Space 1999 Eagle Transporter Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • We have updated the Terms and Conditions, you will be prompted to read and agree to these next time you are active on the forum.
SPONSORED BY

Nooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BrianS

Alphans
First they ruin - uh remake - "Day the Earth Stood Still" (and adding insult to injury cast Keannu Reeves as the star) - but now they are ruining - uh remaking - another classic:

Forbidden Planet!

When will the madness end!

What next - a remake of 2001?
 

Neal

Alphans
There's room to improve the original -- removing the comedic alcoholic, for instance, or energizing Walter Pigeon's really wooden performance, or cutting the abysmal speech at the end -- but I fear as you do, that any remake will be quite bad.
 

CR

Alphans
As much as I love Forbidden Planet, I've always thought that it was ripe for a remake. And not a re-write to include a bunch of video-game-style, stunt-laden 'wow, look at our cool CGI' special effects. Just simply re-tell the story with upgraded sfx (and younger actors, of course). Which kind of comes around to 'what's the point?'

I do like Syd Mead's designs, though, and have to admit that the SLIK of his looks really cool.

Incidentally, since FP is said to borrow heavily from Shakespeare's The Tempest, is it not a remake in its own right?
 
Surely, unless Shakespear wrote SF, the original "Forbidden Planet" would have more right to be called a "Re-Imagining" than just a flat re-make (Which I always asociate with the idea that you didn't get it right the first time.)
 

CR

Alphans
That was actually my point, Weaponsmith. It seems these days, nothing's original, yet one could make that argument throughout history.
On the other hand, didn't there used to be a time when re-making something was done in order to tell the story again, but in a different (not better, just different) way? Now, it seems the only reason to do so is to make money.

And worse, people are all too willing to just throw their money away at the latest blockbuster, remake or not, quality story or not. I know, movies have always been about making money, but can't we get quality as well as quantity?
I suppose someone will answer, "Sure, CR, but I can't talk about that right now; I've got to make the early showing of Saw V!"
 

DX-SFX

Alphans
On the other hand, didn't there used to be a time when re-making something was done in order to tell the story again, but in a different (not better, just different) way?

I don't think the briefs are ever to 'not make it better' than the original. The fact they do usually spectacularly fail to make a better film is down to execution rather than intent.
 

Stu73

Alphans
Why is the buggy called a SLIK??
Who cares, it looked a cool vehicle in the sketch. Might be worth making that version, just for the model kit!
 

thundergod

Alphans
At the end of the day , these remakes/re-imaginings succeed or fail due to their own qualities. I am strangely looking forward to "The Day The Earth Stood Still " , because they seem to be taking the subject matter seriously and holding the original with some respect . The "Forbidden Planet " remake at least has some talent involved, so that at least, gives me an optimistic view of it's outcome . People only remember the bad remakes , what about the good 'uns , "The Thing", "Invasion Of The Body Snatchers" , "Planet Of The Apes ", er, hang on!:think:
 
Remakes vs. Re-Imaginings

I would have thought he'd have a bus pass by now!

The problem with most remakes is they are anything but. The Danny Elfman "Planet Of the Apes", Stephen Hopkins "Lost In Space" & the 1998 "Godzilla" are great examples of this trashing of beloved classics. But, there ARE upsides: "Battlestar Galactica" is everything the original SHOULD have been (even tho I love the original), an ADULT sci-fi TV series. "Star Trek: The Next Generation" is a classic re-imagining of the original, as are the first 6 "Trek" films. Needless to say I'm quakin' in my (moon)boots to see what they do with the upcoming re-imagining of the ORIGINAL "Star Trek". In this case, they are TRULY messing with a classic. Which brings me to "Space:1999". The most obvious thing to change if anyone ever does do a re-make will have to be a title change. Also, you can (hopefully) kiss the relationship between Dr. Russell & Koenig goodbye, especially if elements from "Breakaway" are used, such as the doctor being a widow & Koenig meeting her for the first time. It took the writers six years to explore the relationship between Dr. Crusher & Captain Picard and even when THAT was resolved in the series finale, we find out it never really happened, courtesty of Q. A new version of "1999" would be most welcome for, despite its' outlandish premise, it would make a great big budget flick. Unfortunately, British sci-fi is not very well respected by Hollywood. Besides "The Saint", "The Avengers" & "Thunderbirds", I don't know of any British sci-fi that's been tackled by our friends on the west coast. Americans just do not know how to handle British productions. I mean, "Dr. Who" has been running for as long as "Star Trek" yet, to date the only American version was a TV movie on the Fox Network several years ago & that disappeared very quickly. As far as a remake of "Forbidden Planet" is concerned, "Star Trek" already,albeit unintentionally already did that. Although "Day the Earth Stood Still" is a classic, an updated re-make might not be so bad. An example would be "The Manchurian Candidate": the Denzel Washington version was quite good because they took the political actions & dealing of the 1960s & brought them up to date with current problems. It CAN be done...we just need the right people doing it.
 

CR

Alphans
Hmmm, not entirely sure that the music composer had that much say... ;)
Perhaps he was referring to the music scores of both films. ;) (I happened to like both scores, by the way, though I slightly prefer Goldsmith's.)
 

pjskeldon

Alphans
Part of me says - "why bother adding a reply here, we've rehashed the pros and cons of remakes before".

But the less cynical part of me says...

Let's not get hung up on this, eh? There are only so many stories when you boil them down, so 'remakes' are inevitable when you examine the plotlines. As far as re-doing 'classics' such as FB or TDTESS, again why not?

Yes, you can always compare the two and no doubt most of us in our 40's would choose the older version as the better one. But what about today's generation? Should we deny them the chance of seeing a good idea produced using today's production values?

I'm prepared to give both these remakes a chance and wait until they're out before deciding how good they are.

The trouble with remaking FB, in my view, is that the Krell technology was represented in a way that was awesome to an audience in the 1950's. With the slew of SF films that have followed it, I'm not sure how the film-makers are going to wow audiences if they just adopt the same look today (if the report above is correct).

Anyway, I feel better for that.

Phil.
 
Top