"What could a remake do that the original doesn't?" ... If it were a 'quality' remake, it could initiate a new sci-fi dynasty like "Star Wars" and "Star Trek". "it doesn't even have a flaw" ... if it has no flaws, then describe the appearance of the Bellerophon ship. After-market products can not exist of something never shown in the movie. And how many other patrol cruisers were in the United Planets fleet? What other human-colonized planets are in the patrol range of the cruiser fleet? I would submit that there should be 100 fleet cruisers, and patroling several hundred colonized planets and star systems. All being new clean slates to fill in with future episode adventures in the United Planets sci-fi universe (which contains no 'living' alien civilization - un-like Wars & Trek). I also submit that civilian saucer-ships (such as the Bellerophon) should be numerous, and of a fashion similar to the Jupiter 2 ship of "Lost In Space". This is similar to the military C-57-D, but not identical, and limited to only light-speed. I would also change the source of Robby robot from the creation by Morbius, to an Earth-technology creation. And equip all ships (military & civilian) with at least one Robby robot for general labor usage.
These changes can result in a re-made "Forbidden Planet" movie spawning sequel movies and TV series. With many after-market product potentials. In other words a dynasty-sized on-going "Forbidden Planet" sci-fi universe, which can not be done from only the original 1956 movie. However, if a mere 2-hour entertainment is the limit of Hollywood's ambitions and fan's desires... then they should probably not bother re-making the original. But I would prefer a Star Trek-sized "Forbidden Planet" universe of flying saucers and robots (and no aliens) to be lost in.
The previous discussion illustrates precisely why Forbidden Planet should not be remade. In a couple more decades, folks be talking about remaking "Star Wars." "Only this time, C3PO should be humanoid and Jar Jar Binks can be given a plot role..." I also disagree with the praise being paid to Peter Jackson's big budget Kong remake. The original movie was far better. The 1970s Kong was also better in many ways, though I wish they had gotten Ray Harryhausen (who was still active) to do the effects. Heck, the 1970s version also had a great cast! Charles Grodin, Jessica Lang, Jeff Bridges, etc.
All the recent classic science fiction/fantasy remakes that I can think of off the top of my head have been somewhat lamer than the original: King Kong, War of the Worlds, and Planet of the Apes spring immediately to mind.
Say, V. Ortaglia, did you write the screenplay entirely in capital letters? That may have had something to do with the studio's dinsinclination to read it.
I've said it before, and will say it again: to issue a blanket statement such as "Forbidden Planet could never be remade" is misguided, misinformed, and just plain wrong. It doesn't need to be remade, true; but to refuse to even accept the possibility of a remake working is so close-minded that it's really just kind of laughable. How people who claim to be such huge science fiction fans can simultaneously show such an incredible lack of imagination is an utter mystery to me.
Your assertion that the senior market would be enough to support a sequel to "Forbidden Planet" . . . dude, I don't know what sort of a world YOU live in, but I've been working at a movie theatre for a decade, and if there's one thing I know, it's that seniors are not a significant source of income for exhibitors. Almost ANY movie released is being released for a youth market; if other people show up, great, but the industry no longer expects them to do so. Witness the failure of "Cinderella Man," a truly great movie that twenty years ago would have been a blockbuster. Young people weren't interested, and adults are increasingly staying at home; hence, that movie floundered.
Speaking of the remake of "King Kong," I'll say this. The film grossed well over $500 million worldwide, sold like crazy on DVD, and earned mostly positive reviews. And yet the online community insists that it was a failure. Now, granted, you called it a disappointment, which is true in relation to the (possibly unreasonable) sky-high expectations . . . but in absolutely no way does that film's model prove that remakes are bound to fail. Trust me, nobody lost money on "King Kong."
Here is a non-comprehensive list of remakes that have succeeded:
The Birdcage Cape Fear Casino Royale Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Dawn of the Dead The Departed The Fly Insomnia The Italian Job Little Shop of Horrors The Lord of the Rings The Magnificent Seven The Man Who Knew Too Much Ocean's Eleven Scarface The Ten Commandments The Thing The Thomas Crown Affair War of the Worlds The Wizard of Oz
Anyone who says remakes can't work is a fool. It's as simple as that.
Which is not to deny that the vast majority of remakes are garbage. They definitely are. But if you have a good writer, a good director, and good actors, anything is possible. I simply don't understand you people who insist that there could NEVER be a good remake of "Forbidden Planet." It's a nonsensical argument. The trick in remaking it well would be only to approach it with a reverence for the original and a willingness to try and keep the film grounded in psychology and character more than in action and effects. But feel free to keep thinking that such a task is impossible; when and if you're proven wrong, I feel certain that you'll remember.
Turn off the caps, bub. It makes anything you type difficult to read. Then again, so do your numerous grammatical errors.
And I don't have ANY problem whatsoever being insulting when somebody is 100% wrong, which is what the majority of your arguments are. Gripe all you want to about me being "insulting," but my arguments are valid, and I've got every right in the world to make them in an attempt to dissuade people from cottoning to the idiotic -- yes, IDIOTIC -- claim that a remake of "Forbidden Planet" could never be work.
You state that you find most of the remakes I mentioned to be poor. However, every single one of them were movies that more people seem to think of as "good movies" than they do as "bad movies." Obviously, there is never going to be a true consensus on the quality of anything, as quality is totally opinon-based. But all the movies I listed are more praised than they are critiqued. V., the fact that YOU don't like a lot of them is totally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things: the public DOES like them, and it's the public's opinion that actually matters. (Please notice, by the way, how I've used capital letters to emphasize a word, suggesting where I'd like your attention to briefly focus. When you type entirely in caps, it looks as if a robot or a madman is writing. So are you Robby or Morbius? Oops, sorry; I'm being insulting again.)
Here's my favorite thing from your post, V.: "IF SOMEONES OPINION, MORE LEARNERED THAN YOURS DOES NOT GIVE YOU INSIGHT INTO WHAT OTHERS ENJOY..YOU HAVE CLOSED YOUR MIND." I love it. We'll come back to the issue of my mind being closed a bit later on, but for now let's stick with the best part. You state that your opinion is more "learnered" than mine, which is one of the finest instances of irony it has ever been my pleasure to obserrve. Your poor writing skills, V., indicate sloppiness and a lack of coherently organized thought. But if you want to go on feeling that I'm the unlearned one, feel free.
You also say "FINALLY YOU ARE NOT A MOVIE MAKER. YOU HAVE NEVER WRITTEN A PROPPER SCREENPLAY. TRY IT SOME TIME SEE HOW FAR YOU GET." You are correct, sir, that I've have never written a "propper" screenplay. But I have had some training in creative writing, and I don't mind telling you with no hint of apology that if writing were important enough to me, I would be VERY good at it. Far better than you probably suppose. Ultimately, however, I am unwilling to devote the time and the energy that it requires, and there's one reason alone for that: I love watching movies and TV too much. I'd rather spend my time watching movies than writing them. That laziness may change some day, and it may not, but if you assume that I am not a student of movies simply because I don't make them, well, once again, you're 100% wrong. Also, the fact that you have written a screenplay does not make you a filmmaker, V. What films have YOU made?
Finally, V., I'd like to ask you a point-blank question. For better or for worse, you seem to be someone who passionately treasures "Forbidden Planet" specifically and the imagination in general. For those qualities, I applaud you; I am with you, on both counts. But what I want to know is how you can put such an emphasis on the imagination and have none of your own? You seem to literally be unable to even concede the point that a good remake of "Forbidden Planet" is possible. You are the denying the very POSSIBILITY of it! Any thinking person ought to be able to realize that issuing blanket statements like that is thoroughly flawed thinking. The only thing I can think of is that your ego is so great that it does not permit you to accept the thought that you could be wrong. You slam me for engaging in insult and unsophisticated argument, but I've not made the mistake of a too-great ego; please notice that at no point have I stated that a remake of "Forbidden Planet" would be bound to be good. The likely odds are that it WOULD be bad, since the studios seem to be increasingly unwilling to allow projects the proper amount of time to creatively gestate. I'd only want to see a new "Forbidden Planet" (be it sequel, prequel, OR remake) undertaken if it were to be made by a truly talented filmmaker. That's been my point all along.
Sorry if I've been insulting, but frankly, you make an easy target.
There was also an attempt at a remake back in '92/'93. Stan Winston was producing it with Irvin Kirshner directing. But a few months before production was to begin in Iceland, it fell through. I never found out why.
Last I heard a DreamWorks producer has bought the rights, but no news since.
I don't mind at all if they produce re-makes -- I just won't be one of the folks who watches them. What does it matter if someone wishes to squander cash on an unpalatable re-make and to generate something that was of less quality than the original?
Oh, I realize that some of them make money but it mostly comes from a subsequent generation, much younger people than those who are still hot on the original films.
But I must confess, I WAS bothered when they re-made House on Haunted Hill. How in hell could they think that they could possibly top Vincent Price?!? Fools! Cretins!!! Some people just have no sense whatever. :)
Forbidden Planet??? One of my favorite films of all times. I think I'll go watch it right now. A classic. If you're not over 55, it's going to be near impossible for you to get what the the "anti-remake" folks here are talking (and whining) about (even though they are foolishly worrying about re-makes that they'll never go see anyway -- I guess they feel like the original film is somehow being stolen away from them... like they've been raped or something I guess.) Anyway, it was a lot more than just the awesomeness of these original films when they were first produced. I can't 'splain it but you had to be there.
The world didn't suck back then (so much) and now it DOES -- that's the only way I can put it.
Reportedly the remake is on hold because the script under consideration -- which had a considerable back-story -- was released on the Internet.
Some films just don't need a remake. The original Pathfinder (filmed in the Saami/Lapp language) was simple but powerful. The Gene Barry version of War of the Worlds suffers from the 4:3 aspect ratio, but otherwise works pretty well. Likewise, the widescreen Forbidden Planet could be re-released in theaters tomorrow and find an audience.
I've said it many times but I'll say it again (hopefully someone will make it); a PREQUIL to Forbidden Planet 200,000 years ago. The planet with the Krell! Think of the history, culture, and character developments that would created. or . . . The landing of the Bellaraphon and the troubles the crew encountered. (I assume it was Morbius that was responsible for the deaths. (seems he got into the Krell lab mighty fast and took the brain boost; unbeknowst to the other crew members.) The murders, the 'beast (updated with a real good appearence; like I want to see that "Impossible Tree Sloth that left the footprints), building Robby, Altira as a budding teenager and her desires. Wait, this is turning into a X-rated film. Anyway, (without my cornographic addition of Altira it could be an interesting movie. There, no remakes, but something that would give us more of this great story, we'd all be happy with that aspect. Come on you writer guys, get hopping.
Your assessment of Ortegia was good. However, Mag Seven, War of the Worlds, and Cape Fear all may have made money but in no way were better than the origionals. The remake of Psycho should have been banned, IMHO. (some actor's performances just can't be topped, and Perkins was one of them). Like anyone doing a remake of a movie with Nicholson or Hopkins in it. The Shining???, no way. (although Wendy was much better looking in the remake).
dawn of the dead was not a success as a remake financially. some remakes are good, but most are nowhere as good as the first version. I don't want a remake of f.p. , most lord of the rings was a cartoon in the first version. war of the worlds was ok at best. cape fear was decent. but why remake this one? it's not needed. much like posieden , which was bad in spite of the effects.
Like the murders in Greek play that always took place off-stage, the attributes of the Krell were impressive without ever making an appearance. Perish the thought of a prequel FP with the Krell represented by some CGI monster.
I'll play Johnny-come-lately to this thread, at the risk of perhaps going unread.
There was a good point made that it is, of course, not at all impossible that a movie be remade, and well. Any -- absolutely, positively, any -- ANY movie can be remade. "Citizen Kane" can be remade. "Lawrence of Arabia" can be remade. "Casablanca" can be (WAS!) remade. The question to answer is, why would you? Why would anyone remake any of these? People should not remake some things, and if they do, they should be damned sure to do it right. John Waters once said that people shouldn't remake the great movies, they don't need remaking. People should remake the bad movies; there's room for improvement.
It seems to me that complaints about goings-on in the movie world appear to miss an important point: big-budget filmmaking is a business. Paramount Pictures, Warner Brothers, Universal, &c., are businesses with stockholders, investors. To investors, a business in which they've invested is like a black box: they put money into it and they expect more money to come back out. They don't care what happens inside the black box, as long as it's making money come out. As such, the people who work in the black box can't afford to care either; they have to make sure the box puts money into the investors' waiting hands. When the executives at Paramount, &c., consider a project, the $64 question is: will it make money? To us out here in film-fan land, we care about what the movies are and how they impact our narrow cinematic culture as well as our broader culture as a whole; we see movies as part of the culture, which, of course, they are. If, however, anyone tries to hang the "purveyors of culture" label on the studios, they'll protest, saying "We don't do culture, we just make movies." They are either disingenuous or tragically lacking in self-awareness. Of course movies are culture, but the studios don't want the responsibility for the impact on culture which their creations represent, so they simply deny that what they generate is cultural. It's amazing what you can rationalize by rewriting the dictionary. To the studios, a movie is nothing more than a project meant to generate revenue -- a profit center. This makes ours a profit-driven culture. Our stories, in the forms of film, television and books, do not spring organically from who and what we are and what we need (which would probably be the best way to produce culture), they're imposed as mere products, formulated and marketed for consumption, because Warner Brothers doesn't do culture. Except, of course, that they do. They want it both ways, and they get to have it both ways: they want to package, market and merchandise culture, but without cultural responsibility for what they produce.
If Universal, or whoever, thinks a "Forbidden Planet" remake will make their shareholders happy, they'll remake "Forbidden Planet". The question of whether the culture needs this is, to them, irrelevant. Trust the movie studios to make the business decision -- they'll always do whatever they think will make the most money, or, failing that, whatever they think will lose them the least money. This is why sequels happen, including sequels to bad movies; there's a formula that worked (made money) once and they're sticking with it until it stops bringing in revenue. It isn't about good/bad, it's about profit/loss. The next "Alien" is to Warner what the next Windows is to MicroSoft, and the next Taurus is to Ford. To Warner, Ridley Scott is simply a project manager tasked with getting the product out the door on time and on budget.
Ridley Scott is behind the Alien prequel Prometheus (shot in 3D with twin RED Epic cameras) that looks pretty good. Expanding the series makes more sense than remaking anything. Of course there really cannot be a sequel to Forbidden Planet, but a prequel might, maybe ending with Robbie in an apron heating baby formula. Certainly any remake would involve the Krell themselves and just not the monster.