MovieChat Forums > The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008) Discussion > Why did they feel the need to Remake thi...

Why did they feel the need to Remake this classic?


that's the real question. Why did they feel the need to Remake this classic?
to use the new special effects technology? The Casting Director should have been fired. Poor Casting all around, every single role.

reply

Only the little kid was bad casting for me. All the other roles were decently played. Keanu Reeves isn't the best actor in the world, but he's tailor-made to play an emotionless alien (since he so rarely shows emotion in any of his roles). Unfortunately, he lacks the sheer charisma of Michael Rennie who played the original Klaatu. If they got rid of the kid, and had more of an emotional interaction between Klaatu and Helen, this film would have been far better than it was....though perhaps still not on par with the fabulous 1951 original.

reply

Jaden Smith is sure fire movie killer. I agree, Keanu was perfect for the role but it just had a lame plot and dialogue

reply

I'd think that an "emotionless alien" wouldn't have charisma. Charisma comes from having emotions, I'd think.

reply

Don't necessarily agree. I think Leonard Nimoy had great charisma, but he was emotionless as Spock.

SpiltPersonality

reply

No.

"Charisma is a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader."


An emotionless alien can still have charisma.

reply

The kid was bad casting and if there was ever a kid that needed the snot slapped out of him, it was this one. He has no respect for anyone. I am sorry he lost his dad, but I lost mine too and I was never a little twerp like this one. The movie was average, the first one was the best. I missed KLATU BURADA NIKTO.

reply

ok, imagie your not a cinefile, and imagine (if necessary) that you are under the age of 30, 40 even. Now imagine watching a slow paced sci-fi film with what you see are bad special effects, sped-up film, and out-dated dialogue and plot points that are now taken for granted. Using this as a basis, it is understandable to find it difficult to look past these points, and thats without a modern cinema goer having to research in to the history of the ra to get why its so good.

I'm not a big fan of remakes, but i do see one major advanatage to them, they make them accessible to a newer audience. why leave a story to stagnate and only be watched by a select few, when the story can be retreaded.

Jurassic Park is basically a remake, its frankenstein, man creates life. but because it was updated for a modern audience, with shiny lights, and a new monster, thats forgotten. Story's need to be retold, they entertain the people of the time and bring about knowledge of the original. I bet alot of people have seen originals of films that have been remade than other films that haven't which went onto similar critical or commercial success (the only exception being if they were on MST3K)

reply

I have to disagree with you, sootyswoop. I saw the original about a year before the remake came out, and I found it to be excellent. I believe I am a good test-case, because I am under 40 (but over 30), and while I am a Science Fiction fan and a cinephile, if anything, these last two points would have hurt my perception of the original. Many of the Sci-Fi classics from the 50's are dreadfully creaky, in my opinion; I can appreciate them for what they were, but they do not compare to the greats from the 70's and 80's (probably the best Sci-Fi era, overall, IMO), not to mention the greats from 1990 on. The original Day the Earth Stood Still, by comparison, has pretty decent special effects (I can find little fault with them, really), good acting, a tight, suspenseful story, and low in the 50's campy factor.

reply

[deleted]

In 1951 people littered and polluted the ocean and all that. The movie was a wake up call to take care of the world. Today, people still treat the world like *beep* The message needed to be sent twice.

reply

The first movie had nothing to do with pollution.

In many ways the Earth is better off now than in 1951. The quality of city air, for example, is much better now.

reply


The original is the best science fiction film ever made (so far!), the remake was a pile of fetid dingoes kidneys!

I plan to live forever, or die trying

reply

Remakes of old films can serve very important functions--namely bringing an idea or concept to the awareness of a modern audience. Because really, how many teens and young adults of my generation had seen the 1951 masterpeice before this remake came out? No one I knew(my age) had even heard of it.

For what it's worth, this film had a good start. I even like Keanu Reeves in it(and I generally haven't liked him in anything i've watched). I can even understand why the minds behind this remake would want to change elements of the original in order to keep the premise modern and relatable in the current era. The fact that the second half of the movie began to spiral downwards really was a shame--especially when the beginning was so promising and the original source material was so inspired.

As a remake goes, it was a really sad waste of potential. As a stand alone film, it was OKAY, but still failed to deliver all the opening scene promised. I really hate it when good ideas aren't executed properly.


"Like most hearts, it was complicated, shaded with dark and dappled with light."—Dicamillo

reply

I agree with you, louisvalenzuela. The thing that bothers me the most about this film is that they changed the whole thrust of the original film, and in doing so, changed pretty much everything about it that I liked. I gave this film the lowest rating I have ever given a film on this website. What a colossal waste of
money! In doing a re-make of any film, the producers should consider why the original film is a beloved classic in the first place. Then they stand a chance of doing a real "update" instead of a hack job. Obviously, the producers of this film did not understand why the original is so well-liked. This new version is almost a parody of the original.

reply

Why is any movie remade today? it's not to tell the story better, it's not to improve on anything, it's because any movie coming out will make money, they use a famous title to attract even more people, and from there it's just 'oh look, more big (albeit crappy) effects, more top name stars, oh it'll be good, never mind we have no plot'.

reply

The need to remake is purely about money. I'm sure they thought that they could improve on the story with the special effects and whatever attempts they made to modernize or alter the story. I thought that casting was ok, except for the young boy-- maybe the latter could have something to do also with the way the young boy's part was written too.

But the storyline was so much a one note, stripped down tale as compared with the original. It's too bad too as I thought that if they kept the story close to as written or had the been able to improve on it, that the modern effects might have made it all the more exciting.

reply