Nooooooo!

I hope there are lots of special effects and little dialogue for Keanu. He is horrible without multiple crutches to lean on.

"I want ROOM SERVICE!!!"
Johny Moronic

Watchmen may not make it to big screen

The watchman movie is currently in litigation. Apparently Fox is involved if I remember correctly. There is some matter of rights being purchases years and years ago but never used.

yikes...I was going to joke that maybe Reeves would be cast as Klaatu...and then it turned out to be TRUE!!!????

Well, that proves it.
There is no god.

Well, if he's playing Klaatu, wearing a metal mask, at least his acting "skill" won't make much of a difference.

Well, if he's playing Klaatu, wearing a metal mask, at least his acting "skill" won't make much of a difference.

I don't understand why someone seems willing to pay Keanu Reeves millions of dollars to be in a movie, when you can get enough cardboard at Party City to make something just as lifelike for about $6.

Oh no, not Keanu. As long as he doesn't have to open his mouth he'll be alright. Here's hoping it's a silent film.

I'm reading Watchmen right now for the first time. 'Bout halfway through. It's so good. I can't imagine a film doing it justice.

I'm just waiting for Bill Donahue to start issuing threats about 'Satans Alley'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja-KFDrpkaA

Well, if he's playing Klaatu, wearing a metal mask, at least his acting "skill" won't make much of a difference.

I thought the robot was Gort?

Well, if he's playing Klaatu, wearing a metal mask, at least his acting "skill" won't make much of a difference.

I think you are thinking of Gort, Klaatu's robot. Keanu would have made a most excellent Gort.

Not holding my breath, but there are some things that could be improved from the original script. In particular, does anybody really believe that the spaceship and robot would be guarded by a grand total of two totally incompetent soldiers so that people could just sneak right up to it or Gort could sneak away? Don't you think the area would be closed off for blocks, if not miles, and absolutely crawling with soldiers? I hope they leave in the scene with the doctors lighting up cigarettes after they examine Klaatu, though.

And for #7 above, Klaatu is the alien (Michael Rennie in the original) and Gort is the robot. While I think Reeves has a certain talent for a certain kind of amiable comedy, I can't really see him in this. Who knows, though? Maybe he'll surprise us.

Who's writing the music? The original Bernard Hermann score simply can't be improved on.

@ #11

No one can do it justice. The best we can hope for is "cool, but not monumentally screwed up". Hollywood has a bad history with that paricular creator's works. You just can't get the subtlties in 2-3 hours.

hmmmm.. Trinity

Hollywood really has run out of ideas. If you took away every remake, adaptation, sequel/prequel or shameless rehash, there would only be 3 or 4 movies out every year.

I like Keanu, but the trailer for this movie didn't impress me. I'll still probably see it anyway.

I actually really liked the recent War of the Worlds update, despite the fact that it had Tom Cruise in it, and despite the fact that it wasn't very faithful to the book, and despite the fact that the previous movie version was so good. And I thought I Am Legend was pretty good too, except for the abysmal ending ("God saved us!").

So, I don't really know what to expect here. There have been some pretty good remakes, to be honest. Of course, there have been some atrocious remakes too.

What did they think they had to add to a SF classic? More special effects?

What they think they are adding is relevance to today's world. That is, changing the message from the threat of nuclear war to the threat of environmental collapse.

Yes, there's seems to be a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth in the SF community about this film, and I just don't understand why. No matter how bad it may end up being (or not), I don't see how it affects the original at all. What difference does it make?

What did they think they had to add to a SF classic? More special effects?

Knowing Fox... probably gratuitous shots of Keanu Reeves's backside. Fox News will then breathlessly complain about it.

I saw this weeks ago. I could not stop friggin' laughing.

Take what is maybe the most famous Science Fiction movie of all time, and then redo it. OK...maybe not a good idea, but who knows, right?

Next, think of the worse actor in the Western Hemisphere, and choose him for the main character. Hm, how could this possibly turn out bad?

I actually really liked the recent War of the Worlds update, despite the fact that it had Tom Cruise in it, and despite the fact that it wasn't very faithful to the book, and despite the fact that the previous movie version was so good.

Surprisingly, I liked the movie, too. It could have been just a mindless action flick, but it actually did a very good job building up a feeling of dread in the beginning and suspense throughout the rest of the movie.

I'm very pessimistic about the film. The first film made sense in that the reason the aliens thought humans to be a threat that had to be destroyed was because of nuclear weapons and the fear that humans would bring them into space. This time around it's supposedly about global warming and our having supposedly destroyed out planet's environment that somehow leads the the aliens to decide that humans need to be destroyed. Never mind the logical problem that, if humans are nowhere near going to other stars, why would aliens care if we destroy our own planet? The whole sorry description is at Ain't It Cool News. I don't know how accurate the description is, but if even half of the elements in that review of the script are true, this movie is likely to suck. Hard.

Save your screams for this one:

REPO! THE GENETIC OPERA: Organ-donor recipients who can't make their payments face repossession in this horror-musical that features Paris Hilton.

A list of SF books that I would wish to be made into films:
Time's Eye, by Arthur C Clarke and Stephen Baxter
All the Rama books by Arthur C Clakre
Redemption Ark, Chasm City and The Prefect by Alastair Reynolds

The Sunday series is really good :)

If you want some proper Church pisstake, watch Father Ted. You can find extracts on Youtube I think (or maybe if your luck enough full episodes, who knows...)

Whoah, previous comment, wrong thread !!!

I give up. Not the best of days today :/

From the trailer: "If the Earth dies, you die. If you die, the Earth survives".

So has Klaatu become an eco-terrorist?

And what the fuck has this to do with the original film, which despite messing up the roles of Klaatu and Gort, is classic sci-fi?

Cloudwork wrote:

A list of SF books that I would wish to be made into films:
...
All the Rama books by Arthur C Clarke
...

I agree. I read Rendezvous with Rama when it was first published (old git that I am) and have always thought what a great film it would make. Also, as a long-time fan of H.G. Wells (his novels, not the man - he was a jerk) I have always yearned for a faithful rendition of 'War of the Worlds' set in Victorian England.

They're going to destroy "the unfortunate profession of jonathan hoag" by hiring the same guy who made "irobot", too

Maybe not quite SF but still, another Heinlein classic destroyed :(

Maybe they'll change 'klaatu verada nikto' to 'Iyay inbay ot-shay'

@#22

Oh good grief. I hope that Ain't It Cool got it wrong, but I get this nagging feeling they haven't.

I was all ready to champion the remake, because the original is a really good story, and I would welcome a modern retelling. I saw the original a few days ago, and it made me laugh to see the shaky fence around the spaceship and a couple of guards left at the open entrance. These days you'd imagine there'd be a five mile exclusion zone crammed with every bit of military hardware they could find, which would add to the final message in the story. Also, a 30 minute power outage would have a much greater impact on today's technology driven world, which would have been fun to explore.

The story was the best part - if they've dispensed with this in order to crowbar in a global warming message... well, that's a hell of a disappointment.

I moaned audibly when I saw this trailer. Why, oh why, great FSM, do these idiots not understand Roger Ebert's commandment: "Don't remake good movies, remake BAD movies!"

GLADIATOR is a perfect example of why one should remake bad movies. They took a turgid, confusing, boring old movie called "Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" and made an exciting film which made squillions of dollars.

Now they want to take one of the most famous SF films of all time, change the underlying premise, and cast the most wooden actor imaginable in the main role.

Sigh.

PZ:

What did they think they had to add to a SF classic?

Gort now has an embedded mp3 player.

MS:

Who's writing the music? The original Bernard Hermann score simply can't be improved on.

Meh. To me it's neither heremin nor theremin.

Aieeeee....

Why???

Oh, wait. Never mind.

Sci-fi book I'd most like to see a decent film of: Hyperion.

In my opinion Keanu Reeves best movie was Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure (with the late George Carlin). It was a damn fun movie and Keanu didn't even have to act. All he had to do was be himself. For some reason he doesn't seem to be able to play any other part. If you watch any of his other movies and in your mind just paste in Bill (or was it Ted?) then he isn't so bad.

-DU-

"Watchmen looks fabulous."

Considering how badly V For Vendetta got mangled, I'm skeptical.

The worse that happens is that they make a bad movie. Might get some new people to take a look at the original.

Yeah I heard about this heresy.

I was hoping Keanu would play Bobby Benson, the little kid who hangs with Klaatu. I think Gort might be too hard for Keanuto tackle.

Keanu playing that part is just as disturbing as the two year old rumour that Brad Pitt and Angelina Joley are doing Atlas Shrugged.

Keanuto? Must be the anime version.

Re: #24, #28:
It exists.

Re: #36:
It would take a spectacular team to pull it off, but I'd probably still camp out. The one I'd most like to see done right is Ender's Game; when the worst thing I can say about the book is "the author's a nutjob but you'd never guess it from just this book", that says a lot.

On an unrelated note, I honestly never saw the appeal of Watchmen. I blame a friend of mine who was basically claiming it was orgasm incarnate, and while it wasn't bad, it failed to live up to expectations. I really can't see why people enjoyed it more than, say, Sandman.

What I find annoying about bad remakes is that in a few years I'll be experiencing this:

"Hey, it's The Day the Earth Stood Still! It's been a while since I've seen that." *Press Info button* "Awwwww! It's the crappy remake, not the original."

Already been annoyed when it happens with Planet of the Apes.

Please, somebody go to Fox and tell them "Klaatu barada nikto", or whatever it takes to stop this lunacy from taking place.

I share the general trepidation at the remake of TDTESS. For every good remake...I'm sure there must be some...we get legions of ghastly pop-versions of great films that supplant the originals in the public mind.
I only hope it won't be as bad as the recent 'Andromeda Strain' remake, which largely cut all of that sciencey stuff for a government conspiracy and time travel.
Mind you, I did just see and appreciated 'Death Race' by simply observing that the plot was stolen from every b-movie ever made except 'Death Race 2000'. Hopefully Corman got a big check, though.

Still, if these people want to remagine movies, they should try doing some of the ones that made limited sense in the first place. I'd entertain the idea of a modern remake of, say 'Barbarella.'

Of course, it would star Ashley Simpson and be rated PG-13.

So, no, maybe not.

I'm partial to Keanu Reeves being in it as well, even though it has Jennifer Connelly to compensate, but the messeage of the original is very relevant today, the original is just very badly dated in a sense that no modern movie going popcorn munching public is going to watch it in the cinema and take it's message home with them. An update, remake, however will get those seats filled, if only riding on the name that is part of the subconsious, or otherwise on the name of Reeves and the shiny special effects.
I personally don't really care either way, I just hope the film will do the message justice and will not water it down to be more easily digestable, otherwise it will actually prove to be a useless and unjustified remake.
As for Watchmen, the guy directing it seems to be very passionate about the story and a rabid protector of it and an unconditional fan, in the interviews anyway, the images so far look good. I for one can't wait. Or will start rereading the comic anyway.

This is all part of some nefarious plot by Hollywood to wreck the life's work of director Robert Wise, in particular his iconic, genre-defining films.

They've already destroyed The Haunting (original 1963, 'remake' 1999); now they're working on destroying The Day the Earth Stood Still. After that, they'll set their sights on West Side Story (1961). I'm guessing we'll have Britney in the Maria role, and maybe Justin Timberlake as Tony.

I still have no clue how they plan to make a coherent cinematic experience out of Watchmen, considering that Moore wrote it to demonstrate those things that comics could do that no other medium could. He wrote it as a decidedly anti-cinematic experience. And for my money, he succeeded.

Furthermore, I wonder if the Cold War setting and themes will resonate with today's ticket-buying youth.

Tony said:
"Please, somebody go to Fox and tell them "Klaatu barada nikto", or whatever it takes to stop this lunacy from taking place."

Dontcha mean, "Like Klaatu barada nikto , dude?...Totally."

Fox, Keanu barada nikto!

I preferred Carpenter's remake of The Thing to the 1950s version, but for very specific reasons:

1) It hewed more closely to John W. Campbell's original story;
2) Rob Bottin's prosthetic effects were jaw-dropping;
3) It had a very downbeat/ambiguous ending.

The Howard Hawks version is good, especially in the dialogue department, but it substitutes a fairly dull carrot monster (even as played by James Arness) for the terrifying shape-shifter of the original.

Good remakes are very rare.

I was hoping Keanu would play Bobby Benson, the little kid who hangs with Klaatu. I think Gort might be too hard for Keanuto tackle.

Actually, I was hoping Keanu would play Klaatu. I realize even that would challenge his acting range, but at least the level of difficulty would be within an order of magnitude of his talent.

Ack, I meant I was hoping Keanu would play Gort, of course.

Longstreet63 in #46:

I'd entertain the idea of a modern remake of, say 'Barbarella.'

Starring a well-hung guy in a silver banana hammock.

'Nuff said.

I saw the remake of War of the Worlds with the former Mr Nicole Kidman and oh man that was bad. I fear for the story considering what they think they will have to do to 'engage' 'modern audiences'. Klaatu having hot sex with a nurse no doubt.

@52 "I preferred Carpenter's remake of The Thing to the 1950s version"
Yes! I knew there was one. Mind you, Carpenter had a much bigger budget to work with, as well as the handicap of having talent at filmmaking.
It was also one of the first big remakes, and its success may be, sadly, to blame for the torrent of crap in its wake. Of course, it was also 26 years ago, and probably due to be remade again soon.

Can anyone think of any others that didn't suck?

Well, all I can add is that they went all-out on the props, and I'll end up seeing it just because it was filmed largely at Simon Fraser University, where I work. It was a neat change last winter to walk around campus past tanks and armoured personnel carriers, where they changed the main entrance into a military base (Ft. Lynnwood?) , and the running track into an ammo dump. :) That's one of the best things about working at SFU, the movies that are all filmed here. A LOT of X-files, Battlestar Galactica, etc. I'm sure it'll be bad, but I'll go.

Maybe Keanu can play the fence around the spaceship.

(Confession: I usually like Keanu, even when he's wooden. I guess it's a girl thing. He was badly miscast in that Branagh/Thompson Shakespeare comedy, though. What was it? Much Ado? I forget now.)

You could address the same issues with a Watchmen movie that Moore addressed with the original Watchmen - that superheroes are adolescent power fantasies and come up short when they're presented with real-world problems. It'd be doing the same deconstruction twice but it's not as if there's no art in that. Superheroes have also been reconstructed - see Astro City, which pointedly asks "if conventional superheroes are symbols for an adolescent power fantasy, what else could they be symbols for?" (I particularly enjoyed the arc where the post-Fordist working class fought Third World dictatorships.)

But uh, it's not so much the absence of the four-color look that worries me about new Watchmen (it's a superhero movie so it should look like superhero movies) as much as, uh, Nazi Ozymandias. That's some aggressive Not Getting It right there.

Except that The Incredibles did the whole superhero as everyman schtik pretty well.

I read Rendezvous with Rama when it was first published (old git that I am) and have always thought what a great film it would make.

I think Rendezvous With Rama (et seq.) would make a much better movie than it was a book. Starting with that book, Clarke's work struck as increasingly consisting of big spectacular travelogs of an imaginary future, rather than actual stories. The sheer vastness of Rama would be brilliant on screen (it cries out for IMAX); on the page, I kept getting lost in it.

BTW, the Klaatu/Gort confusion in this thread reminds me of all the people who insist on calling the monster "Frankenstein."

Keanu barada niktu!!

Not speaking for all gay men, but like #59 above, Keanu gets a "pretty pass" from me.

But hey, it's got John Cleese! That's got to count for something, no?

Hey, if they'll allow him to screw up Shakespeare why not this. I still remember a review Keanu received for his unfortunate role as Don John in "Much Ado About Nothing." It basically went "Shakespearian verse does not trip liltingly off of the tongue of this surfer dude."

Re 46: there is a remake of Barbarella in the works (no Ashley Simpson and probably not PG-13)

Re 59: Yes, it was Much Ado ..., fortunately his character doesn't really have much screen time.

Re 61: The Incredibles reversed it, forcing superheroes to live like "normals" and suppress their powers. The Watchmen don't have any superpowers per se except for Doc Manhatten (who is little more than a plot device to move people around) and are really just variations on Batman.

@Kseniya #59

Yes, it was Much Ado About Nothing. Mercifully, the rest of the cast, Brannagh especially, more than made up for it. (And I say this as one who doesn't mind Keanu in most roles... it's just that, if I had to pick an image of nightmares incarnate, Keanu speaking in iambic pentameter whilst getting an oil rub in leather pants from a manservant is right up there.)

@Bill Dauphin, #62

Agreed wholeheartedly. Although it was less sophisticated (and limited by software of the time), and technically based on Rama II, the RAMA adventure game managed to present the vastness and alien nature of the ship in a way that the book didn't. (It also did the octospiders justice, although its treatment of the avians and the biots was rather lacking.)

That said, the folks I work with tend to be too young to have experienced "hard" sci-fi (knowing more Star Trek and Mass Effect than Asimov or Heinlen), so I frequently find myself loaning out my copies (plural... blame library book sales) of Rendezvous with Rama as an introduction, invariably followed by short story anthologies (not always limited to Clarke; depends on their reaction to Rama). Even in the book, Rama seems somewhat more... real, for lack of a better word, than many other sci-fi settings (once you suspend disbelief in the way that any sci-fi story requires you to, of course).

Also, see my link above (#43). A Rama movie is in production, and unlike certain other films there has actually been relatively recent information on this one. Morgan Freeman as Commander Norton, David Fincher (Fight Club) directing... one can only hope.

I don't see what all the fuss is about. Keanu Reeves sure seems like an extraterrestrial to me, so the casting makes perfect sense.

BTW, the Klaatu/Gort confusion in this thread reminds me of all the people who insist on calling the monster "Frankenstein."

Well, the later movies did name the monster "Frankenstein", seems reasonable to name a monster after its creator. Like Hoover vacuum cleaners are now just "Hoovers" and I'm sure Dyson vacuums are on their way to being just "Dysons"

Don't see how they can make a movie out of Rama, the book (at least the first one) didn't have much of a plot. I liked it, but it's all exploration.

I'd rather see "Childhood's End", with David Bowie's "Oh, You Pretty Things" playing over the closing credits.

In the spirit of remaking old movies, I will be remaking Citizen Kane, due for release in 2010. We currently have Carrot Top lined up to play Kane, and Summer Glau as Rosebud (not a sled in this version -- that was just lame).

eeeyup. They're remaking it.

Couldn't find a more bland guy for the lead, folks? Keanu Reeves? Why does he even have a carreer??

@52 said "Can anyone think of any others that didn't suck?"

Aliens comes to mind. Alien was a good and scary haunted house type flick, whereas Aliens was a good old lets kill and shoot everything in sight type film.

Can't think of any others though.

As far as a remake of TDTESS, I'm skeptical, but from the previews available, there's plenty of computer generated mayhem to peak my interest.

@ Brian #64
that's what I was going to say :-)

Anyway, I heard rumors about the Rocky Horror Picture Show being remade, there's even an IMDb site, though there's nothing on it yet. You think they're gonna change the lyrics? "Keanu Reeves was ill the day the earth stood still" somehow doesn't sound right...
:-/

It's gonna be fine. As I understand it from the cinema preview the role is of an alien acting human and not getting it quite right. Keanu should be good with that.

Aliens comes to mind. Alien was a good and scary haunted house type flick, whereas Aliens was a good old lets kill and shoot everything in sight type film.

Aliens was a sequel, not a remake of Alien

Re 74: Yes, I've heard that MTV wants to remake RHPS and without Richard O'Brien's participation (or approval). And in fact O'Brien is pretty damn upset about it. MTV says they will be adding songs, apparently a couple that were cut from RHS to RHPS. Now, while this may be following "Ebert's Edict" to remake bad movies, this can only turn out to be much, much worse and not in a "good" way.

SteveM:

Like Hoover vacuum cleaners are now just "Hoovers" and I'm sure Dyson vacuums are on their way to being just "Dysons"

I thought all vacuum cleaners were "hoovers" (to Brits, at least; we Yanks call even actual Hoovers "vacuum cleaners" or just "vacuums"). I wouldn't be surprised if even Dyson brand vacs get called "hoovers" in the places where folks do that... in much the same way that some folks call all sodas "cokes" and all facial tissues "kleenex" (much to the consternation of the owners of those trademarks).

Mark:

Don't see how they can make a movie out of Rama, the book (at least the first one) didn't have much of a plot.

That was kind of my point: In the movies (aka "motion pictures"), sheer visual spectacle (or lyricism or beauty, but in this case it's spectacle) can sometimes make up for weak or nonextistent plots, in a way that's much more difficult in print.

With today's cinema technology, I think Rama (or Niven's Ringworld, for that matter) could be rendered so absolutely stunningly that few would notice the narrative weaknesses... and I, for one, would like to see that.

Kseniya:

Completely OT and unconnected to this thread, but I've been wondering, and since you're here: In the recently completed Olympics, there was a Russian gymnast whose first name was Ksenia... which I assume is the same name as yours, just transliterated differently. I noticed that the announcers pronounced it with no hint of leading k sound (i.e., they said "Seenya," not "kSeenya"). Do you pronounced it with an audible k, or did they get it right? Enquiring minds want to know! ;^)

I have to disagree with you PZ. This movie looks good.

"It isn't faith that makes good science...it's curiosity"
Prof. Jacob Barnhardt, The Day the Earth Stood Still
"...I become fearful when I see people substituting fear for reason..." Klaatu, The Day the Earth Stood Still

These are two often quoted lines from the original (1951) film. They're not great lines, by any means, but they do speak to some positive values of science and reason. I wonder if a remake will completely portray science as the one evil that needs to be snuffed from our society. In fact, it's a wonder that in 1951, with the threat of nuclear war, the original wasn't more anti-science and more pro-faith. Yea, it could be a disappointing remake.

@73 Aliens was a sequel, not a remake. Sequels have a much higher chance of not sucking, and a nontrival chance of exceeding the quality of the original. They frequently are made by the same people, for one thing--at least at first.

Twenty-five years ago, when the lure of easy money beckoned, producers would simply rip off current films, making largely identical but lower budget films with different names. Now, the producers rip off older films by making big budget, totally different films with the same names.

I can only conclude that people are getting stupider.

If someone out there ever gets the bright idea to remake "North by Northwest", I'm afraid my life might come to an end on the spot.

I just don't think "The Day The Earth Stood Still" is something you remake.

I will say, however, that I enjoyed "Hamlet 2" this weekend.

"Rock me, sexy Jesus". That was pretty funny.

#52;
1) Yes
2) "You gotta be f*cking kidding me..." (Windows?)
3) Yes.

Just about the only good remake I can think of. Not really looking forward to this one. Or the often-rumored "Forbidden Planet". Totally unnecessary.

Yes, there's seems to be a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth in the SF community about this film, and I just don't understand why. No matter how bad it may end up being (or not), I don't see how it affects the original at all. What difference does it make?

I guess a lot of us just feel they should have written their own movie, and left the memory of TDTESS alone. Ditto with WOTW, which bit, Cruise or no.
With all the terrific SF out there, begging for the silver screen...why?

This is generally where I trot out my "The Day The Earth Stood Still is not the classic people make it out to be" rant, but I'm far too tired. It's also a Christ story, which has been admitted by the screenwriter who did it to annoy the director.

The general gist of the rant is that Klaatu's people are a pack of hypocritical, fascist bully boys out to indulge in some planetary scale ultraviolence on an entire multibillion year old biosphere because our nuclear weapons are all big and scary or something.

Other points:

The trailer for the new movie doesn't look so bad, and it addresses one of may main complaints about the first film. It looks like the aliens intend to dismantle human civilization without hurting the planet itself.

I honestly don't get the hate for Keanu Reeves. He doesn't seem better or worse than any other big name actor in Hollywood these days. I thought he did a decent job in A Scanner Darkly.

There's a lot of groupthink and kneejerking happening here.

re the music: There was some talk of including songs by the 70s prog-rock band "Klaatu." Not sure where it stands, though.
The band took their name from the character. Their first album was titled "3:47 EST" which is the time of day when Klaatu's flying saucer lands in Washington.
On that album was "Calling Occupants of Interplanetary Craft" (re-made by The Carpenters) and at least 2 or 3 other space-themed songs. We can only hope.

i've been making fun of this for months, now =)

Dontcha mean, "Like Klaatu barada nikto , dude?...Totally."

it's either:

"Klaatu, barada ... whoa!"

-or-

"Klaatu, barada, I know kung-fu."

Can anyone think of any others (remakes) that didn't suck?

Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (1978)

The Fly (1986)

The Departed (2006)

If you allow international remakes:

A Fistful Of Dollars

The Magnificent Seven

The original TDTESS was NOT about nuclear war or the threat of nucleat proliferation outside of the solar system. You guys mix up cause and effect. The movie was about the failings of human nature, the (almost innate it would seem) innability to see and act on the truth rather than one's own desires, impules, emotions, and egos. That this movie uses a different threat is, in the end, irrelevant. How they handle the core issue of the film will be at the heart of its measure of quality. I get the sinking feeling that this version will be more about relationships (awwww) rather than human neture.

Good re-makes:
Titanic (A Night to Remember)
The Thing (The Thing)
The Producers (The Producers)

Bad re-makes:
Independence Day (The War of the Worlds)
The War of the Worlds (TWOTW)
Hollow Man (Invisible Man)
Andromeda Strain (Andromeda Strain)
Time Machine (Time Machine)
The Music Man (The Music Man)
Longest Yard (Longest Yard)

He doesn't seem better or worse than any other big name actor in Hollywood these days.

hmm.

you see no difference in the acting skills and range of Keanu vs., say, Johnny Depp?

I'd say that given the amount of work thrown Keanu's way, the majority of Americans probably don't see the difference either.

more's the pity.

It's only natural that over two thousand years we get better at telling stories about extraterrestrial visitors who die and rise again. They tried that one before, you know, but it was a bit of a cock-up; the remake was better.

Once it leaves its author's hands, a story can end up subverting the trope which the author intended it to play.

I thought he did a decent job in A Scanner Darkly.

Me too.

#82, in re: your

2) "You gotta be f*cking kidding me..." (Windows?)

Palmer. :) Played by David Clennon, who later would be one of the only good things on the show thirtysomething. I think he also played geologist Lee Silver in the From the Earth to the Moon miniseries.

My head exploded watching the preview of The Day the Earth Stood Still. I can not express my disappointment with Hollywood right now! They did not even keep the classic story line. They need some stupid government cover up thing in there too.

Hey PZ, you'll appreciate this: Keanu Reeves LEFT a role as Doctor Manhattan in Watchmen so that he could play Klaatu!

Remake, the third one, that most defiantly did not suck The Maltese Falcon. The first Falcon made before the Hays code wasn't bad but the second one with Betty Davis was just awful.

Sometimes it takes a few tries to get it right. Other times it just keeps getting worse, The Island of Dr. Moreau being the worst example. Three movies and the 1930's Charles Laughton one is still the best. Not all that good but still the best.

Not if you run linux you don't, since both sites are hopelessly tied to Apple Quick Time and don't any offer a reasonable flash option.

Steve Jobs is a jackass.

Bill, Brian and other experienced sf readers: I am lucky to have been born to parents who enjoyed classic sf enough to keep all their old paperbacks. I'd read at least a couple dozen books (and anthologies) by Clarke, Asimov and Heinlein before I was old enough to drive. I have to agree with your take on Rama - the book was interesting, and it could make a beautiful film. Fincher? Sure. His credit list is short for a name director, but his works are compelling.

Keanu in A Scanner Darkly - yeah. I'd forgotten that one, which is silly of me cuz I just saw it a month ago. That was cool.

With all the terrific SF out there, begging for the silver screen...why?

Now THAT is the question of the day. Week. Year. Decade. Century.

I think we're applying the term "remake" a bit broadly:

Good re-makes:
Titanic (A Night to Remember)
The Thing (The Thing)
The Producers (The Producers)

Two of these three, IMHO, are not actually remakes:

Titanic is an entirely new story set in the same milleiu as the earlier docudrama A Night To Remember, but not a remake in any meaningful sense: Night attempts to tell the story of RMS Titanic's sinking; Titanic uses that story as a frame to tell a personal, romantic story.

The Producers [the new one] is obviously a representation of the same story, but IMHO the musical is a sufficiently distinct artform from the "straight" film that it's not fair to call this a remake. Note that the Tony Awards distinguish between plays and musicals, and I think the same distinction is apt in movies. The Producers pattern — nonmusical film to stage musical to movie musical — has been followed many times; the doubly-derivative final product is hardly comparable to, for instance, the recent shot-for-shot remake of Psycho as a "remake." Does anyone consider the Rick Moranis musical version of Little Shop of Horrors a "remake" of the Jack Nicholson B movie?

Also, if you call Independence Day a remake of The War of the Worlds, don't you pretty much have to say the same about almost every alien invasion flick? Define a term too broadly and it begins to mean nothing at all.

Why do they have to remake classic Sci-Fi movies when so many new stories a waiting to be made? Ringworld comes to mind.

I never admit this to anyone, but I think Keanu is sexy--or rather pictures of Keanu are sexy. Once he talks or moves it's over for me. I did like Bill & Ted but he wasn't acting.

Sorry if this ends up being a double-post.

With all the terrific SF out there, begging for the silver screen...why?

Well, I think it has historically proven pretty difficult to translate SF literature to the screen, and all too easy to hose it up. The thing about classic SF films is that you have an existence proof that they can work as films, which is not the case with short stories and novels. Given the fierce loyalty of SF fans to their favorite authors and works, even a mediocre text-to-film adaptation can get well and truly torched, and a bad one will put the perpetrators in fear for their artistic (if not actual) lives (e.g., you should've seen the online forum posts from Heinlein fans regarding the movie version of Starship Troopers).

SF films, OTOH, are already adapted to the medium and are ripe for remake because they typically depend so heavily on SFX technology, which has gotten so much better in recent years: Remake a 30 or 40 year old SF classic with modern effects and get everything else even 80% as good as the original, and you've probably got a better film overall... not to mention one that has a look-and-feel more relevant to present-day audiences.

Of course, for people who really love the original, nothing could ever possibly be better... even if it is. But that's life in the arts, eh?

I say I'd love to see a movie version of Stranger in a Strange Land or The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress... but in fact I can't imagine either story surviving the transition intact. OTOH, I'd happily go see an updated version of Silent Running (OK, that's nobody's classic, but you get my point).

Warning: off-topic slavic name pronunciation comment.

Bill: Pronunciation thing. No, as far as I'm concerned they didn't get it right, but it was a reasonable approximation.

Yup, it's the same name, though.

I posted on this topic a few months ago here, and included a link to an mp3 of a native Uki or Russki guy saying the name (and some of its diminutives).

It's a difficult name for angloglots to pronounce correctly. I don't press people on the initial "k" because it's hard to say, and "SANEyah" is closer to the correct pronunciation than what I usually get.

In the old world, there are regional variations in pronunciation of vowels, just as there are here (compare Boston, Edmonton, New Orleans, Fargo and Montreal) and I've heard "ksEENya" as well as "ksANEya" on Russian-language programs. The formal pronunciation of the vowel is much closer to "yay". The "ee" sound is actually a different vowel - the Cyrillic "и", which corresponds to our long "i", as in a word like "magazine".

As for the spelling, "Ksenia" is the more common transliteration of Kseniya, but technically it's a familiar form (Ксеня as opposed to Ксения) similar to the way Katherine is often shortened, when spoken aloud, to two syllables, a shortening which can also yield another form of the name: Kathryn.

If you can say "Maxine", you can say "Ksenia" (or "Kseniya"). Tack on a "yah" (or an "eeyah"), change the "ine" to "ane", drop the "Ma".

Apologies for the off-topic, but speaking of 'hard' sci-fi earlier, a thought occurred to me: I know several liberal Christians involved in science, and I wonder what their reaction to The Star would be. It's sufficiently obscure to folks my age or younger as to essentially be unknown (as with Kseniya, my sci-fi introduction was through my parents, or rather my father, who read Amazing Science Fiction and similar from HIS father... the current generation is depressingly removed from work like that).

I doubt it'll shake the faith of any of them much, but if it gets just one of them thinking, in the way that only great sci-fi can, I'll be quite happy.

Bill Dauphin @ #62:

Just for the record, I meant Gort when I wrote Keanu couldn't do Gort. There's only a few characters, it shouldn't be hard to keep them straight, folks.

And it irritates me, too when folks call the moster "Frankenstein" vice "Frankenstein's monster". Even my family, who I've explained it to NUMEROUS times. How hard is it to grasp that Dr Frankenstein creates a nameless monster?

With Guillermo Del Toro working on At the Mountains of Madness, I can't see what any of you are complaining about.

It might be okay, they got a robot to play the role of Keanu Reeves in order to give the character a larger range of emotion.

Not if you run linux you don't, since both sites are hopelessly tied to Apple Quick Time and don't any offer a reasonable flash option.
Steve Jobs is a jackass.

I haven't tested this yet, but have you tried installing VLC media player on linux?

http://www.videolan.org/vlc/

IIRC, the plugin for mozilla will play quicktime movies.

...also, try this link instead to see the trailer:

http://www.dtessmovie.com/

...also...

try this:

http://www.free-codecs.com/download/quicktime_alternative.htm

...I had to go and test whether VLC would in fact, do this.

it does.

no more need for apple's bloatware plugin.

The story that ought to be movinated is a short story; for a start movies are pretty crap at handling long plots. I nominate "Off on a starship" - entire text here (http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0501/starship.shtml) which has (so far as I can work out) every single trope needed for a teenage boys fantasy story.
misfit kid, screwed up family life, no friends.
lost, finds UFO, dinosaurs, robots.
gets taken by said UFO.
robot becomes guardian, then carer, then friend.
explores universe, finds everyone has gone away.
robot becomes cute girl.
more exploring, cute girl/robot force-grows herself to puberty in order to fuck.
return to earth, finds lame-ass space station etc.
revenge!
Perfect.

There is also a Cthulu movie coming out.

While I'm here and we're talking about Keanu, and some people have even mentioned the excellent job Keanu did in A Scanner Darkly, I guess I'll make some points:

Robert Downey Jr. stole the acting credits as Barris.

Keanu was all the same very good. This is because the part was well suited to his style of acting. Keanu's role, Bob Arctor, is heavily drugged throughout the movie and has little idea what is going on. He is in a permanent state of mild puzzlement.

Keanu Reeves was typecast.

you see no difference in the acting skills and range of Keanu vs., say, Johnny Depp?

No, I made a general statement, and intelligent people automatically realize that there are exceptions to every stated rule, and don't cherry pick an extreme example and hold that up in a logically fallacious manner.

hello.

let me refresh your memory.

you said:

He doesn't seem better or worse than any other big name actor in Hollywood these days.

don't try to bullshit me, simply because you were the one making poorly thought out generalizations.

otherwise, we could explore every "big name actor" you wish and compare their skills against Keanu's.

Depp is hardly an exception, or an extreme example.

Depp is hardly an exception, or an extreme example.

...

ok, so at least not an exception.

Anyone else notice that Will Smith's kid is in it? That young lad is fast getting quite a little acting resume under his belt.

Let's all remember that Blade Runner was a really bad adaptation of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", but was cinimatically brilliant. Just because a movie may force a reconsideration of our views of the original work, it may be relevant in its own way.
That said, I wanted to hold down whoever the fuck it was in Hollywood who remade Psycho and make him into a suit I could wear to off other producers.

I thought it had great potential, until I found out that Keanu is not actually playing the robot.

No PZ, it's gotta be the remake of both Stranger from Venus (the 1954 British "remake" which even stars "The Day the Earth Stood Still's" Patricia Neal) and, given the sphere, 1959's The Cosmic Man with John Carradine! Yup, that's what it's gotta be. It's just gotta!

don't try to bullshit me, simply because you were the one making poorly thought out generalizations.

I didn't bullshit you, I pwned you. I reserve my bullshitting kung-fu for people that matter and I respect enough to bullshit properly, not some obsessive ass on a message board.

And if I did fancy bullshitting you, I most assuredly don't need your permission.

"Now I'm done with you." -- Levine in Glengarry Glen Ross

I didn't bullshit you, I pwned you.

LOL

how old are you?
12?

(btw, to utilize that term -pwnage- accurately, you actually have to be correct about something)

"Now I'm done with you." -- Levine in Glengarry Glen Ross

yes, yes, run away rather than defend your idiotic generalizations.

keanu? klaatu? ...gort?

anyways, i dunno what the big deal is about the watchmen movie. i gather the comic was supposed to have been really good, but i never read it. and the movie looks kinda... not like one i'd see otherwise. but i do, however, dig that smashing pumpkins song they used.

Re Doozer #82

I can't wait for the remake of Forbidden Planet. I watched the original a few weeks ago and Leslie Neilson just wasn't funny.

...and a bad one will put the perpetrators in fear for their artistic (if not actual) lives (e.g., you should've seen the online forum posts from Heinlein fans regarding the movie version of Starship Troopers).

You're not saying we... overreacted, are you, Bill?

*polishes home-made flamethrower*

Are you? ;)

"With Guillermo Del Toro working on At the Mountains of Madness, I can't see what any of you are complaining about."

It'll be brilliant...if he ever gets around to actually filming it.

"There is also a Cthulu movie coming out."

If you mean the b&w silent Cthulhu film, it's already out (and pretty good, as far as it goes). If you mean the Tori Spelling one...yeah, some people have already seen it. The one-word review I've mostly seen is "shit" (despite Tori already having the Innsmouth Look). I'm honestly not sure it's possible to make a truly frightening and effective cinematic version of "The Call of Cthulhu."

"I can't wait for the remake of Forbidden Planet. I watched the original a few weeks ago and Leslie Neilson just wasn't funny."

Heheheheh, that's a good one. Remaking "Forbidden Planet"...I chortle!

Holster that flamethrower, pilgrim!

You're not saying we... overreacted, are you, Bill?

I lack evidence on the point, since I never saw the movie. As I recall, fannish indignation over the desecration of the Master's work was more or less matched by the mundane disdain of mainstream critics. Plus which, my main movie date — my lovely bride — has never been much into hyperviolent films.

I was only trying to describe the level of passion, not discredit it.

Actually. Psycho remake was kind of interesting in trying to be shot-for-shot identical to the original. In a way trying to preserve Hitchcock's direction but with new actors (and color film). But, being an "interesting" concept does not mean it is good. After all, if you are matching it exactly then why not just watch the original? What is the point? Maybe if the original was full of bad performances, but I don't think that can be said about Psycho. So, yes, I agree, whoever greenlighted that should be filing the clippings from the cutting room floor.

Just playing, Bill. I was one of those frothing at the mouth, and I tend to like Verhoven when he makes ultraviolent satire (Robocop was excellent in this vein). Troopers never seemed to be good fodder for that. Using to make a statement about fascism seem to many to be missing the point, not to mention that the entire book is about the controlled, rather than wanton, use of force.

If the source had been ripe for satire, maybe the movie would have worked. Heinlein wrote some real crap that could easily be worked that way. Most of us fans thought Troopers made its point without opening itself to that kind of commentary, though. That, and the screenwriters admitted to never having read the book. That produced just a touch of anger and derision. Just a bit. A smidge.

Given that the original was already a bastardisation of "Farewell to the Master" by Harry Bates, I honestly don't see how it could be made any worse.

I realise that this is heretical, but anyone here who watched the movie might be interested to read the original, which can be found here:

http://thenostalgialeague.com/olmag/bates.html

LOL how old are you? 12?

(WARNING! IRONY METER ABOUT TO EXPLODE!)

Ah. The age question. The final refuge of the intellectually bankrupt. Oh well.

yes, yes, run away rather than defend your idiotic generalizations.

Yes, because it's so important to debate the general skill level of Hollywood actors with obsessive compulsive asses online.

There, there, Ichthy. Don't cry. I was just pushing your very large and clearly labeled buttons. Now, wipe those tears, get over your tiny self, and have a juice box.

http://eatsoba.net/images/juicebox.jpg

Kseniya:

Bill: Pronunciation thing.

I won't use up anymore OT space on this, but thanks for the very detailed answer.

Ranson:

Just playing, Bill.

No worries; that's how I took it.

I was one of those frothing at the mouth,

You weren't by any chance on the Heinlein Forum (which started on Prodigy back in the early 90s, and has had various incarnations since), were you? You and I may have shared the same pixel space before. (You would've known me as "JovBill" in that world.)

Troopers never seemed to be good fodder for [ultraviolent satire]. ...the entire book is about the controlled, rather than wanton, use of force.

Yah, I've always thought Troopers was a misunderstood book. I remember that Haldeman's Forever War (now there's a book that would make an interesting movie) was widely thought of as a "peacenik" reply to the so-called militarism of Troopers. Of course, Haldeman himself has always been a Heinlein fan, and he's often said he thinks of his book as more of an homage than a rejoinder.

Of course, it's not surprising that war novels from a WWII veteran, on the one hand, and a Vietnam vet, on the other, would have slightly different takes on the experience of combat... but to me the two books have more shared themes than contradictory ones: They're both coming-of-age stories; they're both about the physical, emotional, and even moral challenges faced by young people in (or training for) combat; they're both about the curious mix of responsibility and distance inherent in the relationship between soldiers and the civil societies they serve.... Well, this isn't a lit-crit forum, but I've always thought the meme of "Heinlein was a fascist, and Troopers is the proof" was rankest BS.

It occurs to me that my references to "Haldeman" in my last may require some clarification for non-SF fans: That's Joe Haldeman, Vietnam vet, war poet, and award-winning SF author, not H.R. Haldeman, noted Watergate conspirator and obstructor of justice.

Just so's ya' know.

I didn't frequent that forum, but I've spent enough time on others to get the general idea. I've seen the Forever War comparison you put forth before, and I see it as pretty spot on. Again, when you get right down to it, it's a comparison of vantage points from those who fought in very different wars.

As for the fascist meme, I think it was Spider Robinson who did the best takedown on that one. I think it might have been published in Requiem. I'll have to look it up. What amuses me most, though, is that Heinlein wrote Troopers in the middle of writing Stranger. He's a facist hippie, I tells ya!

One movie I would like to see remade is "Forbidden Planet". It is one of my favorites and was so ahead of its time when it came out. However, it is dated by its portrayal of an all-white male crew, and in the 22nd or 23rd century, does anybody really believe that an intergalactic space craft is going to have a cook looking to get his hands on some genuine Kansas City bourbon?

...and in the 22nd or 23rd century, does anybody really believe that an intergalactic space craft is going to have a cook looking to get his hands on some genuine Kansas City bourbon?

I thought that was the most believable part of the movie. :-)

No, really. Or were you commenting on the Kansas City part vs. say Kentucky Bourbon? (I'm not much of a bourbon drinker)

As for the fascist meme, I think it was Spider Robinson who did the best takedown on that one.

I'm guessing this essay — which takes down not only that meme, but a whole range of specious anti-Heinlein cant — is what you have in mind. I'm not blind to RAH's faults, mind you, and I don't put him on quite as high a pedestal as Spider (an unreconstructed pot-smoking hippie, BTW) does, but this is great stuff, I agree.

While looking that up, I noted Spider's response to the "accusation" that Heinlein was a patriot. It's an apt point to ponder during this campaign, when the warmongering right wing are calling into question the patriotism of Democrats and liberals from top to bottom:

"Anyone who sneers at patriotism--and continues to live in the society whose supporters he scorns--is a parasite, a fraud, or a fool. Often all three.

"Patriotism does not mean that you think your country is perfect, or blameless, or even particularly likeable on balance; nor does it mean that you serve it blindly, go where it tells you to go and kill whom it tells you to kill. It means that you are committed to keeping it alive and making it better, that you will do whatever seems necessary (up to and including dying) to protect it whenever you, personally, perceive a mortal threat to it, military or otherwise. This is something to be ashamed of?"

does anybody really believe that an intergalactic space craft is going to have a cook looking to get his hands on some genuine Kansas City bourbon?

Why not? Wait... what happens to Kansas City? What are you hiding? What do you know??? :)

Maybe in the future Kansas City is a gigantic arcology, and the center of bourbon production for the whole human empire. He who controls the bourbon controls the universe!

I think the original Forbidden Planet holds up quite well. Remaking it simply to extend the palette of the cast seems a bit pointless. Besides, the thing was a loose adaption of The Tempest. You could just make a different SF film based on that and take that in a lot of different directions.

@Bill

Yup, that was it. A good piece overall. And I agree, it's not like the man was perfect, but I think it's far better to judge him by his nonfiction writing than his fiction. His articles about his experiences in the Soviet Union explain a lot about his attitudes, as does the book Tramp Royale. Take Back Your Government, while offering advice largely irrelevant in modern politics, has a great introduction on the need for involvement. Add to that his commentary on his own works, from things like Expanded Universe, and a more relevant picture can be gleaned than just by reading the fiction itself. I'm not saying I agree with everything he said; I'm saying that it makes his perspective far easier to understand.

As Supreme Bombast of the Sci-Fi League for Cinematographic and Filmic Integrity, I'll issue a fatwa condemning this heresy, demanding that the plans be scrapped, and calling for the heretics to repent. They might as well push a nail through a frame of the original neg and throw it in the trash with banana peels and coffee grounds. It's at least as bad as genocide and terrism, I tells ya!

Four of my computers are called gort, klaatu, barada, and nikto. I may have to rename them after this sacrilegious desecration.

Yes, because it's so important to debate the general skill level of Hollywood actors with obsessive compulsive asses online.

you mean, exactly as important as bringing up in the first place, you moronic little twit?

Just to be a dick,
The Badastronomer already made this announcement a year ago.
Sorry if someone else has already brought that up in the comments above.

Lti,

We were just waiting for someone relevant to bring it up.