MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Whomever or Whoever Recommended The Movi...

Whomever or Whoever Recommended The Movie “Forbidden Planet”....

posted 6 years ago by kspkap (13555)
30 replies | jump to latest

I rented the blasted thing. I watched about ten minutes and had to turn the damn thing off due to the sound effects induced migraines. But, tomorrow I will for the sake of argument, attempt to get through it. I’m a Trekkie even though now I realize it didn’t take much to excite us when it came to future science ficture. We were in awe with Gene Roddenberry’s depiction of future space travel. We looked past the cheesy sets, the cardboard, aluminum foil, Christmas lights, etc. And also, broadcasted in the coming of age color tv! Star Trek did color tv proud!

But, when it comes to cheesy sets...Forbidden Planet takes the cake. These old tired eyes will mostly focus on the young Leslie Nielsen as they did on Shatner.

From a much more tolerant flick:
“Gort, Klaatu barada nikto”

[–] McQualude (4231) 6 years ago

I recommended the movie recently, don't think it was to you though. Great movie.

[–] kspkap (13555) 6 years ago

If I recall correctly, I think it was the post about favorite movies or what movies have we watched the most. It was a generic recommendation, not to any specific person.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

I think that was my post. I am glad you came to appreciate the movie. It is one of my favorites. Ground breaking in many ways even with the cheesy special effects.

https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/5b4fedeb76e2330014f4b692/Movies-you-have-watched-the-most-number-of-times

[–] kspkap (13555) 6 years ago

OK 🤷‍♀️, it wasn’t that bad. I “spoke” too soon. In fact the graphics, without CGI, were quite good for the day. The landing of the spacecraft on the planet surprised me with the detail...it even cast a shadow. The screeching sound effects were solved for me by the mute button.

I have to admit the sets outdid the Star Trek sets while thinking “Forbidden Planet” was produced 10 years prior to ST! I have a hunch Gene Roddenberry had “Forbidden Planet” in his thoughts when he created Star Trek. There were “shades” of Roddenberry throughout the movie. The party of three to meet the host on the new planet, one being the doctor. Another which stood out was the mini-dress wardrobe Altaria (the daughter) was assigned to wear. Must show those legs to get Commander Adams and crew (also Captain Kirk in ST) all hot and bothered! One final note from my viewing this movie...me being a female...if the crew were wearing jockstraps...they sure weren’t very supportive!😏☺️

Some info:

https://falconmovies.wordpress.com/2014/05/13/forbidden-planet-1956-is-really-the-tempest-by-shakespeare/

[–] McQualude (4231) 6 years ago

Everyone already knows it's the Tempest except for newbs to sci-fi, or newbs to Shakespeare.

[–] kspkap (13555) 6 years ago

I added the info because it was new to me and for others who don’t do Shakespeare. As for sci-fi, far from being a newbie....decades into it.

[–] McQualude (4231) 6 years ago

I like the movie, the storytelling has a consistent internal logic, the girl is cute, the acting is serviceable, and it has a good basis for the plot.

[–] AlfredTheGreat (471) 6 years ago

I don't know if it was the same thread but I have talked up Forbidden Planet on this site. Depending on who's account and when it was written Roddenberry admitted being influenced by Forbidden Planet. If you were not around back in the day to sample the flavor of what was going on with sci-fi-fi then yes FP will seem very archaic. And there are only so many stories to be told so if you look hard enough many movies and television shows have ideas that are decades or even centuries old. And the acting style other than Pidgeon and Nielsen was stock for the 1950's and no doubt was done quite a bit at the insistence of the directors. A balance had to be struck between art and accessibility to make FP marketable. A similar problem existed for the original Star Trek in terms of budget in that if Roddenberry wanted to make art then he had better have found his own money to do it as NBC and Desilu were not going to do ST at a loss. Star Trek actually benefitted from two pilots as the show would have most likely looked cheaper than it did if the cost had to be spread from The Corbomite Maneuver (0101 production order) forward. The most Roddenberry had to do was find a way to work a percentage of The Cage footage into a regular episode which he did in The Menagerie Part II.

[–] Galactus03 (4373) 6 years ago

See that's what happens when you jump the gun. Its one of my favorite old sci-fi films.

[–] kspkap (13555) 6 years ago

I admitted I “jumped the gun”. It was late at night when I popped the DVD into the player. The screeching sound effects enhanced my migraine which made me do an unfair judgement call. The following morning I muted the beginning and earnestly viewed the movie. I will say this much....I found it to be sexist, but that was the sign of the times. Chances are I saw the movie when it hit the theater....before most of you were on *this* planet. I don’t care to view it again as so many of you do.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

It's not a great movie, I don't know why it's considered a classic. It's cheesy and fake, the actors are wooden or hammy, and the humor is painful.

Yet it's beloved by some, as horrible greasy comfort food is beloved, it's liked even though it's awful by any rational standard. I don't know why it's considered a classic of early sci-fi film, maybe because out of all the cheesy cheap-ass sci-fi movies made in the fifties, this one has the greatest pretensions! Yeah, stole one of Shakespeare's stories and everything, although that doesn't make the movie good.

Edit: Something that a really IS good is the theatrical version or parody, "Return to Forbidden Planet". That's a hell of a fun show, with a fifties rock score and some humor that's actually funny.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 6 years ago

It was released in 1956. Most of the FX were rotoscoped (look it up) animations made by a tech on loan from Disney. The narrative was taken wholesale from Shakespeare’s play, The Tempist. The story is solid. The movie tech is old. So is Citizen Kane. To those who dislike it, prithee, tell me, what is “The Id,”
as in “monsters from the Id”? Hint: Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis posited three components to the human personality: Id, Ego and Superego. This film was for smart audiences. In company with The Day The Earth Stood Still (Michael Rennie and not Keanu Reeves) and 2001: A Space Oddyesy, it is part of the trifecta of great historical science fiction films IN ENGLISH. Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, in German, cheesy sets and all, stands coeval
with them.

Not for nothing: Pidgeon’s acting is rock solid, as it always was. The rest? Neilson shows why he would find success in The Naked Gun franchise. Goodness, it was the mid-50s! After Day The Earth Stood Still, this was the first English-language film to take science fiction seriously; then came England, with The Day of the Triffids.

You know what? A 1967 Corvette Stingray can’t run with a 2018
Corvette ZR-1; but, absent that 67 ‘Ray, there would BE no ZR-1 today. It’s called the appreciation of history, folks. Forbidden Planet is a historical milestone in American science fiction movies. Period.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

I don't have a problem with the special effects, they were good for their time and the revelation of the monster was actually cool!

And I don't have a problem with the basic story either, who would. Shakespeare. What I do have a problem with is the overall wooden acting, the clunky dialogue, the cardboard characters, the failed humor, and Leslie Nielsen as a romantic lead. I mean it was good for the era, but a classic? Not in my book.

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 6 years ago

❤️️
"You know what? A 1967 Corvette Stingray can’t run with a 2018
Corvette ZR-1; but, absent that 67 ‘Ray, there would BE no ZR-1 today. It’s called the appreciation of history, folks. Forbidden Planet is a historical milestone in American science fiction movies. Period."

BRAVO!!!!!

[–] R_Kane (15828) 6 years ago

Thank you, Margo.

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 6 years ago

❤️️
You are most welcome! I seldom see you here very often any longer, but lately????
I understand why!

[–] R_Kane (15828) 6 years ago

Dazed’s Stepford Lives topic pretty much explains my scarcity in
GD. I still show up on actual entertainment topics. GD has become too much of a high school clubhouse for me, with glad-handing and back-slapping replacing interesting stuff. I honestly don’t care what you dreamed about last night. I want to be liked, but the only one I NEED to be liked by is me. I sense too much needing to be liked in GD, and the safest way to be “liked” is to be bland, conventional and inoffensive. Hell, I’m usually proud of those who dislike me, because it usually reflects well on me. And that’s why I’m not around much.

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 6 years ago

❤️️
You are much wiser than me.
I never seem to learn. I'm getting there though. I have pretty much had my fill. I think I'll stick to the individual boards..... if I post at all.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 6 years ago

❤️ back ‘atcha, Margo. Thank you.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Thanks for blessing us with your presence.

[–] AlfredTheGreat (471) 6 years ago

I would suspect that many retro-apply the Leslie Nielsen of Police Squad to FP for judgement when that is not really fair. Nielsen will never stand with the greats but to say he can only do goofballs is not fair. Check him out from when he did 1960's television and turn off the Naked Gun images in your mind.

Also, again I would imagine that the "golly gee willickers" dialog along with the wolf calls were probably expected in a 50's pic so despite any reservations the director may have had including 1950's guys acting as , well, 1950's guys was probably expected by the studio to get FP bankrolled. Actors such as Earl Holliman and Richard Anderson demonstrated better later in their careers.

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 6 years ago

It's a great movie. In relation to the special effects, you need to remember it was 1956. They were actually excellent for that time period. And if you knew anything about the history of sci-fi cinema, you would know that it was MILES ahead of anything which came before.

😎

[–] MIchiganJFrogg (-35) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] R_Kane (15828) 6 years ago

MJF, not everyone on MC bright. Be careful of to whom you make recommendations, or topics like this ensue.

[–] MIchiganJFrogg (-35) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Kazak (2187) 6 years ago

Next up, Plan 9 From Outer Space, mwahaha.

[–] MIchiganJFrogg (-35) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 6 years ago

I don't know why it still hasn't been remade. With all of the brain dead remakes going on these days a no-brainer like this should be right down their alley...

[–] TandyMan (11096) 6 years ago

It's honestly not that good. But any scifi enthusiast should watch it. It's an early classic that helped launch the genre.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 6 years ago

[deleted]