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 ...
You make me tingle, Fingal. Fingal, are you single? Gimme a jingle!
(Hey! Somebody turn off the rotating fat guy!)
Today’s Hollywood will make the robot Gort homosexual...
Oh yeah, Earth will be faced with imminent destruction unless everybody becomes a liberal homosexual...
Yes, Al Gore should have a prominent role in this remake. After all, he did look like a gay robot in that 2000 debate with Bush.
Agreed on 2 and 3 but the first one was very good.
To be overrated you have to be rated to begin with. Who rates him highly?
It bored me to tears. The sophmoric ‘philosophical’ speeches didn’t help.
Not even if you wrote the instructions on the bottom of the heel.
In Hollyweird there has been a dearth of original ideas in the last decade or so. The only other explanation is that the next generation of writers/directors/producers/actors are all having a midlife crisis and are trying to cling to a bit of nostalgia (and that's a long shot observation).
It was attempted. It was one of three versions released in 2005. It was poorly received.
Actually the real explanation is that Hollywood has had a large percentage of “other media” (from books, plays, radio and TV shows, and yes even previous movies) since before it was Hollywood. Just look up Ben Hur or Maltese Falcon. From day 1 the movie industry has been looking for movies with “proven” audiences, meaning somebody has told the story at least once already. There’s absolutely nothing “last decade” about it.
I didn’t know about the other two versions. Now they’re in my Netflix list, they gotta be better than the crap Spielberg did. There should be some rule against him doing adaptations of stuff, he’s developed such a strong style (especially on his “money grab” movies) that all of his adaptations suck even if they could have been good movies with a different title. Of course his WOTW couldn’t have been a good movie with a different title, it just had way too many of the annoyances of a bad Spielberg money grab, from the know it all kid to the sudden dropping of inconvenient plot elements.
I've always wanted to see that as well. Lucifer's Hammer and Footfall would be great movies as well if done properly.
The two other versions have been rated as total crap by most of those who saw them (I haven’t seen them).
I did not think the Spielberg version was bad at all. I just thought the 1953 version was better.
The miniseries approach would work quite well for the Niven-Pournelle novels.
I took my 11 year old to see that in the movies. He was particularly impressed with the shower scene.
Whenever I think of Chandler, Arizona I think of Zora Folley. :)
They named Folley Park after him.
I see you're in Orange County. I grew up in La Mirada.
It was one of the best action films in years.
The film of ‘Starship Troopers’ was a satire.
It was a shining example of everything that’s wrong with Spielberg, 100% crap from beginning to end. Anybody that wants to know why 2005 did so badly in box office take need look no further than the fact that this horrid pile of dung was the “big summer movie” that year. Spielberg should be slapped for even thinking of doing the movie, and gut punched fro dragging down the name of one of the best books ever by giving his lame suckfest movie the same title. Of course that’s no surprise, Speilberg’s money grab movies tend to suck, then are rapidly forgotten.
WOTW was one of the highest grossing films in Spielberg’s career. It had action scenes that put most ‘action’ filmmakers to shame and was filled with poetry...the train passing by, the sense of escalating dread, the aliens inspecting the room (were they on a coffee break?). What would you regard as a ‘moneygrab’ film? For example, E.T. was a low budge non-commercial venture.
High revenue != good movie. Titanic quite permanently proved that.
WOTW sucked, it featured Cruises terrible “acting”, one of Spielberg’s typical annoying kids, a plot that was simply pathetic in it’s stupidity, and gross over reliance on special effects. Sure on the mechanical technique aspect it was good, Spielberg has brilliant technique, but once again that brilliant technique was wasted in the service of a lame movie. My ongoing complaint with Spielberg is that he brilliantly makes terrible movies.
And sorry ET opened in over 1000 theaters back in the 80s when that was big, it was a total moneygrab. And a $10 million budget in 1982 as NOT low, it wasn’t huge but it wasn’t low, Star Trek II’s budget was $11 million. And of course ET put into place all the hallmarks of the lame Spielberg moneygrab: annoying kids, a stupid plot, and over reliance on effects. He’s got it down to a cookie cutter now, you can smell these movies coming a mile away, and the sick part is they always make a ton of money. And really if somebody other than Spielberg made them I might not even mind them, but he’s better than that, he made Jaws and Schindler’s List for God’s sake he should leave these lame assed cookie cutters to bad directors like Michael Bay.
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.