Posted on 08/28/2007 9:21:59 AM PDT by Bender2
Variety is reporting that Keanu Reeves will star in 20th Century Fox's remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still."
(Excerpt) Read more at zap2it.com ...
The only way that they could possibly make it interesting is if they followed the original short story instead of remaking the actual movie. Of course, then the title would make no sense at all. But then again, they aren't planning on "following the movie" anyway.
The problem with these kind of remakes is that it supposes that the world of the movie is EXACTLY the same as the world we live in EXCEPT that one particular movie had never been made and no one knows what "Klaatu barada nikto" means.
It'd be more interesting if they set it in the 50s or the 60s.
And Titanic was awesome.
Titanic was, indeed, awesome. Not exactly a remake of “A Night to Remember”, it still holds its own. Remakes are hard to outdo the original. One of the better remakes of late was “Flight of the Phoenix”. It was pretty faithful to the original in nearly all aspects. “War of the Worlds” was HORRIBLE! I fear that this remake of “The Day the Earth Stood Still” will suck bigtime. It will most likely be pc’d to death. You just can’t pc a classic. I understand that there’s yet anothe remake to a remake for “The Ten Commandments” in the works. Wonder how pc that will be.
Spielberg’s WOTW was fairly faithful to the Wells text. The original film was mainly an excuse to show off special effects. George Pal was the George Lucas of his time.
sorry wrong across the board. Movies are about telling a story you MUST have a good story to make a good movie. Great technique in telling a bad story makes a bad movie, and bad technique in telling a good story can still make good movie (which Kevin Smith proves over and over). Vertigo is a ludicrous script, it’s also one of Hitchcock’s worst movies.
They spent 10.5 million 1982 dollars making ET that was not a low budget movie then, period. Just because when they saw the preview they thought it might flop doesn’t mean they didn’t think it was going to make money when they greenlighted the budget. It was only 700 grand cheaper to make than STII, NOT low budget, not intended not to make money.
Sorry charley, Titanic was unwatchable tripe, starting with that horrid Celine song, going through the “leading man” that looked like a 12 year-old boy, and going through the fact that it took 3 freaking hours to sink the damn ship. And worst of all it’s completely ruined James Cameron, who used to be one of the best sci-fi directors on the planet, now all he does is history channel crap about that damn boat.
Actually it ended with that horrid Celine song. I could have done without it on the closing credits. The rest of it was an homage to sweeping silent melodramas being made just around the time the film is set and great filmmaking all the way through.
But it was booooooooooorrrrring.
I realize the critics worship Vertigo, but I hate the movie, my absolute least favorite Hitchcock. Partly because the story is so horrid, and frankly I thought his directing of it was clumsy especially for him, any time the “vertigo effect” happens I’m completely thrown out of the moment, my temporary suspension of disbelief is crushed. Give me Rear Window or Rope any day.
Sorry using a weird foreign film to defend a Spielberg summer blockbuster is just plain disingenuous. WOTW was a film primarily concerned with narrative, not some funky art picture questioning the nature of reality, and as a film primarily concerned with narrative pointing out the fact that the narrative was pathetic and subsequently the movie could not possibly be better than pathetic is valid.
They spent 10.5 million dollars making ET, maybe they considered it risky but it was not a low budget movie not intended to make money. It was a mid-budget movie that made more money than they expected. Part of the problem with the floodgate of bad imitations of ET is how many of them Spielberg has made.
Nobody will ever be able to adequately explain what Titanic did at the box office. Paramount must have pooped themselves in fear on opening weekend, they spent $200 million making the movie and it opened at $28 million. That should have been one of the most gigantic flops in cinema history. But then it continued to make around $30 million every weekend for 3 whole months. It’s really weird, that never happens, the movie never found a huge audience on any weekend. Much like the story the box office of the movie just kept plodding along. And of course now 10 years later it’s one of the most insulted movies ever.
It’s not a matter of the dialog being all their it’s. It’s a matter of technique not being able to turn a bad movie into a good movie. Movies are about a lot of things, directorial technique is on the list, but it’s just a piece of the pie, they tell a story which should be good, they have actors that shouldn’t suck, there’s a lot to go wrong in a movie. And the fact that a really good story can be told with incredibly plain directing and still be a good movie shows technique really isn’t that important.
“John Carpenter’s The Thing in 1982 was another doomed recreation...”
Oh,I dunno so much about that. I thought the scene where the guy was the last one “tied to this f-ing couch!” was hilarious....
Rope is awkward, a definite example of an experimental technique getting in the way of the story. But it’s a good story. Vertigo got some Oscar nominations so somebody must have liked it when it came out, but I hate the movie.
Problem with WOTW is that there is no escalating dread because the plot is so laughable. The only escalating dread I got during that movie was the dread at what stupid thing would happen next. just because WTC was lame doesn’t make WOTW watchable.
Keanu is going to be the robot, right?
It’s hip to dislike but dedicated film buffs see what’s special about it. Think about all the ‘blockbusters’ this summer...sequels to Pirates of the Carribean, Spider man, Shrek...all forgotten a few weeks after opening day. Titanic had people talking at the dinner table.
Except of course now only dedicated film buffs talk about Titanic too, and most of the ones I know hated it then too. It’s just another movie that made a lot of money and was forgotten.
It’s hardly forgotten. Look at IMDB. Network TV still treats airings of it as a major event. Not so for various other moneymakers from the time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.