The story of the new "Forbidden Planet" (likely SPOILERS)

[3D Master]

I don't get it:

1. The remake of Forbidden Planet is the third movie in the trilogy?

2. The first two are prequels to the first Forbidden Planet that apparently can follow these two movies seemlessly?

3. After doing that, he's still going to make the actual remake, namely that third movie named at number 1?

4. Does that mean people can choose what which timeline is the real one: "movie 1, movie 2, Forbidden Planet" or "movie 1, movie 2, movie 3 (FP's remake)"?

It seems rather superfluous and messy to me.

 

[AJBryant]

Yeah, but the characters were fine the way they were.

It's Hollywood thinking: "That was so good we should change it" (i.e., "If it ain't broke, fuck it up"). If you read or see something that gives you ideas, you develop those ideas into a new concept; you don't retcon the life out of your source material.

Agreed.

I hate that thought process.

Hey, we just bought the rights to a mega-bestselling blockbuster! Let's change the ending, throw in a couple of cute kids, and make one of the leads a woman to add some love interest.


GAH!!!!!

 

[Psion]

I'm willing to accept the new version ... as long as cruiser C-57D was built in space.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yeah, but the characters were fine the way they were.

And they always will be, in the original film and on DVDs. They might be fine some other way in a different version.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

They so need to get Akiva Goldsman to write this!!!

 

[Allyn Gibson]

While I'm intrigued by this, you know what I would really like to see? A film of Return to the Forbidden Planet, the 50s doo-wop musical based on the original film. When I saw it ten years, it was staged with Star Trek uniforms and props. Really cool.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Heh. I'd love to see that.

Yeah, but the characters were fine the way they were.

And they always will be, in the original film and on DVDs. They might be fine some other way in a different version.

Then they're new characters and should be treated as such.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

^^ Heh. I'd love to see that.

Yeah, but the characters were fine the way they were.

And they always will be, in the original film and on DVDs. They might be fine some other way in a different version.

Then they're new characters and should be treated as such.

Whatever. That's entirely up to the folks making the movies, not you and not me. I'm all for the return of Morbius and J.J. Adams and Altaira and Doc Ostrow and the whole bunch, myself.

 

[Spider]

Is there anyone in Hollywood these days that has an original idea for a movie? Not a remake, not filming a novel or comic book, not redoing TV shows that should be left alone, but a frigging original movie?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Is there anyone in Hollywood these days that has an original idea for a movie? Not a remake, not filming a novel or comic book, not redoing TV shows that should be left alone, but a frigging original movie?

Sure, but rarely will they make it to release. The moviegoing public is lined up at the box office to give their disposable income to the studios producing sequels to stuff like "Batman" and "Iron Man" and "X-Men" and unremarkable novels by Dan Brown.

As far as "not filming a novel or comic book" - hell, most of the best-known and best-loved Hollywood films in history have been based on such source material since the beginnings of the industry so you shouldn't hold your breath waiting on that to change. "The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button" is not an "original idea" but it is an unusual treatment of a good story by a superior writer. Therefore if it's noticed at all on the Internet expect it to be widely ridiculed, described as "craptastic" and to have its interior logic picked apart by keyboard monkeys who will declare that they could have made a better movie.

 

[Spider]

Is there anyone in Hollywood these days that has an original idea for a movie? Not a remake, not filming a novel or comic book, not redoing TV shows that should be left alone, but a frigging original movie?

Sure, but rarely will they make it to release. The moviegoing public is lined up at the box office to give their disposable income to the studios producing sequels to stuff like "Batman" and "Iron Man" and "X-Men" and unremarkable novels by Dan Brown.

As far as "not filming a novel or comic book" - hell, most of the best-known and best-loved Hollywood films in history have been based on such source material since the beginnings of the industry so you shouldn't hold your breath waiting on that to change. "The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button" is not an "original idea" but it is an unusual treatment of a good story by a superior writer. Therefore if it's noticed at all on the Internet expect it to be widely ridiculed, described as "craptastic" and to have its interior logic picked apart by keyboard monkeys who will declare that they could have made a better movie.

Sadly, I agree with you. Oh well. I'm the only person I know of that didn't like The Dark Knight. I couldn't even finish the DVD.

 

[propita]

Actually, as a big big fan of the original I have to say that I'm charmed by the notion of inverting the story's meaning while not changing the plot at all.

I'm also a fan of the original and like it the way it was. But, I also didn't see how BSG could be remade and improved--not like there wasn't room for improvement, but I couldn't imagine "re-imagining" the basic premise.

So I'm willing to see what this "inverted meaning" could bring, cause it does sound interesting. After all, there'd be all those who never saw the original, then there'd be all those who saw it and saw, "Gee, I didn't think of it in that way before."

Same lines + different interpretation = whole new story

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'm also a fan of the original and like it the way it was. But, I also didn't see how BSG could be remade and improved--not like there wasn't room for improvement, but I couldn't imagine "re-imagining" the basic premise.

Bingo!

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Yeah, they actually succeeded in making something inferior to the original. Quite a feat, in this case.

Whatever. That's entirely up to the folks making the movies, not you and not me. I'm all for the return of Morbius and J.J. Adams and Altaira and Doc Ostrow and the whole bunch, myself.

That would be great. However, new characters with the same names would not be great.

Sadly, I agree with you. Oh well. I'm the only person I know of that didn't like The Dark Knight. I couldn't even finish the DVD.

Well, I finished the DVD because my brother-in-law loaned it to me, but it was a tough movie to stomach, that's for sure.

 

[Gepard]

^^ Yeah, they actually succeeded in making something inferior to the original. Quite a feat, in this case.

The one teensy flaw in your premise being your total wrongness.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Another victim of mass hysteria.

 

[Gepard]

*shrieks and runs in circles*

Better?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

^^ Yeah, they actually succeeded in making something inferior to the original. Quite a feat, in this case.

You're utterly wrong, of course. The fact that so many folks who don't appreciate stuff like Moore's "Galactica" object to remakes in general is itself a strong argument in favor of remakes and reimaginings.

 

[Neroon]

The fact that so many folks who don't appreciate stuff like Moore's "Galactica" object to remakes in general is itself a strong argument in favor of remakes and reimaginings.

Can you explain that a bit?

 

[RJDiogenes]

*shrieks and runs in circles*

Better?

That's pretty much how I envision nuBSG fans, yes.

You're utterly wrong, of course. The fact that so many folks who don't appreciate stuff like Moore's "Galactica" object to remakes in general is itself a strong argument in favor of remakes and reimaginings.

Parsing, parsing.... nope, no content.

Actually, the fact that Ron Moore can sell his dull gray juvenile posturings as "kewl" and "edgy" is a strong argument for him going into the used car business. Or military recruitment.