Can The Day the Earth Stood Still succeed?
December 8th, 2008 by MayFilmmakers are always on the look-out for good stories. Producers are always on the look-out for financial success. Sometimes the opposing sides go for a lazy compromise: remake! Why not redo a proven success, only bigger and better?
In the last decade it’s been especially popular to update movies from the 50s, 60s and 70s, usually with elements of sci-fi, horror and fantasy. The problem is that the remakes are usually much worse than the originals. Only a few manage to rise to the original’s level, let alone surpass it.
So for those of you who feel nauseated at the sound of the word “Remake” and for those of you who’ve already bought your tickets to The Day the Earth Stood Still, we’ll try to determine once and for all which are better – originals or remakes!
10. Planet of the Apes (1968) vs. Planet of the Apes (2001)
Tim Burton’s much anticipated version of this movie (yep, even he got tempted…) proves that sometimes it’s better not to fix what’s not broken. While the original version is highly acclaimed by critics and even got into IMDb’s top 250, Burton’s version got bad reviews and even “won” the Razzie award for worst remake of the year. After such a bad critical reaction, the studio abandoned the idea of making a sequel, even though the movie was a financial success.
Winner: Planet of the Apes (1968)
9. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) vs. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)
Although the original was strongly criticized for its violent, gory content and was even banned in some countries, it’s still considered one of the best and most influential horror films of all time. The remake, however, was not well accepted among the critics, with only 35% fresh reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Nevertheless, financially the remake was a success and a prequel was made 3 years later. Our bet: watch out for a third installment…
Winner: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)
8. The Time Machine (1960) vs. The Time Machine (2002)
Both films are based on H.G. Wells’ sci-fi novel The Time Machine. But while the original 1960 version got decent reviews (76% at Rotten Tomatoes) and won an Oscar for special effects, the more modern version got a terrible 28% and wasn’t a big box office hit. The fact that the remake’s director, Simon Wells, is H.G. Wells’ great grandson did not prevent this movie’s failure. We guess Wells senior got restless in his grave…
Winner: The Time Machine (1960)
7. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) vs. The Invasion (2007)
Among remakes that were complete flops compared to their predecessors, The Time Machine is almost insignificant compared to this catastrophic remake. Invasion of the Body Snatchers is considered a true masterpiece among critics and general audiences alike. In 1993 it was selected for preservation by the National Film Registry of USA and in 2008 the American Film Institute granted it 9th place in the best sci-fi films made in America ever. The remake, however, was panned by critics and only made back about half its budget.
Winner: Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), big time!
6. Dawn of the Dead (1978) vs. Dawn of the Dead (2004)
In this case the remake is not as disastrous as others on the list – the 2004 version got fairly good reviews and was one of the only zombie films to gross over $100 million around the world. But all of this is nothing compared to the original version by George A. Romero, which is considered by many to be one of the best horror films ever made. And consider the financial success of the original movie, whose budget was only $650,000. It grossed over $55 million worldwide. There is no doubt as to who is the winner.
Winner: Dawn of the Dead (1978)
5. War of the Worlds (1953) vs. War of the Worlds (2005)
This is a case of close call between the movies, as both of them generally got positive reviews and similar user ratings on various sites. The original movie won an Oscar for special effects and was 1953’s biggest sci-fi hit. The 2005 version was the biggest financial hit Steven Spielberg had known since Saving Private Ryan (1998) and was the 4th most successful movie of 2005.
Winner: We’d have to say it’s a tie.
4. The Omen (1976) vs. The Omen (2006)
Yet another horror flick that was remade 30 years later. The original one makes it to the top of scariest movie moments and got generally good reviews. The 2006 remake is treated as nothing more than a mediocre horror film that can’t be compared to the original. Even financially, the remake could not top the box office earnings of the original movie 30 years earlier.
Winner: The Omen (1976)
3. Little Shop of Horrors (1960) vs. Little Shop of Horrors (1986)
After such a long list of remake failures one cannot help but wonder – is it even possible for a remake to outdo the original? The next movie proves that it’s possible, although not common. The original 1960 film was a very funny and highly acclaimed movie with a small yet unforgettable turn by Jack Nicholson. But the musical version of 1986 is the one we all know and love today – it became a cult hit and got 91% good reviews at Rotten Tomatoes. Interestingly enough, this is also the only remake in the list that was not made during the 21st century. Is it possible filmmakers forgot how to create good remakes over the decades…?
Winner: Little Shop of Horrors (1986)
2. The Poseidon Adventure (1972) vs. Poseidon (2006)
The story of a ship that flips over just calls out for up-to-date special effects. Shouldn’t be too hard, right? Wrong! The original Poseidon was a huge box office hit, the second most profitable film of 1972 after The Godfather. It was nominated for several Oscars, and won 2. Maybe the fact that the actors were considered very good made the difference, because the 2006 remake had impressive special effects but nothing more. The remake was nominated for a Razzie in the worst remake category and barely covered its costs. The producers should have learned from the failure of the original’s sequel…
Winner: The Poseidon Adventure (1972)
1. The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) vs. The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)
Examining the list so far, it doesn’t look too promising for the up and coming new remake. Casting Keanu Reeves isn’t encouraging either… We want to apologize to the producers for not offering this detailed study before they decided on spending $100 million with success odds as low as winning a Vegas roulette… This remake will have an especially hard time since the original is highly acclaimed, ranked 7th in Arthur C. Clarke’s List of the Best Science-Fiction Films of All Time, just above 2001: A Space Odyssey. The film was also selected for preservation by the National Film Registry of the United States and appears in IMDb’s top 250 films. Let’s hope that this remake will be a turning point, and mark a new era of high quality remakes that surpass their originals.
Winner: Too soon to tell, but you’re welcome to watch and report back!
Unconvinced? Search for yourself on Jinni:
Remake * Sci-fi * Horror * Fantasy * Disaster * Classic * Blockbuster * Boys’ night * Critically acclaimed * 50s * 60s * 70s * Based on a book * Masterpiece * Oscar winner * Musical * Time travel* Androids and robots* Zombie* Space and aliens
Popularity: 42% [?]
December 9th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
the 70s version on invasion of the body snatchers is better than either the 56 or 07.
Add a reply
December 10th, 2008 at 1:10 am
I feel it’s a real pity for the 2002 version of the Time Machine, since it’s a good film, and i actually seen it by accident just a few weeks after seeing the original. I think it updates the plot and the effects where needed and that’s all.
So no there’s nothing new,really. But…IT’S A REMAKE! so there shouldn’t be anything really new and original.
Add a reply
December 10th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Just one more thing… the 2005 war of the world was abysmal!
Add a reply
December 10th, 2008 at 2:19 am
I couldn’t agree more!
I love the new version, thought it was very well-made. I really cannot understand why it is considered such a flop. maybe it’s just nostalgia?
Add a reply
December 10th, 2008 at 4:15 am
It was pants, watched it last night and all i can say is… why should everything have to have an environmental message, i know it’s current and speaks of what we’re going through but really… we don’t need to be preached to by a film, what has happened to being entertained by films?
Also they couldnt have chosen a better person to play the alien, Reeves can do wooden and deadpan better than any other actor out there. Just take this one with a pinch of salt. This film does not, unfortunately, mark any turning point in film remaking… We’ll have to wait!
Add a reply
December 10th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
I couldnt agree with you more,Dmoney..the 70’s version of
” Body Snatchers ” blows the 50’s version away. Kevin Mccarthy makes a cameo in it, which kinda makes it feel as if he’s been running for help for 20 years. The early 90’s version isnt bad, if only for the veryyy creepy Meg Tilly and her ” where ya gonna go, where ya gonna hide ” monologue. But nothing can Match the end scene of the 70’s version, with Donald Sutherland ratting on Veronica Cartwright, who’s terror-wracked face in those final seconds makes the movie unforgettable!!
Add a reply
December 10th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
DO NOT DISRESPECT A CLASSIC. DON SIEGEL’S VERSION OF INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS IS STILL THE BEST AND WILL ALWAYs BE BECAUSE NONE OF THE OTHER FILMS CAN CLAIM ORIGINALITY. IT IS UNFAIR TO JUDGE A FILM FROM THE 50s BY THE SPECIAL-EFFECTS STANDARDS OF THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY. AND YET THE EFFX OF THE ORIGINAL INVASION NEED NO APOLOGY — THE PODS THAT GROW INTO PEOPLE ARE GRISLY AND MEMORABLE. KEVIN MCCARTHY AND DANA WYNTER ARE GREAT. THE FILM WAS SO FRIGHTENING THAT THE PRODUCERS ADDED A PROLOGUE AND EPILOGUE TO GIVE IT A HAPPY ENDING. A GREAT FILM THAT REVERBERATES THROUGH TIME
Add a reply
December 12th, 2008 at 6:04 am
I can’t imagine that the coming remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still will be any good. The main reason for this is the horrible casting choice…honestly, Keanu Reeves? I think Kevin Spacey would make a great Klaatu, but the potential for jokes/comparisons surrounding that abysmal K-PAX movie would be far too great.
Add a reply
December 12th, 2008 at 7:45 am
I am going to see the remake of Day the Earth Stood Still but I don’t hold out much hope for it being good. Keanu should have played Gort.
Add a reply
December 12th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
I am undecided on seeing this remake but there are two ways to really look at it. It may be better but is hollywood just trying to bang out a film because they know they are going to make a good profit on it or are they just being lazy? Besides a select few, I have not been impressed by anything hollywood calls cinema in a long time.
Add a reply
December 12th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I saw “The Day The Earth Stood Still” remake today!
HATED IT!
Plot, weak and full of holes!
Acting weak, over the top, and not believable!
Special Effects, CHEESY! (Bring back the man in the GORT SUIT!)
Add a reply
December 13th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
i saw the remake. Klaatu wasn’t very good. I liked the movie all in all though. i should have waited till it came out on dvd though
Add a reply
December 13th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
I dont know why time machine (2002) is viewed as such a bad movie. i love it personally, especially the soundtrack. Yes the plot is a bit fragmented and the whole last third of the movie was kind of cobbled together, but the first half was amazing. the scene in the time machine as it travels through the ice age is one of the most memorable scenes i have ever viewed. its definitely on my top 10 most under-rated films.
I dont think i will go see this remake, but i think i might get it off netflix later
Add a reply
December 13th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
saw TDTESS remake on opening night… there were things about it I would have done differently, but I could say this about most movies I’ve seen. they went a bit overboard making Gort so big. Keanu’s stiff acting worked out for him in this film. I enjoyed it and plan to add it to my collection (which includes the original) as soon as it’s out on DVD. as for the other remakes… eh, hit and miss. I didn’t think Planet of the Apes was so bad and enjoyed War of the Worlds, but I couldn’t even begin to explain how disappointed I was in Invasion.
Add a reply
December 14th, 2008 at 1:41 am
The day the earth stood still (2008) turned out better than I expected it to. The size and power of Gort was just awesome, though his existence was not explained, and, seriously, he was made of nano bugs? There were definitely a few humorous puns referencing the first movie that I caught. And the “the environment is in danger” message has been too overplayed lately as well as the “love changes everything”. Keanu also really really sucks at speaking chinese…
Add a reply
December 14th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Although not what I expected it was still an entertaining movie.
Corey Cotta, Author of All of Yesterdays Tomorrows.
Add a reply
December 15th, 2008 at 6:14 am
I couldn’t agree more, Hollywood is now a fat lazy cat; that just keeps regurgitating remake/franchise furballs. I haven’t been to the cinema since Dark Knight came out in the UK, perhaps morbidly; because of the death of Heath Ledger and all the raves about his performance.
Add a reply
December 15th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Of course the movie will be bad. It seems all Movie Company Execs are just trying to rehash old movies or jumping on the comic book bandwagon. Leave old movies alone and come up with brand new movies. And you forgot Charlie and The Chocolare Factory. That was a turn for me. Maybe its becauuse I grew up with the original one. But still leave the Classics alone and don’t be greedy thinking you can just redue one and think you will hit gold again.
Add a reply
December 15th, 2008 at 9:49 am
“with success odds as low as winning a Vegas roulette… ”
What, you mean odds which vary with every outing and can be up to 1:1? Either someone sucks at similes, sucks at math, or has never played roulette.
Add a reply
December 17th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
caps lock….
Add a reply
December 17th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
The day the earth stood still 08 was ok, I wouldnt pay to go see it….and I didnt. I love Torrents.
Add a reply
December 17th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I have to say as a huge zombie movies fan, Dawn of the Dead both versions were amazingly well done! The newer version was a very different movie and I think its a shame that they even have the same name because they are really not the same movie. If the later version had a different name it would have gained much greater praise than it did. Both are favorites of mine…though I have to say that the newer version has some amazingly great scenes that the older version never even though of. Two words for you - Burt Reyonalds!!
Add a reply
December 21st, 2008 at 7:01 pm
There is a clear message in this movie which majority of people will not understand.
If you read what David Icke talks about and watch an interview done with Alex Collier, you will gain a better understanding.
In conclusion, there are greater forces in this galaxy that don’t like what we are doing to this planet. If we don’t change, on an individual and then global level. Then we will get eliminated like the movie portrayed.
Furthermore, all these movies that people claim as sci-fi have a lot of truth in it or possibility at least.
Add a reply
January 9th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
You thought War of the Worlds was a tie. The remake sucked and the original is good. Just because it made a lot of money means nothing, people liked the original and that is the only reason they went to see it, most people left that movie thinking….this sucks balls
Add a reply
January 10th, 2009 at 7:10 am
The Day the Earth Stood Still: Remakes are almost always a little interesting even if only to see what the producers thought they could improve on…with that thought, the remake with Reeves and Jon Hamm is a so so film at best and the script changes were not for the best…the actors are all OK-except of course, Reeves,(who couldn’t act his way out of a wet paper bag most of the time),and the effects are nothing to remember after the closing credits. The original had an impact on an entire generation of film and sci-fi buffs;the remake may eventually make it’s costs back and that’s about it.
Winner: The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)
Add a reply
January 16th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
I havent seen the new “day the earth stood still” yet, but considering that I agree with everything i see here (although i still give the older war of the worlds the win) I guess im probably gonna dislike the new version, probably wont see it till it i can rent it on dvd lol
Add a reply
February 16th, 2009 at 3:07 am
Remake or not, I have yet to see Hollywood make a movie based on a book that actually has anything more in common with the book than the title and maybe the names of some of the characters. BOTH versions of The Time Machine and War of the Worlds completely destroyed both the meaning and the message of Wells’ original works.
I believe that this is because H.G. Wells was a utopian socialist and Hollywood did not want to portray his “commie” message. The book “The Time Machine”, for example, postulated very clearly that the reason humanity divided into Eloi and Morlocks was that the Eloi were the brainless descendants of “the idle rich” and the Morlocks were the starving descendants of the “worker wage slaves”. On top of this, millennia of dependence on technology devolved both sub-races to the point where both Eloi and Morlocks were far weaker both physically and intellectually than people from our era. Thousands of years of evolution did the rest. The message is clear: this is what dependence on technology and the aristocracy of institutionalised greed will reduce the human race to. But such messages are poisonous to the Hollywood bourgoisie, so they had to mangle the story out of all recognition by coming up with stupid and pointless reasons for the Eloi/Morlock divergence. Nor could they accept the book’s premise that humanity had lost its intelligence: in the book, the Eloi were little more than pretty, fattened cattle and had only very basic, subsistence-centric communication, and the Morlocks did not demonstrate communication to the reader at all. Yet both movies portray the Eloi with a level of intelligence, and the Morlocks with a malevolent strength, that Wells did not attribute to them in making the very points that the movies deny!
For other Hollywood book/movie abominations, the motive for change is usually the artsy directors looking to put their own ingredients into the recipe. But the end result is the same: a movie that is nothing like the book. To see a movie based on a book that actually follows the book and preserves its message, meaning, story and dialogue, you need to look outside Hollywood. Two examples of near-perfect book-to-film conversions that spring to my mind are Michael Radford’s 1984 production of George Orwell’s ‘1984′, and the 1971 BBC mini-series ‘The Day of the Triffids’. The latter stands out as a notable contrast between the Hollywood cineaste and the BBC - try this little exercise, if you can find them all: 1) Read John Wyndham’s original book “The Day of the Triffids”. 2) Then watch the 1950s Hollywood bastardisation. 3) Then watch the 1971 BBC miniseries, with the book in your hand. You’ll see EXACTLY what I’m talking about!
Hollywood can’t turn a book into a film to save their collective bank accounts.
Add a reply
February 25th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Is there a post on any upcoming movies for 2009?
Add a reply
March 15th, 2009 at 10:48 am
i totally not agree with this.
Add a reply