Alfred Urrutia (
Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:21:37 -0800

Evan wrote:

> Yeah, but it was made over 20 years later, with probably three times the
> budget, shot on 72mm film, and was an action movie at heart. Apples to
> oranges, which is Wing to '79.

I'm talking about the inaccuracies of the battle footage more than anything.
Having those post WWII American tanks playing the roles of Shermans and Tigers is
glaring. And I'm also talking about throwing more budget at it. Not apples to
oranges to go back and re-animate '79. Then they're one even footing, visually,
and they could make bank for a minimal investment (don't have to hire story
writers, mech designers and such since everything is already known).

> I still DARE anybody to beat the line "we're going to grease the treads of
> our tanks with their guts."

I, uh, never mentioned the *acting* be changed. Just the shots of tanks and
planes and such.

> I don't think a remake (shot for shot, with Tomino in charge) would be a
> bad idea at all... as long as it doesn't turn out like Van Sant's Psycho,
> which only reminded us why the first one was so good in the first place.

This goes back to what I said about doing it "wrong". The new Psycho sucked, and
I love Vince "Vegas baby, Vegas" Vaughn. It was done as an experiment to see if
it could be done. Stupid reason. It was also done to a movie that was perfect
to begin with. Like Metallica's version of the Queen song (dammit, I can't come
up with the name) that added nothing, it was no faster or harder and in fact
sounded much worse.


"I've been trying to get Teal and Stjohn to star in my first porn...
'A Brit In Git'."
                                             - Jeff Baksinski, visionary

Alfred Urrutia - Digital Domain - 310.314.2800 x2100 - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

- Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri Mar 10 2000 - 15:22:24 JST