What About A Remake?

I agree with you whole heatedly. A remake is unnecessary, would cost a fortune, and be filled with $100M worth of whizz-bang computer generated special effects that add nothing to the story.

I'm sure there's some dolt out there that would love to 'colorize' film noir.

A remake may usher in a new audience, after all old fans are getting older, you wouldn't want this film to be forgotten. The problem with the scifi genre compared to other genres is that it relies on technology to awe the audience. A new remake will introduce the original to a newer audience.

Ben Hur of the 20s was a Classic that was remade successfully in the 50s, it was successful because the new one offered new technological advances the first lacked.



Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel

[deleted]

That's because they're so dense that they don't learn from their mistakes, which are completely and unbelievably brain-dead in the first place.

If they're stupid enough, fool enough, and asinine enough to try to remake this, it'll fail too, they'll look even stupider than they already do, and it will be yet another bit of undeniable proof that they can't come up with anything good themselves like every other generation that's ever made films has.

Yep, they're the runts, the flunkies, the oddballs, the lamers, and weakest of them all. To hell with them! hehehehe

--
Decent people shouldn't post here. They'd be happier posting somewhere else.

I just looked up info about the "remake " and there was talk of making three movies.

The first one about the settlers and what happened when they landed.

The second about the Altaira growing powers.

The third about the crew landing on the planet, discovering that all are dead with the exception of Morbius and Altaira, the remake of the original.

It would lose its charm only if you think the charm came from bad effects, thin characters and cliched writing.

The special effects already dominated the original film. And the problem is they weren't very good (although they were some of the best available at the time) and were sometimes used for no good reason.

Look at the early scene where they prepare for deceleration. They step on pads, get covered by a green glow, the interior of the ship changes a few times, then they get off the pads. Huh? What was the purpose of the whole scene? Instead of just cheaply changing the gels on the set lighting, why couldn't they show us an actual shot of the ship slowing down? Why go through the scene at all? Look at Star Trek. They never made a big hullabaloo about slowing down. It was just a waste of film and time.

Even when I was a little boy of 8 or so, I was able to figure out they made the footprints of the invisible monster by dropping a support below the surface and letting the dirt cave in. It was so obvious that the print wasn't created from the top down. CGI is the only possible way to do a realistic version of that since you can't use invisible props, although I suppose even back then, they could have done a stop motion animation, incrementally pushing a fake foot into the ground then removing it before taking a frame. But there wouldn't be anything like a dust cloud kicked up by the creature.

I'm sorry, but the monster was never truly frightening, even during the big attack scene at the energy barrier. It looked cartoonish because it was a cartoon. Who can really be afraid of a cartoon? Not to mention the design looked silly.

I kind of like the movie, but it is severely dated. The lumbering Robby, despite being a classic design, looks ridiculous compared with even today's robots, who are a thousand times more agile than he ever was.

And the "soundtrack" and sound effects all made on the theremin sound very monotonous. Every time I heard a sound effect, I knew it was another theremin sound.

Leslie Nielsen was a cardboard cutout in his portrayal of the captain. The truth is most of the acting was pretty bad. About the only decent one was Pidgeon, but he was basically doing his usual headstrong, blustery role, just like in Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.

I agree that most of the time, Hollywood gets remakes wrong. And if they did that to Forbidden Planet, I wouldn't watch it, either. But if they could get it right, it could be a new classic.

Besides, don't forget that if nobody was ever allowed to make a movie based on something previous, Forbidden Planet itself would never have been made, since it was based on Shakespeare's The Tempest.

I'll say it again - in a sense, Aliens was a remake - a military mission to check on a colony that hasn't been heard from. They fight against monster(s) that their weapons seem useless against. In the end, they leave just before the planet/colony blows up.

I'd fashion a remake along similiar lines, using the Colonial Marines as the military unit sent to the planet. Will guarantee interest from fans of the ALIEN/ALIENS franchise plus Sigourney Weaver will be in it as Dr. Morbius!

[deleted]