Just saw the trailer on hdnet and it looks real good.

Apple - Trailers - The Day the Earth Stood Still (http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/thedaytheearthstoodstill/)
The Day The Earth Stood Still Trailer (http://the-day-the-earth-stood-still-trailer.blogspot.com/)

I heard there was a remake coming. What are they gonna remake next? Casablanca ... Gone With the Wind ... The Godfather ...?

YouTube - HQ The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)Trailer(GOOD TRUE HQ) Heres the youtube long version, I'd embed it but I can never figure out how to do that and theres no clear guide on how to do it.

Well whats wrong with taking a movie thats old and doesnt fit the times and remaking it to where it does? Imagine how much better the original Starwars would have been if Lucas were to have had the special effects and cgi then that we do now. Jaws would have been even better as would of films like Logans run, A boy and his dog, Damnation allie, Battle of the planets, but there are others that shouldnt be touched such as much of what Clint Eastwood did or the God father even though I dont care for that movie.

I didnt embed that, the site did it automaticly I guess.

I kept waiting for Gort (the robot), and he finally showed up in the last frame. :)

Well whats wrong with taking a movie thats old and doesnt fit the times and remaking it to where it does? Imagine how much better the original Starwars would have been if Lucas were to have had the special effects and cgi then that we do now. Jaws would have been even better as would of films like Logans run

Ah...Logan's Run. Yes, I am really looking to a future where we all live in the Apparel Mart at Dallas Market Center.

Logan's Run Locations (http://www.snowcrest.net/fox/logan/location/index.htm)

Better special effects NEVER - EVER makes a better movie, EVER. The special effects are there to support the story-telling and to help immerse the audience into a particular world.

If the story sucks, the special effect do nothing to help it. (the story). If the story is good, the special effects can help in the vision but are really unnecessary most of the time. Good "camera tricks" (like seeing the reaction of an actor to something that is supposed to be happening on screen that cannot be shown due to technical limitations) is good enough when done right.

Taking a classic movie which is the definition of perfection and "updating" it is rarely (not never, but rarely) a good thing. Planet of the Apes comes to mind as an example of whiz-bang special effects and make-up doing absolutely nothing to save a HORRID retelling of a classic sci-fi movie!

Don't get me wrong, I am looking forward to this movie now (at first I wasn't). Now that I know that the people involved are not hacks and gold-diggers looking to cash in on a name, It could be a great movie. But Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes is still fresh in my mind.

See ya
Tony

[QUOTE=Van;1514131Well whats wrong with taking a movie thats old and doesnt fit the times and remaking it to where it does? Imagine how much better the original Starwars would have been if Lucas were to have had the special effects and cgi then that we do now. Jaws would have been even better as would of films like Logans run, A boy and his dog, Damnation allie, Battle of the planets, but there are others that shouldnt be touched such as much of what Clint Eastwood did or the God father even though I dont care for that movie.[/QUOTE]

I can just imagining them remaking Casablanca. Let's see, first of all nix the Nazis. Need to be Iranians now.

Second, a sidekick like Captain Renault would need a funnier accent, a physical attribute like a lisp or limp and some catchphrase to be spoken often.

Sam would be playing and dancing to Hip-hop with three girls doing back ups.

Victor would have to be a coward, not a hero. He would die during the movie, while trying to hid beneath a table.

Finally, that ending just has to go. I would suggest that Rick shoot the Nazi^h^h^h^h Al-Qiada commander between the eyes and then blow a hole in the wall of Rick's. He then grabs Ilsa around the waist, jumps through while taking out 20 tribesmen and commandeering their motorcycle. A bit more of that plastique hidden his shoe destroys the secret breeder reactor hidden in the dumpster. They then embrace and ride into the sunset.

ROFL!

I sure hope it's NOT bad like the last remake of "War of the Worlds" (w/Tom Cruise). That really sucked, if you ask me. Then again, the original was SO good, I just don't think they could ever do a remake that was even equal to it.

The preview looked interesting to me.

Have to watch last nights Nothing But Trailers I recorded and look... :) Trailerama should have it soon also...

Well Im not a sappy romantic so they could remake casablanca with Peewee and it wouldnt bother me in the least. Special effects dont make the movie but bad effects can kill a movie regardless of how good the story line and acting, Starwars would have tanked if the wires for the ships had been visible and other effects had looked cheap. A lack of effects can go a long way to such as in Cloverfield but what killed that film was a bad ending and an obscure movie villian. Good special effects would have helped Damnation alley with the giant scorpions and the bugs and the atmospheric effects.

All Im sayin is that there are films that would do better now as first runs with todays special effects than when they were made with crappy effects and others that should be left alone either because their fine as they are or they will always suck.

Yes, BAD special effects can kill a movie. But the equation "Bad special effects = Bad Movie :: Good Special Effects Good movie" still does not hold water!

The thing is, we aren't talking about special effects in a new movie being what makes or breaks it. My comment came from your statement that seemed to say that because the special effects are so much better now than in '51 that it could do nothing but make the movie better. That is the statement I take issue with!

Anyone with "final Cut Pro" and a film camera can come up with better special effects than any movie made before 1980, but remaking the movie with better special effects does not make the movie better.

Another case in point:
The original release of Star Wars (which I still have and guard jealously) before Lucas "fixed" it, to me, is still better than the new tricked out one with all the "extra" effects Lucas says he always wanted in there in the first place! (and Solo Did kill Greedo without Greedo shooting first!)

See ya
Tony

Well I think we can agrea to disagrea atleast on the first part of what your saying, scifi and fantasy flicks hinge not only on a good story line but the quality of the effects in them wich is why everything that the scifi channel has put out except for the modern BSG has fallen flatter than week old soda. There are ofcourse movies that dont need to be remade for better effects, one that I can think of that was a sleeper horror thriller was called shockwaves and had no special effects to speak of. Special effects did good for most all of the latest king kong except for the stampede wich was mimicked in its style in the recent indiana jones with the side by side jeep run.

Now I do agrea with you about lucas doing his fix on the original starwars and there are many of us fans who feel the same way, I have no idea what he was thinking but that was just the most F'd up thing he could have done and now its been done to the original star trek series aparently.

I have no problem with remakes as long as its done well and though I did like the remake of the war of the worlds I felt that it lost me after cruises character killed the guy in the house, I would have liked to have seen more time focused on the story after that point but that aside the effects were really good and I enjoyed it as much as I did seeing the original and reading it half a dozen times aswell.

Well whats wrong with taking a movie thats old and doesnt fit the times and remaking it to where it does?

In itself nothing. However in this case from what I heard they got rid of the nuclear war message and replaced it with an ecological one (boring). As we all know the intent of the original was that if we keep up are bad ways and go out into space Gort and his buds will come and destroy us. But if we screw up our planet and die it's no biggie to them since what we do with our own planet is of no concern (I forget the exact phrase). I dont see how they are going to work that part out. Also, I wonder if all the Jesus aspects will be removed due to modern sensibilities.

I still love the original The Day the Earth Stood Still and from what I've seen in that trailer, it looks like they kinda butchered the story. I love great special effects, but not at the expense of the core of the story line.

I liked the trailer and love the updated SF/X on Season 1 of Star Trek TOS....

Well I think we can agrea to disagrea atleast on the first part of what your saying, scifi and fantasy flicks hinge not only on a good story line but the quality of the effects in them wich is why everything that the scifi channel has put out except for the modern BSG has fallen flatter than week old soda. There are ofcourse movies that dont need to be remade for better effects, one that I can think of that was a sleeper horror thriller was called shockwaves and had no special effects to speak of. Special effects did good for most all of the latest king kong except for the stampede wich was mimicked in its style in the recent indiana jones with the side by side jeep run.

I disagree with this as well. If the story is well written and compelling, it doesn't matter if the effects are the latest CGI or some guy wearing a fishbowl on his head.

Creature from the Black Lagoon, Forbidden Planet, On the Beach, War of the Worlds, Silent Running, Planet of the Apes, 2001, etc. All these films have inferior graphics and effects, yet they all are watchable on repeated viewings. Everyone that has been remade has been a disappointment.

A great example is The Thing/The Thing From Another Planet/Who Goes There. It has been remade several times and, in my opinion, is weaker with each retelling. Nothing touches the original for the suspense generated. Of course, nothing even comes close to the original novella for pure terror.

I think that's the key. Special effects have replaced suspense and tension as audience tools. I am an old fart, but I prefer the earlier mechanisms.

Well Im standing by my beliefs and will say that if any of the above mentioned had had poor effects for the time wich when they were made they were the best possible effects then they would have bombed as well. At the time creature from the black lagoon's effects were the best they could be with the rubber suit the actor wore, 2001 had the latest special effects as well yet had they used the same effects that were used in the 60's then it wouldnt have done as well.

I do agrea that effects have been used more to replace suspence wich is why I still remember vividly films like Shockwaves and this one that I cant remember the name but it scared the jeebers out of me as a kid.

"The Thing from Another World" had NOTHING for special effects. It was all story! The story carried the entire movie. The remake (The Thing) tried to replace the acting ability and suspense mechanisms with special effects. Though it was not awful, the remake fell flat in comparison.

I can't agree to disagree. On this. Let me take another tactic: Please name for ANY remake of ANY movie or TV show that was better BECAUSE of the special effects.

BSG? Was it the special effects that made it better to some or was it the story line? They are NOT intertwined! The original BSG was a POS IMHO due to poor acting and writing. Personally I despised the new BSG due to the untra-dark (mood, not lighting), depressing, oppressive tone. Watching the new series made me want to shoot myself in the head! But I can see how people liked the show due to the story line, NOT the effects.

I personally cannot name a remake of a classic movie that is actually BETTER because its newer. Can you?

See ya
Tony

I personally cannot name a remake of a classic movie that is actually BETTER because its newer. Can you?

I agree in general, but can't resist a challange.

How about the 1959 vs 1927 version of Ben Hur? Not only were the special effects more convincing (not to mention technicolor and cinemascope), but they had learned how to make a story flow and especially how to end it smoothly. Films from the '20s end very abruptly at the point of resolution.

Okay. :) I should have qualified that, but okay. This movie was remade by the same person who made the original BTW. That rarely happens. The line "I've killed more people than Cecil B. DeMill" comes to mind here. :)

So how about any talkies? :)

See ya
Tony

I personally cannot name a remake of a classic movie that is actually BETTER because its newer. Can you?


I thought "I am Legend" was better than "The Omega Man".
I also thought the modern version of "The Fly" was better than the original, as it was much more believable.

Okay. :) I should have qualified that, but okay. This movie was remade by the same person who made the original BTW. That rarely happens. The line "I've killed more people than Cecil B. DeMill" comes to mind here. :)

So how about any talkies? :)

See ya
Tony

OK, mayby The Front Page (1931 version) vs His Girl Friday. Same plot and virtually the same script, but Cary Grant/Roz Russel were a better pairing than the original.

On the record, I am NOT defending the horrible 1974 remake, nor the worse '80s version called Switching Channels.

Even with Mel Brooks directing both, 1968 "The Producers" was much better than the remake.

Even with Mel Brooks directing both, 1968 "The Producers" was much better than the remake.

:up +1

The fly, Dracula, Frankenstien, BSG, King Kong, Batman Begins,

You like the originals and thats fine, most would have come from your youth I suspect wich tends to fall into the same ideal that you listen to the same music all your life that you grew up with.

Lets do it this way, you like what you like and I like what I like, you dont like change while I do, point is your set in your ways and I in mine and we wont see eye to eye on this in any way shape or form.

The Fly? With Jeff Goldblum? Really? Better? I guess it's your opinion. It was well made, but it just lacked any feeling.

Each version of "Dracula" I see is worse than the last. This is not to say there aren't good modern vampire movies. From Dusk til Dawn, Van Helsing and others ROCK. But all the "retellings" of Deacula pail EVEN to "Nosferatu" (1922)

I already discussed BSG in a previous post

King Kong...you mean the 1977 "updated", modern, relevant, piece of crap; or the more recent "period" remake? The newest remake of King Kong was a decent movie, but it still pales in comparison to the original in storytelling. Jack Black was horrendous!

Both Omega Man and "I am Legend" were horrendously bad movies! We can remake "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" and it HAS to be better than the original. But the entire point of this exercise is to recognize that some movies were made well before and really should be left in their own time. The new King Kong wasn't a disaster because they left the story in the same era as the original. That is the only way some of these stories can hold up!

I do listen to new music. And I am not any different that you young whipper-snappers will be. It's not nostalgia. It's just the story was already told. It was told well. If a movie is considered an Icon, leave it alone! Don't try to cash in on a name that you know will draw people to you. That is cheating!

The other problem is if you are going to remake a movie, STICK TO THE STORY. If you are going to rewrite the story to make it more current to the times and lose everything that made the original the hit that it was, call the movie something else!

I guess I am most angry about the lack of creativity for NEW stories. Come up with a freaking original idea once in a while rather than rooting through classics and trying to retell them!

See ya
Tony

I am so glad that someone out there appreciates how great a film Nosferatu was. Of course this first film telling of the Dracula story was a silent film. The Bela Lugosi version (1931) was the first telling with spoken word. It was a reworking of a stageplay that Bela also starred in and it was done very well, IMHO. I agree with you on all the rest, mindless drivel.

The 1998 retelling of Psycho was a lesson in futility. Gus Van Sant shot it in exactly the same scene by scene that Hitchcock did before him. The only difference between the two films was that the newer one was in color and it had different actors. There is/was no reason to remake this classic in that vain. The first one was supurb and the second doesn't hold a candle to it.


The Fly? With Jeff Goldblum? Really? Better? I guess it's your opinion. It was well made, but it just lacked any feeling.

Each version of "Dracula" I see is worse than the last. This is not to say there aren't good modern vampire movies. From Dusk til Dawn, Van Helsing and others ROCK. But all the "retellings" of Deacula pail EVEN to "Nosferatu" (1922)

I already discussed BSG in a previous post

King Kong...you mean the 1977 "updated", modern, relevant, piece of crap; or the more recent "period" remake? The newest remake of King Kong was a decent movie, but it still pales in comparison to the original in storytelling. Jack Black was horrendous!

Both Omega Man and "I am Legend" were horrendously bad movies! We can remake "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" and it HAS to be better than the original. But the entire point of this exercise is to recognize that some movies were made well before and really should be left in their own time. The new King Kong wasn't a disaster because they left the story in the same era as the original. That is the only way some of these stories can hold up!

I do listen to new music. And I am not any different that you young whipper-snappers will be. It's not nostalgia. It's just the story was already told. It was told well. If a movie is considered an Icon, leave it alone! Don't try to cash in on a name that you know will draw people to you. That is cheating!

The other problem is if you are going to remake a movie, STICK TO THE STORY. If you are going to rewrite the story to make it more current to the times and lose everything that made the original the hit that it was, call the movie something else!

I guess I am most angry about the lack of creativity for NEW stories. Come up with a freaking original idea once in a while rather than rooting through classics and trying to retell them!

See ya
Tony

Both Omega Man and "I am Legend" were horrendously bad movies!

And obviously, this is your opinion, clearly not held by everyone.

For example, "I am Legend" was nominated for 16 awards, and won 6.

It also had a domestic gross of $256 million and a worldwide gross of $584 million dollars. Obviously, high box office totals do not equal a great movie, but by the same token, "horrendously bad movies" don't take in over half a billion dollars in ticket sales.

A remake that I think is just as good... better in some respects but not in others.... is A Fistful of Dollars. I love both that one and Yojimbo. Perhaps not a remake in the traditional sense. But the same story.

Oceans Eleven, The Thing, Dawn of the Dead, Casino Royale, and BSG (TV show but the pilot qualifies I suppose).

All personal preference of course and my criteria does not include special effects in any way.

The last version of "Casino Royale" was good. It really was almost a different story entirely, though.

It's a naturual process to retell stories over the years and the stories change as theyr retold sometimes minimaly and sometimes greatly, just look a the bible and how many times its been translated over the centuries and with each translation it's been changed and books have been removed from it.

Careful. "Some" will come after you for introducing facts, -er, doubt.

The "original" Casino Royale and the new one only share the name. Nothing else is the same. The story was completely different. The original one was a spoof of the James Bond genre. The current one was a movie of the original James Bond book. It was not a remake.

See ya
Tony

And your point is?

A story experienced first hand is original, retold its a copy and on down the line it changes over time wether a little or alot it depends on the memory or the teller and of the listener. A story may be drab to one that hears it and he later embellishes on it taking something that was as enjoyable as economics 101 and turning it into the parting of the red sea. For all we know the parting of the Red Sea could have actually been nothing more than the crossing of the Red Sea by a handful of people on rickety rafts made of reeds but as the stories have been retold and translated and rewritten over the centuries its changed.

I'll finish my activity in this thread with this.

I was for a very long time in my life from the age of 9 till 27 a heavy reader, I read a great deal and had my eyes in a book more than I did anywhere else including tv. I've always loved reading because of the story, it didnt matter to me if I read something that was similiar to another story I still read it because it differed and was not the same. I've always loved movies and spent part of my late teens working at several movie houses and to this day can resite the comedy track to Good Morning Vietnam, every single audience participation song and line to Rocky Horror Picture Show, and most of the dialogue to Heavy Metal. I've seen all the blobs, all of the various dracula flicks including the very original of silent film days, and Ive seen many others and even though there have been one remake I didnt like it wasnt because it was a remake it was because of the director cowtowing to a time frame and cutting the latter quater of the film short.

One last thing, enterpritation.

The interpretation of the composer of a symphony is usually the best. :) This is not to say no one else can play that symphony, but any conductor that thinks their interpretation captures the music better than the composer is either egoistic or stupid! Same holds true for movies. There is a rare exception.

BTW, I'm surprised no one used the horrid "Lord of the Rings" 1980 vs latest the Peter Jackson trilogy vision. I had a whole paragraph on how Jackson didn't remake anything! :)

See ya
Tony

Are you talking about the animated version of LOTR? It has its place but I agrea it wasnt the best animated show.

I've tried a couple times to read it as it was written but its one of those aquired tastes I guess much like Walt Witmon or Charles Baudelaire' both of whom I have read and enjoyed but has left others shaking their heads.

1980 would have been the Rankin-Bass "Return of the King". Horrendous piece of crap.

The 1978 animated "Lord of the Rings" was actually fairly good. It followed the first two books rather closely.

Wow, must have been so bad that I never heard of it.

I've tried a couple times to read it as it was written but its one of those aquired tastes I guess much like Walt Witmon or Charles Baudelaire' both of whom I have read and enjoyed but has left others shaking their heads.

Off topic, but I've told others and now you--just skip the first 50-60 pages. I don't know if it's the preface, forward, introduction, or what, but it has nothing to do with the actual story. Most of the names aren't even mentioned again, and it doesn't matter if they are or not. It's pretty easy reading after that. :)

On topic again - I thoroughly enjoy the 1951 version of The Day the Earth Stood Still. It's one of my favorite movies and always will be.

However, I will give the new version a chance by eventually seeing it. As much as I love the first one though, the new version will have an uphill road.

And I agree with those who have mentioned that now most movies use CGI and gore instead of building suspense. It makes me less likely to empathize with the characters and, subsequently, I like the movie less because I wasn't involved.

And then there are some movies where the effects are so spectacular you like the movie just for the "eye candy." They are fun once in a while!

There was a movie that I saw as a young kid, way to young in fact because it gave me nightmares for a month. It had to of come out in the early to mid 70's and revolved around the death of a young teenage boy and his mother grieving over his death. She was alone in a large and dark house during a nasty thunderstorm when her dead son shows up at the front door not remembering anything about his death. Naturauly she's overwhelmed and brings him in after wich he starts to act weird and then eventualy tries to kill her and after she falls down a flight of stairs he comes out of the dark with a demonic face. The details I can offer are that the house was pitch black except for patches of white light here and there, it over looked a rocky ocean front cliff.

I dont remember the name of the movie given that I saw it when I was 4 or 5 but it had only very minor special effects to the tune of fake lightning and thunder, rain and wind and the demon face. Everything else was all suspence created by delayes and music wich could be seen as special effects and sounds and good acting.

Anyone that has missed the trailer for the thread title can catch it at 11 am Edt today on The Ultimate Trailer Show on HDNet...

Point taken on Casino Royale. From what I remember Peter Sellers bailed when it was halfway finished and they had to rescue the movie somehow doing things like hiring David Niven and Woody Allen. Also James Bond books often have things in them removed to make them more contemporary. For instance, IIRC the baddie in Moonraker was a Nazi. They did add the 'master race' aspect (as opposed to him just wanting nuke London) but I suppose the idea a Neo-Nazi was too serious of an idea to fit into contemporary James Bond movie.

On topic: As for the remake, I have little hopes for it since it seems that its going to be a nice alien coming to tell us to save ourselves or we die. The planet will recover but we will be long long long gone. Anyways, far less than the 'mend your ways or we will exterminate you' message. Gort should be cool. Actually maybe I already posted that :D

It would have still been relevant when you consider Star Wars weapons and the first probes leaving the solar system a few years ago. However, I am always willing to be surprised and maybe they got rid of that idea. I just hope Keanu doesnt do Neo :eek:

I dont think Keanu will do the Neo bit but I already like the twist of using a humanoid robot inplace of the iron man from the original wich is a big step into what's contemporary. Back then robots where still a new thing and the original Gort fit perfectly into the times and had the desired effect.

From what I see in the trailer's it doesnt look like its a message of take care of your planet or else because of the what looks to be swarm of metallic locusts that devour what ever is in their path. Now if Keanu isnt Gort but actually the human looking traveler then what does Gort look like or could that swarm actually be Gort? As I recall Gort did show his ability in the original film by disintigrating a tank or a soldier with a ray beam right?

As I recall Gort did show his ability in the original film by disintigrating a tank or a soldier with a ray beam right?

Yes, the original Cylon eye except that his shot a ray beam at various weapons, a couple soldiers and a wall. Good point tho. Maybe the trailer showed the 2008 version of one of Gort's weapons. After all there has to be something that can go after jets, helicopters and missles. Let's hope that Gort is a leggy big-chested blonde. :p

Ok as of lastnight the new trailers show the metal man and he follows almost to the T what the original looked like but smooth lines and not as rigid as the original.

There was a movie that I saw as a young kid, way to young in fact because it gave me nightmares for a month. It had to of come out in the early to mid 70's and revolved around the death of a young teenage boy and his mother grieving over his death. She was alone in a large and dark house during a nasty thunderstorm when her dead son shows up at the front door not remembering anything about his death. Naturauly she's overwhelmed and brings him in after wich he starts to act weird and then eventualy tries to kill her and after she falls down a flight of stairs he comes out of the dark with a demonic face. The details I can offer are that the house was pitch black except for patches of white light here and there, it over looked a rocky ocean front cliff.

I dont remember the name of the movie given that I saw it when I was 4 or 5 but it had only very minor special effects to the tune of fake lightning and thunder, rain and wind and the demon face. Everything else was all suspence created by delayes and music wich could be seen as special effects and sounds and good acting.


That's the classic "Monkey's paw" story you are talking about. The Monkey's Paw - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monkey's_Paw)

However, I think you mean the 1977 Dan Curtis ("Dark Shadows" fame) trilogy movie called "DEAD OF NIGHT". That's the 3rd of the 3 stories in that movie, and the best one. I have the vhs tape of this. I like it...

Amazon.com: Dead of Night: Anjanette Comer, Joan Hackett, Patrick Macnee, E.J. André, Ed Begley Jr., Horst Buchholz, Elisha Cook Jr., Ann Doran, Christina Hart, Lee Montgomery, Stephen Powers, Dan Curtis, Richard Matheson: Video

Looked interesting, but it's also about the 4th time that this movie has been done. Keanu seemed to fit the role well, which is a nice change.

Saw the trailer for the Uninvited too, which looked really freaky:

The Uninvited Trailer - Trailer Addict (http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/the-univented/trailer)

Ok as of lastnight the new trailers show the metal man and he follows almost to the T what the original looked like but smooth lines and not as rigid as the original.

It is hard to tell much from a trailer, but the one I saw yesterday did nothing to convince me that this was going to be worth watching. The original really had almost no special effects, and relied on the message. The new one looks to bve nothing but special effects, with a trendy new message.

"If the earth dies, mankind will die. If humans die out, the world will survive." (or something like that) Big heavy handed ecological message.

The original was a "perfect" movie. Any attempt to update it will fail. :)

But really the original movie has a very heavy-handed message delivered as an ultimatum. Though it was not about ecology, the anti-was message at the time was a trendy thing in Hollywood just before the McCarthy era began.

See ya
Tony

The other part of the message in that movie was that the rest of the universe didnt give a damn whether or not we blew ourselves up.... so long as we didnt venture out into space. The fear was the introduction of an unstable and dangerous element into their society so they had a vested interest in sending Klatuu to Earth with his warning. Exactly what vested interest will they have this time concerning whether or not we kill ourselves? Why should they care? Unless...... they dont want us to screw up the planet so it will be easier for them to colonize it and make us all slaves. Oh wait, thats the X-Files. :D

I think this new version is just plain BAD! I'm a fan of the original, so perhaps I'm prejudiced. It's not even "bad-fun" like some old movies, just bad!
I will say that Keanu finally found a movie for his style of acting, which is like a bland robot or zombie sort of method.

Avoid it at all costs! You have been warned.....

24% on the tomatometer:

The Day the Earth Stood Still Movie Reviews, Pictures - Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/day_the_earth_stood_still/)

Yeah, I've heard so much bad about it, I've taken it off my Amazon Wish List. Don't even want it for free.

I'm hoping someone will gift me the BD version of Dr. Strangelove. Really happy that one came out on BD. Now, for Red Alert, On the Beach and Fail Safe on Blu-ray. I doubt we'll ever see Alas Babyon as any movie, much less a BD.

I wasnt a big fan of the original and tend to be a believer that a remake can be better than the original if its done right. Reeves can be a bit dry but his acting is better suited for scifi shows and deadpan country characters. I havent heard anything bad yet but then again I have been working long hours this week.

It's gotten trashed by the critics.

Then again... I still hold "Bill and Ted" in high esteem.

If I only watched movies critics liked my life would be pretty dull ;) I too liked Bill and Ted, liked the remake of War of the Worlds also... I don't go to the theater very often but will at least give this one a rental...

I wasnt a big fan of the original and tend to be a believer that a remake can be better than the original if its done right.

And there is a question. Can you name 5 movies where the remake was significantly better than the original?

I certainly can think of ones where a lot of special effects have replaced plot, and if you are an FX fan, I guess that could be OK, but I might argue that flashier doesn't mean better even in the ADD generation.

And there is a question. Can you name 5 movies where the remake was significantly better than the original?

I certainly can think of ones where a lot of special effects have replaced plot, and if you are an FX fan, I guess that could be OK, but I might argue that flashier doesn't mean better even in the ADD generation.

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
Little Shop of Horrors
Ocean's Eleven
The Departed
Titanic
The Ring
The Thing
The Hills Have Eyes
The Thomas Crown Affair
Godzilla
I Am Legend
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)


Was that more than 5? Of course, those are all subject to opinion. But, those are ones that I enjoyed the remake more than the original.

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
Little Shop of Horrors
Ocean's Eleven
The Departed
Titanic
The Ring
The Thing
The Hills Have Eyes
The Thomas Crown Affair
Godzilla
I Am Legend
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)


Was that more than 5? Of course, those are all subject to opinion. But, those are ones that I enjoyed the remake more than the original.

I guess I'd disagree on Titanic, as it is a completely different movie than 'A Night to Remember" I never did get into the whole Jack and Rose thing, and I felt that the original did a much better job of describing the tragedy of the passengers.

It's been years since I saw 'Bedtime Story', but I remember it as a pretty good '50s comedy. Not that Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is bad, but I wouldn't say better either. Or were you talking about the upcoming 2010 remake.

As for The Thing, nothing can compare with the suspense of the novella "Who Goes There". The Thing from another world is a close contender. Both are good, but the original pulls off the success without any special effects whatsoever. I kind of give it an edge.

Pretty much agree on the others.

I'll add some contenders though.

- Showboat (1953 edition)
- Ben Hur
- Casino Royale (kind of a cheat if you know the history)
- Bedazzled (neither was great, but I liked the chemistry with Brendon Frasier and Elizabeth Hurley)
- His Girl Friday. It's difficult to make a bad version of The Front Page (although they managed with the 1988 "Switching Channels"). I still think the 1940 remake was the best.


I left LoTR out as the original was never meant to be that sort of epic.

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
Little Shop of Horrors
Ocean's Eleven
The Departed
Titanic
The Ring
The Thing
The Hills Have Eyes
The Thomas Crown Affair
Godzilla
I Am Legend
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)


Was that more than 5? Of course, those are all subject to opinion. But, those are ones that I enjoyed the remake more than the original.

Oops. Either some got added, or I didn't see them all at first. Godzilla is an FX remake of a cheesy US exploitation of a Japanese movie. The US inserts didn't work well. Personally, I didn't like either one.

It also is a bit of a cheat to look at high budget remakes of Roger Corman stuff. He was always constrained by having a requirement to keep budgets low and make a profit on everything. It is easy to improve on his best work by throwing money at it, and the really amazing part is how much good stuff came out of his on the cheap productions.


Thomas Crown affair is debatable. New one is glitzier, but I don't think it does a better job of telling the story.

Stagecoach the 66 version...

John Ford, John Wayne, Andy Devine, Thomas Mitchell.... I gotta go with the original 1939 version here! :)

As for remakes:

Titanic was passable at best.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers... eh.
Godzilla.... definitely not.
I didnt know I Am Legend was a remake.
The Thomas Crown Affair... maybe, but Brosnan is no Steve McQueen.
In some ways A Fistful of Dollars because of Clint.
War of the Worlds... no, but I am not that impressed by the original either.

I will add as a better remake "The Man Who Knew Too Much" but with the caveat that Hitchcock made the original as well. Oh, and even tho they were not theatrical releases: the pilot movies for BSG.

As for remakes:

I didnt know I Am Legend was a remake.


It's a rehash of "The Omega Man".

The Omega Man (1971)@@AMEPARAM@@http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTk3MzA2Mjk1M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMzY2ODg5._V1._SX94_SY140_.jpg@@AMEPARAM@@BMTk3MzA2Mjk1M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMzY2ODg5@@AMEPARAM@@SX94@@AMEPARAM@@SY140

I'll also toss in "Man on Fire" for consideration.

It's a rehash of "The Omega Man".

The Omega Man (1971) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067525/)



Actually, Omega Man was a rehash of The Last Man On Earth, 1964 starring Vincent Price.
The Last Man on Earth (1964 film - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Man_on_Earth_(1964_film))

Actually, Omega Man was a rehash of The Last Man On Earth, 1964 starring Vincent Price.
The Last Man on Earth (1964 film - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Man_on_Earth_(1964_film))


I liked Omega man the best out of all three movies past and present.

It's a rehash of "The Omega Man"
Which was a remake of "The Last Man on Earth."

Edit: Someone beat me to it...

I liked Omega man the best out of all three movies past and present.And Richard Matheson's book is the best of all. But Charleton Heston did an excellent job in the movie. It's just too bad that the plot of the movie didn't follow the book.

Qustion did anybody see the remake of The day the earth stood still--is it any good??

I liked Omega man the best out of all three movies past and present.
Same here. I must have seen it at least four times in the theater. My freshman year in college.

Side note: If you get the chance to see the 2005 version of Mysterious Island- DON'T!

Incredibly bad, and the special effects "weren't." I cannot conceive how such junk was produced so recently.

Forbidden Planet Remake Not A Remake? (http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Forbidden-Planet-Remake-Not-A-Remake-11078.html)
http://www.cinemablend.com/images/news_img/11078/11078.jpg

and maybe the Forbin Project.
Colossus: The Forbin Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Colossus_the_forbin_project_movie_poster.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c4/Colossus_the_forbin_project_movie_poster.jpg/215px-Colossus_the_forbin_project_movie_poster.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/c/c4/Colossus_the_forbin_project_movie_poster.jpg/215px-Colossus_the_forbin_project_movie_poster.jpg

And Richard Matheson's book is the best of all. But Charleton Heston did an excellent job in the movie. It's just too bad that the plot of the movie didn't follow the book.

Yeah, but we got Anthony Zerbe as Mathias. He stole that movie all the way.

I've probably seen the "Omega man" at least 10 times or more. If you consider the fact it was released in the mid-seventies, kind of goes in hand with the realistic 'end of the world' style of the stark "Planet of the apes" 1968 filming, it still holds up pretty well. Especially since the original book was basically a short story, and could have been filled out a little better. I didn't care for the Will Smith version, and I've seen both endings they filmed for that version.