Why..?

Robert Wise must be spinning in his grave.

Why..?

Robert Wise must be spinning in his grave.


YA got me, there's absolutely no way to improve over the first version.

Steve

YA got me, there's absolutely no way to improve over the first version.

Steve

Yeah, I have a lot of trouble understanding this one as well. They've obviously changed enough from the original that I don't understand why they're even calling it TDTEST and inviting comparisons to the original. Especially when the original is a beloved film that richly deserves it status as a science fiction classic.

It's as if JJ Abrams decided to release Cloverfeld as Godzilla. He probably has the bucks and clout and could have, but realized a 'homage" isn't hated by movie goers near as passionately as a sub-par remake.

Apparently somebody felt it was time to update the "message" of the first film.

Oy.

I remember first hearing about this remake and I just wondered why....but then I remembered the current trend in Hollywood because the current generation of directors, producers and screenwriters can't seem to come up with anything original anymore.

I had my misgivings before the film came out and I was almost thinking about seeing it, but then I started reading what people thought of it after they saw it - that coupled with the reviews is enough to keep me away until it's relegated to the "cheap seats". With an opening weekend like this, I figure it should be about a month or so.

Bryan

My review of the the new version after viewing it on opening day.......


Aaaahhhhh Crap!

I remember first hearing about this remake and I just wondered why....but then I remembered the current trend in Hollywood because the current generation of directors, producers and screenwriters can't seem to come up with anything original anymore.
I am getting really tired of this knee-jerk reaction.

First of all, it simply isn't true. I've been keeping a list of movies released this year that I have seen. Out of 41 movies, only 14 were remakes or sequels. And don't blame the directors, producers, and screenwriters. I'm sure many of them have original ideas that they simply can't funded because the studios don't like taking risks.

Secondly, I saw the movie today and it is very original. Yes it uses roughly the same plot as the original, but there are a lot of original ideas in it. The actual story structure is very different, and in some ways improves on the original. (The Jennifer Connelly character is in it from the beginning. The Klaatu character actually changes. The climax isn't a big political speech.)

When people complain about remakes by saying "Hollywood can't come up with anything original" what they really mean is they can't think of original plot. This would be a valid complaint if there were no other elements that could be original. Or if we watched movies for the plot.

All that said, the new DTESS is pretty mediocre. But that has nothing to do with it being a remake.

It kinda makes me wish they had done the sequel there were rumors about a few years back. Might've been a better idea afterall.

First of all, it simply isn't true. When people complain about remakes by saying "Hollywood can't come up with anything original" what they really mean is they can't think of original plot. This would be a valid complaint if there were no other elements that could be original. Or if we watched movies for the plot. All that said, the new DTESS is pretty mediocre. But that has nothing to do with it being a remake.

"Lack of originality" has been around as long as there have been artists, and ya know what, it's fine. Heck, the Romans shamelessly copied Greek statuary. Apparently there aren't enough images of Christ on the cross so that nearly every Western artist since the first century wanted to put their spin on it. Do you think Shakespeare was the first guy to present a Hamlet or Romeo & Juliet? Hollywood just reflects what we've always practiced, we like to tell the same stories over and over, especially when they still resonate and find love in a new audience with a modern re-telling.

That said, yesterday I heard Bob Mondello's unenthusiastic review of the "utterly boneheaded remake" and it sounds like something I'll maybe catch when it hits cable. From what he (and other reviewers) said, they went at it with a lot of good ideas, but just didn't tell the story well. One comment of Mr. Mondello's I thought was a classic duh-obvious critique of mindless SPX eyecandy, he said he prefers special effects in the service of a good story rather than what you get in Day. Reading other reviews, I was shocked that the filmmakers made no effort to re-quote the most famous lines in sci-fi, "Gort, meet Klaatu at Starbucks". Sad.

John O.

I've always wondered how that line translated!

I actually like Keannu Reeves, so I would have been up for this. But I'm not ready to plop down ten bucks so Hollywood can lecture me on global warming.

I actually like Keannu Reeves, so I would have been up for this. But I'm not ready to plop down ten bucks so Hollywood can lecture me on global warming.

Yeah. A lecture on Preemptive War probably would have worked better.:p

Jodet, I take it you skipped Wall-E too? ;)

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/day_the_earth_stood_still/

22 %

Consensus: Heavy on special effects, but without a coherent story at its base, The Day the Earth Stood Still is subpar re-imagining of the 1951 science-fiction classic.

I was saying since the beginning that TDTESS would be a stinker and got seriously attacked by the "How DARE you say you don't like it when you haven't even seen it yet" crowd.

And, of course, I was correct, its IS a stinker. And now the argument changes to nits, like "originality" and "the effects were great" and "I found something to like about the film." All cops out from people who won't back down and admit that the people who predicted how this would do were correct. Some things you just can't do better than they were already done. And this, my friends, is one of them.

Once again precedent alone is stronger that Hollywood's hype machine.:wave:

Well, just to be nitpicky it could have been good but it was never going to come close to the original either way. Two different things there. Personally I got tired of some people arguing that "It's not going to be better than the original, so it must be garbage by default." Wasn't the film I was defending so much as deploring the nonsensical thinking there.

I'll maybe try to see an econo showing this week. I'm in the mood for an under-achiever.

well, ive never seen the original. but this one sucked. it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. it was one of those tragedies where the only substance to the movie was what you saw in the trailors...

Ya see, now, this is where I enjoy discussion on films, because here is where I disagree with the popular opinion so far here on the board. (And I DO respect their opinions. But they are, just like mine, OPINIONS only, not facts.)

First off, let me say that I absolutely love the original film, and would put it in my top ten favorite films of all time (not just top ten science fiction films).

That said, I really enjoyed the remake. Without giving any spoilers away, it is much darker, grittier and more somber, but it pretty much has to be. Both this film and the original have very much the same story. But like Forbidden Planet and Shakespear's "The Tempest" have very much the same story, the difference is in the telling. In the original, Michael Rennie was basically a superior human who wanted to tell mankind to shape up or be destroyed. In the remake, Keanu Reeves is truly an alien, who has to use a human body, and the message is darker.

Yes, this film is different, but isn't that what we WANT in a remake? I can't stand that knee-jerk reaction that "All remakes suck" because it just isn't true. As I've said before, the Humphrey Bogart version of The Maltese Falcon is a remake, and far superior to the two previous versions. (And I don't give a rip if it IS a 60 year old movie. There isn't a time limit on truth. Or quality, for that matter.)

I hear so many people (on the board and in my personal life) make comments like, "It should have been more like the original." You know what happens when we get a remake that tries to be "just like the original?" We get movies like the remake of Psycho.

A remake should try to basically either try to tell the story in a different way than the original or in a better way. (Yes, there is more to it than that, but I'm speaking about a basic level here.) I'm not saying that I think this one is better, but it is different and definitely more realistic. It tells the same basic story in a very different way, successfully in my opinion. (Yes, this is MY opinion. I don't like blanket statements like "That movie sucked" because that is stating an opinion as fact. Saying "I think that movie sucked" is very different, because it doesn't insult those who actually may have enjoyed the movie.)

There are those who will hate it, no matter how good or bad it is, because some people refuse to accept remakes. It's like those who have already decided that the new Trek will be a horrible movie. It could turn out to be the best of all the films, yet they will hate it because it isn't "just like the original." Yes, this new Day the Earth Stood Still is different than the original. Yes, I liked it very much. And I think if you see it with an open mind, and not try to do a scene by scene comparison to the original film, you might like it too.

Haven't seen the movie yet but the reactions around here come as no surprise anyway since everything new sucks by default and is inherently evil. But everyone is entitled to their opinion and I'll wait till I see it for myself to decide whether I like it or not.

I'm sorry to hear that most people don't like this movie. I kind of figured that with it being a remake of a classic film. I'll see it for myself later, either in the theater or on DVD. I guess it did pretty good on it's opening weekend. I'm trying to keep an open mind about this new film.

One thing I thought was interesting (and was probably missed by most people) is the fact that this is one of the few movies that acknowledges that Keanu Reeves is Asian by casting James Hong as an older version of him.

I'll maybe try to see an econo showing this week. I'm in the mood for an under-achiever.

Well, I think it's safe to say you won't be disappointed.

For the record, the DTESS remake is not a "stinker." Tim Burton's "Planet of the Apes" remake is a stinker. The DTESS is simply mediocre; a film that might have been better and could have been worse.

At least "apes" had amazing makeup and Paul Giamatti...

Now the Lost in Space remake was a real stinker!

I rather enjoyed the movie. The core plot was really no different from the 1951 version. I don't know this for a fact, but I would imagine that the original's message of nuclear disarmament was as politically and emotionally sensitive as global warming is today. Was the original the superior film? Absolutely. However, I don't think this version is deserving of the critical scorn that's being heaped on it.

Chuck

I would imagine that the original's message of nuclear disarmament was as politically and emotionally sensitive as global warming is today.

Yeah, those Hollywood lefties love to preach.

Yeah, those Hollywood lefties love to preach.

As do the Hollywood righties, anybody remember the original version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers?

I woulda preferred it if this film would have been a continuation of the '51 classic rather than a remake.

Klaatu (his facelift explained as it was in the movie) returns and says "well, we gave you over 50 years and you still haven't changed" and the rest of the movie plays out exactly as it did.


I did really missed the theremin, tho

Thta's why remakes always fail. They try to re-do a Great Movie. Are they hoping to be greater than great? Why don't they re-do a crappy pic? It would be easy to better than one of them, and plenty to choose from.
It worked for the Maltese Falcon. The original was horrible.

anybody remember the original version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers?

I went to a revival screening a few weeks ago. It played on a double-bill with Earth vs. The Flying Saucers. Terrific movie -- and the subject of a better-than-average remake by Phil Kaufman.

Terrific movie -- and the subject of a better-than-average remake by Phil Kaufman.

Very good remake. Watched it again just recently.

I rather enjoyed the movie. The core plot was really no different from the 1951 version. I don't know this for a fact, but I would imagine that the original's message of nuclear disarmament was as politically and emotionally sensitive as global warming is today.

But the nuclear disarmament speach was only the punchline of the original. The main thread was about paranoia and fear of aliens (subbing for Commies), and man's beligrance toward people he doesn't understand. The whole point that built up to the speach at the end was that the only way we were able to deal with Klaatu as an unknown was to kill him.

How the heck can that be translated to an environmental theme?

what i have tried to say is that im not saying the movie stinks just because its a remake. im saying that because i think it stunk. i wasnt looking for breath-taking special effects, but a good story. the first half hour or so was quite interesting. but after that, it was an hour of people walking around but not really telling what the plot is until the end. and the end was totally lousy.

At least "apes" had amazing makeup and Paul Giamatti...

Now the Lost in Space remake was a real stinker!

haha tell me about it. heather graham was the only reason i even bothered to finish that movie.

Yeah, those Hollywood lefties love to preach.As do the Hollywood righties, anybody remember the original version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers?Or the original version of The Thing? Probably the first space-aliens-as-metaphor-for-Communists flick. The scientist who wanted to communicate with the "intellectual carrot" was certain that any race intelligent enough to travel among the stars must be benevolent. He was portrayed as an ineffective wimp, while the military just wanted to destroy the alien and ask questions later. And the military guys were right!. . . I did really missed the theremin, thoYou can always check out any of the second-season episodes of the original Outer Limits on YouTube -- or play "Good Vibrations"!

But the nuclear disarmament speach was only the punchline of the original. The main thread was about paranoia and fear of aliens (subbing for Commies), and man's beligrance toward people he doesn't understand. The whole point that built up to the speach at the end was that the only way we were able to deal with Klaatu as an unknown was to kill him.

How the heck can that be translated to an environmental theme?

the interesting "twist" if you will on the new plot is that in the original the warning was for we earthlings to not spread our nuclear foolishness into the galaxy. here Klaatu's mission is to save the earth from us. because they have determined that there are only a handful of planets capable of supporting life and they (Klaatu's federation) were not going to sit by and watch us destroy one of the few.

'The Day the Earth Stood Still': a message to Earth from another place, another time

By J. Hoberman


H.G. Wells predicted it in 1898. Orson Welles spooked the nation when he broadcast the event 40 years later. The summer of 1947 brought a rash of sightings, but for Hollywood, 1951 was the year that the saucers landed and the extraterrestrials emerged.

"The Thing," produced by Howard Hawks for Howard Hughes' RKO studio, was one of the most widely publicized movies of early '51, although it was beaten to the theaters by Edgar G. Ulmer's low-budget "Man From Planet X." And, even as "The Thing" thrilled spectators with the specter of a vampire vegetable from another world, its antithesis already was poised for release: "The Day the Earth Stood Still."

Unlike its rivals, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" — and now, the remake with Keanu Reeves, Jennifer Connelly and Jon Hamm, opening Friday — posited a sympathetic humanoid visitor from outer space, albeit one accompanied by an imposingly large robot named Gort. This child-friendly visitation proved a moderate hit, grossing $1.85 million in the United States (virtually the same as "The Thing").

Thanks to the futuristic technology of television, however, it would become the best-loved science fiction film of the Cold War era — precursor to, if not inspiration for, Steven Spielberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and "E.T.: The Extraterrestrial."

The original "Day the Earth Stood Still," directed by Robert Wise,
was apocalyptic yet sober in its demeanor. Whereas engine failure caused the mind-bending Man from Planet X to touch down in the Scottish Highlands and the Thing crash-landed at the North Pole, the dapper space-alien Klaatu (Michael Rennie) had a precise mission.


The whole world was watching, even before his saucer landed at midday in a baseball field near the Washington Monument and, in an instant cliche, Klaatu emerged, speaking perfect English: "We have come to visit you in peace and with good will," adding, "I want to meet with representatives of all the nations on Earth."

Moments later, Klaatu was shot down by a nervous soldier. As Gort vaporized all handy Earthling weapons, his master was rushed to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Miraculously recovered, Klaatu continued his peace mission incognito, seeking refuge in a Washington rooming house whose tenants included a war widow (Patricia Neal) and her young son (Billy Gray, soon of "Father Knows Best").

Eventually the alien would entrust them with his identity and the words that would deactivate Gort: Klaatu barada nikto, carefully committed to memory by youngsters across America. In the meantime, Klaatu made contact with Dr. Barnhardt, the smartest man on Earth, played by a wide-eyed, wild-haired Sam Jaffe as an obvious stand-in for Albert Einstein.

This was not an innocent choice. America's most famous brain was a proponent of world government and opponent of loyalty oaths, reviled as a communist fellow-traveler for being a co-sponsor of the Cultural and Scientific Conference for World Peace held at the Waldorf-Astoria in 1949. Encouraged by Klaatu, Dr. Barnhardt organized an international peace conference similar to the Waldorf conclave — a gathering frequently invoked during the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings on Hollywood that took place while "The Day the Earth Stood Still" was shooting scenes on the Mall. (The name of Jaffe, a liberal activist in Actors Equity, came up as well; subsequently blacklisted, he would not appear in another movie until 1958.)

Obviously and unfashionably progressive, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" was the brainchild of the producer Julian Blaustein, whose first film was the 1950 brotherhood western "Broken Arrow."

As with "Broken Arrow," which opened while "The Day the Earth Stood Still" was in preproduction (a few months into the Korean War), Blaustein had a purpose: The movie, he told the press, was an argument in favor of a "strong United Nations."

While the film's director, Wise, was also politically liberal (years later, he described himself as a left-wing sympathizer who had not joined enough front groups to come under government scrutiny), his main contributions were stylistic.

Orson Welles influence

Wise had directed two low-key atmospheric chillers for the producer Val Lewton and before that served as Orson Welles' editor. "The Day the Earth Stood Still" shows the influence of both: The movie's naturalism is accentuated by adroit location work and, in some scenes, real radio reporters.

The premise, of course, was Wellesian, and Wise recruited Welles' brilliant composer Bernard Herrmann to provide a moody, theremin-enriched score.
Variety would praise the locations that gave "The Day the Earth Stood Still" "an almost documentary flavor," but Wise was documenting something more than Washington landmarks. The movie exudes topical hysteria; paranoia is palpable, and the spectacle of the nation's capital under martial law seems all too probable.

The movie's Christian allegory — in which, using the name John Carpenter, Klaatu is twice put to death and resurrected — was not part of the Harry Bates story on which the film was based, but was added by its screenwriter, Edmund H. North.

According to North, neither Blaustein nor Wise got his "private little joke"; it was recognized only by the industry watchdogs who insisted on a line asserting Klaatu's recognition that not Gort but only the Almighty could bring someone back to life.

Religious heresy shouldn't be an issue in the remake, although online chatter suggests some concern regarding the ability of 20th Century Fox to resurrect a beloved movie successfully. Both the new Klaatu, Reeves, and the young director, Scott Derrickson, whose previous movies include "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" and the fifth installment in the "Hellraiser" series, have assured fans that Gort will be seen, and "Klaatu barada nikto" heard.

Commending "The Day the Earth Stood Still" for its seriousness, a Los Angeles Times critic fretted in 1951 that "certain subversive elements" might co-opt the movie's philosophy. Perhaps, although the Daily Worker wasn't impressed, noting that the movie hardly inspired its audience to work toward peace: "That, it appears, is a job for men from other planets."

Foreign praise

Be that as it may, viewers from other nations were pleased to see "The Day the Earth Stood Still" as a plea for cooperation. Hollywood's foreign press awarded it a special Golden Globe for "promoting international understanding." In Paris, the young critics of Cahiers du Cinema also were taken with the film, which the screenwriter and director Pierre Kast hailed as the most "improbable" American production since Charles Chaplin's "Monsieur Verdoux," a "secret cry of agony" and "almost literally stunning."

Kast praised the movie's moral relativism, citing the scene in which an aide to the American president explains to Klaatu that Earth is divided between the forces of good and evil and "we are the forces of good," only to be brushed off by the alien's disdainful "I'm not interested in such foolishness."

"The Day the Earth Stood Still" does allow for a more hard-nosed reading, with Gort's capacity for mayhem embodying the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. But most of the movie's fans have extrapolated an internationalist message — including at least one United States president.

According to Lou Cannon, one of Ronald Reagan's biographers, Reagan was so stirred by the notion that extraterrestrial invasion would trump national differences that he floated the scenario upon meeting Mikhail Gorbachev at Geneva in 1985. This departure from script flummoxed Reagan's staff — not to mention the Soviet general secretary.

Cannon writes that, well acquainted with what he called the president's interest in "little green men," Colin L. Powell, at the time the national security adviser, was convinced that the proposal had been inspired by "The Day the Earth Stood Still."

Reagan revisited the idea later in a speech at the United Nations: "I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world."

This line may not apply to the remake, which, to judge from its trailer, is more concerned with threat of catastrophic climate change and the unbridled powers of computer-generated effects. Still, given America's current diplomatic isolation, it would not be surprising to hear Reagan's sentiment, or one very much like it, articulated by our new maximum leader.

Very good remake. Watched it again just recently.

Funny, I just read "Invasion..." a few weeks ago and had to watch the movie again to compare. Enjoyed the book, but I thought the movie was better, especially the ending.

Didn't really mean to start a political discussion. What I was trying to say was that ONE of the themes (you're right John, I had forgotten that Klaatu only gave his ultimatum at the end of the movie) was that mankind must change or face destruction. In that respect, the two films aren't that different.

Chuck

what i have tried to say is that im not saying the movie stinks just because its a remake. im saying that because i think it stunk.
On re-reading what I wrote, I realized that it may have come across like I was saying you were saying it stunk because it was a remake. I didn't mean to imply that, and I do apologize for any misunderstanding I may have caused. (Sometimes the written word is way too impersonal.)

I was saying that some people DO make that assumption, and that is wrong. And, while I do not agree with you, I completely respect your opinion. That's the nice difference between discussion and arguing. ;) I know people that consider any time I disagree with them to be an attack against them! (I try not to hang around with those people too often... although they can be great fun at parties...)

Or the original version of The Thing? Probably the first space-aliens-as-metaphor-for-Communists flick. The scientist who wanted to communicate with the "intellectual carrot" was certain that any race intelligent enough to travel among the stars must be benevolent. He was portrayed as an ineffective wimp, while the military just wanted to destroy the alien and ask questions later.

I've often seen The Thing mentioned with Invasion as movies with the "aliens-as-metaphor-for-Communists" flick. While I can see some of the points apply to The Thing, to be me Invasions is a lot more overt, 'specially with Kevin MCCarthy's rant at the end.

the Christian Allagory wasn't nearly as prominent in the "Day" remake as it was in the original

About the only quasi-Biblical reference I noticed was that when Gort turned into the screaming Cloud of Destruction, the individual bit did look like locusts

Silvery space locusts

On re-reading what I wrote, I realized that it may have come across like I was saying you were saying it stunk because it was a remake. I didn't mean to imply that, and I do apologize for any misunderstanding I may have caused. (Sometimes the written word is way too impersonal.)

I was saying that some people DO make that assumption, and that is wrong. And, while I do not agree with you, I completely respect your opinion. That's the nice difference between discussion and arguing. ;) I know people that consider any time I disagree with them to be an attack against them! (I try not to hang around with those people too often... although they can be great fun at parties...)

is cool.:) i just wanted to make sure i wasnt placed with the group that hates remakes because they are remakes...

It's Aweful.

Plain and Simple.

Could care less about how "great" the SPFX ARE.

It can't touch one Black and white frame of the Glorious Original :dude:

To those who enjoyed it, I say , God Bless!

Well, once again it comes down to the writing, doesn't it? I think almost everyone here 'wants' these films to succeed. The problem is that Hollywood is like a bunch of low-rent hustlers that simply want to put the minimum into a product to generate 'any' acceptable return. People will buy your product if they think it is quallity. Remember 'The Passion', 'Titanic', LOTR Trillogy and most recently the Batman movies?

Most don't mind if they change the plot or script of a remake - Just make some sense of the reason why you do it.

If the plot now is about misuse of this 'Eden', wouldn't mankind be just as special? No? Simply destroy him. That makes sense. Mans capacity to love/adapt/change/whatever is proven by a woman's love for her child and some music. Wow, glad it didn't take much to convince. Call before you arrive next time and I'll take you to an AA meeting or send you some United Way literature. You've had sleeper aliens here for years? What have they been doing all this time? Eating McDonald's hamburgers? You think a status report would have been nice, like ... hey look at the backlog of Prius orders that these humans have. I don't mind being preached to, but I'm (and most of us aren't) stupid. I have just as many problems with the way in which the govt, military and leadership is portrayed. I've said it before - I'm not sure these movies are made for us as much as for the 'global' market.

Some remakes are exceptional, most are not. I really looked forward to seeing the remake of 'Rollerball' because of J. McTiernan and N. Jewison's exceptional (IMO) remake of 'The Thomas Crown Affair'. Alas, RB fell behind schedule (like several others) and was so putrid that I would only buy it from the bargin bin at wallyworld to watch.

I'm glad some of you enjoyed the movie. I really wanted to see it up until the early reviews got past the hype. Now, several more people will simply wait to see it on cable.

I simply hope they will do better with 'When Worlds Collide', ST, 'Forbidden Planet', 'Flash Gordon', etc. Like what was mentioned at the beginning of this thread however, Hollywood's track record on these projects is pretty bad.


... with the group that hates remakes because they are remakes...

I'm doubt a real group like that exists...(At least on this board)

I still have no plans to see it. But after looking at some previews, just being curious, it is as I knew it would be, FX-no story. You can't beat the original.

Another note on screwing up another movie, The Crow will be getting a remake. WHY!!!!

Some remakes are exceptional, most are not. I really looked forward to seeing the remake of 'Rollerball' because of J. McTiernan and N. Jewison's exceptional (IMO) remake of 'The Thomas Crown Affair'. Alas, RB fell behind schedule (like several others) and was so putrid that I would only buy it from the bargin bin at wallyworld to watch.


I thought the original Thomas Crown Affair was vastly superior to the remake, much as I enjoyed Rene Russo naked.

I thought the original Thomas Crown Affair was vastly superior to the remake, much as I enjoyed Rene Russo naked.

Rene Russo gets naked? Ok, it's now number 23 in the Netflix queue.

I thought the original Thomas Crown Affair was vastly superior to the remake, much as I enjoyed Rene Russo naked.

Notice PM, I never compared the two. I thought of them both as very good movies for different reasons. Much like the Alien and Aliens. I love the original (like you) but when viewed today most think it as boring. It was partially the way movies were made, the way Jewison made movies, you know...

"Alien" was paced slow intentionally. To be a scary walk through
a dark house.

"Aliens" was faced paced to be a roller coaster ride.

I have a genuine question for everyone.

Would you watch a remake of a favorite movie if it was
literally a remake? The script, characters, everything
exactly the same, except the production values would
be better because of improved movie-making technology.

What if "The Day the Earth Stood Still" was remade exactly,
but with today's better special effects?
I would have gone to see it.
To see a better version of a movie I like.

I think it is analogous to the problem of a popular book
being turned into a movie.
I think Hollywood thinks they have to change the story because
everyone has already read the book, so why would they go see
the movie?

Personally, I want to see the characters from the book come to life.
I don't want the story changed. A great example is the first
"Harry Potter" film. I had read the book long before the movie
was made. When I first saw it, I thought, "Yes! That's exactly
how I imagined it!" It was great.

So. If Hollywood wants to remake a film... do it! Remake it! Get
the original script, shoot the movie exactly as it was, but use
the better special effects to make it look contemporary.
The result would be introducing a new generation to a great film/story.

Does any of this make sense?

it makes partial sense.
a word for word, shot for shot remake is probably a futile exercise. remember the psycho remake? doing it so literally is senseless.
remakes that are more faithful to the source materiel or those where they can extrapolate on concepts not fully explored in the original film are often a good thing. john carpenters "the thing" is a great example of both.

btw, i agree with you about the first potter movie, everything, including the casting, was exactly as i had imagined things too. that went a long way to make up for the lackluster direction. it wasnt until the 3rd film though that the feel of the movie itself really lived up to the spirit of the novel (even though they did depart slightly from the source here and there (and when they tried to stray too far, jkr used her veto power to prevent it).

As I pointed out earlier... did anyone see the remake of Psycho? Virtually word for word, shot for shot remake with slight changes to bring it into the 1990/2000's. Personally, I consider it one of the worst movies ever made.

A movie is much, much more than a script. Yes, the script is the beginning, and arguably the most important aspect, but still only one small part of a complete movie. A classic film is more than a good script, it is good actors, good director, good producer, good set design, good model building (I had to throw that one in here!), and so many, many more things that all manage to gel together.