The Day The Earth Stood Still

[Jack Lord]

Keanu Reeves? Jesus wept...

Anyway, love the original- filmed in my hometown. In fact that same cab company they use towards the end is still in business here- Yellow Cabs. Although curiously they have always been orange.

[Arkay]

Originally Posted by Duffinator

The Krell are too smart to allow that to happen!

It appears Hollywood is (has been) having a difficult time coming up with new ideas for sci-fi movies. Are there any good, non comic book or re-make, sci-fi flicks coming out this summer?

They always have trouble coming up with new ideas!

The movie business is like any other business, in that it is fundamentally about money and risk management. The movie dinanciers feel there is less risk in putting their money into a "proven formula", so they look to make movies of comics or cartoons that are already popular, or re-make old movies that were successful.

Best-selling books are also seen as less risky: Harry Potter and the Narnia movies are examples. Before it came out, a lot of people thought making The Lord of the Rings was a very risky undertaking, but Peter Jackson et al pulled it off! This approach doesn't always work, though. Anyone like The DaVinci Code movie? That book was WRITTEN TO BE made into a movie, but it bombed.

In a way, they are right to stick to proven formulae, although the really BIG returns come from NEW formulae and NEW franchises that successfully blend old themes and techniques in NEW ways. Examples: Alien. Predator. Indiana Jones. Star Wars. Each had classic themes that an audience could recognize and follow, but they were done in very new or different (when they came out) ways or settings. They each worked well enough to earn MASSIVE bucks and to spawn a series of profitable sequels and lousy 'wannabe' take-offs.

Problem is, for every successful new idea, there is an unsuccessful one. Big risk, big rewards ... but also, potentially big losses. [Anyone remember Ishtar? Heaven's gate? ]

I thought Waterworld was a decent movie, but not enough people agreed to let it make any money, after a fortune was spent on making it. Compare that to the original Road Warrior -- a cheap, low-budget film that was ORIGINAL. Waterworld was a very obvious take-off of the Road Warrior formula, translated to a new setting. A nice attempt to do what I was saying above, but the budget went way overboard, and the creativity was insufficient.

The other factor that Hollyweird moneybags think lowers risk is "Star Power". Stick a big enough star in the lead, and more people will watch the movie. True enough, but how much should be paid for that star, and if the movie is a turkey in other respects in spite of the star's presence, how long will people continue to fill theaters once the word gets out? Conversely, an unknown --much cheaper to hire-- won't bring in the crowds as easily, but if the movie is good, once word gets out it will still make money. Star Wars used complete unknowns and MADE stars out of its actors and actresses, in spite of some really wooden dialog, because so much else about the movie(s) was RIGHT, especially for its time. Ditto for the Alien series. Predator used Arnold Schwarzenneger, but before he was so well-known as an actor; it helped "make" him as an actor, after the less-successful Conan series (where he was a logical casting, because of the need for muscles, but his wooden acting was panned). It also had a higher degree of originality. The right star can "make" a movie, without the person needing to be famous, first: the Bruce Lee movies wouldn't have been the same without Bruce Lee. A good movie will make a star out of any decent unknown actor/actress, but even the most famous actor/actress may not be enough to salvage a bad movie. Ishtar paired up two of the top actors in it's day, but tanked. Some movie put Pacino and DeNiro together, but that was the biggest thing anyone could say about it... it was so disappointing I can't even remember its name right now.

Even worse than overspending on Stars is overspending on non-acting celebrities. Does anyone think Madonna or J. Lo (Jennifer Lopez) can actually ACT? Well, okay maybe J. Lo can --better than the horribly wooden Madeline Stowe-- but Madonna?

... but the studio bosses make their calculations and place their bets. It's all about money and risk management.

[Jack Lord]

Originally Posted by jimfet

Not K. Reeves. Noooooooooooooooo! Worst actor in Hollywood. I bet he gets arrested when he tries to use diamonds for money. He's probably never heard of the band Klaatu. Ooowww! Ooowww! Ooowww! I've been shot in the foot!

LOL!

[pioneervato]

Yeah, he may not be the greatest actor by any means but I admire him for his work off screen and his generosity. I believe I read an article about him in which he has a sister with a dabilitating disease. He has pumped millions of dollars of his own to help find a cure for the disease . May not be a great actor but he seems to be a great human being in a profession where so many of them tend to be real assholes in real life.

[wajobu]

Originally Posted by ke4jhj

Gort! Klaatu barada nikto!

That's my way of sayin' NO to a remake.

[pmsummer]

Two bits o'trivia:

"Forbidden Planet" wasn't an original idea. It was a remake of "The Tempest".

Klaatu was the servant of Gort, not the other way around.

[ablethevoice]

Originally Posted by pmsummer

Two bits o'trivia:

"Forbidden Planet" wasn't an original idea. It was a remake of "The Tempest".

Klaatu was the servant of Gort, not the other way around.

Another piece of trivia: Gene Roddenberry was very heavily influenced by Forbidden Planet during his hatching of the Star Trek universe - especially Mr Scott's "can do" attitude.

Yep. The screenplay was based on a short story by Harry Bates called Farewell To The Master.

[Tapehead47]

Originally Posted by pmsummer

Two bits o'trivia:

"Forbidden Planet" wasn't an original idea. It was a remake of "The Tempest".

Klaatu was the servant of Gort, not the other way around.

Interesting bits, pm.

Hey, what can I say...I'm easily entertained.

[onepixel]

Darn... I thought it was another Matrix movie.

[Cleve]

Originally Posted by pmsummer

Klaatu was the servant of Gort, not the other way around.

That revelation was one of the greatest moments in cinema history, IMO. I also liked the Christ-like nature of Klaatu, even down to his earthly name of "Mr. Carpenter".


Rather than a remake, they ought to make a SEQUEL, IMO.

[ducati_EL34]

Originally Posted by Arkay

Even worse than overspending on Stars is overspending on non-acting celebrities. Does anyone think Madonna or J. Lo (Jennifer Lopez) can actually ACT? Well, okay maybe J. Lo can --better than the horribly wooden Madeline Stowe-- but Madonna?

Alright I was with you up until this remark. All I can say is, you have not seen the right movie(s) with her in it.

As for Madonna, she did very well in Evita.

[spok]

i was at the movies this past weekend and caught the trailer. i'm going to give it a try but most of what comes out of hollyweird now is so screwed up....

we'll see

[Jack G]

I'm normally apposed to remakes, and I've liked very few of them, but this has potential. Hey, its got John Cleese in it.
Jack

[pioneervato]

I agree with Cleve. A sequel would have been more appropriate. The original would be a tough act to re-do. Would be great if they came back to wreak havoc on earth since the earthlings didn't take heed very well from their first visit. We could stand some good ol' ass kickin' from a bunch of badass alien robots that shoot lasers from their eyes. I don't think fencing our borders will keep these aliens out.

[Ultra-Hog]

The original movie is one of my all time favorite movies, right along with Fail Safe. I also think that Cleve makes an excellent point about making a sequel instead of a remake.

Originally Posted by ducati_EL34

...
As for Madonna, she did very well in Evita.

I thought she was also very good in "A league of Their Own". That was the last time that I cared to see Rosie though.