Last weekend I finally picked up this dvd. Wow! Very nice transfer and it's a good movie to boot. This was just so visionary and smart for its day and it's so obvious how much of this must have influenced Roddenberry. Not only in concepts but I also see a lot of "Requiem For Methuselah" in it as well.

Granted some of the acting sometimes comes off a bit stiff or awkward, but generally it's pretty good.

What really impressed me were the "lost footage" space and planet f/x shots. Wow! This would have fit seamlessly into a properly enhanced TOS. And this was ten freakin' years before TOS. It affirms my argument that what CBS should have done was take the lesson from the TMP DE: use contemporary resources to do the state-of-the-art of what could have been done in '66-'69 if time and money had been no object. Now that would have been a truly respectful as well as gorgeous enhancement that would have fit seamlessly alongside TOS' live-action footage.

I had heard that there was going to be a remake of Forbidden Planet. I wonder how things might be different with the new film.
Speculations anyone?

I've heard rumours of remaking the film for at least a decade now and still nothing of substance has arisen. That said I have a Syd Mead book called Sentury that has art he did of proposed ideas for a new FP film. Very cool looking in themselves.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v368/RAMA4444/ForBid-4.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v368/RAMA4444/ForBid-3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v368/RAMA4444/ForBid-2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v368/RAMA4444/ForBid-1.jpg

I had heard that there was going to be a remake of Forbidden Planet. I wonder how things might be different with the new film.
Speculations anyone?
The first thing I would do is make sure the "United Earth Ship" wasn't crewed entirely with white men. Since Comm. Adams, Jerry, and Morbius have to all be male, I'd make Doc a woman.

And I know this may be sacrilege, but I'd make sure information regarding the Krell was revealed a little more organically, rather than Morbius arbitrarily withholding, then revealing information.

And I've brought it up before, but I think Dennis Haysbert (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0371660/) would make a perfect Morbius. He has the voice, he has the presence, and he's the right age.

Oooh, good choice! One of my favorite actors whom I feel is under-utilized. Haysbert definitely has the range, too.

And I've brought it up before, but I think Dennis Haysbert (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0371660/) would make a perfect Morbius. He has the voice, he has the presence, and he's the right age.Oooh, good choice! One of my favorite actors whom I feel is under-utilized. Haysbert definitely has the range, too.I couldn't agree more. Dennis Haysbert is an actor who just needs that one "breakout" role to put him on the map.

Keep Robby the way he is! Don't "redesign" him like they did (the robot) in the Lost In Space movie! :thumbsup:

Love Robby, but he may be too 50's for a remake. I was stunned to learn in the extras on the new DVD that Robby's price tag was about $100,000.00 in 1950's dollars. WOW, that's hefty for back then.

Was that in Earth or Krel dollars?

I hope they don't.

Instead of remaking another established classic, why don't they just make something more original with their money?

I love President Palmer!


Oooh, good choice! One of my favorite actors whom I feel is under-utilized. Haysbert definitely has the range, too.

Leave Forbidden Planet alone! No one is ever going to top Walter Pigeon as Morbeus...

Instead of remaking another established classic, why don't they just make something more original with their money?

Yeah, I hate it when Hollywood messes with the classics. Take The Tempest, for example...

;)

DreamWorks/Paramount owns the remake rights to Forbidden Planet, but after numerous attempts they've been unable to come up with a decent screenplay (that is to say, one marketable enough to justify the expense of filming it).

As much as I love the thought of seeing one of my all time favorite movies remade with modern blah blah blah...I have to agree with the comments above. Why not take the money and make something wholey original and different? Oh...that's right, no originality left in HW.

j

Especially, as Carson pointed out, since The Tempest has been remade a gajillion times already anyway. Besides FP, my favorite is the one with Susan Sarandon in a wet t-shirt in Greece, and John Cassavettes in the Pidgeon role.

I can't imagine any way a FP remake is going to satisfy everyone, they shouldn't even try.

Love Robby, but he may be too 50's for a remake. I was stunned to learn in the extras on the new DVD that Robby's price tag was about $100,000.00 in 1950's dollars. WOW, that's hefty for back then.

I think that they may have thrown the costs of the vacum forming machine that MGM bought into Robby's price tag. :lol:

David.

Forbidden Planet probably wouldn't even make my Top Ten list of Sci-Fi Movie faves but I agree that it is an absolute "classic". I wouldn't want to see it remade any more than I would The Wizard of Oz. Some movies are special due very much to the period of history in which they were made. That specific alchemy can't be repeated or improved upon.

Love Robby, but he may be too 50's for a remake. I was stunned to learn in the extras on the new DVD that Robby's price tag was about $100,000.00 in 1950's dollars. WOW, that's hefty for back then.

Nice to see that they have always overcharged for anything 'computerized'.

I hope they don't.

Instead of remaking another established classic, why don't they just make something more original with their money?
Ideally this is what should be done. That said I think many of us are cynical because most remakes have sucked huge, but there have been notable exceptions. Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong was terrific IMO and if a remade Forbidden Planet were done with that level of competence then I'm sure many of us would embrace it without losing one smidgen of respect and admiration for the original.

Ideally this is what should be done. That said I think many of us are cynical because most remakes have sucked huge, but there have been notable exceptions. Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong was terrific IMO and if a remade Forbidden Planet were done with that level of competence then I'm sure many of us would embrace it without losing one smidgen of respect and admiration for the original.

Good point and one I hadn't concidered. :freak:

j

A Jackson remake of Mysterious Island with the Harper Goff Nautilus would be truly awesome.

Huzz

Although I love FORBIDDEN PLANET and see no reason for a remake (especially since it would be perceived as a STAR TREK ripoff at this time), I don't object to remakes in principle. I'm actually getting a little tired of the "why does Hollywood keep churning out remakes and sequels" talk. For a number of reasons:

1) Although an original story is a positive for a movie, a familiar one isn't a negative. We don't watch movies for story, we watch for the drama. Which means that when it comes to what makes a film work, the plot is one minor element. It is more important how the story is presented than what the story is.

2) There were three versions of THE MALTESE FALCON made within ten years. The one that is universally considered a classic is the third version. Sometimes it takes a number of tries, not to mention the talents of a John Huston and a Humphrey Bogart, to get it right.

3) There are plenty of original ideas in Hollywood. Unfortunately, writers and directors don't get to greenlight their own work. Those controlling the money have little idea what makes a movie work and so fall back on something that has a proven track record.

4) That being said, if you look at the movies playing in your city, I'll bet the majority of them are not remakes or sequels. If you live in a reasonably sized city, you could go to two or three movies a week and never see a remake.

5) That being said, remakes and sequels tend to outperform original movies, especially in the all-important opening weekend. They are easier to market, and moviegoers are more likely to see something they're familiar with than something that may challenge them.

6) What were the last five movies you saw in a theater? If more than two of them were remakes or sequels, you have no right to complain. Every ticket you buy is a vote telling Hollywood you want more of this type of movie.

It will be interesting to see how well CHILDREN OF MEN and PAN'S LABYRINTH do at the box office over the next few weeks. If they, like the FOUNTAIN, flop, you can forget about Hollywood producing more original and intelligent science fiction and fantasy films. We'll be seeing many more remakes, sequels, and dumbed-down action films. And In purely economic terms, this is a very reasonable response.

[i]Some movies are special due very much to the period of history in which they were made. That specific alchemy can't be repeated or improved upon.

Substitute the "movies" for "plays" and you'll understand while I'll never forgive MGM for updating Shakespeare. ;)

It's not about repeating or improving upon what came before; it's about taking a great story and re-telling it with a different (and one would hope more sophisticated) voice.

The trick is finding someone with the right vision to bring the story to life in a fresh way -- while at the same time remaining respectful of the "original." Needless to say, this is no easy task.

Forbidden Planet is one of my top ten sci-fi film faves, but from a strictly dramatic standpoint it has not aged particularly well.

..... It will be interesting to see how well CHILDREN OF MEN and PAN'S LABYRINTH do at the box office over the next few weeks. If they, like the FOUNTAIN, flop, you can forget about Hollywood producing more original and intelligent science fiction and fantasy films. We'll be seeing many more remakes, sequels, and dumbed-down action films. And In purely economic terms, this is a very reasonable response.


Thank you. I get tired of the "there's nothing original coming out of Hollywood" mantra too. T'ain't true.

It's not about repeating or improving upon what came before; it's about taking a great story and re-telling it with a different (and one would hope more sophisticated) voice.
Hopefully ...


Forbidden Planet is one of my top ten sci-fi film faves, but from a strictly dramatic standpoint it has not aged particularly well.

Agreed. Which is why it doesn't quite make my Top Ten.

Cars

The Fountain

Borat

Deja Vu

United 93

Babel

Happy Feet

Little Miss Sunshine

The Queen

The Good Shepherd

Hollywoodland

Yup, nuthin' good or original to see at the movies these days.

Kidding aside, most of the pictures mentioned above are indi-prods.

The major studios have come to the conclusion that making quality films based on original material is a terrible way to make money. And they're right -- at least by the current "blockbuster mentality" business model.

When the biggest movie of the year is the sequel to a film based on an amusement park ride you know you're in for stormy (computer generated) seas. And while this bodes well for Disney, I can't say I'm looking forward to "Enchanted Tiki Room: The Motion Picture."

In just the last few weeks on DVD I've watched:

An Inconveniant Truth

Feast

The Descent

A Scanner Darkly

Edmond

Incident at Loch Ness

While it's true the blockbusters and remakes tend to be a bit formulaic and forgettable, the indies are releasing some really good stuff. Low budget and off-the-beaten-path movies have got a huge shot in the arm from technology and the greater non-theater demand for new content.

One word: Apocalypto

A Scanner Darkly

Enjoyed the movie, but I was trying to list "original" works, i.e. films not based on any previously published or performed material.

Enjoyed the movie, but I was trying to list "original" works, i.e. films not based on any previously published or performed material.

Which would knock out Forbidden Planet, too. ;)

I, for one, enjoy the movie exactly as is, and I don't think the dramatic elements have aged badly. The new transfer is truly spectacular, beating the old DVD transfer hands down (which beat the crap out of the old VHS transfer).

...I can't imagine any way a FP remake is going to satisfy everyone, they shouldn't even try.
Sure, they can please everyone! Just make it a Rap musical in squiggle-vision.

Oh, yes! Let's see a remake just so they can make it politically correct--the first one is soooo insulting to modern sensibilities :freak: :D

BTW: There's a world of difference (in degree if not category) between making a sci-fi movie out of a Shakespeare play and making a remake of a sci-fi movie that was made out of a Shakespeare play.

I agree with the previous statement that remaking this classic would be like remaking the "Wizard of Oz." I'd go even further and say it'd be like remaking "The Haunting" in color with CGI effects :freak: Why even bother? :confused:

Enjoyed the movie, but I was trying to list "original" works, i.e. films not based on any previously published or performed material.

I see your point, but would still argue A Scanner Darkly is a pretty original movie. Like Cronenberg's Naked Lunch, it pretty much throws the book out the window, but still remains faithful to the author's ideas and themes.

I really liked A Scanner Darkly, it's the best anti-drug film that'd be fun to watch stoned since Altered States. And despite the trippy trappings and cast, it is a seriously anti-drug film.

I'd go even further and say it'd be like remaking "The Haunting" in color with CGI effects

Even in the crowded field of lousy remakes, that was one of the worst. I've always wondered about the decision making progress on that one:

"We need a Claire Bloom-type for Theo, let's see if Catherine Zeta Jones is available! The subtle unseen ghost were spooky as hell, so we'll have wall-to-wall poorly done CGI ghost you see all the time!"

...it's the best anti-drug film that'd be fun to watch stoned since Altered States.

:lol:
Oh, lord, that's good enough to be in a published review.
:)

I agree with the previous statement that remaking this classic would be like remaking the "Wizard of Oz." I'd go even further and say it'd be like remaking "The Haunting" in color with CGI effects :freak: Why even bother? :confused:

The Wizard of Oz was remade called "The Wiz". It starred Diana Ross. It bombed in the box office. I agree that it never should have been re-made.

At least if FP is remade there are two things I can hope for.
1) a monster that is not of gooey, slimey flesh like we see from so many movies nowadays. FP's monster is energy contained within a force field.

2) We just might get a cool model if the ship is a good looking ship. Since this ship will enter an atmosphere, let's hope the ship designer of the movie realizes some basic laws of physics and makes it aerodynamic. I can't see something like a Borg ship making a atmospheric re-entry.

My list of good,worthwhile remakes of classic Sci-Fi movies (keep in mind I'm not a Sci-Fi fanatic). Adaptations from other genres like Outland or mish-mashes of other movies like Alien don't count.

Invasion of The Body Snatchers
The Thing
The Fly



... any others that truly qualify?

My list of good,worthwhile remakes of classic Sci-Fi movies (keep in mind I'm not a Sci-Fi fanatic). Adaptations from other genres like Outland or mish-mashes of other movies like Alien don't count.

Invasion of The Body Snatchers
The Thing
The Fly



... any others that truly qualify? Ya know.....I've been sitting here for almost a half an hour and I can't think of one single re-make that is better than the first. Even those remakes of the old Flash Gordon serials are pathetic. Some are funny, like Flesh Gordon. Some are really bad but I can't think of any good remakes. With the capacity to turn out really good movies and serials like Dune, why can't an old movie be re-made better?

I have always advocated that Hollywood needs to stop being so scared of trying new stuff and try new stuff.

I'd like to see some of the better sci-fi novels be made into movies/serials such as "The Forever War", "Ringworld", "Foundation", etc.

ps. some people might think that the recent remakes of "War of the Worlds" and "King Kong" are better than the originals but I don't.

Not sci-fi, but pick your favorite:

Yojimbo
A Fistfull of Dollars
Last Man Standing

Oh, yes! Let's see a remake just so they can make it politically correct--the first one is soooo insulting to modern sensibilities :freak: :D
I don't know anyone who was suggesting that. If that's directed to my comment about having a more ethnically diverse crew, that's not political correctness, that's just being realistic. From the movie, I get the sense that "United Earth" came about by North America and Europe destroying or subjugating the rest of the world.

If anything, the original is "politically correct." Let's not suggest to the moviegoing public that in the future military people would actually be spending a year in a cramped ship with "colored people."

At least they could have made the cook Chinese! :)

If that's directed to my comment about having a more ethnically diverse crew . . .

Naw, not really--just in the most tangential manner. It seems that if Hollywood were to remake "Twelve Angry Men," they'd make half of them women. :p

The remake of Invasion of The Body Snatchers was remade recently. It sucked.

I liked the characters in the original Thing better.

Yojimbo is best but Fistful of Dollars has its moments, but the Magnificent Seven can't compare to 7 Samarai and is Unwatchable for me.

Oh, yes! Let's see a remake just so they can make it politically correct--the first one is soooo insulting to modern sensibilities.

My problems with Forbidden Planet have less to do with its Eisenhower-era politics than with its soap opera-era melodramatics. Face it, the romantic subplot between Adams and Altaira was as trite and juvenile in 1956 as it is in 2007 (a point not lost on the critics of the day).

Let's be clear; I adore F.P., and wouldn't dream of changing, enhancing or otherwise "improving" a frame of the original version. If, on the other hand, I had a clever, respectful, and commercially viable angle on how to update the material for modern audiences I wouldn't hesitate to take a crack at it.

Then again, I happen to like what Ron Moore has done with Battlestar: Galactica, so whadda I know. Curse those those gol-darned "modern sensibilities!"

My problems with Forbidden Planet have less to do with its Eisenhower-era politics than with its soap opera-era melodramatics. Face it, the romantic subplot between Adams and Altaira was as trite and juvenile in 1956 as it is in 2007 (a point not lost on the critics of the day).

Let's be clear; I adore F.P., and wouldn't dream of changing, enhancing or otherwise "improving" a frame of the original version. If, on the other hand, I had a clever, respectful, and commercially viable angle on how to update the material for modern audiences I wouldn't hesitate to take a crack at it.

Then again, I happen to like what Ron Moore has done with Battlestar: Galactica, so whadda I know. Curse those those gol-darned "modern sensibilities!"

Hey, I love BG as much as anyone could. :thumbsup: It was definitely a situation where the original material sucked and could use a new take, IMHO.

FP was aimed at a certain audience and that audience didn't care so much for the love angles as the gee-whiz sci-fi element--it was "purer" in that regard. It "fit" into the then current grade B sci-fi movie environment.

I just don't see how the original could be significantly improved upon to risk trashing its memory with a sorry remake (which is what happened in the case of "The Haunting").

Now, that being said, I would have nothing to say against someone taking "The Tempest" and coming up with their own sci-fi setting and twists and what-not. That would be a better challenge and potentially more interesting, I think.

BTW: my original comment in regards to the "modern sensibiities" was mostly in jest and not meant to rile or ruffle. :)

Now, that being said, I would have nothing to say against someone taking "The Tempest" and coming up with their own sci-fi setting and twists and what-not. That would be a better challenge and potentially more interesting, I think.

Now that would be a great project. :thumbsup:

There may be hope for science fiction cinema yet:

http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2007-01-09/#film6

Of course, knowing the studios, the lesson they'll take from this is not that audiences want smart, original, well-crafted films, but that they should produce more dark, futuristic chase movies.

(Either that, or that they should hire more Mexican directors.)

This has to be one of the best movie review lines of all time: J. Hoberman, writing in the Village Voice, recently remarked that Universal had been treating the movie "like a communicable disease." :p

http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2007-01-09/#film6


I'm tired of of the post/pre-apolyptic, doom and gloom sci-fi movies. Not that they're all that bad necessarily, I'm just over-frikkin'-DOSED on them.

They're like radiation treatment for a pimple.

( :thumbsup: That's a great line, too, ain't it???? Huh? Eh? All I hear are crickets :confused: )

I'm tired of of the post/pre-apolyptic, doom and gloom sci-fi movies.

Yeah, I don't see why all those doom-and-gloom liberal Hollywood-types keep making movies that imply overpopulation,global warming, corporate power, repressive governments, and oil shortages are problems we're likely to face in the future.

Just once, I'd like to see those negative-nellies make a movie where the religious right and the neo-conservatives lead the world to a better place where freedom reigns, and there are no more liberals, evolution, atheist, global warming kooks, abortion, immigrants, democrats, gays, ecologist tree-huggers,minorities, and scientist.

I'm tired of of the post/pre-apolyptic, doom and gloom sci-fi movies.

Yeah. Movies like When Worlds Collide, Voyage To The Bottom of The Sea, and The Birds really get on my freakin' nerves.