Classic 1950's Sci-Fi> Should we redo them today?

[sheeplady]

I don't consider technology a reason enough to remake a movie.

Considering how CGI has always in the past "looked dated" a few years out, I'd tend to agree. I don't believe that modern CGI is so much better that it won't look dated 10-15 years from now if not sooner.

I think that some of the traditional ways of shooting films (non or pre-CGI) hold up incredibly well. Like the opening scene in Bladerunner- that was much more expensive to shoot than using CGI today, but it has held up incredibly well. Compare it to CGI films from 5 years ago- they looked good at the time, but now, not so much.

 

[Feraud]

Indeed.. When you simply lust for the latest technological fix, the high quickly wears off.

Btw, the Tyrell Corporation building used in the opening scene from Blade Runner is in our local Museum of the Moving Image. It's a wonderful set piece! CGI leaves nothing interesting behind. The technology is quickly dated and there are no physical props to enjoy. There are no costumes, cars, airplanes, buildings, masks, or matte paintings. There is only the spurious claim of time and money saved..

 

[bunnyb.gal]

I don't consider technology a reason enough to remake a movie.

:eusa_clap

That is definitely the danger with most remakes. Lazy, lacklustre scripts and character development which are ineffectively covered over by technology which makes most everything look like a video game...

I can't think, with the exception of John Carpenter's The Thing (and to a much much much lesser extent - not 50's I know - Tom Savini's remake of Night of the Living Dead) of any remake worth any salt whatsoever.

 

[Rathdown]

I don't consider technology a reason enough to remake a movie.

I don't consider technology reason enough to make any movie.

 

[Jaguar66]

The sine qua non of a great sci fi movie is the script. You first need that vision. And it has to based on scientific possibilities. For example, the movies based on Philip K. Dicks writings, (Blade Runner, Paycheck, Minority Report, etc), have been great sci fi movies for the most part.

I recall seeing Target Earth when it originally played. I still remember the robot(s) though I haven't seen it in decades. Robot themes have been played out quite a lot.

Forbidden Planet could still be a doable redo, though the movie is based on The Tempest, so the theme would be a repeat theme.

What I see as lacking is creativity. Those 50s sci fi B movies were quite different from standard movie making of the time, so were unique in my view. It is hard to be unique in that genre anymore. The uniqueness in movie making in this era is the digital animated movies.

 

[TM]

What I see as lacking is creativity.

Absolutely correct! There is no creativity in Hollywood anymore. It's all driven by ego's who think they know better than those who came before. The don't. Just throw in CGI and cut it real fast and add in some car chases and bullet hits.

Very few remakes are any good. An exception was the remake of 1984 with Richard Burton. That was well done!

Tony

 

[cbrunt]

I'll chime in. I think some would be great, but more likely than not will be disappointed... I agree with some too that CGI is used way to much. Instead of simply doing the few things the camera and set and prop people can't do whole scenes are generated. Like Indy 4... WAY too much CGI.

But speaking of remakes and re-dos, I still have not seen the eary 2000s low budget British making of War of the Worlds. Rather than being a modernization like the 50s American version, it actually went back to the time period and setting of the original book... Read the movie was terrible but want to see it!

Clint

 

[DesertDan]

But speaking of remakes and re-dos, I still have not seen the eary 2000s low budget British making of War of the Worlds. Rather than being a modernization like the 50s American version, it actually went back to the time period and setting of the original book... Read the movie was terrible but want to see it!

Clint

It was bad (I have it) but it was mostly because the editing is awful.

I think that some remakes could be good but it so seldom happens that I would much rather it not be done.
There are so many great Sci-fi stories out there, why not do something with them. Especially considering what can be done with special FX now.
Imagine "Ringworld", "A Mote In God's Eye", "Tunnel In The Sky", "Foundation", "Out Of The Silent Planet", "The Dispossesed", "Hyperion", "A Canticle For Leibowitz", the list goes on! If no one in Hollywood can think and create for themselves anymore, there is plenty to choose from what has already been written.

 

[sheeplady]

Indeed.. When you simply lust for the latest technological fix, the high quickly wears off.

Btw, the Tyrell Corporation building used in the opening scene from Blade Runner is in our local Museum of the Moving Image. It's a wonderful set piece! CGI leaves nothing interesting behind. The technology is quickly dated and there are no physical props to enjoy. There are no costumes, cars, airplanes, buildings, masks, or matte paintings. There is only the spurious claim of time and money saved..

That would be wonderful to see! Bladerunner is one of my favorite movies. I am assuming you are in NYC?

 

[Feraud]

I live just outside of Manhattan in Long Island City, Queens.
If I can find a picture of the building I'll post it.

 

[Atomic Age]

I remember two remakes of 20,000 Leagues done for television. One was a Hallmark production, and contrary to my usual expectations of quality from them, it absolutely stunk. I recall thinking that it looked as though it had been rushed through to compete with the other remake. I'm not sure if I saw the other, though I think I did. I believe it stunk, too.

The Disney original is a personal favorite, even with the liberties it took with the novel (and Kirk Douglas singing), but I would like to see a modern-day version that tacked a bit closer to the novel.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen had a Nemo of Indian nationality, but I'm not going down that film's path. :eusa_doh:

The ironic part is that in 1953, Disney bought up the camera negatives for all the previous film versions of 20,0000 Leagues Under The Sea (1907, 1912, 1913, 1916, 1917) , so that his version couldn't be compared with what had been done before.

Doug

 

[Atomic Age]

:eusa_clap

That is definitely the danger with most remakes. Lazy, lacklustre scripts and character development which are ineffectively covered over by technology which makes most everything look like a video game...

I can't think, with the exception of John Carpenter's The Thing (and to a much much much lesser extent - not 50's I know - Tom Savini's remake of Night of the Living Dead) of any remake worth any salt whatsoever.

How about the Disney version of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, or the 1979 Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the 1979 Dracula, or the 1992 Dracula. I thought Ocean's 11 was a pretty good remake.

Doug