remakes? please.... is there nothing new under the sun? expanding and developing a beloved storyline is worthwhile (see star trek, star wars, terminator, etc.) remakes miss the unique milieu & raison d'tre of the original

Remakes, I agree are in most cases a bad idea, however, some remakes were better than the original, Invasion of the Body Snatchers for instance. The remake of War of the Worlds turned out to be a big let down. I give all the credit of these failures to the directors; who missed the essence that the original offered. In this day of CG effects the directors needs to spend a little more time putting cohesiveness in the story.

@Double_R: I agree about directors letting the thought of making great special effects get in the way of legitimate story telling is probably the biggest problem here.

But I think context is also extremely important when you're thinking about a remake. The movie has to be relevant to the modern day, not the era in which the original was made. Take War of the Worlds--yes, it's based on a much older book. But if you want to make the new one compelling, maybe the solution to Earth's problem is not a virus that kills the invaders. I'm sure disease was a much bigger deal back in the 50s, but movies need to reflect the climate of the times. Colds don't scare us any more.

Ronald D. Moore has done a great job remaking Battlestar Galactica because he refused to make something that blindly adheres to the original. Yeah, maybe the circumstances in the 70s show were totally different from this version, but that's what makes the 70s show near-unwatchable to people my age.

I think the important thing to remember is that if someone remakes a classic, they have to throw out the old script and ask themselves, "why now?" If people buck at the concept of changing the story to suit the times, hey, the original is not going anywhere.

I love the original "Day the Earth Stood Still" and think a remake would need to totally re-envision it (Ronald Moore style, if you will).
But there are certain issues the screenwriters would have to overcome. The original seems optimistic about humanity reaching out to the stars, something we've barely done beyond a few probes here and there. Would we really pose a threat to anybody but ourselves? And what could the aliens do to really REALLY get our attention besides just turning all power off all over the world (and smartly letting planes fly, hospitals keep power, etc). I almost wish they would keep the movie in the 1960's black and white era, but I imagine they'll almost turn it into a darker version of 'Contact.'

Gort klatu verada nicto!

This is one of my all time favs! I rarely go to see remakes because they are such a let down. When the originals were made there was a different mindset. B/W and old color movies seem to capture a certain essence that is totally missed in today remakes. Plus, there's something to be said for the special FX of yesteryear. gotta love some of the corny costumes, which added to the whole sci-fi experience . But that just adds to the originality of the movie. Give me the originals any day! When I do watch a remake, I'm looking for it to follow the story line and essence of the original. I'm usually disappointed.

Remaking the scifi classics is a bunch of melarchy.
It's stupid because remaking a classic, sometimes trashes it Big TIME! I mean take for example King Kong. Yes the effects were really cheesy but it was good movie. When we remade it, it was soo boring and to me it felt like they were just dragging the plot out too much. We should never remake a scifi or anyother movie period! What would happen if they remade all the Star Wars movie again and completely trashed them? Star Wars fans would be furious! So how about we come up with a new scifi movie instead of copying someone else's work and making it newer and seem like we just made it!

I am torn! I would love to see some of the classics remade with new technology that could totaly visualize any concept the author had in mind. I love seeing things that could never be seen before.
But everything would have to be PERFECT. The real intent of the author would have to be honored and actors would have to be perfect for the part, not just studio moneymakers, and authors, screenwriters, producers and directors would all have to work together sharing the same vision and at the same time satisfy studio heads and investors. Like I said, everything would have to be Perfect. Then, I think a new version of an old classic would work. But the Original would still be valued as a work of art on it's own, and not have to be in competition with the new tech versions. Is that too much to ask?

@zthea: They DID remake all the Star Wars movies, both with the originals and with the Special Editions that were re-released in theaters. That resulted in Death to Jar-Jar fan clubs, as well as the whole "Greed Shot First" debacle.

I would agree, as in the cases if Star Wars and King Kong it's best just to leave well enough alone. But you can't deny that it's possible to remake a classic scifi movie correctly. Invasion of the Body Snatchers was redone extremely well, and is arguably better than the original. And not to keep harping on it, but can anyone actually say the original Battlestar Galactica is better than Ronald D Moore's version?

The filmmakers have their hand full with DESS, because it's a classic that needs little improvement. They're messing with a film that has entered the canon of our culture, and that's always dangerous. Is it possible to remake the film? Absolutely. It touches on issues of mankind's violence and savagery that are especially prescient in this day and age. But the remake needs to be cognizant of that fact.

We can't remake movies just because we now have the technology to make the spaceships or whatever look awesome. Films have to be more than spectacle--they have to have a message about the world we live in NOW.

Could you play any of the Goerge Romero movies....And ,one of my favorites,"Francis Goes to the Races",with Donald O'Conner?How long do yoyu think it will be before they air?

@Glenn: Unfortunately I don't have much control over that, but I'll be sure to ask someone who deals with scheduling. Meantime you can check out our schedule here:

http://movies.amctv.com/schedule

I really hope they remake Barbarella and keep it just as cheesy as the first one. They need to stop trying to dignify remakes and realize that part of a movies appeal the first time around is it's lack of basis in reality.

We owe the original classics the most homage - but after 20, or 30 years, a fresh, updated version is certainly welcomed!
(great job with the Wizard of Oz!)

at B.O.--Do you mean SciFi's recent Tin Man? I didn't see that, and heard mixed reviews. My question for you is, what does "fresh, updated" mean? How much do you think you can refresh, and how faithful to the original do you think you have to be?

I say, throw out the playbook, keep the basic outline, and start from scratch with a remake. It's the only way to make it work, and make it your own.

The Day the Earth Stood Still is a classic that cannot be passed over. It really makes one think of what the future can become if we can learn to trust one another.

"I say, throw out the playbook, keep the basic outline, and start from scratch with a remake. It's the only way to make it work, and make it your own."

I totally agree with this. I have no problem with remakes really. Hollywood has been doing this since the beginning. I believe it was Aristotle who said "There are only seven original stories, the rest are all versions of those original stories". He's right. Go back and look at the original Greek plays and you find the same themes in them that you find in our films today, just different versions of the same thing.

So I say, bring on the remake. If it sucks, well I've lost a couple of hours of my life watching something that sucked. Do I still have the originals to go back to and watch. Why yes of course I do.

I also issue a challange to the filmmakers that take on these remakes. Do something with them. Make them your own. While it seems like many people here disliked Jackson's King Kong (to be honest it was WAY to long), Jackson took it and made it his own while staying true to the original and it's themes. I also gather that a lot of you didn't really dig Speilberg's War of the Worlds. I'm a fan of the original, the radio version, the book version and the film version and I think Speilberg did a great job with the film. I thought it was action packed, filled with tension and a real look at what makes us as human beings tick. I also thought the special fx were amazing. I also thought that Speilberg did a great job of taking the original outline and making it work for our contemporary society.

So what I'm saying here folks is, bring it on, but make it your own. Give me a reason to want to love your version as much as I love the original!

The Only thing I have against remakes is that sometimes they take up all the space for other films and other ideas of some original people

I am still amazed that people have not learned a lesson about remakes. I can count on one hand the remakes that actually worked however there are countless ones that were horrible. I always say that the one film they probably wouldnt touch would be Star Wars but I also said the same thing about Psycho, so who knows????

@TannerBoyle: But you said so yourself, there are remakes that work. So it is possible somehow. I think there are just pitfalls that need to be avoided: Nostalgia for nostalgias sake, for example; special effects gluttony would be another.

Psycho is an interesting example, because that remake was 100%, frame for frame shot for shot faithful to the original, which kind of makes you wonder why they would even bother. I don't think it worked, and I'm not sure why. I suppose if you're going to do a remake, it's because you have something fresh to bring to the table. That means you have something more than the ability to make the FX look cooler, something more than a love for a certain film and a desire to somehow attach your name to it.

Yeah, Psycho is really a curious little thorn in my side. I adore the original, but Gus Van Zandt's remake was as dead on except for some some of the undertone's the Hitchcock played down and Van Zandt played up. I think that's the difference, Ole Alfred said, you know what he's doing looking through the whole in the bathroom, I don't need to show you any more, where Gus said, let me paint this very clear picture for you that Norman Bates is a sexual psycho.

I think that was the biggest difference, the idea that the audience knew more than what you thought. It's funny, but I think too many director's today add in too much exposition because they think we as an audience are too dumb to get the subtext.

Wow that's off topic. And for every crappy remake we have at least one good one. I can start a list of some great ones if you would like?

Definitely, let's start a list of successful remakes:

--BSG (Even though it's a show)
--Invasion of the Body Snatchers

What else?

I've got to say this even though some may not like it but, Zach Snyder and James Gunn's Dawn of the Dead 2004 was very good. Others:

John Carpenter's The Thing
David Cronenberg's The Fly
Martin Scorsese's The Departed
Werner Herzog's Nosferatau: The Vampyre

More to come:

Remakes in general? It depends on the original and the reason to remake. But specifically, The Day the Earth Stood Still? Absolutely not. This is the finest science fiction film ever made. The futuristic vision far surpassed the average for its day, in 1951. The political insight was profound, and applies as well today as it did over 50 years ago. This film holds up to the test of time. To remake it would imply that there was something lacking in the original, but in fact would only be capitalizing on a known success. This movie was a bold statement to make at the beginning of the nuclear age and amidst the hysteria of the McCarthy Era. Give it the rare respect it has earned and leave it alone.

Some films should never be remade... and honestly most of them shouldn't, especially sci-fi classics. "The Day The Earth Stood Still" was sooo good. What's next, remaking "Fantastic Voyage"... yes, I know, I know.. it's being made. Here's to the classics though!

Remakes are fine in my opinion, if and only if, there is something new that can be done with them and it is worthwhile... classics, like The Time Machine, The Day The Earth Stood Still, King Kong etc were worth remaking because the stories were old and it was good for the next generation. Things that shouldn't be remade are movies that are barely 25 years old... how many times can we see Freddy Krueger or Michael Myers? Give me a break

Remakes...bad...originals...great!!! I find the remakes silly.

What is a remake? Just someone else's different view of the same image? I think not! Consider when one gazes into a mirror. You see a reflection, a reverse copy, not an identical representation. The Day The Earth Stood Still, is a classic, but so are many other films. To remake this film would only pay homage to it's memory. Yes, we now have CGI, FX, and many other sophisticated technologies that were not in existence when the original was conceived. Klatu and Gort would not reduce our planet to a burnt-out cinder if The Day The Earth Stood Still was re-filmed.

Most remakes aren't worth watching as far as I'm concerned. Why mess with something thats already great?

First I love Sci-Fi.... but I prefer new over remakes. I did enjoy the Tin Man -- and likely would enjoy similar types of remakes -- where there is a "fresh" look at an older story. Keep up the good work tho, Sci-Fi is one of my favorite places to go when I turn the TV on!!

Remake? I still 'cringe' when I remember I paid to see the 'Lost in Space' movie!!

I liked the Lost in Space movie!! I mean, it was kind of silly, but you can't deny that Gary Oldman did a great job, as always, and there's something I also always enjoy about William Hurt. Anybody else out there with me?

I loved the original Day the Earth Stood Still, but like it or not folks, special effects have come a long way. Done right, a remake could be fantastic. Problem is, it has to be done just right.

What do you guys think of the recent news that there will be a sequel to Tron? I think it could actually be really cool--it's a great idea, a big universe with lots of room for growth, and given modern technology it could be really visually stunning.

Plus, the Dude returns to cyberspace!!

REMAKES---Well in my humble opinion it all depends upon which movie is up for an overhaul. Then who is going to be Director? Who is going to rewrite the script? How close are they going to follow the original? and How much money are the going to budget for it. If they are looking for a movie to make a political statement then why not Fahrenheit 454. or break down and make a movie about Mien Kaumph. Heck if the really wanted to make a statement Remake Twilights Last Gleaming. Let them do what their doing, Sooner or later they'll get the message as to how good they are by looking at the box office receipts.

I have grown up watching the classics and I think that they are great. Some of the remakes have been worth it while some have made me wonder: "WHY". I would like to see some others redone, but the thing is that sometimes the story is changed so much that I can't follow it or I wonder why the storyline was changed. I understand that some people feel that they can improve on what has already been done, but some classics should be left alone. In remaking the classics, it should be remembered that although budgets are bigger now, that isn't always needed. The storyline needs to be just as entertaining as the original. Careful thought must be given to the writer, the director and producers. Make it fun, interesting and "believeable".

Some movies need or deserve a remake bacause something was left out of the original, or something new has come along to give the message new punch or application--"The Day The Earth Stood Still" is not one of them. It is a self-contained movie that wraps itself up neatly while delivering the necessary essence of its message.
Remakes fail because there is nothing new in the message or story that actually adds to it, and often, as in Speilberg's WOTW, the script and characters are lame and weakly constructed. I fear TDTEST will suffer from the same malaise: nothing has changed in the global game of nuclear chess to give the original movie new application or impetus, and the casting of minimal talent in the lead role will make this movie suffer even more.
If Hollywood wants to get serious about a remake, they should consider remaking "Mission to Mars", a movie that single-handedly trivialized notions of the origins of terrestrial life--so thoroughly and without accreditation--that no one in the Hollywood system will be taken seriously, in my life time, should they want to explore the full potential of its notion.

A very interesting prospect. The purist in me says, "No. No! NO!!!" Then the analytical part of me wonders how good a remake could be. First of all, with the technology at our command, the special effects have the potential to be awesome. The story would have to be revamped, of course. Gort's power would have to be more on the overt side, considering that mankind still stupidly believes that we are both the strongest and most intelligent beings in the universe. Klaatu's character would have to have the patience of Job to deal with earthlings, even more so than in the original. This brings up another question: Who would play Klaatu? Whoever it may be will have a big pair of shoes to fill. Especially with people like me. Purists.
The trouble is that we seem to be in the age of remakes. It's almost as if filmmakers have run out of original ideas. I have the same fear as Monty52, that this remake will suffer the same fate as WOTW. Here's an idea for the role of Klaatu: Guy Pierce, the actor who played the lead in the remake of The Time Machine. That was actually reasonably well done.

www.imdb.com says Keaneu Reeves will play the part of Klaatu. That's enough reason for me to skip the movie. I like the suggestion of Guy Pierce, an infinitely more talented actor than Reeves, and also think Ralph Fiennes would do, but mostly because he reminds me of Michael Rennie, his acting abilities notwithstanding. I wonder what Kathy Bates will be doing in the movie?

The Day The Earth Stood Still, is the benchmark of a Sci-Fi classic. I don't believe anyone could bring back or improve upon the way the story was brought forth in the original. For a movie from that time to try and make a social statement and do it in such an entertaining way. It doesn't come off as trying to push ones political statements the way movies sometimes do today.
As the saying goes, Don't try to fix or improve something that wasn't broken.
They wouldn't remake Gone With The Wind would they? So why touch this, just because it's Sci-Fi.
It will always go down as my favorite Sci-Fi movie.

No remakes! There can be exceptions. The third Maltese Falcon is the best, I enjoy Carpenter's version of The Thing but that is another story. Leave The Day the Earth Stood Still alone. I find the move to be good not the greatest sci-fi ever as some think. I have watched it several times and wonder if racism is a sub text as well as communism and nuclear arms.

I'm a firm believer in IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT !!

I do believe some pictures ("the greats"), you do not re-make. Some films need to be remade and I would not mind seeing Robert Wise's sci-fi religious allegory movie remade with modern techniques. I also believe Scott Derrickson is perfect for the job. His 'Hellraiser : Inferno" was very clever and "The Exorcism Of Emily Rose" was unusually intelligent for a horror picture. In both pictures he deftly avoided genre cliches, which would be very welcome for a sci-fi remake. I think he would avoid the failings and deficiencies of the box office and critical failure "The Invasion." As long as no one remakes Wise's "The Sound of Music" I will continue to support Hollywood.