects of the desert conditions. They were more convincing at portraying the effects of dehydration, shaking and staggering. Although the make-up tech of the day wasn't really up to it, they tried to show the peeling skin and blisters. 2004 made up for that with more realistic wardrobe degradation. After three weeks crawling around building the 1965 version, Jimmy Stewart comes out of it with the knees of his khakis a little grimy, but otherwise looks tidy enough, and the lack of five o'clock shadow on the whole cast is highly unlikely.

Even the original ending didn't float my boat. They actually made it to an oasis---predictable reactions from its inhabitants, from "What the hell is that?" at the sight of the plane to "Are those guys drunk or crazy?" I liked the "Where are they now?" sequence from the remake better. It was more succinct---but still gave the viewer an idea of what happened afterward.

Maybe I'm just a woman of the modern era, but I enjoyed the shiny new version a lot more than the 1965 edition...which doesn't stop me from wanting to AU it big-time. Lose Kelly: she wasn't in the original either, and she didn't have much to do in this one except be the token Strong Female Lead. Usually, I can write the hell out of that kind of character, but not in this scenario. I'll happily swap her life for Davis, and with even more fiendish glee, start slashing everybody in sight. *grin*

FotP 1965-2004 -- Spoilers. Count on it.

There were a number of significant differences with regard to the 1965 and 2004 versions of Flight of the Phoenix.

Maybe it's just that I've only seen the original once, but I never got half their secondary characters sorted out. The only woman appeared in a mirage-dream-hallucination, and there was a monkey, for some inane reason. I'm of the opinion that any pets in the remake would've been on the buffet by the end of the third reel.

Jimmy Stewart...I'm usually fond of him, but here, I don't find him terribly likable. He and his co-pilot bicker more than Quaid and Gibson, and it's realistic, but gets old after the first hour. They killed off Ernest Borgnine's character early on. Big surprise there---this would've been the Scott Michael Campbell part, sort of. The accountant-type Ianesque character was the one who christened the plane "The Phoenix" in this version---but had no golf clubs. (Indeed, the only real character trait he showed was, he wore a hat through the whole thing, until it blew away during take-off.) George Kennedy, who was something of a name actor in his day, had damn-all to do. The rest had moments, but never really pulled together and convinced me.

Yes, there was a carefully calculated ethnic diversity in the recasting; isn't it nice that we've moved beyond homogeny? There was a lot more back-story to the newer version, which I, being the Back-story Whore that I am, absolutely adored. The class of '04 is considerably younger and hawter---and that includes 40-something Hugh Laurie.

There WAS a 1965 variation of the "hopes and dreams" speech. The pitfalls of trying to walk out of the desert was done, although not quite as elegantly as the "Have you ever seen a compass dance?" business. (I really missed Rady, who was an interesting guy.) There WERE raiders; the results were about the same, but with a lot less dramatic tension. And the soundtrack, such as it was, was a yawner.

That said, one thing I think they accomplished better in 1965 than the more recent version was to show the physical effects of the desert conditions. They were more convincing at portraying the effects of dehydration, shaking and staggering. Although the make-up tech of the day wasn't really up to it, they tried to show the peeling skin and blisters. 2004 made up for that with more realistic wardrobe degradation. After three weeks crawling around building the 1965 version, Jimmy Stewart comes out of it with the knees of his khakis a little grimy, but otherwise looks tidy enough, and the lack of five o'clock shadow on the whole cast is highly unlikely.

Even the original ending didn't float my boat. They actually made it to an oasis---predictable reactions from its inhabitants, from "What the hell is that?" at the sight of the plane to "Are those guys drunk or crazy?" I liked the "Where are they now?" sequence from the remake better. It was more succinct---but still gave the viewer an idea of what happened afterward.

Maybe I'm just a woman of the modern era, but I enjoyed the shiny new version a lot more than the 1965 edition...which doesn't stop me from wanting to AU it big-time. Lose Kelly: she wasn't in the original either, and she didn't have much to do in this one except be the token Strong Female Lead. Usually, I can write the hell out of that kind of character, but not in this scenario. I'll happily swap her life for Davis, and with even more fiendish glee, start slashing everybody in sight. *grin*