The Day The Earth Stood Still-- Remake

[Styphon]

When you massively alter the majority of the story, it goes from remake to insult. Godzilla fans who remember the 1998 Tristar travesty can vouch for this fact.

[Singular Intellect]

The robots were a supposedly unnacountable authority that operated according to some constitution, and seemed to have stupendously far reaching powers.

IIRC, the censorship laws at the time the original was made, didn't allow scenes where law enforcement officers were portrayed negatively, e.g., stymied (the criminal gets away with murder and other crimes) or corrupt. The people THEN might buy the idea that Gort and his breathren are incorruptible and, therefore, can be held unaccountable by those they're supposed to protect. The people NOW are too damn cynical to buy the "incorruptible" part, thanks to too many news reports on dirty cops, and too many sci-fi stories on "good" robots that harm humans due to a design/manufacturing error or outright reprogramming by the villain. They will NOT accept the idea that we're supposed to surrender all our means of aggression (which we'll see as means of self-defense, as with the controversy over gun control in the US) and submit to a power that's unaccountable to us, trusting that this power will protect us and NOT abuse its position.

You know who doesn't give a shit?

Me.

Seriously, the very idea of this remake is an abomination, as far as I'm concerned. If I had my way, the writers and producers and funders would have cause to get out of the film-making business right the hell now. I'll clarify things about the original, which was a pretty much perfect film, especially for its time, but don't expect me to endorse the remake. I don't care what a modern audience expects a new version to be like, because I disapprove of the very idea of a remake.

ON NOES! SOMEONE IS DARING TO TAKE CREATIVE LICENCE WITH A OLDER FILM I REALLY ENJOYED! IF I HAD MY WAY ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS EFFORT WOULD BE FIRED, BECAUSE I PERSONALLY DON'T LIKE IT!! AND ANYONE ELSE WHO MIGHT ENJOY THIS FLICK SHOULD GO FUCK THEMSELVES FOR DARING TO SUPPORT THIS BLASPHEMY!!

You'd make an excellent fundie, I must say.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

When you massively alter the majority of the story, it goes from remake to insult.

There's nothing inherently wrong with making significant changes when doing an adaptation or remake.

It's just that all too frequently, many of those changes end up being bad ones.

[Sidewinder]

Is it really a remake if they alter large parts of the story? That what it looks like they did here.

By Hollywood's standards, it's a remake as long as the studio that's remaking an old film has the rights to the original. Not that it matters, considering how often studios plagiarize each others' work (Anyone remember a 'Star Wars' ripoff called 'The Humanoid', with Richard Kiel?).

[NecronLord]

ON NOES! SOMEONE IS DARING TO TAKE CREATIVE LICENCE WITH A OLDER FILM I REALLY ENJOYED! IF I HAD MY WAY ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS EFFORT WOULD BE FIRED, BECAUSE I PERSONALLY DON'T LIKE IT!! AND ANYONE ELSE WHO MIGHT ENJOY THIS FLICK SHOULD GO FUCK THEMSELVES FOR DARING TO SUPPORT THIS BLASPHEMY!!

You'd make an excellent fundie, I must say.

Go fuck themselves? No, that would be enjoyable. They should flagellate themselves with barbed wire, and be compelled to burn all their possessions on a big bonfire. For their heresy.

[NecronLord]

Good. Then I'd get my money's worth for once.

You want a nearly 200-year-long film for $10?

Well, you could probably make some software to randomise human faces as Gort zaps them, and then run it in a perpetual loop...

[Molyneux]

When you massively alter the majority of the story, it goes from remake to insult.

There's nothing inherently wrong with making significant changes when doing an adaptation or remake.

It's just that all too frequently, many of those changes end up being bad ones.

If the person doing the remake uses the original title, and the creator of the first is still around...you don't see any ethical problem with making significant changes?

A parody is one thing. Riding the coattails of a well-loved earlier film, while taking liberties with what MADE it well-loved, is another. Remember "Starship Troopers"?

[Spanky The Dolphin]

When you massively alter the majority of the story, it goes from remake to insult.

There's nothing inherently wrong with making significant changes when doing an adaptation or remake.

It's just that all too frequently, many of those changes end up being bad ones.

If the person doing the remake uses the original title, and the creator of the first is still around...you don't see any ethical problem with making significant changes?

First of all, directly concerning The Day the Earth Stood Still, the director isn't still around: Robert Wise died three years ago.

Secondly, of course there's no ethical problem--Good Lord they're just movies. It's simply an issue of quality, and I'll repeat that there's nothing inherently wrong with making broad changes when remaking or adapting a source; it's only when such alternations prove to be bad do you see people complain from a reasonable perspective (beyond the pedantic "WTF they made the TARDIS windows too big!").

You really don't see people complain over how different Dreamworks' The Prince of Egypt is compared to either of Cecil B. DeMille's versions of The Ten Commandments. Or how John Carpenter's The Thing differs greatly from Howard Hawks' The Thing From Another World. Or how Planet of the Apes only uses basic elements of Pierre Boule's The Monkey Planet. Or how David Cronenberg's The Fly has a completely different primary plot point than the original film. Or how different The Day the Earth Stood Still itself is from its source novella "Farewell to the Master." Hell, most viewers consider the fact that the new Battlestar Galactica is vastly different from the original series to be one of its most positive assets.

So really there's nothing wrong with making big changes in a remake, as long as they're good ones.

[Molyneux]

There's nothing inherently wrong with making significant changes when doing an adaptation or remake.

It's just that all too frequently, many of those changes end up being bad ones.

If the person doing the remake uses the original title, and the creator of the first is still around...you don't see any ethical problem with making significant changes?

First of all, directly concerning The Day the Earth Stood Still, the director isn't still around: Robert Wise died three years ago.

Secondly, of course there's no ethical problem--Good Lord they're just movies. It's simply an issue of quality, and I'll repeat that there's nothing inherently wrong with making broad changes when remaking or adapting a source; it's only when such alternations prove to be bad do you see people complain from a reasonable perspective (beyond the pedantic "WTF they made the TARDIS windows too big!").

You really don't see people complain over how different Dreamworks' The Prince of Egypt is compared to either of Cecil B. DeMille's versions of The Ten Commandments. Or how John Carpenter's The Thing differs greatly from Howard Hawks' The Thing From Another World. Or how Planet of the Apes only uses basic elements of Pierre Boule's The Monkey Planet. Or how David Cronenberg's The Fly has a completely different primary plot point than the original film. Or how different The Day the Earth Stood Still itself is from its source novella "Farewell to the Master." Hell, most viewers consider the fact that the new Battlestar Galactica is vastly different from the original series to be one of its most positive assets.

So really there's nothing wrong with making big changes in a remake, as long as they're good ones.

Mostly conceded, but the Howard Hawks movie was a perfect example of why taking the title of a completely different work for no more reason than name recognition CAN be unethical. The original novella, "Who Goes There?", was far more similar to the John Carpenter film, and "The Thing From Another World" has cinematic worth mostly as an unintentional comedy.