The Day the Earth Stood Still

[Klaus]

I've found that reaction to The Things frequently splits along generational lines, with those [particularly those who did not read the story] liking the original they saw as kids better and a later generation that was raised expecting more gore finding JC's more exciting.


And I'm prepared to come down on the side of Snake if you'll throw in Adrienne Barbeau...

 

[Harvey]

Two words: Keith David.

Ummm...who is that?

Rob

The only other survivor at the end of the movie besides Kurt Russell. He also has prominent roles in Platoon, They Live, and dozens of other films, television episodes, and video games. You might recognize his voice. It's very distinctive.

And I'm prepared to come down on the side of Snake if you'll throw in Adrienne Barbeau...

Well, she is the voice of the chess computer in the movie... But I imagine that's not what you meant.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Two words: Keith David.

Ummm...who is that?

Rob

The only other survivor at the end of the movie besides Kurt Russell. He also has prominent roles in Platoon, They Live, and dozens of other films, television episodes, and video games. You might recognize his voice. It's very distinctive.

Ill look into it..its been so long since I have seen that movie, I'll give it another look.

Rob

 

[Greg Cox]

Oh..GREG!!! The original had JAMES ARNESS!!! Matt Dillon/Zeb McCahan!!! That alone makes it better than Kurt Russell and friends...

Rob

I'll see your Matt Dillon and raise you Snake Plissken.

I'd take Matt Dillon over Snake. Snake had 'character' flaws and Dillon was the fastest draw ever. And don't forget, Captain Sheridan (bab 5) is Matt Dillon's nephew!!

Rob

But Matt Dillon was a blood-sucking carrot in THE THING. Sounds like a character flaw to me!

 

[Amaris]

I like the remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still, but it just doesn't hold a candle to the original (one of my all time favorite sci-fi movies). I also like Keanu Reeves and think he's a fine actor (loved him in Constantine).

Oh, and avid fan of the original The Thing From Another World.

J.

 

[barnaclelapse]

I've found that reaction to The Things frequently splits along generational lines, with those [particularly those who did not read the story] liking the original they saw as kids better and a later generation that was raised expecting more gore finding JC's more exciting.


And I'm prepared to come down on the side of Snake if you'll throw in Adrienne Barbeau...

And Harry Dean Stanton. He knows where the cigarettes and whiskey are.

 

[RobertScorpio]

I've found that reaction to The Things frequently splits along generational lines, with those [particularly those who did not read the story] liking the original they saw as kids better and a later generation that was raised expecting more gore finding JC's more exciting.


And I'm prepared to come down on the side of Snake if you'll throw in Adrienne Barbeau...

And Harry Dean Stanton. He knows where the cigarettes and whiskey are.

This is that generational thing...because I'm sure Matt Dillon (or zeb, in my avatar), the Marshall of dodge city, who never lost a draw, would garner more votes from the older generation; you know, the one that fought wars and all that and lived through rough times. They'd look at snake and understand why the USA is in dire straights...

Matt Dillon by far!!!

Rob

 

[Greg Cox]

Still, getting back to the original topic, the point is that THE THING remake has a sizable following in its own right, and is hardly an uninspired copy of the original classic. So remaking classic films, while risky, can pay off.

More examples: THE HORROR OF DRACULA (1958) is certainly a worthy rival to the original Bela Lugosi version--or the silent NOSFERATU for that matter. And Richard Lester's 70's versions of THE THREE MUSKETEERS is arguably better than the old Gene Kelly/Vincent Price version. Ditto the Tyrone Power version of THE MARK OF ZORRO compared to the old Douglas Fairbanks version . . . .

 

[Kegg]

More examples: THE HORROR OF DRACULA (1958) is certainly a worthy rival to the original Bela Lugosi version--or the silent NOSFERATU for that matter.

If earlier versions of Dracula count as making the next one a remake, then every Dracula film surviving is a nominal remake as there is one lost film that predates Nosferatu.

 

[The Comedian]

When I become benevolent dictator of the universe, I will ban remakes.

Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Except Star Trek ones right?

And Battlestar Galactica!

 

[Greg Cox]

More examples: THE HORROR OF DRACULA (1958) is certainly a worthy rival to the original Bela Lugosi version--or the silent NOSFERATU for that matter.

If earlier versions of Dracula count as making the next one a remake, then every Dracula film surviving is a nominal remake as there is one lost film that predates Nosferatu.

Indeed. But we're mostly talking here about remaking classic films, so the Bela Lugosi DRACULA was probably a more fitting example than some lost silent version.

And BATTLESTAR GALACTICA is a perfect example of a remake that far surpasses the original, IMHO.

 

[Klaus]

I agree whole-heartedly with the Three Musketeers and Mark of Zorro remakes being better than the originals... the Gene Kelly one is fun but a bit fluffy for my taste, even with Price.

And the Power Zorro is almost worth losing your parents for...

 

[Forbin]

Still, getting back to the original topic, the point is that THE THING remake has a sizable following in its own right, and is hardly an uninspired copy of the original classic. So remaking classic films, while risky, can pay off.

This may be the key point. While some classics are themselves remakes, there comes a point in the cycle of remakes where a remake becomes the classic, favorite, beloved, maybe-perfect version of the story. It's at that point, that classic film, where, perhaps, it should stop. Once it's been perfected (so to speak), there should be no need to try again.

 

[The Badger]

Yes, yes, I know, we've been over that before. I didn't think I needed to be insanely specific. I should say I'd ban remakes of beloved, classic, definitive films that don't need remakes. Especially if they're gonna suckl.

How about, you allow remakes to be made, but they are then shown to a test audience i.e. us. Those that pass muster are released, the rest destroyed.

I'm sure Hollywood would be a bit more respectful of the classics if they knew that, if the remakes weren't good enough, they'd not get back one penny of the cost to make it.

 

[Greg Cox]

Still, getting back to the original topic, the point is that THE THING remake has a sizable following in its own right, and is hardly an uninspired copy of the original classic. So remaking classic films, while risky, can pay off.

This may be the key point. While some classics are themselves remakes, there comes a point in the cycle of remakes where a remake becomes the classic, favorite, beloved, maybe-perfect version of the story. It's at that point, that classic film, where, perhaps, it should stop. Once it's been perfected (so to speak), there should be no need to try again.

But the thing is, until the remake is made, who is to say the previous version was the definitive version? I'm sure there were people back in the old days that would have said that there was no need for THE THING or THE FLY to be remade. And Lugosi's DRACULA was about as iconic as you could get--until Christopher Lee came around.

Hell, the 1939 WIZARD OF OZ movie got negative reviews when it first came out. Many critics trashed it as a vulgar, musical-comedy bastardization of the beloved Baum classic--with Bert Lahr's Brooklyn-accented Cowardly Lion coming in for special derision.

How times (and perceptions) change . . . .

 

[Kegg]

Nosferatu Der Vampyr is a remake of the beloved classic Greg Cox has already referred to.

It's also pretty awesome. I mean, Klaus Kinski as a vampire. Werner Herzog directing. Magic is in the air, children of the night. It's very reverential in its visual references to the original, too.

So sometimes even remaking a classic is a good idea.

 

[Greg Cox]

As digression, the novelization of the Herzog NOSERATU, written by Paul Monette, was really good. Pretty impressive when you consider that it's a novel based on a movie based on an earlier movie based on another novel!

A shame nobody did a novelization of THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL remake, which would have been a novel based on a movie based on a movie based on a short story!

(Note my valiant attempt to connect my post back to the original topic of the thread!)

 

[RobertScorpio]

As digression, the novelization of the Herzog NOSERATU, written by Paul Monette, was really good. Pretty impressive when you consider that it's a novel based on a movie based on an earlier movie based on another novel!

A shame nobody did a novelization of THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL remake, which would have been a novel based on a movie based on a movie based on a short story!

(Note my valiant attempt to connect my post back to the original topic of the thread!)

That was pretty good...

Rob

 

[barnaclelapse]

I've found that reaction to The Things frequently splits along generational lines, with those [particularly those who did not read the story] liking the original they saw as kids better and a later generation that was raised expecting more gore finding JC's more exciting.


And I'm prepared to come down on the side of Snake if you'll throw in Adrienne Barbeau...

And Harry Dean Stanton. He knows where the cigarettes and whiskey are.

This is that generational thing...because I'm sure Matt Dillon (or zeb, in my avatar), the Marshall of dodge city, who never lost a draw, would garner more votes from the older generation; you know, the one that fought wars and all that and lived through rough times. They'd look at snake and understand why the USA is in dire straights...

Matt Dillon by far!!!

Rob

Harry Dean Stanton would kick Matt Dillion's ass.