The Day The Earth Stood Still

[Koray Savas 2,095]

I saw the trailer for this with Hancock. I hadn't heard anything about it, and was rather surprised when the title appeared. I know nothing about the original aside that Herrmann did the score. I think the trailer looks pretty good, but I'm sure fans of the original will be upset.

Here is the trailer.

[Ollie 859]

I'm soooo giddy with anticipation.

Keanu Reeves starring and Tyler Bates possibly scoring, wow who couldn't ask for anything better?

[Lurker 5]

December 12. The day the box office stood still.

Neil

[Morlock 9]

My god that looks awful.

[Ollie 859]

It was awful when this project was first announced.

[Richard Penna 2,082]

That does indeed look lamentably bad...

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

It does not actually. It just looks average.

[Richard Penna 2,082]

But it's got Keanu Reeves... it's under such weight.

[Williamsfan301 11]

Klaatu barada nikto

[artyjeffrey 20]

But it's got Keanu Reeves... it's under such weight.

[Romão 1,931]

From Bernard Herrmann to Tyler Bates...

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

It's called evolution.

[Romão 1,931]

Thank God for global warming.

[Koray Savas 2,095]

Is Bates officially doing it? That might turn me away right there.

[MrScratch 292]

Does Keanu Reeves play Gort?

[Ollie 859]

No Gort will be a CGI creation.

He plays Klaatu......

[MrScratch 292]

I was kidding. I can't picture Keanu giving that speech at the end, I'm already looking forward to the rifftrax for this movie.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

Gort isn't even in the film supposedly.

[Vaderbait1 1]

The original was awesome. This trailer looked.....decent I suppose, but I know for a fact I cannot stomach Keanu for an entire movie. And it's about global warming I've heard. I do agree with his line that the only way the earth survives is if we die. That seems to be right up the alarmists alley.

[Morlock 9]

I'm more worried about Tyler Bates than I am about Keanu. I liked the original movie, but I absolutely love the score.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

I love the movie far more than the score.

I don't get the hatred towards Keanu Reeves, its more of a bandwagon thing, people love to pile on without great reason.

He's a much better actor now than in the past. He's not great, but there are worse out there, and its undeniable that he does have a presence on the screen

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

I have nothing against him, he's not the world's most versatile actor, but he's done some good movies, and some good roles.

[Vaderbait1 1]

I love the movie far more than the score.

I don't get the hatred towards Keanu Reeves, its more of a bandwagon thing, people love to pile on without great reason.

He's a much better actor now than in the past. He's not great, but there are worse out there, and its undeniable that he does have a presence on the screen

It's because he only has one expression, on tone of voice, and he can't convey much emotion. Plus, I hate the whole "surfer voice." It makes him hard to take seriously. He's quite possibly the worst big-name actor.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

it obvious you have a problem with him, you're seeing things he no longer does, and you can't give him the credibility he's due.

[Vaderbait1 1]

it obvious you have a problem with him, you're seeing things he no longer does, and you can't give him the credibility he's due.

I don't have a problem with him personally or anything, I don't know anything abuot him. But he DOES still do those things. In that trailer one of the lines he delivers is delivered exactly in that surfer monotone. I'm not talking the exaggerated surfer voice he did in Bill and Ted, but a hint of an accent. He looks and sounds exactly the same in every single thing he does. Doesn't exactly make me want to see any of his movies.

Oh, and aside from the Matrix, what movie has he done that was quality or entertaining? I can't think of any...

[Red 73]

Despicable. Did the Planet of the Apes remake teach Hollywood nothing?

[JoeinAR 1,759]

I liked him in Parenthood, The Gift, The Lake House, Dracula, The Replacements, The Devils Advocate, Speed, Chain Reaction, Feeling Minnesota. They are not always great films but he held his own against some incredible actors.

[Morlock 9]

I disagree about Dracula. But I think he was just right for Speed, Parenthood, Devil's Advocate, and Bill & Tedd.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

Personally, I think the trailer looks pretty darn good. I'm sure it won't be as good a movie as the original, but as long as it's good on its own terms, that's good enough for me to be interested.

I like Keanu as an actor, and have only found his performances to be lacking on a couple of occasions: Bram Stoker's Dracula and Much Ado About Nothing, and in both of those cases, it didn't kill the movie for me. If you'll pardon the obviousness, he's always had an alien quality, and if this movie takes advantage of that quality, he might be excellent in the role. And the movie has several other terrific actors in it, as well: Kathy Bates, Jennifer Connelly, and Jon Hamm (if you don't know who that is, I suggest you buy/rent the first season of Mad Men).

The movie's director previously directed The Exorcism of Emily Rose, which I thought was a pretty good movie. Even better: it was a pretty good movie about ideas, which is also true of the original Day the Earth Stood Still. Now, who knows if the remake's screenplay is any good; it might be purest crap for all I know.

What I do know is that I was impressed by the trailer, and that the actors and director are sufficently strong that I see no reason to not be excited.

[Charlie Brigden 5]

I like POINT BREAK a lot, although more for the score, photography and Swayze than anything else. Oh, and the on-foot chase. But I don't think Keanu is particularly convincing unless he is playing a surfer-type ala PB or Bill and Ted. And his performance in DRACULA is hilarious.

The trailer is stunningly awful, though. I never thought this would come to fruition, but it looks terrible. I fear now that this will lead to the oft-rumoured comedy remake of THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN, another amazing 50s sf opus.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

The trailer is stunningly awful, though.

"Stunningly awful"? Really?

Explain, please.

[Charlie Brigden 5]

Explanation: An empty, dull trailer with acting straight out of PLAN 9, an aesthetic of what can only be described as beige, and an overall atmosphere of as much dramatic gravitas as when Carol Vorderman repeats the letters on Countdown.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

Explanation: An empty, dull trailer with acting straight out of PLAN 9, an aesthetic of what can only be described as beige, and an overall atmosphere of as much dramatic gravitas as when Carol Vorderman repeats the letters on Countdown.

that doesn't begin to describe the trailer/teaser I saw, I think it was a fine teaser, did all it was supposed to do.

[Charlie Brigden 5]

We all see with different eyes.

Whatever it teased, I do not want to be anywhere near it.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

Explanation: An empty, dull trailer with acting straight out of PLAN 9, an aesthetic of what can only be described as beige, and an overall atmosphere of as much dramatic gravitas as when Carol Vorderman repeats the letters on Countdown.

Hey, if you don't want to see it that's fine by me . . . but if you honestly think what you saw was comparable to Plan 9 from Outer Space, then you need to watch more movies, or something. You're thinking orthodonists and pro wrestlers? We're on different planets.

And what the heck is an aesthetic of beige? Are you attempting to be poetic, or do you mean something specific visually that I'm just not aware of?

[Koray Savas 2,095]

I thought the trailer was pretty good. Got me hooked, and I didn't even know what it was about until the end. Reeves is a decent actor, he's nothing special but I don't hate him. I liked him in The Matrix, Speed, and The Gift. My friend said Street Kings was good, but I never saw it. His acting can be a little stiff, but it seems to fit his role in this movie perfectly.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

I thought the trailer was pretty good. Got me hooked, and I didn't even know what it was about until the end. Reeves is a decent actor, he's nothing special but I don't hate him. I liked him in The Matrix, Speed, and The Gift. My friend said Street Kings was good, but I never saw it. His acting can be a little stiff, but it seems to fit his role in this movie perfectly.

He was okay in Street Kings, which is a somewhat terrible movie.

I've never been more impressed with Reeves than I was by his performance in The Gift. I thought he brought some real meance to that role, and it was all the more effective because it was unexpected meance. I mean, a scary Keanu? That's really scary.

He's not a perfect actor, but he joins a looooong tradition of stars whose acting could at times be shaky. I think he's got a shot at being terrific in this particular movie, but I'm sure that even if I think he is, a lot of people will disagree. So be it.

[Wojo 2,442]

the only way the earth survives is if we die.

That's like saying human civilization has to be purged in order to save the planet. In the trailer, I heard "If the earth dies, you die. If you die, the earth survives." I sure didn't hear anything about an only way in that saying.

Humanity will certainly perish if our planet is destroyed.

Whether it's by our hand, climatological shock, or by aliens using its destruction as an ultimatum for us to change our ways. We certainly don't have the means to live underground, underwater, or extraterrestrially yet.

If Humanity brings about its own destruction but the planet is spared, it will survive.

We may be killing off species and hurting the earth, but it doesn't need us to survive. We're a pest, but still just a blip. Life after the collapse of our civilization will continue, just as it has after every major extinction our planet has seen for eons. In a few million years, life will have recovered.

The teaser looks decent enough. I don't know if I'll pay top dollar to see it, it might be a rental.

I like Keanu Reeves, he's made some enjoyable flicks, and sometimes his acting style fits the part less good than others, but that's ok. They can't all be Tom Hanks. Considering the character that Keanu plays in this, his deadpan style may fit really good. As long as he doesn't say "dude", "whoa," or "guns," he should be fine.

[Vaderbait1 1]

Some of you are pretty harsh on the trailer. It's nothing spectacular, but there's nothing bad about it. It was a very somber trailer, so the acting wasn't going to show a lot of amazing range...you can question the existence of the remake (I certainly do), but the trailer itself doesn't exactly prove it'll suck.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

This is just a film people want to hate from the moment they heard about it.

[ST-321 4]

It does not actually. It just looks average.

No. When you remake a wonderful classic with just average (and I am being nice) it is awful.

I don't see anything that resembles the original except that moment of what looks like Gort.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

I don't see anything that resembles the original except that moment of what looks like Gort.

Should a remake resemble the original?

Remember, that's were the color remake of Psycho failed.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

I don't see anything that resembles the original except that moment of what looks like Gort.

Should a remake resemble the original?

Remember, that's were the color remake of Psycho failed.

I think that there's really only one answer to that question: not necessarily, no, it shouldn't. It can, of course; but it needn't.

I didn't care much for Van Sant's Psycho until I listened to his commentary on the DVD, in which he talked about the movie having been an experiment to find out what made Hitchcock's movie live and breathe. He wanted to find out if it could be replicated by having the shots be almost entirely the same, and he more or less came to the conclusion that it couldn't. Now, that doesn't make the remake a good movie, but I think it does make it a very interesting one. Or maybe an interesting commentary track...

With some people, on the subject of remakes, you're damned no matter what you do. If you retain elements from the original, people complain that there was no need to do a remake; if you don't, people complain that you aren't respectful of the original.

I don't think there is any reason on Earth why a remake should have to do anything more than be true to itself. If it does that, then that's good enough for me. I suppose I'd prefer that it have some respect for the material it's being drawn from, but it's not something I'm insistent upon; if you can do better (cough*Starbuck as a woman*cough), then by all means, do so, I'm not going to sweat it.

I also firmly believe that in order for meaningful stories to remain meaningful, they need to be retold once in a while. After all, not everyone is a film nerd like so many of us on this board are; you couldn't pay most of them to watch a dusty old sci-fi movie about an alien who looks remarkably like a human in a silver suit and who has a clunky-looking robot as a sidekick. However, a lot of those same people are probably going to be willing to watch a movie with modern special effects and an actor they've seen in other movies, and there will be a few of them who through that process become willing to watch the older version. Some of those people will fall in love with it; some won't, but some will. Even if the remake sucks, it'll grow the audience for the original; it'll maybe be a marginal growth, but it's better than nothing. That in and of itself would be reason enough for me to support the idea of a remake.

But I see no reason as of now to assume the remake is going to suck. If it doesn't, if it ends up being good, then it'll further enchance the visibility and reputation of the original. Either way, the original is well-served by a remake.

So I have literally no idea what these purists are complaining about. We're not talking about a situation in which the new is replacing the old. No, the original will still be available for anyone who wants to enjoy it. I'm reminded of a story Stephen King told about Robert Bloch wherein Bloch was asked by an interviewer how he felt about Hollywood having butchered so many of his novels. Bloch pointed to a shelf of his novels and said, "Hollywood didn't do anything to my books; there they are, right there."

Same deal here. Robert Wise has nothing to fear, and fans of the original have nothing to complain about. That's the way I see it, at least.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,765]

Even if the remake sucks, it'll grow the audience for the original; it'll maybe be a marginal growth, but it's better than nothing. That in and of itself would be reason enough for me to support the idea of a remake.

That's no reason so support a remake. The money they spend on this could have gone to an original conception.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

Even if the remake sucks, it'll grow the audience for the original; it'll maybe be a marginal growth, but it's better than nothing. That in and of itself would be reason enough for me to support the idea of a remake.

That's no reason so support a remake. The money they spend on this could have gone to an original conception.

I don't care -- not one single little iota do I care -- about "original." I care about good movies, not whether they are remakes or not.

If I cared about only "original" movies, I'd have to not care about any movie not based on a novel or a comic book or a tv show, too. Or heck, real life, for that matter. And when you start crossing all of those movies off your list, your list of great movies starts to look pretty damn thin.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,765]

Egh, I have to be careful, or robots will misinterpret me. "Original" as in it doesn't have the same title and storyline as a movie that's already been made. Make something new and interesting. The Day the Earth Stood Still is a film that reflects the early 1950's - instead make a different movie that reflects and says something about the late 2000's without resorting to making something that's already been done.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

Egh, I have to be careful, or robots will misinterpret me. "Original" as in it doesn't have the same title and storyline as a movie that's already been made. Make something new and interesting. The Day the Earth Stood Still is a film that reflects the early 1950's - instead make a different movie that reflects and says something about the late 2000's without resorting to making something that's already been done.

How is doing what you suggest any more valid than reworking a movie that already exists? Personally, I find it interesting to compare one era's version of a story to a different era's version of the same story; it adds a layer of complexity (in theory), which I appreciate.

If you applied the no-remakes philosophy to music, you'd immediately lose a large portion of all the great jazz ever recorded. And that'd be a tragedy. No more Miles Davis doing Porgy and Bess?!? I don't want to live in that world.

Movie remakes aren't really any different than jazz, after all: it's taking a story and filtering it through somebody else's consciousness, and ending up with something that can be "new and interesting," as you seem to want. That's the best-case scenario, of course. I admit that many remakes are pointless and poor. I've just never assumed that one will be simply because it is a remake.

[AC1 3,565]

I care about good movies, not whether they are remakes or not.

Yes, but looking at history, how much chance is there that a remake is good?

Planet Of The Apes, anyone?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,765]

If a remake has something meaningful to say and is very different to the previous version, then at least it has that going for it. But remakes for the sake of remakes, like say The Omen, and what Alex pointed out with Planet of the Apes, then it's just an expensive exercise in redundancy to compensate for creative bankruptcy.

[Morlock 9]

Well, at least Planet of The Apes had great makeup, which is already better than some other remakes.