PDA

View Full Version : Science Fiction Films That Deserve A Remake



buffalodavid
2007-Mar-07, 04:43 PM
Not to long ago, DR. Phil lamented the possible remake of "The Day The Earth Stood Still." Well I agree in principle... BUT what if it were remade with its original plot twist.

SPOILER WARNING

troG si eht retsam... utaalK si eht tnevres.

Plus theres nothing that says a remake has to share the same title as the original. I thought the third remake of "A Star is Born" (yes I know, not a space movie) would have been way more digestible under another title.

There must be dozens of titles out there, movies that had good plots and story lines but just suffered because of budgets or made before the right technology was around.

My choice would be "Five Million Years to Earth", a sixties Hammer Film that is a wonderful blend of speculative fiction and horror. Its major flaw was a sequence in the middle of the picture that suffered from a bad effect of Martians walking toward the camera. The story could have used a rewrite to heighten the mystery element a bit more.

Any other ideas?

eburacum45
2007-Mar-07, 05:00 PM
"Five Million Years to Earth"?
You mean Quatermass and the Pit?
here is the offending sequence-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbT9hABJoMU
the film was very good, and this sequence is either a marvellous period piece of scariness or simply a failed attempt to make sometime very weird on the cheap.
I am not sure that film could be made better nowadays-
recently the BBC did a live version of the Quatermass Experiment, with David Tennant, no less. But the original had more atmosphere.

Fazor
2007-Mar-07, 05:05 PM
I'd like to see any of the Jules Verne movie adaptations (tastefully *crosses fingers) redone. 20,000 leagues & Journey to the Center of the Earth are my two favorites. With todays effects technology, it could be quite stunning. Get Tim Burton online as dirrector, would be marvelous. That's what I'd love to see.

MrClean
2007-Mar-07, 05:11 PM
Well, the rastoring look of that video was very dis-appointing, but it did bring up end with a link to a 'The Thirteenth Warrior' montage that made me happy.

Didn't you have enough of Journey to the Center in 'The Core'?

buffalodavid
2007-Mar-07, 05:14 PM
Good Call Eburacum45, on two counts. That WAS the British release title (Hey its a British movie duh...) based on a tv series about an earthly doctor names Quatermass. Two other moves come to mind, "X the Unknown" and a third that I can't remember, back to the internet...

But first, YES!!!! Your youtube link was right on the money!

Fazor
2007-Mar-07, 05:34 PM
Didn't you have enough of Journey to the Center in 'The Core'?

Lol! I said a TASTEFULL. I'm sure y'all would cringe at the badscience in redoing Verne's work as it was written, but that's the fun of fiction/fantasy; it doesn't have to be realistic.

I'm a huge Burton fan, and think he's about the only one that could capture the amazing visuals of the origonal. *Shrugs* that's my opinion though, and it tends to not agree with popular opinion (which is the only thing Hollywood cares about).

Argos
2007-Mar-07, 06:18 PM
Dune, definitely. It could be a grandiose movie.

Doodler
2007-Mar-07, 06:37 PM
Forbidden Planet, though I'm at a loss, since my personal candidate for the role of Morbius is deceased.

buffalodavid
2007-Mar-07, 07:03 PM
Forbidden Planet, though I'm at a loss, since my personal candidate for the role of Morbius is deceased.

First, did you think no one would ask? Who is this mystery person.

Second, I think an "FP" remake would be called for because of the effects. Granted way back in the day they were great, AND could be improved on now. Plus any remake must make the plater cast of the "Id Monster" should show only the bottom of its foot. Really, how DID they get that much detail from a footprint?

NEOWatcher
2007-Mar-07, 07:15 PM
I would probably say Fantastic Voyage. But only under two conditions:
1) It is a remake because they want to be more correct, both visibly and scientifically (well, as far as fiction can)
2) The Raquel Welch character is properly conveyed. :D

Doodler
2007-Mar-07, 07:27 PM
First, did you think no one would ask? Who is this mystery person.

Ages ago, I believe on BABB before the merge, there was some discussion that arose concerning a possible remake of FP. As a thought exercise, we came up with our own "dream team" casts. One of the more interesting suggestions was Lawrence Fishburne as Morbius (oh, the irony), but I had my eye on Andreas Katsulas. Regrettably, a few months after that thread, Andreas died of lung cancer.


Second, I think an "FP" remake would be called for because of the effects. Granted way back in the day they were great, AND could be improved on now. Plus any remake must make the plater cast of the "Id Monster" should show only the bottom of its foot. Really, how DID they get that much detail from a footprint?

Some of the effects could use a makeover, maybe the weapon projectiles. The Krell computer itself could stand a touch up or two. I stand in agreement with a LOT of others here that the original ID monster's gonna be tough to top. The original has withstood the test of time pretty well compared to what's acheivable with computer rendering and animation, probably the ONLY special effect shot of that era that has.

Fazor
2007-Mar-07, 07:30 PM
Of course you always have to consider with a remake things like this:

Planet of the Apes would have been at the very top of my list. I love that movie. Have it recorded on my DVR and won't let the g/f touch it. But they remade that. While I didn't think the PotA 2000 or whatever year it was redone was *bad*, at least not on the level that most people think it is, it definitely doesn't edge out the original. (Side note: I do however like it better than any of the sequels to the original. Ick!).

stutefish
2007-Mar-08, 01:25 AM
Outland, I think, could use a remake.

buffalodavid
2007-Mar-08, 01:34 AM
Outland, I think, could use a remake.

But I already was... of High Noon. Sorry Stutfish, couldn't resist. I'll go to my room now.

Selenite
2007-Mar-08, 02:45 AM
War of the Worlds...set in the 19th century Victorian England H.G. Wells conceived it in. Probably too late after having had Orson Welles, George Pal, and Steven Spielberg tamper with it.

stutefish
2007-Mar-08, 02:51 AM
But I already was... of High Noon. Sorry Stutfish, couldn't resist. I'll go to my room now.

Not at all! Personally, having recently watched it again, I thought it would be a much better movie, set here on Earth in the near future, perhaps on some advanced offshore drilling rig, or a cold-weather Siberian natural resources extraction outpost.

Maybe even change the McGuffin from performance-enhancing drugs to alien artifacts or something.

But yeah, it's essentially High Noon.

Maybe that's a good idea for another thread: Good movies that deserve an SF remake?

buffalodavid
2007-Mar-08, 02:56 AM
War of the Worlds...set in the 19th century Victorian England H.G. Wells conceived it in. Probably too late after having had Orson Welles, George Pal, and Steven Spielberg tamper with it.

And with a name like Selinite of course your a Wells Fan. Well good news. Check out
www.imdb.com/title/tt0425638/
(www.imdb.com/title/tt0425638/) Unfortunately, can't coment since I havent seen it.

What a concept, not reviewing a movie you haven't seen.

Serenitude
2007-Mar-08, 03:03 AM
Star Wars Ep. 1 ~ The Phantom Menace. Jar-Jar and his kin with upper-class British accents, a Qui-Gon who actually cared he was in the movie, anyone but Manakin, and completely re-written dialogue.

Selenite
2007-Mar-08, 03:08 AM
And with a name like Selinite of course your a Wells Fan. Well good news. Check out
www.imdb.com/title/tt0425638/
(www.imdb.com/title/tt0425638/) Unfortunately, can't coment since I havent seen it.

What a concept, not reviewing a movie you haven't seen.

Oooh. I've heard about this one. Someone said it should have been named Walk of the Worlds because that constitutes most of the film's action. I'm hoping to see it someday just out of morbid curiousity (and MST 3000.5 possibilities.) ;)

Yeah....Selenites. First Men in the Moon doesn't sound like it's gonna end up on the silver screen anytime soon but ya never know. :D

buffalodavid
2007-Mar-08, 03:14 AM
Maybe that's a good idea for another thread: Good movies that deserve an SF remake?

MMMM... Casablanac taking place at a time portal during a galactic war.A few Good Men taking place on an outpost near a waring planet. I once came up with the idea of remaking a sixies sex comedy called Quick Before It Melts (www.imdb.com/title/tt0425638/) set at an Anartic outpost, but I was going to move it to a lunar colony.

Hey, I was a kid and I thought I was Orson Wells.

SockMonkey
2007-Mar-08, 01:01 PM
I'd like to see any of the Jules Verne movie adaptations (tastefully *crosses fingers) redone. 20,000 leagues & Journey to the Center of the Earth are my two favorites. With todays effects technology, it could be quite stunning. Get Tim Burton online as dirrector, would be marvelous. That's what I'd love to see.

A few years back they did a remake of 20,000 leagues but it really reaaaaly sucked.
They substituted the professor's assistant with his daughter to create a love triangle between her, Nemo, and Ned Land.
It made Nemo seem petty, and distracted from the original message of the story.

The old version with Kirk Douglass is still the best in my opinion.

parallaxicality
2007-Mar-08, 01:36 PM
I can't think of a reason to remake "Forbidden Planet". What is left to say? It's a Freudian retelling of "The Tempest" in space. What else could you draw from it? Another reworking of "The Tempest" might be cool, perhaps as a horror film.

And I'll say it again. War of the Worlds is not set in Victorian England. It's set in the future. It just so happens that when Wells was writing it, the future happened to be 1900 or thereabouts. It was never meant to be a period piece and I doubt Wells, who adored the progress of science, would have wanted it seen that way. By far the best adaptation of the novel to date was the 1938 broadcast, and that was set in contemporary America.

Dune has already been remade as a scifi miniseries. I just don't think cinema can deal with Dune, unless they go the LotR route and do multiple films. Plus, it's not like Lynch's version was any weirder than Herbert's, really.

I like the idea of a Quatermass re-imagining, though I saw it mainly as a TV series. There's a lot to draw on, and given a "Galactica" style gritty revamp it could really rock socks.

I love the Disney version of 20,000 Leagues, and I can't think of a way to improve on it. A more faithful adaptation would mean including all those nasty Victorian attitudes towards animals, which I don't think modern audiences would appreciate much.

A movie I've contemplated remaking was Robot Monster. Core of a good idea there; a movie about the last family on Earth being terrorised by an alien, if done well, would be pretty freaky.

Doodler
2007-Mar-08, 02:09 PM
MMMM... Casablanac taking place at a time portal during a galactic war..

Babylon 5, perhaps?

Paul Beardsley
2007-Mar-08, 03:31 PM
I can't think of a reason to remake "Forbidden Planet". What is left to say? It's a Freudian retelling of "The Tempest" in space. What else could you draw from it? Another reworking of "The Tempest" might be cool, perhaps as a horror film.
Agreed. And the first part raises an all-important point: there has to be a really good artistic reason to remake a film. Too many remakes have apparently set out to recapture the worst aspects of past films or TV shows - Lost In Space being a memorable offender - and too often they have succeeded.


And I'll say it again. War of the Worlds is not set in Victorian England. It's set in the future. It just so happens that when Wells was writing it, the future happened to be 1900 or thereabouts. It was never meant to be a period piece and I doubt Wells, who adored the progress of science, would have wanted it seen that way. By far the best adaptation of the novel to date was the 1938 broadcast, and that was set in contemporary America.
I'm sure we've had this conversation before but what the hey. I strongly (and politely and respectfully) contend you are utterly wrong about this one.

For an analogy about your first point, Jane Austen set her novels in the present, which was the early 19th century. Loose film adaptations have been set in the "modern" present, but, what with the different social mores and so on, they really have been loose, and AFAIK the titles have always been changed.

When Wells wrote tWotW, it was in keeping with the current state of astronomy to suppose that there was intelligent life on Mars. It was reasonable to suppose that you might see a flash on the planet's surface which would later prove to be the launching of a cylinder. The fact that the invaders came from Mars was borne out by their problems with triple-strength gravity.

All these scientific details are pertinent to the period in which it was originally set. All those details would have to be changed in an adaptation set in our own near future, or else we would have to pretend that we know no more about Mars now than we did 100 years ago.

Similarly, our weaponry is way ahead of anything the army had to fight off the invaders. We have our own heat ray, for instance, and flying machines.

Another enduring appeal of the novel is the period imagery - a genteel Surrey landscape and more-tea-vicar suddenly being stomped underfoot. The political commentary - notably that concerning British imperialism - is also rooted to its period.

Once you have removed all these elements, and replaced them with something else - invaders from another star, commentary on the War on Terror, an urban setting, and so on - you've just got a generic alien invasion story. Why call it War of the Worlds when you might as well call it V, or Invasion: Earth, or Independence Day, or every other episode of Doctor Who? No, the period setting is part and parcel of tWotW, more so than, say, The Time Machine or The Invisible Man.


Dune has already been remade as a scifi miniseries. I just don't think cinema can deal with Dune, unless they go the LotR route and do multiple films. Plus, it's not like Lynch's version was any weirder than Herbert's, really.
I entirely agree with this. The miniseries was extremely good, IMO.


I like the idea of a Quatermass re-imagining, though I saw it mainly as a TV series. There's a lot to draw on, and given a "Galactica" style gritty revamp it could really rock socks.
I don't think we need it. A similar sort of idea could work, but I'd prefer it if people would be content to draw inspiration from the old whilst striving to create something new.


I love the Disney version of 20,000 Leagues, and I can't think of a way to improve on it. A more faithful adaptation would mean including all those nasty Victorian attitudes towards animals, which I don't think modern audiences would appreciate much.
I dunno, it just didn't feel epic to me.

Swift
2007-Mar-08, 04:30 PM
<snip>
Agreed. And the first part raises an all-important point: there has to be a really good artistic reason to remake a film. Too many remakes have apparently set out to recapture the worst aspects of past films or TV shows - Lost In Space being a memorable offender - and too often they have succeeded.

Absolutely. I'll even state it more strongly; I think Hollywood is entirely too enamored with remakes, either of old movies or TV programs. I suspect it is because they have a lack of creative minds (or the executives aren't listening to those minds) and because it is an easy way to make money. Why did we need a remake of Forbideen Planet or The Time Machine, go rent the DVD and watch the original. Look at the thread about science fiction books that should be made into movies - there is so much stuff there, why rehash what has already been done.

buffalodavid
2007-Mar-08, 05:06 PM
I agree, to a point. Thirty or forty years ago the point of remaking a good film was so the public could see it (and hence make money for the executive producers). In those days the only way to see an old film was on tv and in a revival house. Before that, there were companies that made a living re-releasing other peoples movies. Check out the trailers on those DVDs of old classic Universal monster movies. The fine print says re-release.

With the home video revolution, this is all a mute point now.We dont need to remake a movie for it "just to be seen. Yes these days remakes are mostly an example of sloppy and lazy film making. Take these Exc Producers out and have them shot, I'll pay for the bullets.

But an obscure film, like The Lost Missile (www.imdb.com/title/tt0051881/) or the German film Gold (www.imdb.com/title/tt0025189/) or any of the Dr. Mabuse movies.... now there are films to remake.

OK, I was joking earlier about the remake of Forbidden Planet only because of that damn foot print thing. Its always bothered me.

I'm anal. "Anal is a nice word for what you are." Annie Hall

Fazor
2007-Mar-08, 07:38 PM
Meethinks Hollywood remakes so many old films because they know: * Old film has fan base. X ammount of people liked the old film. Therefore if we make New Old film, the those people will go see it. They don't have to like it, most will see it anyway. Who cares if it's good or bad? It's a garunteed draw.

The GOOD remakes seem to come from dirrectors that want to pay homage to thier influences. The new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, for instance. (Okay I'm biased, I've already stated how much I love Burton's imagery). But the new version neither completely copied, nor comlpetely trashed the origonal. And it was done with the intention of making a spectacular movie, not churning out a photocopy of the first or injecting "modern" climate into an old movie (eg. Adding a love intrest to 20,000 leagues.).

But producers don't care. If they see a chance for a garunteed draw at the box office, they'll do it. That's why you see Planet of the Apes 2000 and not Casablanca 2000, as the later would not attract fans but letter bombs. (tho i suspect its just a matter of time).

parallaxicality
2007-Mar-08, 07:59 PM
RE: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. There is a problem here, and it's one that gets on my nerves (present company excepted- I mean when professional film critics do it) of getting a remake confused with a readaptation. They are very different. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a readaptation of a novel, not a remake of a film, and is actually closer to its source material than "Willy Wonka..." was. I mean the same critics who claim that "Red Dragon" is a remake of "Manhunter" or that Peter Jackson's LOTR is a remake of Ralph Bashki's (I'm not kidding- look it up in Maltin's guide) would probably blanch if I told them that by that logic, the Ethan Hawke Hamlet is a remake of Olivier's Hamlet.

Fazor
2007-Mar-08, 08:30 PM
Ah, true. So Charlie was a bad example but my point still stands. A fan of Orsin Wells is bound to see any craptacular remake of WotW you spit up in your sleep. Remake any of the Star Trek movies and you know you trekkies will go see it; even if you're cursing the choice to cast leonardo decaprio as the next spock, you'll still see it. That's all the producers think about (but can you really blame them? Tell me a surefire way to legally make millions and i'll do it too).

parallaxicality
2007-Mar-08, 08:42 PM
War of the Worlds movies are readaptations too, but I see your point.

Gillianren
2007-Mar-08, 08:53 PM
A few years back they did a remake of 20,000 leagues but it really reaaaaly sucked.
They substituted the professor's assistant with his daughter to create a love triangle between her, Nemo, and Ned Land.
It made Nemo seem petty, and distracted from the original message of the story.

That's the one with Paul Gross as Ned Land, right? Yeah, I caught that on Sci-Fi a while back. Even my deep and abiding love of Paul Gross couldn't make me give that turkey more than a 4/10. Also, where did he get tan-in-a-can on the Nautilus?


The old version with Kirk Douglass is still the best in my opinion.

Heck, yeah! You've got to love the old Disney movies; they could get anyone to sing. (Sean Connery in Darby O'Gill and the Little People, for example.)

Swift
2007-Mar-08, 09:32 PM
To side track things a little, I would love to see Enterprise (the TV program) remade. I think it was a great concept, but it was completely butchered in the script department. Once more, from the top, without time traveling Nazi aliens.

SeanF
2007-Mar-08, 09:51 PM
War of the Worlds movies are readaptations too, but I see your point.
So was 2000's Planet of the Apes, although it interestingly used the first movie's title rather than the book's.

Doodler
2007-Mar-08, 10:03 PM
To side track things a little, I would love to see Enterprise (the TV program) remade. I think it was a great concept, but it was completely butchered in the script department. Once more, from the top, without time traveling Nazi aliens.

Thats one of the reasons I'm sincerely hoping JJ Abrahms project isn't trying to fit into existing canon, but a complete top down reinvention. Replace the original altogether and start over.